Second Cinema is Cool

In Wollen's article, he notes that Godard, falling within the modernist tradition, is "suspicious of the power of the arts--and the cinema, above all--to 'capture' its audience without apparently making it think, or changing it." Yet Wollen acknowledges that "[the spectator's] attention may get lost altogether," while being led along counter-cinema's fractured narratives. Making a spectator think is one way to lose his/her attention, causing a sort of self-defeating displeasure--displeasure can not only adjust viewpoint but halt the act of viewing. I think this speaks to Wollen's point that Godard's counter-cinema is not a definition but a beginning point, and that images cannot present truths, only meanings. Godard's counter-cinema is not the be-all end-all answer to Hollywood cinema; it does not repair but challenge it. I think ultimately, though, Godard's act of challenging Hollywood cinema through a set of contrary features is but a method at which he arrives at the same results of closure, pleasure, fiction, and identification as does Hollywood cinema. If he does not lose the spectator through his unorthodox approach (a threat Wollen acknowledges) the spectator is rewarded with the juicy satisfaction of "getting it." On a less intellectual level, even, the disconnected vignettes offer absurd humor and beautiful women (despite their presentation in long shots as opposed to close-ups). In this way, I think Godard's cinema can be compared to the reading for this week, Camera Lucida, in which Barthes distinguishes between the pornographic (nothing to hide) and the erotic, which elicits pleasure from the very fact of concealment. The eroticism of counter-cinema, the titillating fascination with something not easily given away, something uncommon and out-of-reach (vs. the pornographic, easy accessibility of Hollywood presentations) is something the Third Cinema authors point to with contempt. In the end, then, I think the description of Godard's counter-cinema is both an outline of significant challenges to mainstream film and also a perfect example of why Third Cinema-makers found Second Cinema to be as limited, commodifiable and relatable as First Cinema.