Untitled - Monoskop

Interview with Jean-Luc Godard
I made them before by writing criticism, and if I had to return to criticism,
it would be a way of going on making films. It is true that things are different
depending on whether you do or do not like preparing your films. If you
need to prepare, then you have to prepare very carefully, and the danger is
that the cinema may become detached and exclusive.
The only interesting film Clouzot has made is one in which he was seeking,
improvising, experimenting, one in which he lived something: Le Mystere
Picasso. Clement and the rest never live their cinema. It is a separate
compartment, itself divided into compartments.
In France, as I have already said, one can't mix genres. In America, a
thriller can also be political and include gags. Because it is American, this
is acceptable here at a pinch, but try the same thing with things French, and
they howl. This is why a French thriller never tells you anything about
France. Of course this mental departmentalizing also corresponds to a
departmentalization of social truths.
One mustn't mix the genres, but one mustn't mix people either. They must
be kept separate. It's very difficult for someone who wants to mix things
and different social milieux.
The Nouvelle Vague was honest in that it did well what it knew instead
of doing badly what it didn't know or mixing up everything it knew. Talk
about the workers? I would be glad to, but I don't know them well enough.
I would love to film Vailland's 325,000 francs, but it's a difficult subject and
I'd be afraid to. What are they waiting for, the people who do know? The
first time I heard a workman speak in the cinema was in Chronique d'un ete.
Rouch apart, none of the people who have done films about workers have
had any talent. Naturally their workmen were phoney.
Nowadays, it is true, there are fewer complaints, because people have
realized that we are beginning to deal with other things besides wild parties.
Only Vadim has done nothing else, and nobody reproaches him for it.
Vadim is the dregs. He has betrayed everything he could betray, himself
included. It's the betrayal of the hireling. Today, for the powers-that-be,
he is perfectly integrated morally and economically, and that is why people
like him. He has the support of the Government because he is very rightthinking:
in the area of eroticism and family entertainment he has no equal.
The public loves it : Vadim is easy to take. And this is why he is inexcusable:
he gives people the impression that they are getting Shakespeare when he
offers them Confidential and True Romance. They say, 'You mean that's
Shakespeare? But it's wonderful - why weren't we told before ?'
I don't believe one can know one is doing something stupid or harmful
and still go on doing it. Vadim probably isn't aware of what he is doing, and
thinks he is making good films. At the beginning, when he was spontaneous
and sincere, he wasn't aware either: he just happened to be there at the right
moment. The fact that he was there at the right moment, when everyone
else was lagging behind, gave the impression that he was out in front. Since
then he has been marking time, while everyone else came up to date. So
194