Notre Musique; Jean-Luc Godard, 2004

"As our age has endless destructive force, it now needs a revolution of a comparable creative force that reinforces memory, clarifies dreams, and gives substance to images."

This film absolutely blew me away. When it comes to using film as an original and modern form of Art, rather than a method of entertainment, or a way of visually representing themes or forms of story telling that have already existed for hundreds of years within literature, I have yet to come across a more impressive piece of work.

But before getting into the film, I want to put out a disclaimer. I'm only a novice film buff, and if anyone were to spend time looking through my blog it'll be quite obvious that I'm still very much in the learning stage. Second, I am in no way up to par with my knowledge towards the political conditions of the Mid East, nor the history of the Serbian conflict, nor international literary figures. I bring these points up because I had been hesitant in watching Notre Musique due to what writings I have read about the work focusing upon these issues, and therefore assumed that a strong background on these subjects would be required for watching the film. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I am fairly confident that an over analysis of these topics within Notre Musique would only only run counter to what Godard was attempting to convey to his audience.

I have only watched the film once through, and I now am purposefully providing thoughts based upon that singular viewing as an effort to relay how the film can and, most importantly, should be witnessed at a very basic and simplistic level. From what I do know of Godard, this is very much aligned with his desire to create films that are an 'experience', as opposed to a subject separated from the viewer. Certainly overly analytical and fact-based thinking while watching the film could distract the viewer from the film's potential for this experience.

Now on with the film review:

Notre Musique is arranged to mirror the structure of Dante's Divine Comedy. The first portion, entitled 'Hell', consists of dramatic music played over war footage, both actual and that which has been created for movies. The rhythm and abundant variation of footage creates a visual symphony that entraps the viewer within its aesthetic fragmentation and capturing of real life horrors. The use of both the actual and the fictive, made to mirror historical events, leads the audience to begin to question how war and violence should be understood, how we should relate to the acts, and what our reactions to war and violence should involve.

The second part, Purgatory, is where I think most people get lost with the film and attempt to make it something that it is not. It involves a modern day, international literary conference in Sarajevo. Scenes begin with people in the middle of conversations that discuss the aftermath of the Serbian conflict, conditions within the mid East, and suggestiveness of a new form of violence facing the world, that being terrorism. Conversations then also involve thoughts on art, revolutions, libraries and cinema. And, of course, there is also the occasional American Indian appearing in the back ground, an image found in other Godard works.

The key to experiencing this portion of the film is to still view it with the same mind set as the first portion. These scenes and segments are meant to act as a visual collage of ideas and images. Many of the conversations are not meant to be fully understood, but to be viewed as concepts within our modern world, the scene itself then becoming an 'image'. My favorite cue Godard utilizes would be with two scenes at an airport where there is discussion towards the Mid East. On a sign or board the shot contains an inconspicuous glowing yellow-green question mark. Indeed! What are they talking about? While the viewer might have a general idea, there also exists the potential for an emotional reaction from watching a scene consisting of two people discussing the Mid East within an airport setting, for obvious reasons.

As indicated, this middle portion of the film contains just as many political scenes as it does scenes concerning art, poetics and cinema. This provides an indication of how an interpretation of the political and horrific can be made with the use of images and the creative process. The importance of this concept is set up towards the beginning of the section where there is a discussion as to what it means to relate to violence with the 'terrors' that can be inflicted upon people's attitudes and understandings. At its worst, this can lead to violence begetting more violence. A frightening (and historically true) concept, and one Godard hopes to battle against by replacing our relationship to violence with the creative process, the building blocks of which are found within the 'image' and art.

The final section, Paradise, is the shortest and most abstract. One of the few actual characters of the film finds herself in a separate world which contains natural beauty, wire fencing, some men with guns, and younger people dancing and playing along a shoreline. How she got there, I can't go into without giving away a 'spoiler', and due to Godard wanting the film to be experienced, I will not explain much further. However, I can say that this new land which the character finds herself within is still one of limitation, but she herself has been able to travel much further, to a better place because of her reliance upon creative knowledge.

If anyone has made it this far through the post, I am flattered because I'm afraid I'm not explaining the film very well. But honestly, verbal explanation is inherently limited because after all, this is an Art form and meant to be related to at an intuitive level, as opposed to a factual.

I will admit that there is another whole side to the film that provides an intellectual depth, with many concepts that could be explored and discussed, and meant to be done so at great lengths. And certainly a factual knowledge of some of the film's subjects, as well as Godard's film making process and theories, would add to this form of understanding. If you want an exellent outline of the intellectual depth to the film, just read this. But, the intent of my post is not to go into those areas of interpretation. Instead I have hoped to clarify how Godard had every intention to have his audience experience the film through the creative process, and in turn, to relate to its real life subject matter in the same method, which would occur if the film is in fact EXPERIENCED as opposed to merely understood.

While not intending to contradict myself, I would like to point out one piece of factual knowledge that most might not be aware of. One of the American Indians within the film is a woman, and while not 100% sure, my wife pointed out that she looks exactly like an Indian woman in a famous photograph of a November, 1972 protest which involved the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Washington, D.C., part of the American Indian Movement. Most of the other people are sitting down, but she is standing up with an American flag wrapped around herself. Despite 30 years of aging, the facial structure remains the same, which makes us believe that it is the same woman.