22Jul09

Made in U.S.A: The Long Goodbye BY J. HOBERMAN

1309_085

Made in 1966 (so quickly that it could almost be considered an improvisation), Jean-Luc Godard’s twelfth feature, Made in U.S.A, is arguably the most quintessentially “Godardian” of the filmmaker’s great Breathless to Weekend period (1960–67). For those of us in the United States, however, it is also the least familiar.

Due to producer Georges de Beauregard’s insolvency following the government censorship of his previous production, Jacques Rivette’s The Nun, and complications regarding the literary rights for Godard’s project (it is vaguely adapted from American mystery writer Donald E. Westlake’s pseudonymous novel The Jugger), Made in U.S.A did not get a U.S. distributor, or even a limited theatrical run, until four decades after its American premiere, a single screening at the legendary 1967 New York Film Festival, which opened with The Battle of Algiers and closed with Far from Vietnam.

Writing a more sympathetic notice than his colleague Howard Thompson gave Godard’s Les carabiniers (1963), which was shown on the same evening, New York Times reviewer Richard Shepard found Made in U.S.A “an often bewildering potpourri of film narration, imagery, and message . . . better seen twice, if at all.” Albeit noting Made in U.S.A’s “pop art bloodstains,” Shepard left it for others to connect the season’s cinematic scandal, Hollywood’s own New Wave gangster flick, Bonnie and Clyde, and what would be the last of Godard’s reconfigured genre films.

Dedicated to Nick (Ray) and Samuel (Fuller), “who raised me to respect image and sound,” Made in U.S.A is, at least nominally, a political noir in the tradition of Godard’s second film, Le petit soldat (1960). At the same time, it resembles Band of Outsiders (1964) in being a thriller about people who are acting as if they’re living in a movie. “You can fool the audience, but not me,” the star, Anna Karina, tells someone. Made in U.S.A is self-reflexive as well as self-conscious: when characters speak, it’s often to speculate on the nature of language or note the time passing.

Neon signs and “news ribbons” abound. So do comic strips and film stills. Many of the principals, like Donald Siegel and Doris Mizoguchi, are named for Godard’s pet movie personalities, and references to American movie characters are ubiquitous (“Miss Ruby Gentry, please report to the oxygenation room”), including three from three different films directed by Otto Preminger (who also has a street named for him in the movie’s imaginary “Atlantic City”). Made in U.S.A’s cinephilic jokes and cartoon violence suggest the meta pulp fiction that is Alphaville (1965), even as the widescreen, hyperpop look and percussive sound design (honking traffic, barking dogs, shards of Schumann, stretches of silence) evoke 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her—part of which was shot simultaneously with Made in U.S.A, during the summer of 1966. (Godard toyed with the idea of a Faulknerian double bill, projecting alternate reels of the two movies, as the novelist switched between two stories in The Wild Palms.)

Even more than the half dozen previous films in which Godard directed Karina, Made in U.S.A is a portrait of the filmmaker’s ex-wife—here, in her final performance for him, cast as Paula Nelson, a private investigator wrapped in a trench coat and packing a gat. In an article published in Le nouvel observateur soon after Made in U.S.A was completed, Godard explained that he had been inspired to remake Howard Hawks’s 1946 version of The Big Sleep, revived that summer in Paris, with Karina in the Bogart role. As The Big Sleep has a notoriously impenetrable plot (by Faulkner, no less), one of whose numerous murders not even Hawks could explain, so Made in U.S.A represents Godard’s most sustained derangement of narrative convention.

Richard Roud, whose description of the movie in his 1967 Cinema One monograph was the closest many of Godard’s American fans would ever get to Made in U.S.A, maintained that he only understood the logic of certain sequences after he had the opportunity to analyze them on a Moviola editing console. Key scenes are regularly pulverized just at the point of resolution; crucial passages of dialogue are purposefully obscured by street noise or two loud chords taken from a Beethoven symphony, as, alternately seductive and indifferent, Paula goes in search of a lover who is apparently lost, perhaps to assassination, in a labyrinthine, never fully explained international political intrigue.

