Parody/Autonomy

After watching Godard’s film Weekend, my first impulse was to identify it as “pure” parody (the integration of various historic figures such as Saint-Just, or of fictional characters into the film as well as the self-referential dimension of the film clearly indicate the parodic aspect). The implication in this line of thinking was that, as parody, the film cannot have autonomy, and, as a result, it cannot represent the hailed (autonomous!) alternative cinema (“counter-cinema”) that Wollen writes about. At a more careful consideration of the film and after reading the essays for this week, I realized, however, that there is more to Godard’s film than just parody. The deliberate inversion of the key aspects of "orthodox" cinema (identified by Wollen and discussed in the lecture) account for an – I am tempted to say somewhat surreal as well as original, though I am aware of the paradox of asserting the originality of parody – arrangement of the “material” in the film that gives it autonomy. In my view, Godard found a (very simple) recipe for a new type of cinema that works on the principle of “denunciation” and that, most importantly, is autonomous despite the fact that it “feeds on” other cultural products. The essence of Godard’s success lies, I believe, in the consistent denunciation of (and departure from) all the principles of "orthodox" cinema, with the result of obtaining something "new" that, in a sense, incorporates the “old” by representing its reversal.

Political statement/Intellectual game

But is this “new” completely – or even reasonably – comprehensible? In my view, in Weekend there are bits of “information” (I am not sure how compatible this term is with a Godardian film) deliberately missing (such as the circumstances of the kidnapping of the protagonists, for example) as well as elements that appear to be redundant (in fact, a great deal of the film may appear thus, if the Godardian system of symbols is not fully grasped). These deny access to the meanings of the film for all except a few “privileged” spectators. The question that then arises is: is Weekend (and Godard’s counter-cinema) a political statement or merely an intellectual game? Because of the references to the “class struggle” – which, I believe, is being parodied; to a state of affairs that is up-side-down and in dysfunction suggested by the symbol/metaphor of the cars involved in accidents; and because of the obvious (postmodern) fragmentation in the film (at all levels, particularly at that of the narrative), I think it is undeniable that Godard’s counter-cinema has a political dimension. On the other hand, because of the randomness it involves and the principle of “reversal” it is based upon, it is also undeniable that the film is an intellectual game. Therefore, I would conclude that Weekend (and Godardian counter-cinema) is an intellectual game that counts as a political statement. How is that possible? Isn’t that a contradiction? I think not: the two are perfectly compatible provided that the political statement is postmodern (relativist and centered on representation), as I find it to be - even though I am aware that Godard identified himself as Marxist-Leninist.