{"id":29142,"date":"2014-09-07T09:36:42","date_gmt":"2014-09-07T14:36:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=29142"},"modified":"2022-09-14T11:31:31","modified_gmt":"2022-09-14T16:31:31","slug":"adieu-au-langage-2-2-x-3d","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2014\/09\/07\/adieu-au-langage-2-2-x-3d\/","title":{"rendered":"ADIEU AU LANGAGE: 2 + 2 x 3D"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Adieu au langage<\/strong> (2014).<\/em><\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

Godard\u2019s Adieu au Langage<\/em> is the best new film I\u2019ve seen this year, and the best 3D film I\u2019ve ever seen. As a Godardolater for fifty years, I\u2019m biased, of course. And I might feel that I have to justify taking a train from Brussels to Paris to watch it (twice). But the film seems to me superb, and it gets better after several more (2D) viewings.<\/p>\n

People complain that Godard\u2019s movies are hard to understand. That’s true. I think they provide two different sorts of difficulty. He lards his dialogue and intertitles with so many abstract (some would say pretentious) thoughts, quotations, and puns that we\u2019re tempted to ask what he is implying about us and our world. That is, he poses problems of interpretation<\/em>\u2014taking that to mean teasing out general meanings. What is he saying<\/em>?<\/p>\n

I think that this type of difficulty is well worth tackling, and critics haven\u2019t been slow to do it. Scholars have diligently tracked the sources of this image or that barely-heard phrase. Adieu au langage<\/em>\u00a0provides another field day; there are movie clips, some quite obscure, and citations (maybe some made-up ones) to thinkers from Plato and Sartre to Luc Ferry and A. E. van Vogt. Ted Fendt<\/a> has discovered a massive list of works cited in the film, and even his list, he acknowledges, is incomplete.<\/p>\n

I confess myself less interested in interpretive difficulties. I don\u2019t go so far as my friend who says, \u201cGodard is a poet who thinks he\u2019s a philosopher.\u201d But I do think that he uses his citations opportunistically, scraping them against one another in collage fashion. In particular, I think that by having characters quote, quite improbably, deep thinkers, he\u2019s trying for a certain dissonance between the abstract idea and the concrete situation.<\/p>\n

What <\/em>situation? That brings us to the second sort of difficulty. It\u2019s often rather hard to say just what happens, at the level of plot, in a Godard film. From his \u201csecond first film,\u201d Sauve qui peut (la vie)<\/em> (1980), \u201clate Godard\u201d (which has lasted over thirty years, much longer than \u201cearly Godard\u201d) has made the story action quite hard to grasp. Oddly enough, most reviewers pass over these difficulties, suggesting that story actions and situations that we scarcely see are fairly obvious. (Reviewers do have the advantage of presskits.)<\/p>\n

The brute fact is that these movies are, moment by moment, awfully opaque. Not only do characters act mysteriously, implausibly, farcically, irrationally. It\u2019s hard to assign them particular wants, needs, and personalities. They come into conflict, but we’re not always sure why. In addition, we aren\u2019t often told, at least explicitly, how the characters connect with one another. The plots are highly elliptical, leaving out big chunks of action and merely suggesting them, often by a single close-up or an offscreen sound. Godard\u2019s narratives pose not only problems of interpretation but problems of comprehension<\/em>\u2014building a coherent story world and the actions and agents in it.<\/p>\n

We ought to find problems of comprehension fascinating. They remind us of storytelling conventions we take for granted, and they push toward other ways of spinning yarns, or unraveling them.<\/p>\n

Case in point: Adieu au langage<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Since the film will be appearing in the US this fall, under the title Goodbye to Language<\/em>, I want to encourage people to see this extraordinary work. But I’m also eager to talk about it in detail. So here’s my compromise, a four-layered entry.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll start general, with some sketchy comments on some of Late Godard’s narrative strategies. In a second section I make some speculative comments on Godard’s use of 3D. No real spoilers<\/strong> here.<\/p>\n

Then I\u2019ll offer an account of the opening fifteen minutes. If you haven’t yet seen the film, this section might be good preparation. But part of experiencing the film is feeling a bit at sea from the start, so this section might make the film more linear than it would appear on unaided viewing. You decide how much of a preview you want.<\/p>\n

The last section briefly surveys the overall structure of the film, and it is littered with spoilers<\/strong>. Best read it after viewing.<\/p>\n

