The most interesting attack on traditional film is the main character. It seems that the main character is completely different from all that we have seen previously. In each of the movies before this the main characters have been for the most part respectable, despite some of them planning and carrying out a murder. I guess what I am getting at is that other main characters have had redeeming qualities for their actions (like love) or they had seen the error of their ways and repented (Sunrise). But Michel has no good qualities. He is basically a creep. Godard changes our expectations of what a main character should be. Someone you are rooting for throughout the story, but in this case I was rooting against Michel. I have actually never disliked a character more. Which is not the way you feel about Tom Hanks in many of his movies. Michel promotes a criminal life style. Godard catches you off guard by telling you that you do not have to like the main character and that he could be the worst character. You do not need Clark Gable.
With the character Michel, he is a dog that is always attempting to have sex and steal money from anyone that gives him the opportunity to do so. We didn't see Jim Stewart trying to get money fro Grace Kelly. This changes the entire relationship between the audience and the character and breaks us away from the language of traditional films.
Nice job, Atlee. Indeed, Michel tells us in his very first line how low he is. And yet, almost from that moment he has a kind of charm to him. At least for some! It's worth considering why Godard might want to challenge us in this way. Is it just a challenge for us, or is it a challenge for him as well? And what might it mean that many people ultimately respond positively to the character? Who do you think Godard thought his audience was?
ReplyDelete