Actually, Godard had a lot more than The Big Sleep on his mind. In the same Nouvel observateur article, he explained that Made in U.S.A fused three imperatives: “I wanted to oblige a friend [Beauregard], to tackle the Americanization of French life, and to do something with the Ben Barka affair.” The conspiratorial cause célèbre of midsixties France, the last involved the disappearance of Mehdi Ben Barka, Morocco’s most prominent leftist, a political exile in France and a third-world figure then comparable to Malcolm X or Che Guevara—that is, a third-world martyr. Ben Barka was abducted by French police operatives acting in concert with the Moroccan government, which apparently had him tortured to death on French territory.

That, as recounted in Richard Brody’s Godard biography, Ben Barka vanished en route to a meeting with filmmaker Georges Franju, with whom he was planning to make a documentary, made the event even more vivid for Godard. So did the identity of the chief witness in the affair: gangster and directorial wannabe Georges Figon, the documentary’s supposed producer, who was another casualty of the case, perhaps “suicide” by the French authorities. In Le nouvel observateur, Godard explained that, making Made in U.S.A, he “imagined that Figon had not died, that he had taken refuge in the provinces, that he had written to his girlfriend to join him. She goes to the address where they had planned to meet, but when she gets there, she finds that he is dead.”

Thus the movie opens with Paula holed up in a cheap hotel room in the nondescript Paris suburb that stands in for Atlantic City, musing about her situation while a pair of tough guys (nouvelle vague regulars László Szabó and Jean-Pierre Léaud) loiter ominously beneath her window. “Hanging out” is one of the movie’s operative principles. Made in U.S.A has aspects of the time-killing vaudeville that characterized the great Warhol movies of the midsixties. (At one point, Marianne Faithfull—a mod icon to rival Karina—turns up in a neighborhood café, idly warbling “As Tears Go By” a cappella.) But mainly, Raoul Coutard’s camera contemplates the star, a sphinx. Made in U.S.A is all about pondering Karina’s private smiles, her Cleopatra mane, her changing outfits, and her uncanny power to transform any given shot into a fashion spread. Given that we hear her voice-over throughout, it’s very close to a solo.

Plot, such as it is, kicks into gear when Paula “kills” the annoying, dwarfish informer Mr. Typhus, who appears in her hotel room: “Now fiction overtakes reality,” she murmurs. Fiction is as convoluted and abstractly violent here as in The Big Sleep. Like her model, Philip Marlowe, Paula discovers a series of bodies in the course of her quest; she also leaves a trail of others in her wake, including one whom she simply shoots point-blank. Soon after, she delivers the movie’s most famous line: “We were in a political movie . . . Walt Disney with blood.” Around the time that characters named Nixon and McNamara turn up as gunsels (played by the young film critics Jean-Pierre Biesse and Sylvain Godet), the reel-to-reel tape recorders that have been periodically appearing in close-up to play garbled messages left by Paula’s dead lover switch to Communist rants.

In 1966, Godard’s politics were still largely cultural and hardly consistent. Made in U.S.A is anticapitalist and anticonsumerist, decrying miniskirts and rock and roll as forms of fascist mind control, yet more devoted to the vulgar modernism of mid-twentieth-century pop culture than any movie Godard made before or would make after. “I think advertising is a form of fascism,” Paula asserts, speaking for the director. It’s a valid complaint and a poignant one, given that Made in U.S.A is a constant advertisement for itself. An epilogue that, according to Brody, Godard filmed a month after the initial shoot ended has a completely different feel. Paula, who is presumably on the lam, stands by the side of a superhighway and then hops into a car driven by the radio journalist Philippe Labro (playing himself). Mounted on the automobile hood, the camera frames the couple driving hopefully into the future, engaged in an open-ended discussion on, as used to be said, what is to be done. Beethoven fills the track. “We have years of struggle ahead of us,” Paula calmly declares.

Gilles Jacob, who published a long piece on Made in U.S.A in early 1967 (several months before Godard began filming La Chinoise), considered the movie not only a formal triumph—Godard “has managed to disincarnate the object” so as “to attain the heights of an explosive and striking lyricism”—but also the filmmaker’s first “consciously made political film.”

