Mark Nickolas

Jean-Luc Godard: Art, Theory, Politics

Prof. Sam Ishii-Gonzales

September 24, 2012

Existentialism and Vivre Sa Vie

Discuss Godard’s film Vivre sa vie/My Life to Live in the context of existentialism. Using Thomas Flynn’s essay on existentialism (“Philosophy as a Way of Life”) as a reference point, describe in your own words two or three traits of this twentieth century philosophical movement that can be considered applicable to a consideration of Godard’s fourth film. Your discussion can focus on the film’s narrative and the actions of the female protagonist or on the role of Godard as filmmaker (or a combination of both).

! At the core of existentialist philosophy is the notion that existence precedes essence. Simply,

according to Thomas Flynn, “what you are (your essence) is the result of your choices (your

existence) rather than the reverse. Essence is not destiny. You are what you make yourself to be.”1

Moreover, “after getting clear on the options and the likely outcomes, one makes it the right choice

by one’s follow-through...such truth is more a matter of decision than of discovery.”2

! In his written scenario for Vivre Sa Vie, Jean-Luc Godard laid out clearly his cinematic intent:

Basically, I would like to show what modern philosophy calls existentialism as opposed to essence. However, thanks to cinema which can demonstrate that the two are not really in opposition to each other at all, I want to prove that existentialism pre-supposes essence, and vice-versa, and that this in itself is something quite beautiful.3

! While so much can be written about existentialism in Vivre Sa Vie, I will focus my remarks

on the actions of the Nana Kleinfrankenheim, the film’s protagonist, who inhibits a 1960’s Paris of

the youth struggling to find their way, and place, in the world. Set amidst coffee houses, pinball

machines, jukeboxes, and movie posters, we learn in the opening tableaux that Nana is leaving her

husband, on whom she has cheated, while clinging to her dreams of becoming an actress despite

the seeming lack of control over her own life to make it happen, leaving the outcome to mere

chance (“someone may discover me one day”).

! Nana’s own theatrical ambitions are further weighed down by the manipulation of men

around her, beginning with her husband (“You always want me to do as you want...I’m always

having to beg. I exist too”), but later ultimately reduced to a commodity — first as a prostitute,

then eventually being sold by her pimp to another, leading to her eventual demise.

Nickolas-2

! It is in the film’s first three tableauxs that we find Nana, a working-class woman,

imprisoned by the downward spiral of what she has become — her essence — and left wandering

about in need of someone to lend her money in order to pay rent. She becomes locked out of her

apartment and soon under police investigation for theft where she wishes “to be someone else.”

! Nana’s nadir takes place as she is about to view The Passion of Joan of Arc where, arguably,

she engages in her first act of prostitution with a stranger, allowing an unidentified man to put his

arm around her in the theater in exchange for her admission. Yet, it is there where we witness a

profound emotional stirring within Nana, tears streaming down her cheeks, as she is faced with

the passion of another young woman being judged by men, who would rather give up her own life

than submit.

! Following this scene, Nana embraces the notion that she has free will and control over her

life in an affirmation of responsibility for her feelings and actions to her friend Yvette, a prostitute.

Beyond her words (“I forget I’m responsible, but I am...You only have to take an interest in

things.”), Nana seems to believe that there is more to life, and opts for a job as a prostitute in order

to live her life to the fullest. Here, Nana accepts the existential notion that “you are what you make

yourself to be” while simultaneously accepting responsibility for her action.

! However, Godard ensures that a larger issue looms over Nana’s decision, namely whether

her choice consigns her further as a prisoner of society or whether her actions are a liberating act of

finally controlling her own destiny.

! Indeed, after an unspecified period of time in her new occupation, Nana’s personality

grows in force, especially when dealing with clients, as she realizes the power of her femininity. In

the ninth tableaux, we watch her freestyle dance around a pool table as her pimp, Raoul, meets

with a colleague while Nana enjoys the attention she receives from a young man. At that point,

Nana seems happier than ever, hinting that she is finally living life to the fullest.

! However, Nana’s fulfillment is short-lived. In the next (tenth) tableaux, she finds herself

playing second-fiddle with a customer to another prostitute (yet another man pushing her interests

and feelings aside). Following that, Nana meets philosopher Brice Parain in a cafe. In an eight-plus

Nickolas-3

minute dialogue, they discuss the connection between language and thought. Parain notes that

since humans are dependent upon language they will inevitably make errors and tell lies, but it is

through that journey over time that we might arrive at something approximating truth. It is also

during Nana’s discussion with Parain that she mentions the topic of love for the first time (“What

do you think about love?...Shouldn’t love be the only truth?”).

! The philosophical discussion presages the final tableaux where it becomes clear that Nana

remains caged and her freedom through prostitution was an illusion, and now has a pimp which

she cannot shed as easily as a meek husband. As Douglas Morrey noted, “she has no control, she

can exert little responsibility, she is not free.”4

! Yet, we learn that Nana has found love with her young man and this has made her happy

(“I adore you. And I love you.”). In her most prominent existential decision, Nana declares that she

will leave Raoul and live with her lover. Unlike her choice to become a prostitute, Nana’s decision

here hints at her first authentic act in relation to her freedom. This was Nana’s ultimate change of

direction and, arguably, the right choice, assuming a follow-through that would not to be offered.

! In the end, Nana’s previous choices made her predicament too deep to navigate. Perhaps

she did the best given her already bleak circumstances. As Flynn notes, “life does not follow the

continuous flow of logical argument and that one often has to risk moving beyond the limits of the

rational in order to live life to the fullest.”5 It seems that the limits on the rational for Nana were

beyond her reach.

NOTES

1 Flynn, Thomas R. Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 8.2 Ibid, p. 10.3 Godard, Jean-Luc. Scenario of “Vivre Sa Vie." Film Culture, p. 52, 17 Sep. 2012. Web.

<http://filmforno.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/godardscenario.pdf>.4 Morrey, Douglas. Jean-Luc Godard. New York: Manchester University Press, 2005, p. 39.5 Flynn, p. 3.