Spoilers<\/strong> notwithstanding, nothing stops you from eyeing the pictures.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ecstasy of the image<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Film Socialisme<\/strong> (2010).<\/em><\/p>\n

Much in Adieu au langage<\/em> is familiar from other Godard films. There are his nature images–wind in trees, trembling flowers, turbulent water, rainy nights seen through a windshield–and his urban shots of milling crowds. All of these may pop in at any point, often accompanied by fragments of classical or modern music. Again he returns to ideas about politics and history, particularly World War II and recent outbreaks of violence in developing countries. His standard techniques are here too. The film begins before, and during, the credits, which appear in brusque slates often too brief to read. Music rises, often just enough to cue an emotional response, before being snapped off by silence or an abrasive noise.<\/p>\n

In his narrative films, as opposed to the collage essays like Histoire(s) du cin\u00e9ma<\/em>, we get scenes, but those are handled in unusual ways. He tends to avoid giving us an establishing shot, if we mean by that a shot which includes all the relevant dramatic elements. He often has recourse to constructive editing<\/a>, which gives us pieces of the space that we are expected to assemble. Although Godard’s early films relied on this a fair amount, it became pronounced in his later work, where he tweaks constructive cutting in unusual ways. I discuss one example here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Often we get\u00a0an image of one character but hear the dialogue of an offscreen character. And the shot of the lone character may hang on quite a while, so that we wait to see who’s speaking. By delaying what most directors would show immediately, Godard creates, we might say, a stylistic suspense.\u00a0I can’t prove it, but I suspect the influence of Bresson, who said to never use an image if a sound will suffice.<\/p>\n

When Godard doesn’t give us unanchored close-ups or medium-shots, he may do something more drastic. A signature device of his later work is the shot which stages its action in ways that make the characters hard to identify. He may shoot in silhouette (Notre musique<\/em>, 2003).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

More outrageously, he may frame people from the neck or shoulders down (Bresson again?) and make us wait to discover who they are (\u00c9loge de l’amour<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Such decapitated framings are disconcering, since orthodox cinema highlights faces above all other body areas. When we can’t access facial expressions, then the dialogue, gestures, postures, and clothes become very important. Godard can, of course, combine these strategies (below,\u00a0\u00c9loge de l’amour; <\/em>also the Film Socialisme <\/em>image above). In this shot, the man standing in the background is an important character but we never see him clearly.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Godard’s opaque “establishing” shots may be very condensed and laconic; he jams in a lot of information, partial though it is. In one shot of Adieu au langage<\/em>, a dog approaches a couple on a rainy night and the woman urges her partner to take him in. All we see, however, is the man gassing up the car (and we don’t see him all that clearly).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

We hear (dimly) the dog’s whimpering and the woman’s plea, but we see neither one.<\/p>\n

Godard frets and frays his scenes in other ways. He creates ellipses, time gaps between shots that may leave us uncertain. What happened in the interval? How much time has passed? He also interrupts the scene through cutaways to black frames, objects in the scene, or landscapes; the scene’s dialogue may continue over these images, or something else may be heard.<\/p>\n

At greater length, the scene can open up onto a digression, a collage of found footage, intertitles, or other material that seems triggered by something mentioned in the scene. In Film Art: An Introduction<\/em>, we argued that one alternative to narrative form is associational form, a common resource of lyrical films or essay films. Godard embeds associational passages in his narratives, the way John Dos Passos embedded newspaper reports in the fictional story of his USA<\/em> trilogy. Sometimes, though, the associations are textural or pictorial. At one point in Adieu au langage<\/em>, Godard associates licked black brushstrokes on a painting with churned mud and the damp streaks on the coat of the dog Roxy.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

By fragmenting his scenes, Godard gets a double benefit. We get just enough information to tie the action together somewhat, and our curiosity about what’s happening can carry our narrative interest. But the opaque compositions and the bits and pieces wedged in call attention to themselves in their own right. Blocking or troubling our story-making process serves to re-weight the individual image and sound. When we can\u2019t easily tie what we see and hear to an ongoing plot, we\u2019re coaxed to savor each moment as a micro-event in itself, like a word in a poem or a patch of color in a painting.<\/p>\n

But those images and sounds can\u2019t be just any image or sound; they hook together in larger patterns that sometimes float free of the plot, and sometimes work indirectly upon it. The best analogy might be to a poem that hints at a story, so that our engagement with the poetic form overlaps at moments with our interest in the half-hidden story.<\/p>\n

