MovieChat Forums > Tout va bien (1973) Discussion > Open Letter to Benoitlelievre

Open Letter to Benoitlelievre

posted 19 years ago by BriggityBritches
9 replies | jump to latest

Dear Sir,

You mentioned that, for you, watching Godard and Gorin's 'Tout Va Bien' is like having a "foreign object" jammed into your "body's orifices." Well, don't kill the messenger but that is exactly what happens to the viewer in the majority of phallocentric films you surely herald above 'Tout Va Bien.' The inherent misogynistic narrative in everything from Capra to Coppola is much more invasive, for me anyway, than this revolutionary film by the Godard/Gorin. While you are busy making binary distinctions between liberal and conservative, left and right, "the entire spectrum of thinkable thoughts now caught within the propaganda system," this film is presenting a question that far surpasses in scope your ill-informed presuppositions: it is a question of where to go after May 68. This very question does not wrangle with such questions as to which side of the corporate-run buraucracy you wish to align yourself, which product you wish to consume; this film knows that the answer to social malaise is even trickier than destroying the social foundation upon which all this fascism is built upon. There is the question of microfascism, of a failed coup, of how we go about dismantling this capitalist machine that sludges faster and faster toward misery of apocolyptic proportion. These are questions I can see that you are not interested in-- no doubt you are experiencing a loss of interest programmed into you by madatory obedience training at your local public school and 15-second blips of talking heads on your TV set. Not surprisingly these were not questions the majority of people were interested at the time of the film's release; and this is why we are living today in a more highly advanced, more parasitic, molecularized colonialism of government-subsidized corporate captialism. This film is an examination of the effectiveness and shortcomings of the revolutionary aggregrate while adhering to a code of conduct amidst the hairy ethical problems of cinema-- questions of narrative, illusionism, and "gaze." In short, this film is more important and relevant today than ever; May 68 was a failure, it was a failure in part because no one was willing to go far enough, nobody wanted to be badgered by rhetoric and now it may be too late. No, Benoit..., "you cannot be neutral on a moving train." It must be pretty easy to wash your hands of politics with the safety-net below of a public canadian healthcare system with which to ease your mind. Down in the screaming dreary fascism of USA Inc., we are marvelling at the kids from May 68 begging to run rampant down your suburban street. Best regards.

[–] cranly 19 years ago

Stevensodombottom returns! Rejoice! I'm not typically given to blandishments or hyperbole in this fashion but this stands as an event which calls for nothing less. Long have we sad few discerning cinephiles prowled these desolate boards in search of exegesis rich in wit and erudition. In the early days of 2004, the posts of one expositor provided us a shining beacon, illuminating such diverse topics as the drastic decline of the Coen Brothers, and the long-hidden reverberations of Bresson's oeuvre in the music of NWA. However, finding no equals to engage him in cogent discourse, the cognoscente soon absented himself from our presence, leaving a plethora of distrait philistines and dilettantes in his wake. Now, all these months later, he returns with a newfound political fervor, issuing a timely reminder of the significance of Godard's 70's efforts with his Kino-Pravda acolytes, a period still regarded even by most zealous Godardolators as his "time in the wilderness". Clearly this so-called "Marxist Phase" in Godard's career cannot be reduced to him having "gone astray", but rather marks a deeper level of engagement with and awareness of the full spectrum of political resonances and implications in the cinema and by extension, all audio/visual media. The validity of Godard's experiments during this period and the dialectic he advanced can hardly be questioned now in a time when oligarchic media control and the ensuing reality distortion have left most of us suspended in a state of total misapprehension, stupefaction and fearful ignorance. Kudos to Steven for his incisive delineation of the continuing relevance of Godard/Gorin's achievements for those of us dwelling in this onerous plutocracy called the U.S. Hopefully we can expect to benefit from numerous future disquisitions by this adroit scribe.

With Respect,
JV

[–] simonhowson 18 years ago

"phallocentric films" blah............ You really don't care much about cinema if all you care to do to films is psychoanalyse them...

[–] BriggityBritches 18 years ago

says you.

i ain't into psychoanalysis, I'm into justice, y'damn fool.

[–] simonhowson 18 years ago

"i ain't into psychoanalysis, I'm into justice, y'damn fool."

And how do you expect to acheive justice by using Freudian Lacanian terms to describe films?

You're not even wrong...

[–] pip-pip-tally-ho 18 years ago

Psychoanalysis is a perfectly reasonable way to see cinema, we see it as phallocentric, good, that means its patriachal, good. i wouldnt want to say that patriachy is absent in cinema. then whats the problem.
Psychoanalysis should be seen as part of a wider discourse in film analysis and criticism, its not all consuming but it is very important. Try and see it in line with other theories.
in response to your question i would recomend you read Daniel Dayan's powerfull (although contseted) article "The Tutor-Code of Classical cinema" it will explain how through Fruedian-Lacanian analysis we may see how ideology is expressed in cinema. cinema=subjectiviety=Ideology=powerrelations=unfreedom-thank-you-very-much-karl-marx
therfore justice first achieved through understanding of injustice.
apologies for replying to such an old post but i quite fancied sticking my oar in.

[–] BriggityBritches 17 years ago

You can stick your oar in anytime, Pip Pip Tally Ho. By the way, that's a very British name you've got there. I think Psychoanalysis can only be dismissed by folks who want their truth like they want their reality, limited to the perceptible. They value only rationality AKA Kold Kalculations and can only have faith in that which has been bronzed in some cartesian court of law. Science is not so distinguished to be excluded from the steaming pile of information and frames of references that interbreed through all our communications. They're all mythologies in the way Roland Barthes speaks of mythologies. They are as truthful and useful as they come to expressing what we see to be pertinent. So, Lacan's "mirror stage" may or may not be a stage in infant development where a lil baby develops its "I" in the image of others. But it explains beautifully the magic in movies-- that the blade that gives Janet Leigh that Buck 50 has cut millions over the years. No doubt psychoanalysis has hit many a dead end since Laura Mulvey came on the scene, but psychoanalysis is no more fantastical or up its own ass then all the tools in humanity's shi tty toolbox.

PS. It doesn't take a lot of book learning to see the phallocentricism of the average film when the plot is structured exactly like a cumshot. Everytime I splooge, I swear I feel like I'm watching The Unusual Suspects.

[–] imacbeth-1 17 years ago

My God I am glad I never had you as a teacher in film studies. That really is the biggest pile of bollox I have ever read!!

[–] pip-pip-tally-ho 17 years ago

prove him wrong, i dare you.

[–] charlielpd 15 years ago

Yo it's so true, the fact that we have public healthcare makes us Canadians think we're in tip top shape politically. In fact the only reason we have it is as a "safety net".

You make me happy that universities mark with a bell curve. Good luck with the revolution. Hope you don't ban any Eisensteins.