MovieChat Forums > La sirène du Mississipi (1969) Discussion > New Wave-An Intellectual Fraud For The A...

New Wave-An Intellectual Fraud For The Ages

posted 9 years ago by JoeKulik
3 replies | jump to latest

After just viewing about a dozen films by Francois Truffaut as well as Breathless and A Woman Is A Woman, the first two feature films by Jean-Luc Goddard, I must conclude that the French "New Wave" is one of the biggest intellectual frauds ever perpetrated on the public. the film viewing public or otherwise.

This intellectual fraud undoubtedly started at Les cahiers du cinema, the French cinema publication, where both Truffaut, Goddard, and other self styled "intellectuals" worked as film "critics" during the 1950's. Truffaut, Goddard, and the other critics kept demeaning contemporary French films and, of course, since they were the all knowing, all important, universally recognized "experts" on French cinema, the film viewing public gradually too began to believe that contemporary French cinema was just "crap".

But What To Do? What To Do? I mean if the contemporary French cinema of the day was really "crap" as these all knowing, "intellectual" film critics at Les cahiers du cinema said it was, where do we go from here? This obvious question was the call to Truffaut, Goddard, & other self styled "intellectuals" of cinema to "put your money where your mouth is". So Truffaut & Goddard & some other self styled, self important film critics decided to take the plunge into film making, although, in reality, none of them had very much real filmmaking experience. But not to worry, Right? Because they're smart intellectuals types & if you can criticize other filmmakers, then that means that you certainly know how to make a better film than those guys, Right? And they even coined a new word for these self important, narcissistic, "intellectual" film critics who tried their amateur hand at filmmaking. That new word was "New Wave".

And the gullible movie going public really ate it up. WOW!!! I mean these really smart film critics are going to show us how to REALLY make a movie, Right? Even though they really didn't have much filmmaking experience, Right?

The result was that the amateurish qualities of the early New Wave films were even lionized as "breakthroughs" in filmmaking. For instance, Goddard in Breathless is hailed a "genius' for innovating a new editing style that had a lot of jagged breaks & jumped around the scene a lot. However, Norman Cousins in The Story Of Film reveals that this cinematic "breakthrough" was Goddard's amateurish use of short film stock that was intended for still photo cameras & not for motion picture cameras. Hence, Cousins informs us, every "innovative" editing break in Breathless is a point where the cameraman had to reload the camera with yet another inappropriately short roll of film. But since the gullible movie going public, & apparently other gullible film critics were convinced of the "genius" of these narcissistic film critics cum filmmakers they interpreted every such amateurish quality of these truly inexperienced filmmakers as "marks of genius".

Once this snowballing of gullibility achieved momentum, it proceeded in time through the decades where most people even today still think that the amateurish qualities of early New Wave films are "marks of genius" and "innovation", even to the point where other filmmakers imported these amateurish qualities into their own productions although, thankfully, often in a more refined and considered manner.

All in all, the rave about New Wave films over the decades is proof positive of the gullibility of the average person for any person that is put in front of them as an "expert" of some sort, be it a "cinema critic" or some "scientist" warning them about the drinking quality of their tap water. Because Truffaut, Goddard, and other French film critics of the 1950's were recognized by the gullible average person, which includes, apparently other film critics, as "experts", their inexperienced, even amateurish efforts at filmmaking themselves had the "expert effect" carried over from "expert film critic" to "expert filmmaker". So we must conclude that the monumental fraud perpetrated on the public by New Wave filmmakers is not really the fault of these decidedly amateurish filmmakers, but is really the fault of the average person to unreflectively believe whatever the newest "expert" is about to tell them.

This is why I view the reviews of any self styled "film critic" merely with amusement, because NOBODY is going to convince me which films I should enjoy and which films I should not enjoy. I am a free thinking, independent person who knows what he likes and what he doesn't like and I will never let any narcissistic "film critic" rob me of my own opinion about a film, as they have robbed the movie going public of their true opinion about the amateurish New Wave cinema.

[–] iamsambert 9 years ago

Just as a comment to your post - I'm not sure who exactly is pushing the idea that the directors behind the "New Wave" movement in France in the 50-60's were absolute EXPERTS of filmmaking and cinema, and that it's not to be questioned what-so-ever. In my opinion, it appears that you have seriously given too much thought to this particular phenomenon, or perhaps we both are! The point in a lot of the films by Godard (especially) was to display the lack of absolute direction in where the film or story was headed. It's certainly no secret! Same with Truffaut, they both went into many projects without a clear outcome at all in the story or premise, as well as a lack of budgetary backing. Obviously their amateurish efforts toward filmmaking were a large part of the intrigue. Given that these films (during that time period) were indeed just the first of many they went on to make throughout their careers and over time learned to refine and add more consideration and levels of depth to their projects before jumping in, especially once they were forced to face the rest of international cinematic community.