Where, some will ask, is the emotion? We want to be moved by our movies. I suggest that with Late Godard, we are mostly not moved by the plot or the characters, though that can happen. What seizes me most forcefully is the virtuoso display of cinematic possibilities. The narrative is both a pretext and a source of words and sounds, forms and textures, like the landscape motifs that painters have used for centuries.\u00a0From the simplest elements, even the clich\u00e9s\u00a0of sunsets and rainy reflections, the film’s composition, color, voices, and music wring out something ravishing.<\/p>\n

We are moved, to put it plainly, by beauty–sometimes exhilarating, sometimes melancholy, often fragmentary and fleeting. Instead of feeling with the characters<\/em>, we feel with the film<\/em>. For all his exasperating perversities, Godard seeks cinematic rapture.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3D on a budget<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The smallest set of electric trains a boy ever had to play with? Photo: Zo\u00e9 Bruneau.<\/em><\/p>\n

Most of the 3D films I’ve seen strike me as having two problems.<\/p>\n

First, there is the “coulisse<\/em> effect.” Our ordinary visual world has not only planes (foreground, background, middle ground) but volumes: things have solidity and heft. But in a 3D film, as in those View-Master<\/a> toys, or the old stereoscopes<\/a>,\u00a0the planes we see look like \u00a0like cardboard cutouts or the fake sections of theatre sets we call flats or wings (coulisses<\/em>). They lack volume and seem to be two-dimensional planes stacked up and overlapping. Here’s an example from a German stage setting of 1655, with the flats painted to resemble building facades.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In cinema, the thin-slicing of planes seems to me more apparent with digital images that are rather hard-edged to begin with.\u00a0(3D film was more forgiving in this respect.)\u00a0Sometimes the flat look can be quite nice, as in Drive Angry<\/em> (2011). In this action sequence, the planes prettily drift away from one another, with no attempt to suggest realistic space.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Apart from the coulisse<\/em> effect, there’s the problem that the 3D impression wanes as the film goes along. I’ve long thought it was just me, but other viewers report perceiving the depth quite strongly at the start of the movie and then sensing it less after a while, and maybe not even noticing it unless some very striking effect pops up. Part of this is probably due to habituation<\/a>, one of the best-supported findings in psychology. Maybe, as we get accustomed to this fairly peculiar 2.5D moving image, it becomes less vivid.<\/p>\n

More than our perceptual habituation might be at stake. Filmmakers may reduce depth during certain scenes\u00a0to save money on postrproduction effects. Some gags in A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas<\/em> (2011) rely on old-school, smack-in-the-eye, paddle-ball depth, but much of the middle of the film doesn’t employ it. By tipping up the glasses and checking how much displacement is in the image, I’ve been surprised to find that remarkably long stretches of 3D films have little or no stereoscopy.<\/p>\n

My impression is that Adieu au langage<\/em> has overcome the problems I mentioned. Granted, many of the shots have sharply-etched images that emphasize the thinness of each plane.\u00a0But other shots have unusual volume. Several factors may contribute to this. Unusual angles sometimes give foreground elements a greater roundness. This happens in the low-angle tracking shots created by the toy-train rig shown above.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In addition, the relatively low resolution of some of the images avoids creating hard contours.The wavering blown-out softness may enhance volume.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Perhaps as well the slight tremors of the \u00a0handheld camera mimic one of the factors that yield volume for our normal vision: the very slight movements of our head and body. Such shots shift the aspect enough to suggest the thickness of things.<\/p>\n

Godard maintains the sense of depth in a tiny ways. For instance, he discovers that the crackling snow on a TV monitor can yield shimmering depth in the manner of B\u00e9la Julesz’s\u00a0random-dot stereograms<\/a>. Julesz sought to show that 3D vision wasn’t wedded to perspective cues or the identification of recognizable objects–a conclusion that ought to appeal to the painterly side of Godard.<\/p>\n

Production stills indicate that Godard shot the film with parallel lenses. Instead of creating convergence by “toeing in” the lenses during filming, he and his crew played with the images in postproduction to control planes and convergence points. What they did exactly, I don’t know, but the results yield, for me at least, some strong volumes and a continual impression of depth that doesn’t wane.<\/p>\n

