Nathan 1La Chinoise - Mao! Mao!
La Chinoise is a commentary by Jean-Luc Godard on the social uprisings of the 1960s including the Cultural Revolution instigated by Mao Zedong; the (yet to happen) student riots in Paris as well as America’s involvement in the Vietnam War; seen through the lives of five unique, student communist revolutionaries (Guillaume, Veronique, Henri, Yvonne and Serge) who decide to open their own subversive “Red Guard” school in the apartment of some wealthy bourgeoisie people.
La Chinoise was released in 1967, almost with a sense of immediacy given that the Paris student riots were to occur the following year. It seems almost to be a premonition of the revolts of students who with indignation at the class discrimination and a politically controlled education system, marched into anarchy in an attempt to bring down the De Gaulle government using Maoist, Marxist teachings as a tool for destruction. It was a movement responsible for more liberal institutions of equality, sexuality and human rights replacing the more reactionary, religious and patriotic ones.
“We should replace vague words with clear images” says the first slogan of the film that is written on the wall of what looks to be a found art exhibit of a dining room in a bourgeois household. Later in the film we discover it is the place where Guillaume Meister and Veronique sit to drink tea and relax, whilst discussing their plans. It seems to juxtapose the comfort that these rebels enjoy whilst trying to scheme revolutions. One running theme of La Chinoise is the lack of comprehension that these “kids” have when it comes to the implementation of a strategy in the real world, given their lack of real experience and disconnection from the working class who they are fighting for. These are ultimately insurgent enthusiasts from bourgeoisie backgrounds. However the slogan that is written is one that summarizes Godard’s filmmaking approach, most evidently in the editing, in La Chinoise. Much of the speech coming from these students is extremely convoluted as they will intertwine politics, poetry, philosophy, science (and more) which causes them to lose sight of where they are coming from. This is why I think Godard uses montage lavishly here, more so than I have seem him do in any other film. He uses rapid cuts between successive images of everything from pop art, propaganda art, historical photos, mug-shots of demagogues, comic book superheroes, newspaper clippings, his characters own reenactments of historical events using costumes and toy guns etc. The soundtrack ranges from machine gun fire to cut between a juxtaposed image of Sgt Fury and Captain America with a close up of Batman; suggesting Captain America’s likeness to American Imperialism compared to the more vigilante and defiant approach of Batman (who is being compared to the students maybe?); to classical pieces by Vivaldi and even a delicious propaganda pop song called “Mao Mao”, which is used to usher in the second “Movement” of the film and acts as a personal reintroduction of Veronique who we see studying over a passage of time through jump cuts, whilst her environment changes. The song seems to be like a soundtrack to her personality; to her absolute surrender to Maoist thought as by this point in the film, Veronique has replaced the once eclectic range of books that were in the library, solely with copious volumes of Mao’s red book. Like the library, Veronique’s thinking will become more streamlined and conform to one solution, as she becomes more fanatical in her ideas about the revolution.
Guillaume Meister is named after Wilhelm Meister a character in a novel by Goethe who reaches a state of enlightenment after failed attempts at theatre and a desire to escape the empty life of a bourgeoisie businessman. The Bildungsroman sensibilities are seen through Guillaume as well as the other students, initially as they move away from conformity and a conflict is established in them versus society. For Guillaume it is was avoiding becoming like his parents (his father runs a holiday resort designed as though it were a concentration camp; seems to me like a valid driving reason to be there), for Veronique it was educating herself on Marxism, for Yvonne it was emancipation and for Henri it was peace (consequently splitting away from the group that would begin to adhere to fundamentalist ideals). At the beginning of the film Henri proposes that in order for a mass revolution to be possible they need to create a revolution that is subjective and objective; one that suits the individual and the greater good. The working class can’t go in guns blazing expecting the bourgeoisie to relinquish power. They all go through a grueling process of trying to place themselves within a Maoist social order to eventually letting go of this desire and becoming a worker of some sort.
