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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.
No comments:
Post a Comment