by Mike Norton
Opening with a shot of a man and a woman at a bar with their backs turned to us establishes the realism of Vivre sa vie right off the bat. That woman is Nana (Anna Karina), an aspiring actress who is about to experience a downward spiral through society that happens in so many character study films. It’s apparent to the viewer here that Nana’s dreams of making it as an actress are just that. By refusing to shoot her in the way a conventional screen actress might be shot in an opening scene, and robbing her of her close up, Godard basically condemns Nana, setting forth her tragic character arch that is portrayed in 12 tableaux throughout the film. Indeed, this is a very self-reflexive film, subtly so, brimming with references to past movies, philosophy, and politics. It’s not as apocalyptic in its reinventing of cinema language as later Godard films would be since here Godard does take a good deal of interest in his main character, making Vivre sa vie one of his most humane films. Yet it’s also meta-reflexive, fascinatingly bringing reality to cinema and creating a new reality out of past cinema, while also showcasing the young auteur’s developing visual style and command over the sound design. If there’s any Godard film that makes for a good entry point in the director’s admittedly distancing filmography, it might be this.
I simply can’t go on with this review without bringing up the obvious- that Godard and Karina were married at the time, and this is their third film together. This is the way a lot of people read the film as personal to Godard, and that opening shot establishing anonymity might be Godard’s way of showing some respect to his wife before sending her character through the social meat grinder, in which her face and frame is explored thoroughly. The film might also be Godard professing his love for Karina in the movies more than Karina in real life. This is the most compelling way to look at the film, but it’s a bit of a hard sell. Still, the Passion of Joan of Arc scene is a major clue, a microism for finding a kindred spirit in cinema and making an emotional connection to what we see on screen. Nana is shown watching Dreyer’s immortal silent film, and her crying face in the movie theater is juxtaposed with Maria Falconetti’s, whose Joan of Arc is going through a similar drama as Nana. Both are essentially powerless and controlled by unseen forces. Is the unseen force controlling Nana the social world of the film’s Paris, or is it Godard? The following scene, in which Nana is interrogated by a police officer, is shot in the same way the scenes in The Passion of Joan of Arc were shot- bright lighting, Karina’s face not quite in the center of the frame, the interrogator off screen. Godard is now demonstrating self-awareness as he orchestrates his Nana through his plot. Another reference in the film that brings attention to Godard’s projecting of his love for Karina through his art is seen when a young man reads Poe’s The Oval Portrait to Nana. While it’s an actor reading the story to Nana in the film, it’s actually Godard’s voice that is dubbed over. In this story, an artist becomes so obsessed with creating a perfect painting of his wife that when he is finished with the painting, he discovers his bride is dead. The metaphor is obvious.
Throughout Vivre sa vie Godard toys with visual style and narrative focus, with several scenes feeling like they were taken from other films entirely. One scene finds Nana in the middle of a seemingly random shootout that spilled out from the street into the café Nana was in. Here Godard uses a series of quick jump cuts, moving across the café emulating machine gun fire. Another scene that feels somewhat out of place is Nana’s playful dancing around the jukebox in a moment of spontaneous joie du vivre, the French term for pure happiness to be alive. In this scene Karina’s dancing comes off as awkward, and it’s important that she is the only person in the room dancing. In a happier film there might be more people joining in with Karina, but instead she only gets cold stares from the men she dances around. Finally, one of the film’s most important scenes, the lengthy conversation Nana has with a philosopher (Brice Parain) in a café, further delves into Nana’s difficulty in finding herself, telling the truth, and yes, living her life. As in the scene with The Oval Portrait, Godard’s presence is felt here behind the camera as he, off camera and unheard, prompts Parain with questions that keep the conversation between Parain and Karina going. Now is also a good time to mention the film’s audacious sound design- everything here was recorded on a single track, with no editing in of sound effects or dubbing later (minus Godard dubbing his own voice in the Oval Portrait Scene). This gives the film a natural feel, with the buzz of life in a café at times drowning out dialogue between two main characters. It also brings up questions on the relationship of the image and sound of cinema. By stripping the image of its artificial soundtrack, Godard brings even more attention to the image, and there is no doubt that Vivre sa vie is a strongly visual film.