The students of La Chinoise have designed their own school which they have put together in the bourgeoisie apartment of a friend’s parents. Whatever the cause, you have to admire the way they have made the environment their own through the sloppily painted red and blue doors, the slogans written over the walls, the pinups of Maoist communist art and philosophers, the chalkboards they have erected and the hundreds of copies of Mao’s Little Red Book, heaped in piles or stacked on shelves. There is something very exciting about this idea of independent education that incites the viewer to want to join them, as they take turns to teach lectures to each other, holding the attention and respect of the group as though they were an actual professor. This setup seems to be inspired by a young Mao who had a limited education and so spent much time studying independently. Each student (except Serge for some reason) also gets their own interview similar to that of Masculine Feminine whereby they are asked about their backgrounds, of which seem to be an important factor of the film as each character comes from a unique one and whatever it is seems to have bearing on the roles they take in the group. The interviews seem to be something of a reprieve from the otherwise fast paced nature of the film (due mostly to the quick montage and rapid explanations of complex ideas), and give us an insight into the character allowing us to put their political beliefs in some sort of context. Each interviewee is questioned in an environment or with a background suited to their personality.
Behind Guillaume during his interview, is a blackboard and in one corner of it is a large newspaper clipping about Mao and on the other an illustration sketch of another hero of his (possibly Lenin); showing his Maoist tendencies and artistic streak (for he is an actor). He is the character most passionate about the arts (most notably theatre and poetry) and how it reflects life; with his lecture being theatrically themed and extremely droll and compelling to watch. In his interview he recounts an incident that occurred when a Chinaman used theatrics to convey theatre as a reflection of reality like that of Brecht or Shakespeare, but that it was misconstrued by the media. He sees himself as a theatrical tool used in a play of global proportions. He is a vessel, just as the Chinaman in his story was and is imbued with the flair for poetry and philosophy that Mao himself possessed.
When it is his turn to teach the lecture he begins by discussing films that were created as fantasies and by the imagination (George Melies) versus films that documented real life (The Lumiere Brothers) and how it was the former who made films that reflected current events more than the Lumieres even though his were only reenactments. However, like Melies reenactments, Godard’s prove to be the most striking section of the film, as we are confronted with a childlike rendition (using toys and costumes) of a war that has cost thousands of lives. Coming from the second part of his lecture Guillaume discusses the Vietnam war problem, describing the American’s as the actors in a play that was staged there. From a set of five multicolored novelty sunglasses on his desk he picks up the white pair (white America) and puts them on, revealing that each lens has been painted over with the stars and stripes. He proceeds to pick up each pair, (each representing the countries of Russia, China, England and France) giving a pithy explanation of the actions taken by that country. After a pupil asks if Vietnam was an actor, Guillaume clicks his fingers at the screen and the scene cuts to Yvonne dressed as a Vietnamese soldier eating (rice?) from a bowl with chopsticks, stood in front of a mural of a tiger standing on a petrol dispenser that has been renamed napalm whilst a pair of delta daggers dangle from the ceiling by string about to attack the unsuspecting victim. Following this is a clever montage of comic book superheroes; Yvonne barricaded behind a fortress of Mao’s Little Red Books (despite being in fear of the communist North), shooting with a toy radio that holds a dual purpose by being able to morph into a gun; a picture of a giant red hand clenched into a fist and squeezing the life out of a US soldier and then back to Yvonne who turns the gun back into a radio which tells of the ten puppet soldiers that have been killed and captured. The entire reenactment speaks volumes about Godard’s intentions and his opinions of American Imperialism. How the entire war effort was just a farce, akin to a theatrical play of which the latter would have probably had more reliable information than the lines that were given to US troops to convince them that their participation was for a worthy cause. His doubling up of the radio as a weapon seems to show his distrust of the media and especially wartime propaganda broadcasts such as the “Radio Peking” one he uses in the film. During the lecture Godard uses Guillaume to stab at the revisionism of the Soviet Union. He does this by suggesting that communism is split into two types; dangerous and non-dangerous. The Soviet’s became less dangerous once they revised their Marxist beliefs to conform more with America’s ideals and so America “thanked” them by helping them institutionalize and industrialize Europe, whist concurrently bombing Vietnam because their form of communism posed to much of a “threat”.
