Film Essays
info
Analysis of Tout Va Bien as an Art Film
April 1, 2019Despite a contrasting difference between art and classical cinema in its elements, classical cinema was necessary for art cinema’s development through their historical connection and influence; Tout va Bien (Jean-Luc Godard, 1972) makes use of elements, such as contradiction and refraction to alienate audiences and project a film that reflects cinema in a more realistic light.
Positioning art cinema against classical cinema would mean the identification of narrative and stylistic elements that set the two modes of film practice apart from each other, and how these contrasts define art cinema in particular. According to Bordwell, art cinema separates itself most definitively through the conventional cause and effect linkage found in the narrative of classical films. He stresses how art cinema loosens itself from these causal relationships by straying from the conventional and linear cause and effect relationship that classical cinema embodies. As such, he credits realism and authorial expressivity as the main motivators for art cinema’s narrative instead of depending on a linear cause and effect pattern. Realism is described as the depiction of real locations and problems in the film, which revolve around central characters with personalities that lack desire or aims. Moreover, their unmotivated actions and choices may not lead to anything contextual to the film’s general plot, which would disrupt a linear cause and effect relationship from one scene to the next. In these ways, the characters realistically mimic life in that all our choices do not necessarily propel our lives in any clear direction. Likewise, we are not always individuals who constantly desire or aim for something as usually observed in the central characters of classical cinema. As to the other motivator of art cinema’s narrative, authorial expressivity refers to the stylistic signatures and choices determined by its director that define the film. In this way, the director is able to control what we see and shapes the narrative and stylistic elements as he sees fit.
Regardless of the contrasting stylistic and narrative choices employed between art and classical cinema, it would be wrong to say art cinema is wholly different from classical films. To understand this relationship of classical cinema and art cinema more comprehensively would mean a look back at their connection historically. According to Bordwell, Classical cinema was largely recognized as the distinct mode of film practiced before World War II, in which its aftermath ushered in art cinema as a distinct mode of film practice (56). During this time period, art cinema was also able to gain a foothold over classical Hollywood cinema due to its waning popularity with the changing attitudes of audiences (56). Moreover, with the US’s concentrated attention on World War II efforts, international foreign productions were more relied upon to produce films to compete against the rising popularity of the television (56). These foreign productions were not constrained by the limitations set by Hollywood studio productions, and allowed directors full control of what was displayed onscreen (56). As such, art cinema was able to flourish and develop into the distinct mode of film it is today. It can be surmised from this that the decline in interest for classical cinema was not coincidental with the rise of Art Cinema. Their intertwined history shows that the rise and fall of classical cinema was necessary for the emergence of the widely contrasting Art cinema as a mode of film practice. Art cinema can then be said to be a result of classical cinema through their relationship in the historical timeline. Likewise, a similar connection can also be observed in Tout Va Bien (Jean-Luc Godard, 1972) through the historical context of its narrative. Audiences in the aftermath of World War II could be said to be fed up with the conventions of classical cinema in the same way French students of 1968 were fed up with the ideological principles of the government in power. Likewise, this inspired French students to desire for change in government power in the same way conventional classical cinema was becoming less favoured over art cinema.
Aside from it’s historical connection, it can also be said that classical cinema and its associated stylistic and narrative patterns— which are very much influenced by the ideological product of the system in the name of capitalism— acted as the template for what the stylistic and narrative elements of Art Cinema would be against. According to Comolli and Narboni, the art cinema movement desired to produce films that were not governed by capitalist agenda or antiquated ideological conventions, and aimed for films to mimic the realism in life instead of how life should be as dictated by others (688). This would mean that classical cinema was completely necessary for the formation of art cinema to develop, as art cinema takes the shape of a protest towards the conventional classical cinema and what it represents. Without anything to protest against, there would be no stance for Art Cinema to truly form its identity. Consequently, classical cinema provided the basis for what Art cinema should be against, and is a direct result of the mounting displeasure towards classical cinema and the ideologies. This could also be applicable to Tout Va Bien, in which without the prevalent government ideologies in 1968 (Classical cinema), there would be no basis for their desire for change (Art cinema).
Additionally, we also see how art cinema is indebted to classical cinema through the thematic elements that Tout Va Bien explicitly recognizes. The movie’s opening shot concerns itself with two narrators who question what is necessary to make a film. They mention that a film calls for popular actors as central characters (Jane Fonda and Yves Montad), a need for a story, as well as romance as key elements to successfully produce an appropriately funded film. These described elements that were prominently made use of in the subsequent plot of Tout Va Bien — a prominent art film— are also elements that are very relevant in classical film. This could mean Godard recognizes that there are key thematic elements in classical cinema that art cinema, while reluctantly, need to rely on. Moreover, this scene also talks about the necessity of classical cinematic elements for the funding inevitably needed in the production of these art cinema films.