The movie begins with a quote that reads “Lend yourself to others but give yourself to yourself”. There are two ways to view this quote- the obvious one is Nana’s prostitution in relation to her moral decomposition. But maybe it’s as about Godard and Karina’s relationship as much as it’s about the main character. Perhaps this is Godard’s way of wishing he could love Karina without placing her in his art, since he is unable to love her while not lending her to others through film. But perhaps I am looking too deeply into their relationship, since Vivre sa vie is can be viewed through a number of different prisms. A tragic character study, a meta reflexive mediation on image through cinema, and yes, a love letter to its creator’s wife are all compelling ways to view this masterpiece.
A film I admire and find fascinating, albeit a bit cold. There are other Godard films I prefer (Le Petit Soldat, Band of Outsiders, Alphaville, Masculin Feminin, La Chinoise, Weekend) but I do own this one and find myself returning to it periodically. Have you read Richard Brody’s Godard bio? It definitely takes up the theme of the director’s films with Karina reflecting their relationship – and while it perhaps exaggerates on that front, it offers a lot of compelling insight.
I knew this wasn’t one of your favorites MovieMan. Personally I think it’s one of Godard’s more accessible films, emotionally direct and romantic. I haven’t read Brody’s bio on the man, but I will have to check it out. He’s one of my favorite writers as of late, and I know he’s a big fan. The angle of viewing Godard’s films through the prism of his relationship to Karina is tempting but oversimplifying it a bit, but VIVRE SA VIE seems to be the easiest and most obvious film to apply this logic to.
Mike, I’m not the biggest Godard fan on the planet, but neither will I attempt to deny that he has made some very great films, a few of which are bonafide masterpieces. An admission of that fact alone would seem to diminish any real problems I have with this director. In any case I know many who consider him the greatest -Joel here is one- and you have done a superlative job again in offering up scholarly analysis of profundity and engagement. Yes that biographical information of Godard and Karenina is vital here, and she does give and unforgettable performance.
Stupendous essay!
Thanks Sam! I do know you aren’t Godard’s biggest support, and I have read many arguments on this very site in which opinion was divided on him. I believe you wrote a negative review on FILM SOCIALISME that sparked a major comment thread on him. He’ can definitely be frustrating at times, but overall I just find him to be an exciting filmmaker, there’s really no one else to compare him to. This one along with BREATHLESS are usually liked even by Godard detractors (although MovieMan, the Godard devotee, proves that even his fans are split on his filmography).
Mike, you’ve certainly done a great job of sorting out many of the aspects that make this film so fascinating and even, at times, moving. For me, the simple opportunity to gaze into Anna Karina’s eyes is reason enough to love this film. And love it, I do. Nana’s identification with the “Passion of Jeanne d’Arc”, her awkward dance around the pool table, or her questing conversation with the philosopher, these are moments I will never tire of. I am one who counts Godard among the greatest of filmmakers and Vivre sa vie among the best of his films.
Thanks Duane, and I totally agree with the statement about Karina’s eyes, even if she’s not quite on Brigitte Bardot’s level (in terms of beauty, not acting) in my humble opinion. Godard may be exploiting her but dammit he knows what he’s doing, haha. I’d love to hear your thoughts on Godard’s other films, since, as demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere, his films draw all kinds of different reactions even from hardcore fans.
First of all, let me say that I consider Godard to be one of the great artists of the 20th century, every bit as important as Picasso or Jackson Pollock or whoever you might choose to name. Godard’s work is always unmistakably and uncompromisingly his own and, if you are open to the challenge, it can change the way you see the world.
Internet movie database lists 115 directorial credits under his name and each one of these works is a part of a whole. The more you see of his complete oeuvre the more important each one becomes. Certainly, some are more accessible than others and some are very difficult, indeed. His detractors complain that his narratives are incoherent, that his characters are not developed, and even that he does not know the rules of cinematic technique. But the fact is, these things do not concern him. He’s not trying to make another Gone with the Wind or even a No Country for Old Men, these things have been done before.
So far, I’ve seen 29 Godard films and I consider them all to be of value, but, of course, I like some better than others. Le Mepris (Contempt) may be his most accessible work and it is my favorite, in fact, it’s my favorite film of all-time. To round out a top five, I also love Vivre sa Vie, Breathless, Eloge de l’amour, and 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her. It is one of my long term projects to see all the Godard I can get my hands on. I still have a long way to go.
I don’t know which is worse, the film’s opening shot (arthouse trope) or the fact that Nana is an anagram for Anna (cuteness). Godard made several masterpieces which explore radical leftism during the sixties and this isn’t one of them (fatally uxorious), but I like your review.