Behind Yvonne during her interview is a sky blue wall (nature, the fact she used to work under open skies all day) with two very small newspaper cut-outs; the headline of the one at the forefront reading “La Paysanne Francaise Aujourdhui” meaning “The French Countrywoman Today”. She is a simple, uneducated but hard working young woman who grew up on a farm where she would have to wake up at the crack of dawn to light fires, milk cows, clean stables etc. Despite her difficult life she is content, being the most easy-going of the group. She has gone from one hard job to another (farmer, cleaner, prostitute) and is the most working class of all, yet the least bothered by how exploited she has been. During her interview Godard uses classical music to distinguish her new found “freedom” with her student activist buddies from her labored jobs; when she talks about the former the music starts but then abruptly stops when she starts talking of her old labored life. However, even in this communist sect she has joined she is still stuck washing the pots, serving tea and shining shoes whilst the others are learning. Like the model in Masculine Feminine, when asked for political definitions she is stuck for words. She seems to represent the imbalance of knowledge and hard labor that exists in the class struggle. In order to back a successful political idea you must know your external world and interact with it. Oddly enough it seems it is Yvonne who has all the real life experience yet none of the power and it is Veronique and Guillaume who are the most disconnected from reality that seem to be leading.
Veronique is interviewed in their library with books surrounding her, the most prominent one that looms above her head being that on Marxist-Leninist theory. As we are introduced into her dialogue a picture of Alice (from Alice in Wonderland) peeking behind a curtain pops up with Veronique saying “what made me discover Marxism”, suggesting she holds a curiosity to that of her fictional counterpart. Though just before this scene we are shown the cold realities of weathered farmland (like Yvonne’s home) and an industrial site with the current student “Professor” saying we must not use our imaginations but look to the laws that govern life that act as guides for answers. Godard is creating one of many contradictions for his characters by suggesting this and then setting up Veronique’s dialogue and juxtaposing her with the picture of Alice. Furthermore it seems to be Yvonne who is key in understanding reality yet ironically nobody takes much notice of her. Veronique explains how she started to look into Marxism as Nanterre bored her because of the surrounding slums. She describes herself as belonging to the philosophy “class”, covering both her position as a philosophy class teacher and part of a class in the social hierarchy. Veronique is disdainful of the gentle approach that art takes and says she would love to bomb Le Louvre if she had the guts. Despite her acknowledgment of the difficulties in life, her upbringing has been very different from Yvonne’s as Veronique says of how she is disconnected from the working class as she grew up in a family of bankers. Moreover, the subsequent scene shows her and Guillaume sitting in the dining room like a lady and lord at the table drinking tea from what looks like fine china. Through these contradictions is Godard suggesting that the comfort that these students enjoy holding them back from any real understanding just like the politicians and clergy who spoke about human liberation, but did so from the chains of reactionary dogmas.
Veronique has a problem with teaching and institutions and seems to be an embodiment of the spirit of the Red Guard and 1968 riots; though she does proclaim to be a teacher herself. Her disgust at the university system is like that of Private Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) in Platoon. Both of these characters come from bourgeois backgrounds and both want to get their hands dirty. After doing a stint picking some peaches, Veronique came to the realization of the importance of empirical experience. Taylor dropped out of university so that he could make an actual difference by fighting side by side in Vietnam with a platoon of average Joe proletariats. Veronique says of how the only reason she passed her exams in the first place was because of the manual labor she put in picking peaches the term before. When she took exams without this experience she failed. So the message of the film continues that a balance is needed. A point needs to be reached were proletariat and bourgeois lifestyles converge and transcend to another class. In order to feel like education is a worthwhile thing the student must interact with reality as well to put their knowledge into a practical context. This is why her conclusion of wanting to bomb the university is ludicrous; not because it can’t be done, but because she has neither the resources nor the practical ability to pull off such a feat. She has no conception of the consequences of her actions because she has been living in a world free from consequences; filling her mind with communist mono-political solutions, that don’t take the fact that she is living in a capitalist society, into account. The communist system isn’t necessarily more ethical than the capitalist one; it’s not as simple as China good, America bad; as “class struggle doesn't disappear under proletarian dictatorship. It takes on other forms.” Like the character of Veronique, Mao also faced almost identical frustrations. Whilst working (not studying) at the Peking University he developed his “violent revolution” theory which seems to have inspired Veronique’s violent conclusion, as he proposed to subvert imperialism and feudalism using proletariat violence under the supervision of the communist party. Unfortunately like Veronique, the industrial workers who would make up these proletariat insurgents made up only a small portion of the Chinese population and so he couldn’t feasibly succeed. During the rendezvous with her old professor in which these issues arise, he tells her that the lessons she has learnt from the situation in China are abstract, which I would say sums up Godard’s own creation well. After all, the film has documented from start to finish a group of self proclaimed communist students who have made their own classroom, take turns in lecturing, put up pinups and pictures of their idols all of which has been sporadically put together through a hodgepodge of montages and ridiculous reenactments. The lessons the viewer learns are just as abstract as those learnt by the students.