I wish I could analyze the film’s 3D technique more exactly, but I don’t know enough about the craft of stereoscopic cinema or Godard’s creative process. What this film shows, however, is that 3D is a legitimate creative frontier. In the credits, as usual Godard brusquely lists his equipment, from the high-end Canon 5D Mark II (and Canon is\u00a0proud to be associated with him<\/a>) to small rigs like GoPro<\/a>\u00a0(in 3D<\/a>) and Lumix<\/a>. What is clear is that filming in 3D can be pictorially adventurous with cameras costing a few hundred dollars.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nature, the ultimate metaphor<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Now I’ll concentrate on the first few minutes, at the risk of potential\u00a0spoilers<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The narrative in\u00a0Adieu au langage<\/em>\u00a0is sketchy even by Godardian standards. Normally he gives us some characters in a defined situation (though it takes a while for us to grasp what that situation is), and a series of more or less developed dramatic scenes that advance a sort of plot. In Passion<\/em> (1982) a movie director recreates famous paintings on film while a factory owner, his wife, and a worker get embroiled in his project. Detective<\/em> (1985) carries us through a stay of several people at a luxury hotel. Je vous salue Marie<\/em> (1985) gives us not one but two plots (Adam and Eve, Joseph and Mary). \u00c9loge de l’amour<\/em> follows a young writer in his exploration of art dealing and commercial filmmaking.<\/p>\n

Adieu au langage<\/em>\u00a0doesn’t give us a plot even as skimpy as these. Instead, Godard builds his film out of a bold use of ellipsis and a strict patterning of story incidents. The ellipses are exceptionally cryptic. We must, for instance, eventually infer, on slight cues, that a couple has been together for at least four years, and that the man has stabbed the woman. We learn, with almost no emphasis, that both of the women have ties to Africa–hence the footage of street violence and the recurring question of how to understand that continent.<\/p>\n

These very vague plot elements are arranged in a rigorous pattern. This patterning will seem very schematic in my retelling. But it’s not obvious when you see the film. Godard wraps his film’s grid in digressions, sumptuous imagery, and, of course, striking 3D effects.<\/p>\n

To get a sense of both the firm architecture and the wayward surface, let’s look at the opening.\u00a0The first fifteen minutes of Adieu au langage<\/em>\u00a0introduce in miniature what the rest of the film will be doing.<\/p>\n

A montage of citations before the credits is followed by a fuzzy image of a neon sign. Now we get a sort of overture. Frantic video shots of a crowd under attack and running to a fire are followed by a clip from Only Angels Have Wings<\/em> and a close-up of the dog identified in the credits as Roxy. That\u2019s followed by a black frame dotted with points of white light. That image will become a little clearer later (stylistic suspense again). Then a title superimposes the numeral one in red with the word, \u201cLa Nature.\u201d<\/p>\n

What ensues, after a shot of a ferry approaching a pier, is a fairly disjunctive scene. A booksellers\u2019 table stands across the street from the Usine a Gaz, a cultural center in Nyon, Switzerland. People casually gather there: a redheaded woman (Marie), a young man in a sweater who seems to be the bookseller, a woman on a bicycle (Isabelle), and the older man Davidson (later identified as a professor), here seen from the rear.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The cockeyed low-angle framing might make you think that this is Godard\u2019s Mr. Arkadin<\/em>, but it suggests footage from a camera or cellphone simply left tipped on some surface behind the table. In that respect it would make manifest the line in \u00c9loge de l\u2019amour<\/em>: “The image, alone capable of denying nothingness, is also the gaze of nothingness upon us.”<\/p>\n

Soon Davidson is sitting in the street commenting on Solzenitsyn\u2019s Gulag Archipelago<\/em> as a \u201cliterary investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A question he asks Isabelle behind him leads to a punning exchange about the thumb (pouce<\/em>) that we use on our phones, which leads to a question about Tom Thumb (Poucette<\/em>), a pun on \u201cpush\u201d (pousser<\/em>), and the suggestion that digital icons are like Tom\u2019s trail of pebbles to the giant\u2019s castle. The little skein of associations knots in a remarkable shot of two pairs of hands tickling their mobiles while another person’s hands examine books.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As the men swap phones, a car coasts through the shot in the background.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This scenic fragment, suppressing faces that would help us identify characters, is characteristic of Godard\u2019s approach in the whole film. He isolates gestures and surroundings, letting sound suggest the scenic action; and often the most important narrative action\u2014here, the arrival of the car carrying a gunman\u2014is a minor element in the frame.<\/p>\n

