Absurdism in Pierrot Le Fou (1965)

 I'm aware Camus' idea of The Absurd, is not traditionally associated with the French New Wave as much as existentialism for example. However, I do feel Godard's 1965 Pierrot Le Fou, has more ties to Absurdism than we give it credit for... to highlight this, my article will explore the representations of said philosophy...and the untouchable styling of Anna Karina - both of which have equal importance in my life. 

Beginning with the former; the film follows Ferdinand (Jean-Paul Belmondo), a Parisian bourgeois, experiencing troublesome bouts of ennui with his life. One of the opening scenes features Ferdinand at a cocktail party, listening to various conversations that highlight contemporary societies’ capitalist consumer culture.  He lives a life that is born from routine, normality, he’s a working husband, and senses a disconnect from his own identity and purpose. 

Once he meets the vivacious and passionate babysitter, Marianne (Anna Karina), something within his spirit is ignited, leading the two to abandon their current standings and embark on a crime spree towards the South coast of France. 

His priority at this moment is to chase freedom and desire. Ferdinand has escaped the senseless structure of the metropolitan lifestyle and embraced something much more instinctual and fluid. Through their various endeavours and lucky escapes, they acknowledge the absurdity of life; alighting cars, wading into water fully clothed, Marinanne’s musical moments. The couple embody freedom through their momentary embracing of the Absurd. A freedom that regular hegemonic society cannot touch. Consequence and wider judgment are futile, the only meaning in this moment Ferdinand places upon Marianne, stating ‘I only exist for you’. 

Another notable quote that signals what the couple may feel holds meaning amongst an Absurd landscape, is when Ferdinand states, 'Life is sad, but it's always beautiful.' highlighting their self-fashioned purpose in the world is to enjoy simply existing and revel in a gratitude for their freedom. Godard paints a partnership between the beauty of nature and the life of shared purpose with the basic preconditions of artistic creation. Ferdinand is a writer, who has now decided on a new form of novel he aims to write, one that describes 'life, life by itself; what is between people, space, sound, colours'. And now within this idyllic partnership he has means to do so.

But through scattered motifs, and visual metaphors the film hints this paradise is temporary. As their footprints in the wet sand wash away at the lulls of the swell, Godard signals how their impact and position in the world is temporary and meaningless.‘Ferdinand’s romantic dream of life and art co-existing (…), in which she provides moral and practical support for an artist in isolation, is not enough for Marianne,’ It is not enough for her to be, as she cries “I want to live!”. Marianne does not find solace in these responses to absurdity, nor is she satisfied with this mode of existence. 

As a consequence, the two return to civilisation and its corruptions. Various other absurd and spontaneous events unfold, most notably as the two walk together along a beach path, a dance troupe appear, rehearsing a routine. They are lead by Fred, whom Marianne says is also her brother. That soon proves to be a lie, and Marianne escapes with him, leaving Ferdinand broken. The film ends with Ferdinand murdering Marianne, and then committing suicide. 

Although, for the most part, Ferdinand serves as an example of Camus’ absurd hero; emotionally detached from the regular world, lacks belief in religion, and treads the line between absurdism and nihilism. His final act of suicide at the end is something Camus would recognise as a philosophical failure. An inability to find true peace with the Absurd value of human life and one’s own identity. Once Marianne has gone, meaning, purpose and passion also evaporate from his life. 

However, the film does not conclude on an entirely bleak note, the final voice-over states;

It is found again. 

What?

Eternity.

It is the sea, gone

With the sun. 

The camera pans to the ocean, suggesting we must be comfortable with life's absurdity, and find meaning in freedom and the beauty that is life. To me, this is a potential reading, that would be Godard’s response to Camus’ ideas around the absurd. 

On the topic of styling though,

it truly is, impeccable. I've read analyses that argue within the ms-en-scene, blue can be understood as synonymous with intellect and reason, while red clothing can be interpreted as passion and love. This would make sense, as Marianne is presented as the dreamer, who loves music not books, and Ferdinand as the writer with reason, wearing blue. Marianne's blue trousers after she intellectually deceives Ferdinand. He is smothered by a red cloth, as he becomes more involved with her antics. 

This is certainly interesting, as it relates to how Godard viewed Karina, who at the time he had just split from after her affair. For context, Karina is often coined as 'the muse of the French New Wave' largely in part to her marriage to Godard in 1961. She went on to star in eight of his films, with an effervescent on-screen presence. Before shooting Pierrot Le Fou, the two had quite recently separated after her affair with Maurice Ronet. The separation had left him alone and lost, to a degree that was evident amongst colleagues. When asked in a pre-shoot interview why he had chosen to cast his ex-wife, Godard replied "I need to love the people I film, that's why I always take Anna Karina." 

He also joked that the affair had happened because Godard was able to use film as a role to create drama (in artifice), but that for a woman who does not create, she needs to externalise herself more, creating drama in real life. 

The dynamic between the fictional Marianne and Ferdinand, does bear threads of similarity to Karina and Godard. The muse tiring of having to simply 'exist', while the artist writes and produces. Marianne's eventual escapades with another man, leading the protagonist to question where to place meaning and significance in his life. 

The anecdote I find the most compelling however, is that Godard had wanted to include a miniature reenactment of Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Oval Portrait'. This is the story Karina's character in Vivre Sa Vie  reads aloud in the final tableaux (a different film they worked on three years prior). The story follows an artist who paints his wife, resulting in her death, *I wrote about this in an article you can read here*. Ultimately this inclusion did not happen, and was a great regret for Godard. He was struggling to reach a compassionate understanding of why Marianne/ Anna sought escape from the life of an artistic idyll. The Oval Portrait offered an answer- to save herself. 

Anyways! I do just think, styling has never gotten better than Anna Karina, wearing the red midi... white trim...pale pink rose pinned to the U-neck dress.... as she sits under the Picasso print...scuffed black ballet pumps adorned. Unbeatable.

TUNE IN LIVE 21/02 at 8 PM GMT ★ LINK HERE