Henri’s dialogue takes place after he has been excluded from the group for not agreeing to vote for an act of terrorism. As the film develops it is Henri who becomes the embodiment of the compromise that the message of the film is striving for. He is both the proletariat (showed by his romantic pairing with Yvonne) and the bourgeoisie (emphasized by his intellect). He is the pacifist (the only true political stance worth anything) and explains how his new plans involve finding work in a laboratory and then joining another communist group.
La Chinoise is full of socio-political rhetoric that at times just goes on and on, jumping from one topic to another or one notion to the next, sometimes without any means of bridging the two. The use of montage, as well as enforcing Godard’s speeches, helps to break them up and has the affect on the viewer of being slapped round the face by a giant orange hand, whilst simultaneously having a raving ex-bank teller with a green face give you a power wedgie. For the politically inept like myself I would still very much recommend this film because as with all Godard films, the performances are hypnotizing, the editing as I have played down is relentless and the use of metaphors to expose contradictions, provides sharp satire at the expense of our student heroes.
The Players:
Guillaume: Jean-Pierre Leaud
Veronique: Anne Wiazemsky
Henri: Michel Semeniako
Yvonne: Juliet Berto
Serge: Lex de Bruijn
La Chinoise was released in 1967, almost with a sense of immediacy given that the Paris student riots were to occur the following year. It seems almost to be a premonition of the revolts of students who with indignation at the class discrimination and a politically controlled education system, marched into anarchy in an attempt to bring down the De Gaulle government using Maoist, Marxist teachings as a tool for destruction. It was a movement responsible for more liberal institutions of equality, sexuality and human rights replacing the more reactionary, religious and patriotic ones.
La Chinoise Poster
“We should replace vague words with clear images” says the first slogan of the film that is written on the wall of what looks to be a found art exhibit of a dining room in a bourgeois household. Later in the film we discover it is the place where Guillaume Meister and Veronique sit to drink tea and relax, whilst discussing their plans. It seems to juxtapose the comfort that these rebels enjoy whilst trying to scheme revolutions. One running theme of La Chinoise is the lack of comprehension that these “kids” have when it comes to the implementation of a strategy in the real world, given their lack of real experience and disconnection from the working class who they are fighting for. These are ultimately insurgent enthusiasts from bourgeoisie backgrounds. However the slogan that is written is one that summarizes Godard’s filmmaking approach, most evidently in the editing, in La Chinoise. Much of the speech coming from these students is extremely convoluted as they will intertwine politics, poetry, philosophy, science (and more) which causes them to lose sight of where they are coming from. This is why I think Godard uses montage lavishly here, more so than I have seem him do in any other film. He uses rapid cuts between successive images of everything from pop art, propaganda art, historical photos, mug-shots of demagogues, comic book superheroes, newspaper clippings, his characters own reenactments of historical events using costumes and toy guns etc. The soundtrack ranges from machine gun fire to cut between a juxtaposed image of Sgt Fury and Captain America with a close up of Batman; suggesting Captain America’s likeness to American Imperialism compared to the more vigilante and defiant approach of Batman (who is being compared to the students maybe?); to classical pieces by Vivaldi and even a delicious propaganda pop song called “Mao Mao”, which is used to usher in the second “Movement” of the film and acts as a personal reintroduction of Veronique who we see studying over a passage of time through jump cuts, whilst her environment changes. The song seems to be like a soundtrack to her personality; to her absolute surrender to Maoist thought as by this point in the film, Veronique has replaced the once eclectic range of books that were in the library, solely with copious volumes of Mao’s red book. Like the library, Veronique’s thinking will become more streamlined and conform to one solution, as she becomes more fanatical in her ideas about the revolution.