So far, we\u2019ve seen one of Godard\u2019s strategies for hiding his story action: ellipsis. Time is skipped over (Davidson behind the table\/ in a chair\/ then perhaps behind the table), and bits of scenic action are omitted. There is also the opaque framing that impedes character recognition. What about digression? ? We\u2019ve had one example in the Tom Thumb dialogue, but digression can be more overt. Godard can insert shots that have only a tangential narrative connection to the action.<\/p>\n

The Godardian digression usually develops in a spreading web of associations that takes us on a detour. Here, one trigger seems to be the mention of Tom Thumb\u2019s Ogre; another is the video display on the phones. These bits lead to a montage about Hitler, who, a woman\u2019s voice reflects, left behind the belief that the state should handle everything. In a polyphony with the woman\u2019s voice reflecting on Hitler, we get Davidson reflecting on how Jacques Ellul foresaw a good deal of the contemporary world. The associational links spread further, to images of the French revolution, crowds hailing Hitler, crowds at the Tour de France, and finally flowers and a voice reiterating a question at the scene\u2019s start: How to produce a concept of Africa?<\/p>\n

Now we\u2019re back to the street, with the car pulling up. A chair that may have been Davidson’s is now empty. A man in a suit, the husband, emerges and lights a cigarette, looking off left. A woman, Josette, is in close-up\u2014evidently the target of his look.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Since a black-and-white shot of Josette, head bent, was inserted in the Hitler montage, it\u2019s possible that hers was the voice reciting the argument about the enduring trust in state authority. Perhaps she is reading? In any case, no sooner has a drama of sorts started than we get another digression. Marie reads aloud to us from a book held by the sweater boy. Again, the subject is state power and its inability to acknowledge its violence.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Domestic, not state-sponsored, violence is next on the agenda. A long shot shows the husband stalking up to Josette and berating her in German. The Usine sign is a big help in anchoring the action in the space we’ve seen, and Isabelle’s bike is visible on screen right.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Josette hangs stiffly on his arm, passively resisting and saying, \u201cI don\u2019t care.\u201d He rushes out left. Gunshots are heard, and she jerks in spasmodic response. People rush through the frame. (We’ll never learn exactly what happened offscreen, though later there’s a hint that someone was shot.)<\/p>\n

After the car has turned around and left in the way it came, Josette walks stiffly out of the frame. The man in the background who was startled by the husband\u2019s abuse walks to the empty chair and pauses for a time to stare at it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Cut to leaves floating on water, with hands washing and a man\u2019s voice off saying: \u201cI am at your command.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

So far, so Godardian. The narrative gist is that a woman has fled her husband, refused to return to him, and been approached by a different man who offers to join her. But the flow of images and sounds has made that gist very obscure, obliging us to absorb some fairly ravishing images and to listen to words, noises, and music as they form jagged, interruptive patterns.<\/p>\n

And now something very unusual happens.\u00a0Godard re-plays the events of \u201c1-Nature\u201d in a different location and time of year, using some new characters and some old ones.<\/p>\n

A new section, \u201c2\u201d supered on \u201cMetaphor,\u201d appears. Its opening images run parallel to the overture that led up to \u201c1.\u201d After a shot of a swimmer (echoing the previous image of water), we get newsreel footage of combat and fire, and another film extract, this one from Les Enfants Terribles<\/em>. A shot of Roxy along a river bank is followed by one of a hand opening and closing as a woman\u2019s voice speaks of the \u201creturn\u201d of language and a title repeats her insistence that she has made an image.<\/p>\n

As at the start of \u201c1,\u201d the ferry comes toward the pier. And now we\u2019re back with Davidson, now sitting along the edge of the water, again reading. His position and the tipped angle suggest a mirror-image of the earlier shot of him near the book table.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A link to the previous scene is provided when Marie and the sweater boy come to Davidson and say they\u2019re going to America. The boy will study philosophy (obligatory quote from Being and Nothingness<\/em> follows). Their conversation is interrupted by the arrival of the husband again, who shouts and fires his pistol. The shot announcing him is another skewed mirroring: his earlier entrance is inverted–again, as if a mobile phone’s camera had fallen.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The young couple flee and a woman, Ivitch, steps in to talk with Davidson. She shouts at the husband in German, \u201cThere is no why here!\u201d ( a line that gets explained later in the film) and tells Davidson to ignore him. This moment offers a variant of the close shot of Josette when the husband had approached.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Ivitch asks Davidson, who evidently has been her professor during the previous term, questions about fighting unemployment by killing workers and about the difference between an idea and a metaphor.<\/p>\n

