During this film the phrases “a Disney film with Humphrey Bogart” and “a Disney film with blood” are used. And you can see what is meant by that. This is super-stylish and, like all of Jean-Luc Godard’s finest films, mixes the personal and the political into a simple yet complex take on Film Noir. The simple yet complex theme is evident in the dialogue as well as the construction of the film.
Godard’s work at this point seems far more overtly political than his earlier films and is almost an expression of his doubts and uncertainties with regard to left wing politics and how they can be reconciled with contemporary society. There are overtly political visuals (the grafittied- there’s no right way to spell that is there?- phrase Liberté gets machine-gunned) and dialogue (political tracts recounted by tape recorder as a clue in the case). As an expression of what was happening in the world in general and France in particular (the Paris student riots were about two years away) Made in U.S.A. shows Godard to be both a product of and a leader of his times.
And it is, of course, an homage to the American B-movies that Godard references throughout. If not made, this film was certainly conceived in the USA- if a country can also be a state of mind and I’m not getting all up my own pseudy arse with this! The film features Anna Karina tracking down the murderer of her ex-lover. The murder was the result of his involvement in or at least knowledge of a political assassination. Karina, as was mentioned above, is a contemporary version of Bogart’s noir persona- uncompromising, hard-headed and thoughtful. She is being tracked by a criminal and his callow, hapless accomplice (much like Wilmer Cook in The Maltese Falcon). As far as a linear plot goes, that’s your lot. Non-linear plot elements are the constant pop-culture allusions, the tape-recorded monologues on the French political situation and a discussion on perspectives and how they shape our view of the world.
Being a Godard film, of course, it looks marvellous- the constant juxtaposition of stark white internal scenes with bright primary colours, the beautifully lit exteriors which seem so fresh, the long fixed-lens close-ups, the reflections of Karina barely visible in a photograph frame behind the head of the subject, the twins in the gymnasium- his visual inventiveness is indefatigable. And it sounds marvellous, with real-life intervening in the form of sirens, telephone rings and overhead planes. The influence of all of this on Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill films is obvious (the basic storyline, Karina’s appearance, the name hidden by a sound effects etc) and is further testimony to the power of the film to extend beyond itself and take on an importance beyond merely being a piece of cinematic art. There is a scene where Karina and László Szabó sit down and describe what happens in the next part of the film rather than acting it out- this constant deconstruction of the cinematic myth (the dialogue constantly talks about movie scenes, characters, events, the mise-en-scène- hell even the characters are named after actors or directors) serves to remind us that Godard is making statements that go beyond the simplistic storyline. The story is not what the film says, it is merely a vehicle to express the director’s statement. Has the auteur theory ever been supported in so stark and blatant a way?
This is a film that needs to be seen and re-seen for things to make sense. Of course the whole thing could be a vacant pop-culture act of pretension like Antonioni's Blow Up, but I don’t believe so.