Guillaume Meister is named after Wilhelm Meister a character in a novel by Goethe who reaches a state of enlightenment after failed attempts at theatre and a desire to escape the empty life of a bourgeoisie businessman. The Bildungsroman sensibilities are seen through Guillaume as well as the other students, initially as they move away from conformity and a conflict is established in them versus society. For Guillaume it is was avoiding becoming like his parents (his father runs a holiday resort designed as though it were a concentration camp; seems to me like a valid driving reason to be there), for Veronique it was educating herself on Marxism, for Yvonne it was emancipation and for Henri it was peace (consequently splitting away from the group that would begin to adhere to fundamentalist ideals). At the beginning of the film Henri proposes that in order for a mass revolution to be possible they need to create a revolution that is subjective and objective; one that suits the individual and the greater good. The working class can’t go in guns blazing expecting the bourgeoisie to relinquish power. They all go through a grueling process of trying to place themselves within a Maoist social order to eventually letting go of this desire and becoming a worker of some sort.
we should replace vague words with clear images
The students of La Chinoise have designed their own school which they have put together in the bourgeoisie apartment of a friend’s parents. Whatever the cause, you have to admire the way they have made the environment their own through the sloppily painted red and blue doors, the slogans written over the walls, the pinups of Maoist communist art and philosophers, the chalkboards they have erected and the hundreds of copies of Mao’s Little Red Book, heaped in piles or stacked on shelves. There is something very exciting about this idea of independent education that incites the viewer to want to join them, as they take turns to teach lectures to each other, holding the attention and respect of the group as though they were an actual professor. This setup seems to be inspired by a young Mao who had a limited education and so spent much time studying independently. Each student (except Serge for some reason) also gets their own interview similar to that of Masculine Feminine whereby they are asked about their backgrounds, of which seem to be an important factor of the film as each character comes from a unique one and whatever it is seems to have bearing on the roles they take in the group. The interviews seem to be something of a reprieve from the otherwise fast paced nature of the film (due mostly to the quick montage and rapid explanations of complex ideas), and give us an insight into the character allowing us to put their political beliefs in some sort of context. Each interviewee is questioned in an environment or with a background suited to their personality.
Behind Guillaume during his interview, is a blackboard and in one corner of it is a large newspaper clipping about Mao and on the other an illustration sketch of another hero of his (possibly Lenin); showing his Maoist tendencies and artistic streak (for he is an actor). He is the character most passionate about the arts (most notably theatre and poetry) and how it reflects life; with his lecture being theatrically themed and extremely droll and compelling to watch. In his interview he recounts an incident that occurred when a Chinaman used theatrics to convey theatre as a reflection of reality like that of Brecht or Shakespeare, but that it was misconstrued by the media. He sees himself as a theatrical tool used in a play of global proportions. He is a vessel, just as the Chinaman in his story was and is imbued with the flair for poetry and philosophy that Mao himself possessed.