In a new angle, Davidson meditates about images. As if to confirm the professor’s hunch that images murder the present, the husband lunges into the frame and yanks Ivitch out. We now get a shot in which the two cameras diverge: the left eye stays on Davidson, the right one pans over to Ivitch and the husband overlooking the lake. This offers a dense composition akin to that of the book-table shot, with figures piled on one another. The superimposition below is somewhat faithful to what we see, but it can’t convey your temptation to close one eye, then the other, in creating your own shot\/reverse-shot editing.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The husband paces around Ivitch, points the pistol, and hollers in German that she’s a dirty whore. She replies as Josette had: \u201cI don\u2019t care.\u201d She walks back to Davidson on the bench, and shortly the husband strides back to the car waiting in the background. Davidson returns to Ivitch\u2019s question about metaphor and then points out two kids playing with dice. These exemplify \u201cthe metaphor of reality.\u201d Cut to the kids rolling three dice.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The image echoes Godard\u2019s segment of 3 x 3D<\/em><\/a>, where he puns on \u201cD\u201d as d\u00e9s<\/em>, or dice. The kiddies\u2019 shot literalizes the metaphor: trois d\u00e9s<\/em>, 3D.<\/p>\n

Finally we see Ivitch behind a grille, looking up, then down as we hear the ferry\u2019s horn off. A man\u2019s hand comes in from the left, voice off: \u201cI\u2019m at your command.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This action repeats the end of the \u201c1\u201d section, but differently: There we saw G\u00e9d\u00e9on when he inspected Josette\u2019s chair, and heard him say the same words over the leafy water shot. Here both the words and the face of the speaker, Marcus, are offscreen.<\/p>\n

Again a woman is threatened by her violent husband and a man emerges to replace him. Again that action is occulted by verbal digressions, dislocated framings, and major characters–here, Marcus–not introduced in a normal fashion. Once more the separate pieces of the scene, straining to cohere, are pulled apart just enough to register as individual instants of beauty, shock, puns, metaphors, or just peculiarity.<\/p>\n

Godard\u2019s prospectus for Adieu au langage<\/em>\u00a0indicated: \u201cA second film begins. The same as the first.\u201d This describes, laconically, what we\u2019ve seen in the first fifteen minutes. That parallel structure is laid out again with astonishing, yet mostly hidden, rigor in the film as a whole.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Two plus two<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Maximal spoilers<\/strong> here.<\/p>\n

Over the last thirty years or so, we\u2019ve had plenty of films that replay sections of their stories. Sometimes that dynamic is motivated as time travel, as in Source Code<\/em> <\/a>or Edge of Tomorrow<\/em>\u2014\u201cmultiple draft\u201d narratives that let characters, as in Groundhog Day<\/em>, revisit situations until they master them. Sometimes the repetition has been motivated through varying point of view, so that we see the same action again, but from a different character\u2019s perspective. Examples would be Go<\/em>, Lucas Delvaux’s Trilogy<\/em>, and Ned Benson’s recent Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby<\/em>.\u00a0Once in a while we get films that present the events as repeated but significantly and mysteriously different. This is what happens in some Hong Sang-soo films<\/a>, such as The Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors<\/em>, as well as in Lee Kwangkuk\u2019s Romance Joe<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

In all, this is a minor but important convention of modern screenplays. The replay plot is common enough for screenwriting guru Linda Aronson to consider it separately in her book\u00a0The 21st Century Screenplay<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0Trust Godard to take this emerging norm and fracture it.<\/p>\n

The opening I’ve just considered invites us to see the film as split into two storylines. Godard has explored duplex construction before, in \u00c9loge de l\u2019amour<\/em> (with the second part in color video) and Film Socialisme<\/em> (with its third \u201cmovement\u201d appended to two long sections). Yet\u00a0Adieu au langage<\/em> offers something different.<\/p>\n

Here we have multiples of two: a prologue bookended by an epilogue, the two opening parts that are mirrors of each other, and then two long sections that are uncannily symmetrical. Those sections continue the stories sketched out in the opening section. Each plotline bears the same title as before, but now presented in different graphics (the number and the words are not superimposed, but presented in separate title cards). What\u2019s remarkable is the precise parallels and echoes set up between the pair of tales.<\/p>\n

