godard a portrait of the artist at seventy by colin maccabe not much fun
meat n potatoes
young boy and man kinda interesting cuz so little known before. and
what it say about godard family background and cultural history of
protestants interesting stuff.
but all throughout book, what feel skimpy is lack of juice of godard's
life. yeah, there some stuff about how godard steal, slap karina, and
often act arsy but no real sense of godard the redbloodied man. who
such be? no answer in book, really.
why no such answer? cuz maccabe too worshipful of godard. he so love
godard that he say even godard's worst never less than interesting.
ha, would have been news to me after seeing detective which was
befuddling white man movie as i ever done have privelege to see with
eyes on my face. and why no mention of 'keep up your right'? that
movie major pain causer in head. but as sleeping aid, good stuff
though likely to cause nightmare in unfortunate who see.
way i see it, stories about other chiefs of filmworld more fun and
noble. but, then other filmmaker more fun and noble. okay, maybe not
so noble but plenty more fun than intellectual godard. indian know
man only full man when not only use head but heart, legs, buttock, and
other such part of man. when he only use his head, he turn weird and
gimpy, like some nerd guy named eugene. godard as boy athletic
warrior. but protestant upbringing imbue godard as boy into one prissy
boy on some deep level and godard never let go and wail and be
fullbodied insane and joyous like welles and kazan and fellini. he too
much tainted by residue of calvinism which be all so deterministic,
arrogant, pessimistic, judgmental and other buffalo manure. why
godard not able to just relax and don't worry, be happy? why he no
smoke some peyote and look at stars and howl like wolf? why he not
listen to some reggae and relax? white man strange and not like fun
much cuz of christian medieval feudalism that poured into his soul
thru much and long ages.
take the clash, the punk band. they learn much from reggae. but
original reggae guys, though have much to bitch about, sing for fun
and there is wonderful tropical papaya, coconut, guananbana flavor to
their melody and sunny sense of life. like harder they come may be
movie about bandit with guns blazing but he also know when to jive and
boogie and let things chill. but, clash nothing but sourpuss
expression. and the police with sting take from reggae but always
looking dark and baroque and like they wanna stalk some girlfriend to
death and be all jealous, moody, depressed, and other buffalo
manurelike feeling and thought. clash say 'punk rocker in the uk,
they won't notice anyway, they all too busy fighting and turning
rebellion into money'. well, that about the only lyrics i can make out
cuz other stuff sound demented like my ranting mother in law. i not
like to digress but one time, i decide to be marxist and help change
world and so bought clash albums to be inspired and be told what to do
to change the world but what i suppose to do when directives not very
intelligible? i heard something about USA boring and CIA bad. well,
no shit as we indians have been saying such for centuries. that hardly
new. but, what listener suppose to do when a punker complaining USA
is boring is more boring himself cuz his life nothing but complaining
that other people boring. if i say to another indian that his butt is
fat and ugly, what that say about my butt? or my purpose in life? was
i born to tell someone he has ugly and fat arse? some purpose in
life! hardly stuff to occupy heart and mind of noble warrior of
pagan persuasion.
where i was? right, about godard, like most white man, taking himself
too serious and not being fun.
take a movie like masculin-feminin which i think is noble movie. but,
it say much about what wrong with godard as man if not as artist. in
masculin-feminin, we have godard observing people like they are
primitive folk like my tribe. first, i must say we primitive people
not much enjoy you so-called civilized folk looking at what we do.
sure, you say you sympathize and anthropology and ethnology and such
are progressive and its practitioners say they not believe their
culture superior to ours and so wanna learn about us to learn about
mankind and other buffalo manure. but, if so, why you not let
primitive people observe you folk? how you like if i, robed in buffalo
hide and bear claw, go to your social gathering and make notes on how
you serve crap champagne and how white man's catering service is
pitiful for it only serve little stinky cheese on crackers and some
green dip but no big chunk of buffalo meat to satisfy the tummy of
noble warrior such as myself?
