When it comes to talking about budgets in cinema, we know that the mainstream Hollywood cinema needs an endless amount of cash flow to be of the best quality. Camera techniques alone would make an immediate dent into any financial investments and that not even including special effects that would take up money and time. The point i am addressing is that if Godard had such equipment and money, would he really be interested in using ” a trolley as a tracking shot”.
After the devastating effects of both world wars, Europe was facing the recovery stages and cinema was no longer a concern. Especially in france the government wanted to go back to the old ways of cinema and thereby stumping Godard at his first hurdle. Only low budgets existed from then on, Although the USA still had the money you can sense a bit of jealousy within Godard’s thoughts as he expressed “I pity the French Cinema because it has no money. I pity the American Cinema because it has no ideas.”
This quotes suggest’s that Godard wished he had the kind of money that Americans were wasting, whether his thoughts of mainstream were different to his ideas of experimental, all we know is that in 1967 after the film release of ‘weekend’ he announced his retirement from mainstream. A rhetorical question that now comes into my mind is that whether Godard knew or not that he may never find someone to give him a big financial boost, therefore knowing this he would stay safe with an environment he knew.
Basically I am suggesting that because money was not apparent from the start of his career, he never had the opportunity to branch out like the American director’s and to really the opportunity of high-class films. With friends only interested in the ‘La Nouvelle Vague’ era, you could suggest that it was inevitable for him to be part of the crowd. He had now created his own stylistic views on the french society and knew how to portray this in his mind. The French New Wave was Avant-Garde.
But suggesting this means that he had talent, referring back to that quote about Americans with no ideas. He may be suggesting that anyone can make a mainstream film and that only true filmmakers experiment. With the Quote ” All you need for a movie is a gun and a girl.” he took this idea but experimented with it using many Brechtian techniques which he had learnt throughout his career. My argument about money-making the decisions in how Godard’s life turned out could be overruled by some simple facts.
Godard technically had the money but wasn’t inclined to reach his family about his new-found career, i found out that his family of bankers and doctor’s were against his filmmaking lifestyle and with his lifestyle in france being always cinema, his family would most likely not give him the financial help. With this in mind, Godard’s determination to prove them wrong may have surged his passion for making films and with such friends like Claude Chabrol he made his first hit film ‘Breathless’.
His political views may have had an impact on the type of films he wanted to create also, with mainstream films he felt he could not put any anger or message towards the french government. Of course directly would have got him no where but he felt if he could reach out to the french nation like propaganda, he could influence others to share the same passion and unify together against a broken society.
Weekend of course had an effect on the riots of 68, a year before it started Godard expressed “Fin De Cinema” in which in mainstream filmmaking would not make sense but that was the whole idea to Godard. He became addicted to breaking the rules, he was a rebellion in the film world portraying nothing but negativity towards the government.
In conclusion i must say that if Godard had the high budgets that just didn’t exist in them times, he would not be saying ‘Fin De Cinema’. I do believe however though that his passion for the ‘French New Wave’ would carry on and that the upbringing he had been a huge factor into what he later became. From a wealthy family you would presume that he would not care about such politics but the fact is Godard was a working class member of society and that no matter how much money he had he would never give in to what people thought of him.
Overall the answer to my question on whether money would have changed Godard, i would without a question in doubt say no. I could acknowledge that half the fun in filmmaking is the improvisation of locations, Actors ans so forth and that ‘The French New Wave’ was a genre of its own.
Sunil chandla CMP 