The 1960s were a pivotal time in cinema, in which auteurs like Jean-Luc Godard began pushing boundaries in filmmaking and redefining film as an art form. The new focus on cinema as art in contrast to the commercialized formulaic Hollywood films created what theorist Timothy Leary would call “new realities.” Rather than simply entertain, 1960s New Wave movies pushed audiences to engage in their own odyssey of sorts, by challenging viewers to engage in these new realities. From new visual effects to unconventional editing techniques, 1960s films defied accepted notions of reality and instead, from Leary’s neurological perspective, “released potentialities for brain growth, that carried man into a new world where the old laws no longer held.” The 1960s sent film audiences on an odyssey to redefine their cinematic “home” and to experience new realities through film. Important examples of this odyssey journey can be found in the classic 1960s movies, Contempt, Daisies, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Jean-Luc Godard’s work is an example of unconventional filmmaking that pushes boundaries. Breaking from the norm, his films expose “his angry attacks on the status quo… [his] flat poster-like characters that allow him to play out numerous variations on the theme of ‘man as a victim of cancerous social mechanisms’” (Chytilová 131). The endlessly real time half-hour long argument is at the center of the film Le Mépris (1963), and while many find this scene unbearable, it is pivotal to understanding Godard’s attempt to display his “attack on the status quo”. Paul and Camille’s incessant bickering feels flat and does not particularly extend into any one direction. The subject matter swings back and forth far too quickly for the partners to deeply focus and understand one topic. The nitpicking of the argument is childish as they search for any further opportunity to attack. The fight escalates and ultimately ends at the point where Camille turns from her husband with a grimace and leaves simply exclaiming “I despise you!” The whole scene lacks any sense of depth. The characters feel “flat” as they do not particularly express any real connection with the subject matter. While they move about the apartment dramatically and even violently, it feels superficial. Additionally, after Camille has stormed out, Paul grabs his gun; however, the gun’s presence essentially disappears after this scene. Both acting on impulse but they do not follow up, so it again leads to nowhere.
Godard’s use of real time is vital for his attempt to break the conventional system of Hollywood editing and scripting, but it does cause the audience to feel uncomfortable and unsure of what is occurring on screen. It is too long and dull for the audience to really enjoy and may even lose their attention; however, this technique is what is necessary for the audience to understand that not all “realities” are what is portrayed in Hollywood. Hollywood “realities” are idealized and fit together seamlessly. But in actuality, most do not, or rather ours does not. Godard wants to expose this other reality to audience in order to bring attention to our actual reality, where there is no perfect script for us to follow. When put in combination with the superficiality of the scene, Godard’s view of our society today is exhibited on screen within a new reality. Not just ours, not just Hollywood’s, but rather a whole new reality in combination altogether, potentially being called Godard’s reality.
Chytilová’s Daisies (1966) takes an alternative route from Godard. Rather than the characters being subjected to the nature of the times, Chytilová’s characters decide to break all the rules, to “personify negative qualities deserving public criticism… portray[ing] the relationship between the individual and society… In a world in which everyone blames society… for the deforming and manipulations of the ordinary citizen, [thus] Chytilová stubbornly attacks the individual” (Chytilová 131). In the opening sequence of Daisies, the two girls ask the fundamental question, “What can we do?” As the two interact, they move jaggedly synchronized with creaking sounds. They move as is they are marionettes being controlled or watched by another force, society. Being bored and confined, they begin to question what is going on in society, that “Everything’s going bad in this world.” They suddenly get that idea that “If everything’s going bad, so we’re going bad as well!” When they decide to break the rules, they reach a great range of motion, leap up from their seated positions, and break free of the black and white world into color. However, instantly before this transition, it is asked “Does it matter?,” only to have the quick response, “It doesn’t matter.”
This highly stylized manner of the film immediately causes the audience to become exposed to this new “reality”. The film forces the audience to no longer “rely on a knowledge of reality since the artistic design… creates a gap between the films and any recognizable environment” (Chytilová 130). Chytilová’s separation from our reality springs the audience into another, while rather than alienating them, they are included as “the film will demand the audience’s interpretative participation“ (Chytilová 130). As Chytilová’s girls run freely throughout their reality, they create disruption and chaos around them everywhere they go, all while uncaring of the repercussions of their actions. The ridiculous nature of the girls in combination with the stylized environment created on screen accumulates into this extreme experience equivalated to the chaotic environment of the 1960’s. Chytilová points to how if the individual continues this “lack of conscience” like the girls, then only chaos will continue; thus, “positive changes can only occur in society when each individual stops excusing his behavior ‘because of circumstances’” (Chytilová 131). As the audience has become involved in this highly visceral experience on screen, they cannot help but begin to feel included in this chaos as they have watched it without acting. Thus, to make up for their inaction, they must do what they can and change their own behavior for the better.
Finally, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey sends audiences on a literal journey through space and time. When directly asked the message of 2001, he answered “It’s not a message that I ever intend to convey in words. 2001 is a nonverbal experience; out of two house and nineteen minutes of film, there are only a little less than forty minutes of dialogue. I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophic content. To convolute McLuhan, in 2001 the message is the medium. I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness…” The inner level of consciousness Kubrick describes is reminiscent of what Leary describes as opening up the brain for new realities. The viewer of 2001: A Space Odyssey not only accompanies Bowman and Hal on a literal journey through space and time, but also a subconscious one that allows them to question 2001’s relevance to their own lives, for example the existence of life outside Earth or the rapid pace of technological progress. In fact the ending of 2001 could almost be seen as reference to this journey that the audience has gone through. Bowman, transformed into the star child, looks back on his home from his new, transformed perspective. In a similar manner audiences of 2001 a many 1960s New Wave films in general could perhaps look back on their cinematic odyssey from a slightly more enlightened state. Perhaps 1960s films themselves could be seen as monoliths, spurring cinema into new directions, and sending audiences to new places.
These three vastly different 1960s films expose audiences to a Leary-esque “new reality”, one that defies the conventional realities so commonly seen in Hollywood commercial films. This concept of a new reality invokes the idea of an odyssey in which audiences embark on journeys to discover and embrace new meanings and significance in film. The 1960s New Wave was a movement that invited auteurs to push limits and boundaries in filmmaking, and in doing so they pushed audiences to redefine their concept of film as an art and a medium, and to journey to this new “home” in cinema.
References:
Chytilová, Vera. “Daisies.” The Cinema of Central Europe. London: Wallflower Press, 2004. 129-136. Print.
Nordern, Eric. “Playboy Interview: Stanley Kubrick.” Stanley Kubrick: Interviews. Ed. Gene D. Phillips. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi, 2001. 47-74. Print.
Leary, Timothy. “American Education as an Addictive Process and its Cure.” Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out. Berkeley: Ronin Publishing Inc, 1999. 17-33. Print.