University of Virginia Library

Godard's 'Sympathy':
Corruption Of Words

By Carl Erickson
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

While viewing Jean-Luc
Godard's "Sympathy for the Devil"
I was reminded of a spelling game
which I was once obliged to
participate in. The rules were
simple: one player, trying to force
his partner into mispronouncing a
word, would, in spelling the word
out, break it down into deceptively
simple syllables. My word was
spelled: cho...pho...use. Needless to
say, I pronounced it as it was
spelled; something like
"schofoyews." The fact that I had
never heard of a chophouse was
immaterial. More important was the
fact that I had been deceived by my
partner's twisting of the word.

Godard plays the same game in
"Sympathy," but the result is no
longer petty embarrassment. The
future of society is at stake.

Godard sees language as an
ill-used tool which has perverted
our sense of justice and morality
and blocked the way to communication
between people. Hitler's
"Mein Kampf" is equated with
pornography, for in the end they
are both part of the same perversion.
The characters in a trashy
novel are replaced by such V.I.P.s
as the Pope, Queen Victoria, and
Foster Dulles. Black militants read
books on "the blues," their own
music, and speak into tape recorders
whatever is dictated to them,
grammatical corrections included.
Cinema becomes Cinemarxism,
Mao-art, VietCong-SoViet Cong.

The corruption of words is
devastating and Godard's vision of
it is totally absorbing and at times
frightening. The scenes in the book
shop and in the woods are excellent
examples of the latter aspect. The
violence in one and the tired
conciliation in the other are horrible
in their meaning and in the
emotionless quality which Godard
endows them with.

Godard's war against language
has brought him to a close interest
in the revolution. However, here his
sensibilities appear to be divided
and the reason lies, I think, in
Godard's spiritual anarchism. The
revolution's ideals appeal to him,
but he cannot help but believe that
the revolution is in fact an evolution,
often filled with meaningless
rhetoric, breaking upon new
grounds but still hampered by
preconceived ideas, ideas brought
about by language. In the end, one
is not sure whether Godard believes
the revolution to be still evolving or
whether he believes it has not begun.
It is easy to see why he was
incensed when the producers added
to the completed version of
"Sympathy for the Devil." The
revolution is certainly not completed.

Finally, it is interesting to note
that, as in many of Godard's other
films, the dialogue is often drowned
out by features of man's technological
progress, cars, planes, etc. In
"Sympathy for the Devil," however,
there is a sequence in which
the shrill sound of birds overcomes
the dialogue. It seems that I was
wrong in believing that Godard
blames man's technological advances
for his inability to communicate.
Maybe the words were never
that important to begin with.