The couples were cast with resemblances in mind, and this affinity is expanded through rather precise doubling.\u00a0Nearly every scene in the plotline of Josette and G\u00e9d\u00e9on has its counterpart in the one featuring Ivitch and Marcus.\u00a0Two nude scenes, two toilet scenes, two bloody-sink scenes, two mirror scenes, two movie-on-TV scenes. There are parallel sequences of driving in the rain, of a woman fleeing into a forest, of Roxy wandering in the woods, of helicopters crashing, of men dying in fountains. As we saw in the early 1\/2 segments, the shots’ framings often echo one another.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Godard has laid bare the device in the second story, when Marcus and Ivitch and Marcus talk in front of a mirror.<\/p>\n

Marcus:<\/strong> Look in the mirror, Ivitch. There are both of them.<\/p>\n

Ivitch:<\/strong> You mean the four of them.<\/p>\n

Rather than exact repetitions, we get repetition with variation. One couple takes Roxy in, the other (perhaps) does not. The first couple abandons Roxy on a pier in summer; in the second part, the pier in winter stands empty.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Most remarkably, the parallel scenes of the long section “2\/Metaphor” proceed in almost exactly the same\u00a0order<\/em>\u00a0as in “1\/Nature”.\u00a0Evidently Godard shot the bulk of the first story well before he shot the second. It’s as if the first film became the script for the second.\u00a0In any event, the two long parts mirror one another with unusual precision.\u00a0This geometrical structure recalls the “grid” organization of Vivre sa vie<\/em>, but it’s not announced as boldly. Godard refuses to mark the parallel scenes in normal ways–with titles, or musical motifs. The labeling of the sections, 1 and 2 in the intro, 1 and 2 in the longer stretches, are sufficient for this laconic filmmaker.<\/p>\n

Just as Godard blurs the shape of individual scenes through digression and opacity, so he hides the tabular structure of the film behind interruptions, landscape shots, and above all the charmed wanderings of Roxy, who more or less takes over the last portion of the second part. In addition, certain images from the second part echo or condense images we’ve seen before. The blood-filled fountain at the end of the second tale echoes both the bloody sink of the first one and the floating-leaf fountain in the prelude, while the clasping hands seem to consummate the gesture begun in the grille shot. These hybrid images can only make the strict double-column scene lineup more difficult to notice.<\/p>\n

The fact that the exceptionally exact parallels and orderings of the two parts aren’t remarked upon by critics (I began to sense them a little during my second pass) is a measure of how successfully Godard has camouflaged the film’s anatomy.\u00a0What shall we call this tactic? Distant counterpoint? Barely discernible rhymes?<\/p>\n

Second film, or two films (short and long) times two: We’re free to see the characters as couples running uncannily in synchronization, or as the same couple in two guises, or as two stories in parallel universes. More likely, though, Godard is distressing and disheveling the emerging conventions of replay plotting.<\/p>\n

And yet the ending of “the second film, same as the first” isn’t quite the whole story either.\u00a0Godard has always enjoyed setting up rigid structures and then spoiling them–cutting off the arc of a melody or chopping a shot that could have been breathtaking. So he cracks his elegant 2 + 2 structure by giving us an epilogue and a third couple.<\/p>\n

Images recur: crowds on the streets, Roxy snuggling on a sofa, a TV (but this time with two empty chairs). We glimpse a man reading, but mostly we see one hand painting with water colors while another is writing in a journal. Godard’s familiar dichotomy between image and word is here tied to the harmony of an unseen, but clearly heard, man and woman making art in tandem. The male voice seems to be Godard’s; I can’t say whether the female voice belongs to his partner Anne-Marie Mi\u00e9ville, but the woman seems to understand Roxy best. She can even access his thoughts. (“He’s dreaming of the Marquesa Islands.”) Yet this couple has another parallel, shown a little earlier: Percy and Mary Shelley, a poet and a novelist, the latter seen finishing\u00a0Frankenstein<\/em> in the forest. This is at least one farewell to language, but it also implies that creativity binds a couple together.<\/p>\n