When it is his turn to teach the lecture he begins by discussing films that were created as fantasies and by the imagination (George Melies) versus films that documented real life (The Lumiere Brothers) and how it was the former who made films that reflected current events more than the Lumieres even though his were only reenactments. However, like Melies reenactments, Godard’s prove to be the most striking section of the film, as we are confronted with a childlike rendition (using toys and costumes) of a war that has cost thousands of lives. Coming from the second part of his lecture Guillaume discusses the Vietnam war problem, describing the American’s as the actors in a play that was staged there. From a set of five multicolored novelty sunglasses on his desk he picks up the white pair (white America) and puts them on, revealing that each lens has been painted over with the stars and stripes. He proceeds to pick up each pair, (each representing the countries of Russia, China, England and France) giving a pithy explanation of the actions taken by that country. After a pupil asks if Vietnam was an actor, Guillaume clicks his fingers at the screen and the scene cuts to Yvonne dressed as a Vietnamese soldier eating (rice?) from a bowl with chopsticks, stood in front of a mural of a tiger standing on a petrol dispenser that has been renamed napalm whilst a pair of delta daggers dangle from the ceiling by string about to attack the unsuspecting victim. Following this is a clever montage of comic book superheroes; Yvonne barricaded behind a fortress of Mao’s Little Red Books (despite being in fear of the communist North), shooting with a toy radio that holds a dual purpose by being able to morph into a gun; a picture of a giant red hand clenched into a fist and squeezing the life out of a US soldier and then back to Yvonne who turns the gun back into a radio which tells of the ten puppet soldiers that have been killed and captured. The entire reenactment speaks volumes about Godard’s intentions and his opinions of American Imperialism. How the entire war effort was just a farce, akin to a theatrical play of which the latter would have probably had more reliable information than the lines that were given to US troops to convince them that their participation was for a worthy cause. His doubling up of the radio as a weapon seems to show his distrust of the media and especially wartime propaganda broadcasts such as the “Radio Peking” one he uses in the film. During the lecture Godard uses Guillaume to stab at the revisionism of the Soviet Union. He does this by suggesting that communism is split into two types; dangerous and non-dangerous. The Soviet’s became less dangerous once they revised their Marxist beliefs to conform more with America’s ideals and so America “thanked” them by helping them institutionalize and industrialize Europe, whist concurrently bombing Vietnam because their form of communism posed to much of a “threat”.
Yvonne chowing down before the big push
Behind Yvonne during her interview is a sky blue wall (nature, the fact she used to work under open skies all day) with two very small newspaper cut-outs; the headline of the one at the forefront reading “La Paysanne Francaise Aujourdhui” meaning “The French Countrywoman Today”. She is a simple, uneducated but hard working young woman who grew up on a farm where she would have to wake up at the crack of dawn to light fires, milk cows, clean stables etc. Despite her difficult life she is content, being the most easy-going of the group. She has gone from one hard job to another (farmer, cleaner, prostitute) and is the most working class of all, yet the least bothered by how exploited she has been. During her interview Godard uses classical music to distinguish her new found “freedom” with her student activist buddies from her labored jobs; when she talks about the former the music starts but then abruptly stops when she starts talking of her old labored life. However, even in this communist sect she has joined she is still stuck washing the pots, serving tea and shining shoes whilst the others are learning. Like the model in Masculine Feminine, when asked for political definitions she is stuck for words. She seems to represent the imbalance of knowledge and hard labor that exists in the class struggle. In order to back a successful political idea you must know your external world and interact with it. Oddly enough it seems it is Yvonne who has all the real life experience yet none of the power and it is Veronique and Guillaume who are the most disconnected from reality that seem to be leading.
Veronique is interviewed in their library with books surrounding her, the most prominent one that looms above her head being that on Marxist-Leninist theory. As we are introduced into her dialogue a picture of Alice (from Alice in Wonderland) peeking behind a curtain pops up with Veronique saying “what made me discover Marxism”, suggesting she holds a curiosity to that of her fictional counterpart. Though just before this scene we are shown the cold realities of weathered farmland (like Yvonne’s home) and an industrial site with the current student “Professor” saying we must not use our imaginations but look to the laws that govern life that act as guides for answers. Godard is creating one of many contradictions for his characters by suggesting this and then setting up Veronique’s dialogue and juxtaposing her with the picture of Alice. Furthermore it seems to be Yvonne who is key in understanding reality yet ironically nobody takes much notice of her. Veronique explains how she started to look into Marxism as Nanterre bored her because of the surrounding slums. She describes herself as belonging to the philosophy “class”, covering both her position as a philosophy class teacher and part of a class in the social hierarchy. Veronique is disdainful of the gentle approach that art takes and says she would love to bomb Le Louvre if she had the guts. Despite her acknowledgment of the difficulties in life, her upbringing has been very different from Yvonne’s as Veronique says of how she is disconnected from the working class as she grew up in a family of bankers. Moreover, the subsequent scene shows her and Guillaume sitting in the dining room like a lady and lord at the table drinking tea from what looks like fine china. Through these contradictions is Godard suggesting that the comfort that these students enjoy holding them back from any real understanding just like the politicians and clergy who spoke about human liberation, but did so from the chains of reactionary dogmas.
