Page - 102 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 04/02

Revisiting the Relevance of Conceptualism of Godard’s Film | 101www.jrfm.eu 2018, 4/2, 83–113 momentarily broken and everything has become possible. Fences screening the sun of our mental celestial sphere have collapsed and its shine escapes toward the infinity. Of course, when all rules are shattered and no rule is left to be followed, any rule can be abided by too. Attained in such a manner is freedom that liberates oneself from the prison that confinement within the limits of any artistic expression inevitably bears: not only are no principles needed to be followed anymore, but all of them could be followed altogether if we so wished. A freedom and a guide – such is the destination toward which Godard’s movies lead one. The ethos of Godard’s film often coincides with that of a rebel who stands against the society perceived as foul per se. For example, in Le Mépris, the mov- ie made out of the personal feeling for the film industry suggested by its title, Contempt, the artist forfeits his dreams and gives away his muse – in the same way Ulysses ditched Penelope for ten long years – to a personification of the raw money-centrism of the big fish in the pond, be they producers, editors, re- search funders, or venture capitalists whose only consideration is marketability and profitability. Eventually the artist learns that the works so dear to his heart turn dead if they happen to be moved only by the power of money and conven- tion rather than by genuine trueness to oneself, along with cliché-shattering innovativeness, such as that which typified Joyce’s reflection on the Homer’s epic or Godard’s filming style in general. This society that Godard’s heroes push and shove is, however, not society in the real sense of the word, communal and bonded by love, but society governed by selfish motives and one-against-many ideals – a cancerous society wherein the intention of individuals threatens to eclipse the whole with their presumptuous greatness. To that end, they launch war against war – a non-Gandhian approach that is, to say the least, question- able in its effectiveness. Still, in spite of their assuming the somewhat arrogant stance of a Wild West outlaw in a modern setting, Godard’s protagonists do serve the role of poking the audience and making them aware that something is missing in their lives, something sacred that they themselves would never talk about, albeit something coinciding with the virtues celebrated by sages the world over. This is why Lemmy Caution, that “saver of those who weep”,43 believes in poetry as the force that “turns darkness into light”44 and that can transcend the boundaries of the portentous city of Alphaville, in which art was abandoned and substituted by emotionless technocracy, a city governed by artificial intelligence and inhabited by heartless, zombified, machine-like crea- tures programmed “not to ask Why, but only say Because”.45 To that end, God- 43 Alphaville (Jean-Luc Godard, FR/IT 1965), 00:29:40. 44 Alphaville (Jean-Luc Godard, FR/IT 1965), 00:48:40. 45 Alphaville (Jean-Luc Godard, FR/IT 1965), 00:52:20.