masculin-feminin a notable movie cuz unlike other movie about young
people, it observe them in social, political, historical context
instead of feeding the self-enclosed narcissism of young folk in
movies like rebel without cause or graduate, movies which however had
good looking young squaw though men who were hardly stuff of warrior
material. from personal experinece, rarely do clown get hot women in
primitive society and if clown get hot women in white man society, my
respect for white man society drop few more notches than its usual low
self.
but anyway, masculin-feminin a big problem in one way cuz godard think
he superior to kids. in one scene, he ask a bimbo about things she
know little. godard feel much smug and superior cuz she not know
meaning of 'reactionary'. but, if she quiz godard on how to use
makeup or to cook something nice, i bet godard look the fool. for
example, if white man asks me to define oedipal complex i look
dumbfounded and look befuddled and not know answer. but, if i ask
white man how to skin a deer, i'm sure he look dumber than even my 5
yr old son who skin his first deer last week after i shot it dead with
remington rifle, the only good thing by white man.
worse, people who watch that bimbo in masculin feminin think they so
smart cuz they are progressive and with godard in shitting on consumer
culture. but hey, what wrong with women obsessed with looking good?
squaw in my tribe wear beads and comb their hair and make colorful
fabric and blanket. my typee have wonderful interior decorating by gay
indian and if we indians not one thing, it is being homophobic about
interior typee decorating.
if women think looking good is bad and looking bad is good, then it
not progress but just variation on christian puritanism that afraid of
body and sensuality. i mean why would any brave prefer some feminist
woman wearing shapeless overall and hankie on her head and sandals
with bare stinky feet and palestinian scarf? i'm not one for
artificial beauty in fashion magazine of the plasticene pussy look.
but beauty is beautiful. that's why it called beauty. white man stupid
cuz he define something beauty and then not appreciate it.
godard says, look that girl pretty so she must be bad. he say she not
well-read. but too much reading not good for women or men. i try
reading 'rebels in white gloves' recently. it about wellesley girls of
hillary's class. the book trash wellesley for trying to make good
squaws out of young girls. instead, book says women better off being
lesbians or a bald buddhist nun. i tell you, no indian brave ever go
for bald woman. indian man see sinead and think white folk on brink of
end of time. if such baldie make hit single, then i pray for white man
though he give us nothing but plague, alcohol, and bay watch.
anyway, see it this way. imagine halloween party on college campus. i
know, you know, we know that it height of stupidity and childishness.
but it also full of life. imagine godard at such event, all cerebral
and intellectual and not wanting to be a part of the crowd. rather, he
prefer to watch the crowd. he think himself superior cuz he thinks
while other drink beer and puke and howl and make fool of themselves.
but suppose everybody in halloween crowd just like godard. suppose
everyone not want to join the festival of life but wryly and
cerebrally and intellectually and ideologically and elliptically and
brilliantistically observe it. why that be some twilight zone crazy
arse party. no one partying but everyone trying to understand dynamic
of party. this structuralist and deconstructionist buffalo manure not
much fun. it fun only when others having fun so guys like godard and
derrida can say they not having fun. but they are having fun as we all
know. so if you an anthropologist and want to study a primitive tribe,
take off clothes and hunt buffalo and take bite out of raw heart. that
what godard need. he sit too long hours reading intellectual stuff and
chainsmoking and drinking coffee and thinking too much about thing he
not be a part of. godard need go hunting, skin a deer, and roast it
on open fire, bite into meat, go arggh, and look at sky and drop that
calvinism that structured into his head since youth.
mccabe book weakest in middle section cuz i suspect maccabe think much
already written about sixties period when godard part of zeitgeist.
indeed, if you look for godard literature, much to be found on movies
from 59 to 68. so i figure mccabe figure that godard watchers well
know those periods. after all, contempt get big release while such
probably not be expected for british sounds. so mccabe focus more
attention on godard's more obscure period of later time when he make
kookier movie after movie. but, i still not know what godard up to.