I'll protect you from those dastardly philosophers my sweet
Veronique has a problem with teaching and institutions and seems to be an embodiment of the spirit of the Red Guard and 1968 riots; though she does proclaim to be a teacher herself. Her disgust at the university system is like that of Private Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) in Platoon. Both of these characters come from bourgeois backgrounds and both want to get their hands dirty. After doing a stint picking some peaches, Veronique came to the realization of the importance of empirical experience. Taylor dropped out of university so that he could make an actual difference by fighting side by side in Vietnam with a platoon of average Joe proletariats. Veronique says of how the only reason she passed her exams in the first place was because of the manual labor she put in picking peaches the term before. When she took exams without this experience she failed. So the message of the film continues that a balance is needed. A point needs to be reached were proletariat and bourgeois lifestyles converge and transcend to another class. In order to feel like education is a worthwhile thing the student must interact with reality as well to put their knowledge into a practical context. This is why her conclusion of wanting to bomb the university is ludicrous; not because it can’t be done, but because she has neither the resources nor the practical ability to pull off such a feat. She has no conception of the consequences of her actions because she has been living in a world free from consequences; filling her mind with communist mono-political solutions, that don’t take the fact that she is living in a capitalist society, into account. The communist system isn’t necessarily more ethical than the capitalist one; it’s not as simple as China good, America bad; as “class struggle doesn't disappear under proletarian dictatorship. It takes on other forms.” Like the character of Veronique, Mao also faced almost identical frustrations. Whilst working (not studying) at the Peking University he developed his “violent revolution” theory which seems to have inspired Veronique’s violent conclusion, as he proposed to subvert imperialism and feudalism using proletariat violence under the supervision of the communist party. Unfortunately like Veronique, the industrial workers who would make up these proletariat insurgents made up only a small portion of the Chinese population and so he couldn’t feasibly succeed. During the rendezvous with her old professor in which these issues arise, he tells her that the lessons she has learnt from the situation in China are abstract, which I would say sums up Godard’s own creation well. After all, the film has documented from start to finish a group of self proclaimed communist students who have made their own classroom, take turns in lecturing, put up pinups and pictures of their idols all of which has been sporadically put together through a hodgepodge of montages and ridiculous reenactments. The lessons the viewer learns are just as abstract as those learnt by the students.
Henri’s dialogue takes place after he has been excluded from the group for not agreeing to vote for an act of terrorism. As the film develops it is Henri who becomes the embodiment of the compromise that the message of the film is striving for. He is both the proletariat (showed by his romantic pairing with Yvonne) and the bourgeoisie (emphasized by his intellect). He is the pacifist (the only true political stance worth anything) and explains how his new plans involve finding work in a laboratory and then joining another communist group.
La Chinoise is full of socio-political rhetoric that at times just goes on and on, jumping from one topic to another or one notion to the next, sometimes without any means of bridging the two. The use of montage, as well as enforcing Godard’s speeches, helps to break them up and has the affect on the viewer of being slapped round the face by a giant orange hand, whilst simultaneously having a raving ex-bank teller with a green face give you a power wedgie. For the politically inept like myself I would still very much recommend this film because as with all Godard films, the performances are hypnotizing, the editing as I have played down is relentless and the use of metaphors to expose contradictions, provides sharp satire at the expense of our student heroes.
The Players:
Guillaume: Jean-Pierre Leaud
Veronique: Anne Wiazemsky
Henri: Michel Semeniako
Yvonne: Juliet Berto
Serge: Lex de Bruijn
 Add Comments
|
Shared on
|
Comments (5)
Read More
