If Jean-Luc Godard had never made another film after 1983, this one would have been his best ever. It is that good. But perhaps you doubt? Let me tell you why I believe this to be the case.
This may have been the film where Godard really nailed down his mature style. Really, there is no putting a date on such things. He has continued to progress to the current day.
But let us focus on a few salient elements.
One might expect a French (Swiss) director to pick Debussy and call the elements connected (we refer here to the orchestral piece La Mer). But Godard was always very analytical. And so Beethoven is a more natural choice.
But what Beethoven? Which Beethoven? It is the string quartets.
Must it be? It must be. It must be.
Godard began (continued?) to make films more like a composer than a movie director.
The art film genre allowed him to do this. And in many ways he formed and shaped this genre from the beginning.
To call art films a genre is generally not in keeping with standard film criticism practice.
But I don’t care.
If it helps to call it a genre here, then so be it.
But does it help?
It makes no difference (as Rick Danko sang).
But let us not neglect the ocean…the sea.
“I salute you, old ocean,” as Lautreamont said in Maldoror.
Indeed, Godard has some of that proto-Dadaist perversion in this movie. Perverse, as opposed to perverted. Both.
What is remarkable beyond Beethoven and the sea is Godard as an actor.
That’s right, Godard himself plays a prominent role as (what else?) himself.
It is really a caricature of himself. Or is it?
To wit, Godard plays a director who has gone crazy.
Early on we see him in an insane asylum.
There is something slightly frightening and menacing about him from time to time, but generally he is hilarious.
This film is replete with humor.
But it is not a comedy.
Sometimes a comedy of errors.
And so, Carmen? Yes, like Bizet. We remember Brahms being so taken with this opera.
Was it the music or was there perhaps an attractive alto in the production?
Alto. Viola in French is alto.
And who is our alto? Only one of the greatest actresses to ever live: Myriem Roussel.
I must at this point beg forgiveness from the universe for not even mentioning her in my review of Passion.
I blame Wikipedia (as I always do).
I admit laziness (as per usual).
Frankly, I knew it was her in Passion by the poolside. It is a small-but-striking role. Mainly because she is nude.
It is all very artistic, yet I see why Godard would cast the beautiful Roussel in revealing roles over the course of several films.
Yet here, Myriem is merely a violist. The viola in my life. Morton Feldman.
But it is neither Godard nor Roussel who carry the bulk of the dramatic action here.
For that we must credit Maruschka Detmers and Jacques Bonnaffé. The acting from these two players is outstanding!
Detmers plays the titular Carmen. Indeed (keeping with the hanging sonority), it is Detmers who spends a fair portion of this movie nude. But, to Godard’s credit, so does Bonnaffé.
But this is not just a gratuitous European pseudo-art film. This is the real thing.
The most beautiful moment occurs during a bank robbery.
A struggle for a gun. A man and a woman. Carmen. She has robbed the bank with a band of professional thieves.
And Joseph (Bonnaffé)…the gendarme responding to the violent robbery.
He leaves his post in front of the bank and exchanges gunfire with the trigger-happy gang.
And so it is that Carmen and Jo (Joseph) struggle for an automatic weapon. Both having been shot.
They crawl over each other. Win at all costs. To lose is death. High stakes now.
And climbing over each other in spurts of faint energy, they abruptly stop and begin passionately kissing.
They give up.
It is the moral.
Ah, but they DON’T give up! They join forces.
And so Joseph goes from cop to thief. All for love.
Oh no, I’ve said too much (as Michael Stipe once intoned).
Carmen needs to pee. Joseph has tied her wrist to his using his necktie. [What kind of gendarme doesn’t have handcuffs?]
And so they stop at a shitty roadside gas station.
The moral of the stop: even France and Switzerland have shitty roadside gas stations.
Away from the tourists. Off the beaten path. Where people actually work for a living.
And we have the most poignant scene. The most bizarre. A fat man has pocketed a jar of baby food (?) and proceeded to the restroom to eat it lustily with his fingers. Put another way, here’s a poor schmuck whose life at this moment (for one reason or another) has been reduced to shoplifting to sustain his life force.
And the poor schmuck gets a treat. Carmen needs to pee. So does Joseph. Joseph won’t untie her. And so she uses a urinal. And the shoplifter continues to make slobbery sounds as he licks his fingers while eating baby food in front of the bathroom mirror…nonplussed by the action. But he sneaks a peak…ah, whatever. He is entirely involved in his “meal.” Somehow this scene makes sense of the whole universe. It is hilarious, disgusting, and believable. The mark of genius is on this film throughout.
I must add one last thing. Just when the strains of Beethoven have become commonplace–just when the crossfaded splosh of waves has been drowned out by our psyches…it is at this point which Godard throws us the most gut-wrenching curveball: “Ruby’s Arms” by Tom Waits. Bonnaffé hugs the TV…resting his weight on the crappy 80s hotel console…and the screen is tuned to snow…static…fuzz…phasing lines of nothingness. Between channels. And as the song plays, Bonnaffé caresses the screen…caresses what might have been.
It is a most touching evocation of lovesickness.
Carmen is fond of repeating the line from the American movie, “If I love you, then that’s the end of you.” She may not work at a cigarette factory nor dance the habanera, but she is still the prototypical femme fatale. Yes, Jo…love is a rebellious bird.
Wonderful review. I love this film dearly, but I had never thought of it as compositional directing (Beethoven v. Debussy) or that there are gas stations in France/Switzerland.
It’s not so frequently that something forces me to rethink a film I’ve seen so many times and I appreciate that you do that.
Thank you, friend! Yes, I admit that this one didn’t grab me the first time around, but in trying to follow the chronological flow of Godard films it stands out as quite an achievement. It seems to me that he kept chipping away until he found his style. Nothing can match the panache of the early films, but I much prefer his latter work (as much for its testament of survival as anything). Thanks so much for your invaluable input!!! –Paul
Great writing, Pauly, I had not seen the film, and it will be a while before I do, but I really enjoy just reading your writing, which is great. Sometimes I wonder, has Godard himself seen your reviews and what would he think/say.
Thank you so much! I doubt he’s seen them. I wish! Gotta hold out hope for miracles sometime…never know 🙂 Thanks ever so much for reading and commenting! Means a great deal to me!!! –Paul
Did not see it yet but will soon. Nice review.
Again, I love your style of writing mate. So unique. Great stuff
Thanks mate! Cheers!!! –Paul