something about derrida, lacan, and a bunch of name of french
intellectuals like althusser who also a maoist. sometimes, i wonder
how french people get so smart just to be so dumb. how man become top
intellectual and then embrace mao z dung? that like going to julliard
and then saying bon jovi is greatest band all time. americans never
so smart as french but then never so dumb. french get very smart to be
very stupid. it's like french the only people who rid themselves of
king and get themselves an emperor. all in name of freedom.
anyway, let's be honest about biography. we like to read such things
cuz we want juice. for example, in our tribe, there was great brave.
we tell stories of his great exploits and how his deeds inspire us
all. but what we really like is what white man call gossip. we like
stuff about how he got arse bitten once by badger, how he once took
white woman as wife who bring him on jerry springer show called 'how i
married an injun and took off with his lesbian daughter'. though we
braves like to act manly and such, we like such stuff as much as next
guy. it's like though khrushchev done many significant things, what
stick in my mind most is he took off his shoe in public and use it as
gavel. mccabe obviously think godard too good for such treatment and
he himself too selfaware and intellectual for give us traditional bio.
so he give us hagiography instead? stupid white man.
also, influenced by french thought, mccabe weary about biography as
medium for truth. okay, agreed. but, we still want to know more
about godard's many antics and lunacies than how he and melville
signed contracts or how their work mean whatever in the context of
larger history. there nothing wrong with how beatles fit into larger
culture of capitalism and shift in values in 60s but if you gonna give
me story of beatles, i want stuff about how the maharishi tried to
boff mia farrow under eye of beatles or how yoko ono put her uglyarse
self between john and others. we want juice. biography like a steak.
we can appreciate the protein and the nutrients but it need have
flavor, spice, right steak sauce.
and such missing from mccabe book. reading his godard so less fun than
reading peckinpah or welles bio. or other 20th century figures like
jung, norman mailer, dylan, and mao. and, dont tell me godard was
boring guy. i'm sure he was helluva weird dude though not fun dude.
mccabe not give us the depth of stuff on godard and karina. what they
really like? he says we should respect their privacy yet not
hesistate to mention godard hitting her or her suicide attempts. if he
willing to give us that much, why not give us more? i know godard not
the interesting kook elvis was. goldman biography on the king funny
and juicy as hell. but godard, mean-tempered, arrogant, and often
crazy surely had eventful life, something barely hinted at in mccabe
book. book only little longer than 300 pgs. like the kurosawa book,
alot of fillers to pack pages since mccabe either couldn't get access
to goodies or wanted to be in good graces with godard so not include
more embarassing details. even if what derrida and others say about
the shortcoming and buffalo manure nature of biography, i say give us
all that can be given us. fill us up with manure so that we can sort
it out. we know it not final truth. we know there no such thing as
final truth that can be ascertained about life. but we want a good
juicy yarn and mccabe think himself above such traditonal biographical
form and tells us he's giving us an intellectual biography which
mostly read like bad history of french thought since the late 60s and
much less about godard's life.
perhaps the thing with godard was... he was drawn to brechtianism
because he himself had so passionately believed in cinema and what it
could do. it had been religion for him. and he projected his sense of
disillusionment and distrust onto the world when it turned out that
cinema has its limitations, and most people don't take movies
seriously all that much. they take life seriously, movies are only a
diversion. so when godard set out to break cinema apart, he wasn't
doing anyone a favor but himself. most people feel that movies are
phony and bullshit and only good for entertainment. it was godard,
who believed in cinema as something much more, a great artform that
could represent reality, change reality, transform humanity, change
our understanding and values. godard wanted to break people out of
their fantasies and dreams but most people knew the boundary between
reality and cinema. it was the film buffs of the new wave who had
confused the two, having consumed cinema as school, as life, as love,
as intellectualism, as profession, as everything.