Until Made in U.S.A, Godard was a fascist for some, a Communist for others (but didn’t people say the same thing about Citizen Kane?); and for still others, he simply stood outside the fight . . . [Made in U.S.A is] a political act that is just as serious as putting a ballot in the ballot box, a critical analysis of our society, a warning speech in which, this time, the filmmaker has become so unequivocally involved that he felt he had to record it himself.

. . . After this rather spectacular veering toward the left, I would not be surprised to see Godard turning toward Mao in one of his upcoming films. But it is also with forms that Godard makes revolution.


Jacob was right on both counts. In fact, as Made in U.S.A demonstrates, it was the exhaustion of radical form that led Godard toward radical practice.

J. Hoberman recently marked his thirtieth year as a film critic for the Village Voice. His film writing has been anthologized in Vulgar Modernism and The Magic Hour, and included in the Library of America’s American Movie Critics.

Made in U.S.A

Made in U.S.A

Jean-Luc Godard

1966

85 min

Color

2.35:1

Categories: Film Essays

12 Comments

Thu 23 Jul at 01:09 AM

zero comment

Zero comments?

Well that’s because it’s probably a zero film

Thu 23 Jul at 10:30 AM

Ted

how can you say that? it’s GODARD!

Fri 24 Jul at 01:11 PM

Mikhail Goberman

Just because it is “Godard” means that we have to automatically elevate it to some kind of pre-established pantheon? Ridiculous, unless you were being ironic of course. I saw “2 or 3 Things” not too long ago and probably set a record for how many times I looked at my watch. Never before had an hour-and-a-half-long film seemed longer than “Lawrence of Arabia.”

Fri 24 Jul at 04:53 PM

Eliot Vivante

Experimental Godard can be very tedious (Eloge de l’amour, particularly the second part in highly saturated color video, had me fidgeting with impatience). But for me, this frustration is always felt at the time of the first viewing. Afterwards, once I’ve thought on the characters, themes, titles, shots, colors &c., and the density of these things that seemed too abstract and overwhelming, even pretentious, at the immediacy of that first viewing – and maybe also after having read a helpful article making comprehensible some of Godard’s constant cultural / social / political / economic allusions concerning France or the filming period – I have nothing but admiration for the picture.

I do think that Godard was best early on (when he made films like Band of Outsiders, Masculin Feminin, Breathless), because then his aim was to entertain, as well as to enlighten or argue. Later and on to today, he seems to have forsaken the entertainment aspect of film altogether. The social anthropologist is what remains. That, and the experimenter. And while these films can come off as over intellectual, I think there is still something terrific, magical in any Godard creation.

Fri 24 Jul at 11:16 PM

Trevor

This film is really nothing to write home about. It had some good things going for it, mainly the asthetics, but I found it pretentious and a bit boring. I was ready for it to be over about 40 minutes in. But, some people go GA-GA over Godard and they probably will like it. I, however, did not.

Fri 31 Jul at 11:51 AM

LES JEUX SONT FAITS

I, too, find Godard’s films mainly joyless affairs and incredibly pretentious, and am at a loss to explain the critical / cinephilic circle jerk surrounding him to this day. Having seen a dozen or so of JLG’s films, from A BOUT DE SOUFFLE to ELOGE D’AMOUR, I think that MADE IN USA (which I screened last night at the Bell Cinematheque in Toronto) may be my last attempt to find a film of his which I find satisfying from start to finish (the closest I have come in that regard is LE MEPRIS). I like looking at Marianne Faithfull and ‘Anna Karina, private eye’ as much as any red-blooded man / film nerd, but his attempts at genre (film noir here, or science fiction, as in ALPHAVILLE) come off stunted, low-rent and inferior to the American directors to whom he endlessly pays homage. (Does anyone know what Fuller or Ray thought of Godard’s films?)

Casting preferred directors and film critics, and naming minor characters ‘Robert MacNamara” and ‘Doris Mizoguchi’ is only amusing to a point… The Maoist platitudes and namedropping of obscure philosophers and minor political figures of the day, much less so. Great cinema shouldn’t require a time machine or syllabus to appreciate. Am I wrong?