I'd certainly agree that a lot of people first being introduced to these directors and films today are coming at it with a duly misconception at their level of perception and will be looking at it in a light that indeed makes these filmmakers out to have been absolute geniuses and experts to the French new wave scene (during the 50-60's precisely). Which is certainly untrue and if this is the main point behind your statement that "this is a monumental fraud perpetrated on the public," then I would agree. However, I don't think it was necessarily an intended affect of the so called movement, but a result of it. Were you alive and able to view and experience these films at the time they were all becoming internationally known? I can imagine that it was certainly a very new, invigorating experience to most at that time and who had a lot of interest in it and were being introduced to this side of world cinema.

It's quite obvious that these particular directors, at the beginning of their careers, chose to make the most of their situation in France with it's current cinematic status and were essentially taking a lot of huge risks and weren't 100% confident in what they were doing at all, and weren't afraid to say so themselves. To me, personally, I find that to be an honest recount of their intentions moving into that style of filmmaking. Perhaps it was a pretentious move, but these were ambitious people who wanted to make a name for themselves and establish something new and different. It's a huge risk to take, especially after each film, risking your reputation and therefor the potential to raise money for future films. As a result, especially over several decades, I believe films such as "Breathless" and "The 400 Blows" do indeed portray a certain nuance within their location, personality, emotion and creative drive in that time and place in the world.

So I think a lot of the positive feedback from that time was based a lot on the sheer originality or lack of (if that's what you think) which made many feel like these directors were taking a large risk trying to successfully create these films. It's hard to say just how much these guys influenced the rest of future cinema throughout the world in the decades to come, but it was indeed hugely influential (of course in a more refined way, depending on the individual), whether we like it or not... I would say that this was for the best, perhaps you'd disagree. So I'm slightly confused why you are taking this as far as to call this the "fraud for the ages" in regards to the history and impact the movement had on world cinema, but I do see your point in regards to typical viewers of these films, at this exact point in time, as well as the importance of approaching the viewing of films in an individualized way, rather than conforming to a certain idea before you've even seen the film. Perhaps that's the most important thing to take from this observation.

[–] benuryu 9 years ago

Wow, you sound very obsessive about this, for wrong reasons. Godard has made amazing films and is one of the most important and influential directors of all time. Le Mépris, À bout De Souffle, Prénom Carmen, Alphaville among many others are timeless classics. I can't see how you cannot like at least one of his movies, as varied as they are since the 60s. And he still blows up film structures and narration at age 82.
Truffaut has made his fair share of classics as well: Les 400 Coups, Jules Et Jim, La Nuit Américaine etc... and has always been very successful and appreciated in the U.S. Just these two have deeply influenced, Tarantino, Scorcese, Spielberg, Linklater, Coppola, Allen, etc... and directors all over the world. By the way, are these the only two directors you know ?

Watch films from amazing other French directors who started in the same era ongoing like Louis Malle (Le Souffle Au Coeur, Le Feu Follet) Claude Chabrol, Alain Resnais (Hiroshima Mon Amour, Le Feu Follet, Je T'Aime Je T'Aime, Mon Oncle D'Amérique, L'Année Dernière À Marienbad), Claude Lelouch (A Man And A Woman), Agnès Varda etc...
All very unique, versatile, powerful, deep, funny in their own way, and revered through the ages and the world.

And if you don't like any of these, well you just don't like cinéma, or you simply don't have neither sensitivity nor intelligence.

[–] kenny-164 8 years ago

The OP seems more intent on presenting what amounts to an anti-intellectual rant than in actually criticizing the work these directors produced. The rant consists of what amounts to a conspiracy theory, very much theoretical, though, since no actual evidence of either elements of fraud or of people being defrauded is presented.

Having said that I really do not know just how much influence those directors have on the present. To put it in simplistic terms, just to be brief, I see in someone like Truffaut a director who sort of looked to a director like Bergman for a way to produce a film more on the surface like a Hitchcock film, and story. A mix, in short.

Personally I do not rate Truffaut as highly as either Bergman or Hitchcock, to be clear. But far below them? Not that, either.