Godard's "Masculin Feminin"

I watched Jean-Luc Godard's Masculin Feminin tonight, motivated in large part by a discussion I recently had with a friend about Godard's intense sexism. My friend said that Godard films have the pretext of being about socialism but are really just giant piles of sexism. I'd add to that pile a load of masturbatory, self-celebratory over-indulgence. Granted, the only other Godard film I've seen is Alphaville, which made me want to rip my limbs out by the time it was over. I have Breathless and Tout va Bien in my netflix queue still, and I'll probably watch them so at least what I have to say below is more founded in a global perception of his work, and not based off two films.

My impressions of Masculin Feminin were mixed. In some ways I enjoyed the overall film and its staging, etc. The plot and dialogue however were difficult. I understand Godard took the film's idea from a Guy de Maupassant story, so I'm not sure how much of the ideas are his. However, based off this discussion with a friend who is far more versed in Godard than I, I fear the worst for Godard.

Before getting to the discussion of sex, I was really irritated in his blips of quotes on the screen, especially the following: "philosopher and filmmaker share a way of being, an outlook on life that embodies a generation." Pretty lofty of Godard to compare himself to philosophers, eh? And it carries on, with quotes about communism like, "human labor resurrects things from the dead." This aspect of the film really annoyed me.

I was mainly watching the film to pay close attention to any moments of sexism, so I can discuss this with my friend later. I read some reviews after watching it, that gloss over the sexism by adding more sexism such as, "Masculin/Feminin is a fitting title for a Godard film, as many of his movies balance expressions of sexist machismo with sensitivity toward femininity." (source: Kenny Herzog, Long Island Press) The concept of sensitivity toward femininity is irritating, perpetuating the idea that women need to be coddled, that one must pay special attention to feminine traits because those traits are weaker, that feminism and female are one. That masculinity is inherently sexist, that men are inherently masculine, that only men can be macho. Sexism on both sides, not just anti-woman. Furthering of male/female masculine/feminine dichotomies that I don't believe exist.

Anyway, onto the notes I took. Much of the film's scenes are documentary style, where the camera is focused on one person. In these scenes, the person is almost always one of the female characters. If the male is focused on, it is for 30 seconds at most, while the women can be focused on for over five minutes at a time. The opening scene at the coffee shop is this way, where the viewer is forced to perform the male gaze by staring at the main character, Madeleine. You have no choice but to stare at her, nowhere else to look except to close your eyes. Godard then shows Paul for less than half a minute. Further, the females in the film are constantly applying make-up or looking in the mirror while men watch them. Paul and his fellow mildly-revolutionary friend purposely take turns "accidentally" feeling up a woman at a coffee shop and laughing it off. This is just like in Maraini's Woman at War, where the wife is stuck at all these communist cell meetings cooking and getting molested by the men. The women are completely marginalized in the movement (and still are in many activist activities today although the men in these groups will deny it).

The blase attitude towards sex in the film is disturbing. Most notably, when Catherine, Paul, Madeleine, and Elisabeth go to the cinema and watch a forced blow-job. One can surmise based on the clips you see of the film they are watching that the film is one giant rape-fest between this man and his girlfriend/wife/captive. He then shoves her head onto his dick, she sits up upset, and the four friends at the cinema get bored, disappointed, and leave.

In another scene, Paul gets mad at a hooker who demands 150 francs for a feel of her breasts. He only has 100 and she tells him he can look but not touch for 100. Angry, Paul yells at her and leaves. Both Paul and his friend nonchalantly discuss their use of hookers. Nearly every background conversation in the coffee shop (which is always brought to the foreground) has pornography or sex as the main content and Madeleine continuously plays the oblivious witness to it all. You want to shake her, get her to realize the disgusting things being uttered around her. Yet I believe Godard wants to portray her as an idiotic ignorant woman, just like when all the females in the film talk about how they love America and hate politics and don't know any wars are going on (none of the women are part of Paul's communist cell, at most one is half-way called a sympathizer).

The most obvious point of sexism occurs in the following exchange between Paul and Madeleine:
Paul: “Ever realize in masculine that there is mask and ass?”
Madeleine:“And in feminine? Nothing”
Paul: “Nothing”

Giving Godard some credit, this exchange is very transparent and clearly the main theme of the film. In fact, I'm surprised at how blatant he was here, considering Alphaville was a total mess.

So is Godard sexist, or is he merely making a film with sexism as the main plot? Are the people who watch and enjoy and idolize Godard sexist, or do they see the films as a higher social commentary and not as Godard as pig? Is it wrong to watch a film that perpetuates nonchalant attitudes towards rape, women, and sexism? Is it wrong to like that film and recommend it to others? Does enjoying that film mean you tacitly agree with what is portrayed and conveyed? Would I have viewed this film differently if a female filmmaker made it, such as Catherine Breillat? These are questions I'm left with tonight, that I'm not sure I'll ever have an answer for.