While there are some remaining elements of , there are some distinct elements present in Tout va Bien that could prove to alienate and frustrate audiences. In particular scenes that take place in the room adjacent to where the office manager is being held, the placement of the person talking in the frame goes against the conventional techniques of mise-en-scene. For instance, in one shot we see a protester that is speaking, but sequestered to the edge of the frame. Additionally, the speaking protester’s clothes match the color of the background, which makes it even harder to detect the man speaking. Conventional mise-en-scene would have placed the speaker in the centre of the frame, or wear contrasting clothing in order to draw more attention to the speaker. Also, no one else among the protesters present in the frame is looking at the man that is speaking, which further leads our eyes against him. In these ways, Godard’s application of mise-en-scene draws our attention away from what should be the focus of the scene, instead of its conventional use to draw attention towards what should have been the focus of the scene.
Moreover, Godard also organizes certain shots wherein the person that is talking in frame is blocked by another person in the frame. We see an example of this when Susan is interviewing the women protesters, and the interviewee that is speaking is clearly blocked by the other protesters. This is also seen in the shot where the male protester wearing a black sweater is speaking, but he is blocked in the shot by protesters on the foreground. In both cases, the person speaking is blocked and obscured, which could alienate the audience by removing focus toward what we should have our attention on: the speaker. We are therefore forced to look for the speaker in these shots, instead of having him or her front and center for the audience to easily focus on. In a way, these intentionally defiant decisions against conventional mise-en-scene used by Godard could also have represented how these protesters are misrepresented. Perhaps he wanted to highlight how these blue collar workers are not heard even when they do talk. You hear their voices, but we lose attention to their words as they are either taken aside, hidden from view, or obscured as a result of their social standing and reputation in French ideological society. In a way, this reflects Bordwell and Thompson’s principle of refraction (338), which is described as the events portrayed in the film having a deeper connotation beyond an initial stylistic observation of a scene. Likewise, one would think the blocking or obscuring of a character as that seen with the protesters as initially confusing and unnecessary. However, if we take into account the social standing of these individuals and its context to the historical events that transpired leading up to this film (1968 protests), these points could prove to justify the unconventional stylistic choices that Godard made use of in these scenes.
Furthermore, another instance wherein the audience could be alienated and frustrated can be seen in the shot of Susan when she is sitting by herself by the window of the manager’s office. In this shot, we hear the manager and the filmmaker arguing away from the frame. Susan then faces the camera and is heard talking while her mouth remains still in the same shot. Whether that sound was nonsimultaneous or internally diegetic remains ambiguous by Godard, but in both cases we see the use of sound going against the conventional use of synchronous and simultaneous sound normally observed in classical cinema. According to Bordwell and Thompson, this relates to a principle of separation of formal and stylistic elements in the form of a contradiction, which is said to occur when a film uses discontinuous cuts to form spatial and temporal contradictions (338). This essentially means that the time and space of this film are not linear due to how the film is edited, which may confuse the audience and further alienate them as they attempt to understand these unconventional choices. In the case of this particular scene in Tout Va Bien, the source of the sound and of. As such, Godard’s alienate the viewers in the same way. In another example of contradiction, manipulation of temporal frequency, wherein the actions in the event changes, is also used by Godard to alienate and frustrate the audience. This is observed in the second and third shot of the film when Susan and Jaques are walking across a field by a lake, in which the actions of Jaques and Susan are different in each shot, but still close enough to resemble the same scene taking place. We also see this near the end of the film, where either Jaques or Susan is sitting in a cafe and the other approaches the cafe and sits across them. As such, the frequency and slight difference in certain scenes could alienate the audience by questioning which event actually happened. Conventional cinema usually has a straight cause and effect relationship, but this technique used by Godard could prove to confuse an audience that are used to a linear narrative flow, thereby alienating them.
Additionally, the use of long takes also could prove to alienate and frustrate the audience. These are explicitly made use of in the monologues of the Manager of the sausage factory, the GST shop steward, and of Jaques the filmmaker. These monologues make use of long takes that give out an extensive amount of verbal information and very static action throughout the shot. This could alienate and frustrate the audience through testing their patience from the scene’s duration and overall lack of action, or simply from the overwhelming amount of verbal information being presented in one take. Likewise, the scene that follows the events in a supermarket also makes use of the long take and also could prove to alienate and frustrate the audience by it’s slow pace and through the audience’s attempt to understand the context of this information to the film’s narrative.
Overall, these elements make us question what cinema is by breaking the conventions set in place by the more dominant classical cinema. Instead of details being handed to you, art cinema relies on mise-en-scene and editing to alienate and frustrate audiences. Despite this, these elements of art cinema creates a film experience that behaves in a more realistic representation of life unbound by antiquated conventions and ideologies. As such, the viewer must be active with what is presented on screen in order to appreciate the nuanced and intentionally ambiguous performance that art cinema readily embraces.
Bibliography
Bordwell, David. "The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice." Film Criticism, vol. 4, no. 1, 1979, pp. 56-64.
Bordwell, David, and Kristin, Thompson. “Tout va bien.” Film Art: An Introduction. Knopf, New York, NY, 1986, pp. 335-342.
Comolli, Jean-Luc, and Narboni, Jean. “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism (1969).” Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings . Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2009, pp. 686-693.