Roxy Mi\u00e9ville, as he’s called in the credits, haunts the film. He checks out streams, train platforms, and tree roots. He is never seen in the same shot with the main characters; his link to them is tenuous. His ramblings suggest freedom, sensory alertness, and a trust in immediate experience that perhaps the people can’t attain. The final images after the credits show Roxy wandering off in the distance and then bounding eagerly back to someone who stands, of course, offscreen.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Godard: The youngest filmmaker at work today.<\/p>\n

\n

Many thanks to Robert Sweeney and Richard Lorber of Kino Lorber<\/a>, a bold company that still believes in art films. It will be releasing Goodbye to Language<\/em> on 29 October (not September as I erroneously stated in an earlier version of the entry.) Later the film will appear on Blu-Ray 3D. Thanks also\u00a0to Marc Silberman for help with German translation and to Ben Brewster for advice on stage wings.<\/p>\n

For an interesting memoir of the filming of Adieu au langage<\/em>, see Zo\u00e9 Bruneau’s En Attendant Godard<\/em> <\/a>(Paris, 2014). The photo of the camera train is drawn from p. 93 of her book.<\/p>\n

An excellent evocation of the fizz of word and image in Adieu au langage<\/em> is offered by James Quandt in Artforum<\/a><\/em> (also in the September print edition). Some other stimulating appreciations of the film are Scott Foundas<\/a> in Variety<\/em>, Daniel Kasman<\/a> for MUBI, and Blake Williams<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Cinema Scope<\/em>. A useful description of the film is by Jean-Luc Lacuve<\/a> on the site of the Cin\u00e9-club de Caen<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Too bad the GoPro Fetch<\/a>, a harnessed camera for dogs, wasn’t available for Roxy to use.<\/p>\n

To get a sense of how complex Late Godard is at the level of narrative comprehension, see Kristin’s essay “Godard’s Unknown Country: Sauve qui peut (la vie)<\/em>,” in Breaking the Glass Armor: Neoformalist Film Analysis<\/em>. I analyze strategies of storytelling in Godard’s 1960s films in Chapter 13 of Narration in the Fiction Film<\/em>. She wrote about Film Socialisme<\/em> on the blog here<\/a>. For a discussion of Godard’s very fussy compositions, try this entry<\/a>. I consider multiple-draft narratives more generally in the essay
\n“Film Futures” in Poetics of Cinema<\/em>.<\/p>\n

P.S. 30 Sept: <\/strong>Since Adieu au langage<\/em> screened at TIFF, VIFF, and elsewhere, a great many critical responses have accumulated. Thanks to the assiduous passion of David Hudson, you can track them all at Fandor<\/a>. My initial posting should have mentioned two more enlightening discussions of the film: Kent Jones’s<\/a>\u00a0Cannes thoughts and the heroic display of Godardiana assembled by Craig Keller at Cinemasparagus<\/a>.<\/p>\n

P.P.S. 15 October:<\/strong> The beat goes on. Ted Fendt’s astonishing list of “Works Cited” in the film, which I added to the body of the above entry, deserves another link here<\/a>. And the ever-expandig Mubi<\/a> deserves our thanks for making it available.<\/p>\n

P.P.P.S. 29 October:\u00a0<\/strong>And more, of course. Background on the production process from Fabrice Aragno for Filmmaker<\/em><\/a>; David Ehrlich’s sensitive discussion on The Dissolve<\/a>; and a story on NPR<\/a>, with interviews with H\u00e9lo\u00efse Godet, Vincent Maraval, and (gulp) me. Thanks to Pat Dowell for asking me to participate.<\/p>\n

P.P.P.P.S. 2 November:<\/strong> If you haven’t had enough, I posted another entry<\/a> on the film.<\/p>\n

P.P.S. 13 November 2014:\u00a0<\/strong>Geoffrey O\u2019Brien\u2019s enthusiastic appreciation<\/a>\u00a0of the film not only illuminates it but conveys the excitement of seeing it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Adieu au langage (2014). DB here: Godard\u2019s Adieu au Langage is the best new film I\u2019ve seen this year, and the best 3D film I\u2019ve ever seen. As a Godardolater for fifty years, I\u2019m biased, of course. And I might feel that I have to justify taking a train from Brussels to Paris to watch […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[107,177,76,54,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-3d","category-digital-cinema","category-directors-godard","category-narrative-strategies","category-readers-favorite-entries"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29142","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29142"}],"version-history":[{"count":111,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29142\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49237,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29142\/revisions\/49237"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}