Ihad intended to write about Godard before reading Robin Wood’s article; the first thing which struck me as I read it was that, though I agree that the issue which he raises is one of the key ones, the words which he uses and stresses are quite different from those I would choose. This springs of course from an underlying difference in critical method: his terminology, like his method, is largely derived from that of F. R. Leavis. There is no doubt about the provenance of words such as ‘tradition’, ‘indentity’, ‘wholeness’, etc. In a sense then my own interpretation of Godard’s films, juxtaposed with Robin Wood’s, implies not only a clash of opinions, but also a clash of methods and, in the last analysis, a clash of world-views. But first Godard’s films.

The cultural references in Godard’s films are, as Robin Wood writes, ‘not decorative but integral’. For Godard culture is hardly able to sustain itself; it is not intelligence, but violence, which makes the world go round. ‘Il faut avoir la force quelquefois de frayer son chemin avec un poignard’. It is the world of Les Carabiniers, of Ubu Roi, which Godard has said he would like to film. It is a world in which the newspapers, as in Bande `Part, are full of almost surrealistic excesses of violence; it is a world of Algeria, of San Domingo, of Vietnam, to which Godard makes constant references and which give the larger context of his films. And this all-pervasive violence is also vandalism. It is the execution of the girl who recites Mayakovsky, in Les Carabiniers, it is the destruction of books, in Alphaville, it is the suicide of Drieu La Rochelle or Nicolas de Stael.

But we need not condone this world of violence and vandalism into which we are thrown. Where is the vein of optimism which prevents us from committing suicide? The answers which Godard explores are the romantic answers of beauty, action, contemplation. The antinomy between action and contemplation or reflection is recurrent in Godard’s films. Action is the correlate of adventure; it is to leave behind the everyday norms of life, to leave for Rome, for Brazil (both Le Petit Soldat and Bande `Part), for the Outerlands: topographic symbols for a world in which all conduct is improvised, experimental—yet at the same time symbols also of withdrawal, of distancing and hence of contemplation, of repose (the Jules Verne paradise of Pierrot le Fou). In Le Petit Soldat reflection follows action (‘Pour moi, le temps de l’action a passé! J’ai vieilli. Celui de la reflexion commence.’). In the story of Porthos told by Brice Parain in Vivre Sa Vie reflection prevents action, it is a form of suicide; in Pierrot le Fou action, incarnated by Marianne and contemplation, by Ferdinand, prove mutually destructive.

The problem is also that of time: above all, of the ambiguous nature of the present. For Godard, the present is both the moment in which one feels oneself alive, the existential moment of responsibility for lighting a cigarette, and also the monstrous unstructured, dehistoricized desert of Alphaville or La Femme Mariée. Increasingly, in Godard’s films, the present has become the realm of woman: he remains uncertain whether it is a realm of innocent hedonism or of mindless viciousness. Alreadyin Veronica, in Le Petit Soldat, we see this dilemma: the beautiful cover, girl who likes Paul Klee and Gauguin and who is at the same time a terrorist who dies under torture. In Pierrot Le Fou it is even more evident. (While on this point, it may be worth commenting on the resemblance between Alpha 60’s interrogation of Lemmy Caution and Nana’s of Brice Parain.)

Another recurrent feature of Godard’s attitude to women is that they are traitors. Patricia betrays Michel in A Bout de Souffle; Marianne betrays Ferdinand in Pierrot le Fou. Living in the present means to be unable to bear any fixity of relations with others, which would imply a past and a future. Yet set against this image of woman is one drawn from romanticism, from association with ideas of purity, beauty, etc. It is Godard’s inability to resolve this contradiction which explains his continuous hostile fascination with women, reminiscent in a way of Hitchcock.