I can always find stylistic bits of any of Godard’s films to appreciate, but little of true substance. Give me BATTLE OF ALGIERS, IL POSTO, RASHOMON or 400 BLOWS anyday…

Sun 02 Aug at 11:46 PM

RINGU

I agree with almost all the comments above. The best things about a Godard film are Raoul Coutard and Anna Karina. His best films (for me) are BAND OF OUTSIDERS and MY LIFE TO LIVE. I also admire A WOMAN IS A WOMAN, but I think it is mostly Karina I admire, not that she’s a great actress (but she is a great Karina). I too saw TWO OR THREE THINGS…and it was mind numbingly long and slow. And dumb. I think Godard never had a clue about what he was trying to say politically, either. He had a love of American films and a great cinematographer. The rest was being hip and cool and runing around in the 1960s. Jack Smith did that.

Mon 03 Aug at 08:52 AM

Justin Martinez

A: “Give me BATTLE OF ALGIERS, IL POSTO, RASHOMON or 400 BLOWS anyday…”
Q: What Greeks did you decide to pledge to this year?

A: “It had some good things going for it, mainly the asthetics, but I found it pretentious and a bit boring.”
Q: Is it aesthetics you enjoy, or athletics?

A: “I, too, find Godard’s films mainly joyless affairs and incredibly pretentious, and am at a loss to explain the critical / cinephilic circle jerk surrounding him to this day.”
Q: Have you ever been able to explain a joyful, unpretentious circle jerk?

A: “I think Godard never had a clue about what he was trying to say politically, either.”
Q: What clue did you have about politics when you were running around in the 60s?

Thu 06 Aug at 03:05 AM

Gabriel

What does the word “jerk” exactly mean?

Thu 06 Aug at 03:09 AM

Gabriel

Indeed, Godard’s films are mostly pretentious – also considering his bad judgments on Kubrick or Deleuze…

Mon 10 Aug at 07:38 PM

FATHER FIGURE

What great irony it is for everyone who dolls out the word ‘pretentious’…

Do none of you realize the amount of pretension required to label something/someone pretentious?

Hypocrisy abound!!

The film is mediocre, & what one would expect from a 60’s color Godard. That is all.

Thu 27 Aug at 09:14 PM

Antoinew

Godard was in his own little world most of the time, which is always a good trait to have if you want to be a great filmaker, but that trait must be rationed. In order to have a movie be able to be considered “great” it still needs to be able to reach the small minded and the average folks of the world, which this one does not. Godard was able to do so with many of his films(Breathless, band of Outsiders, Alphaville, Contempt, A woman is a woman, The little soldier, and through most of Pierrot Le Fou) but the rest of his films get too personal and too into his own mind where few want to play on a regular basis. A filmmaker should always paint half with his mind and half with the world. With that, you get DaVinci, without, you get Pollack. Both nice to look at, but only one makes any sense.

Add Comment

Archives

2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2005 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2004 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2003 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2002 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2001 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1999 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1998 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1997 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1996 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1995 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1994 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1993 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1992 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1991 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1990 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1989 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1988 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1987 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1986 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1985 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

1984 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Recent Comments

“Kurosawa was an artistic anomaly. his talent for giving the contemporary its own historical resonance and his penchant for bringing his own contemporary mind to history can never be equalled or imitated . . .”
—Luke Kenny on Today’s Kurosawa Giveaway, about 2 hours ago

“free hentai anime sex games”
—emonnapemer on Sex and Politics: An Interview with Vilgot Sjöman, about 4 hours ago

“It's hard to say actually. I thought that this one would easily be a quick answer. Stylistically I would say that his historical films are much more pleasurable to watch just because of the visuals . . .”
—Tomas Roges on Today’s Kurosawa Giveaway, about 4 hours ago

“While all of Kurosawa's films are engaging, his historical films have made the biggest impact on the course of cinema. Without "Seven Samurai" there would be no "Magnificent Seven", without "Yojimbo . . .”
—Joshua Pitney on Today’s Kurosawa Giveaway, about 4 hours ago

“I prefer Kurosawa's contemporary film work. Like "Stray Dog." It sure would be cool to win a copy of that on DVD.”
—Patrick on Today’s Kurosawa Giveaway, about 4 hours ago