Forbidden Fruit

Going on advice from Professor Glenn I have decided, for the moment, to base my paper off comparisons between “Masculine, Fèminin” and the play “Dutchmen.” Doing so using formalist film criticism. I will argue that (1) “Masculine, Fèminin is much better understood through the formalist approach for the reason that from picking a part only one a couple scenes we receive a broad understanding of this film.

(2)  The clues that Godard gives the audience to better help understand this film only appear in one particular scene, the formalist approach will dive into this and come out of with a strong understanding of the rest of the film. Trying to get the same meaning out of “Masculine, Fèminin” while using the ideological approach, through my basic understanding, would leave me to believe one would end up with a very convoluted, cloudy understanding of the same film. However looking into this one chosen scene I believe the film becomes rather clear.

(3) Godard presents us with a crude recap of “Dutchman.” How does it at all tie into the film? I will argue that this summary of “Dutchman” will give us a stronger understanding of the film. It will tie together the plot of the film along with the abrupt ending.  

(4) Mise en scene, I believe there are many things that can be said are placed on stage purposely and with every intention of providing the viewer with a symbolic meaning of the film.  

(5) When we later see Catherine eating an apple many conclusions can be made as to why this is significant, or not significant. I believe this apple however ties in the “Dutchman” scene to the film and in turn helps us better understand the ending. It now proves the reason the “Dutchman” appears in “Masculine, Fèminin” and how we can use one to help understand the other.

(6) There are many patterns in the film that are also better understood from the “Dutchman” scene, patterns that present us with many of the relations between men and women we are presented with in this film.

(7) Comparisons between “Clay” and Lula” from “Dutchman” and the male and female characters in “Masculine, Fèminin” can be made especially with both ending in the murder of the protagonist male character.

Midnight in Paris, Embracing Simplicity

   When the Lumière brothers screened “Arrival of a Train at a Station” for the first time it is said that audience members literally attempted to get out of the way of the oncoming train, which of course was on screen. Movie audiences have come a long way since that showing, and directors know it. Take for example “Gil” being transported by a mysterious old time car back into the 1920’s, no reasoning as to why this is happening is given to the viewers by Director Woody Allen. It is my thinking that Allen chooses to skip this unnecessary explanation, as movie goers of the 21^st century we have now been conditioned to understand when we are watching a film that we are in fact doing just that, watching a film. “Midnight in Paris” sticks with the thinking that less is more, fewer details allow what is taking place to just happen almost unnoticed. There is no big lead up to this scene and it is hardly mentioned aside from when it is taking place. We don’t know why it is happening but we just know it is happening. “Gil” is getting in a car and traveling back to the “Golden Age” and doing it so seamlessly that I for one never questioned it. Did I get caught up in the romanticism of Paris and actually believe this as reality? Maybe a little bit, but regardless I did simply understand that I was watching a movie. I do believe that Allen is suggesting that we embrace the illusion of Hollywood filmmaking. Making movies for an audience that can simply take what they are watching as entertainment. I have a hard time looking at this movie as something with a deeper agenda. I think Allen’s use of subtle camera work and almost religious following of “IMR” rules show what he was doing with “Midnight in Paris.”  He made a film to be understood as is and taken for what it is, a film. I have this thinking that if he wanted “Midnight in Paris” to be something more we would have known it. Although I enjoyed “Masculine, Fèminine” it was something different, it broke the rules and stretched our understanding of what a film should be. Allen was abstaining from this facet of film making and keeping it simple, simple for the reason of that’s how he wanted it interpreted.