Keeping in mind that Godard recent film productions have been received by professional and amateur critics alike with the same basic approach - “it is a multifaceted film, it would take many viewings to unlock its many layers, and besides, it is a audio and visual experience, we shouldn’t try to intellectualize it too much, it is a film about everything, but about nothing as well” - it became clear that such a (unified) fragmented perspective should be countered with the text-form which can answer to both the recurrent aspect of these reviews, as well as to the apparent fragmentation of the film’s form: the dialogue.

As Plato already realized - back then, when being a sophist was a profession and people didn’t do it for free yet - the dialogue is a form that can answer to the apparent multiplicity of views that philosophy has to analyze and discriminate, as well as to the basic core of all sophistry, which remains the same in all of the different discourses. We will thus try to proceed with a dialogical review of Godard’s new film - Film Socialisme (2010) - presenting the following characters to develop our critique:

VA: the video-artist
FC: the film critic
CL: the cleaning lady
WE: we, the party.

Our characters meet at a movie theatre. The film is over, the characters are all seating close to each other - except the cleaning lady, who is standing in front of the screen, picking up empty Coca-Cola cups from the floor.

CL: Are you people leaving any time soon? I need to clean up your seats.
VA: We are all in shock, woman. Give us a minute!
CL: Why? Did something happen?
VA: Yes! This film...this...
FC:...this intriguing film!
VA: Intriguing? You talk as if you just saw a murder-mystery film! This is not intriguing! This is an explosion!
FC: That’s not what I mean. There is no mystery per se...
WE: I’m sorry to interrupt, but you don’t seem to be so far off the mark there! Just by hearing both of you, it becomes pretty clear that there is indeed a mystery!
VA: What do you mean?
WE: Well, while the intrigued critic wonders what sort of puzzle those fragments composed, you are in awe of the puzzle’s dismemberment - we could say that while he is interested in how the fragments could be put together, you are interested in how they cannot be put together - is that correct?
VA: Yes! The explosion of meaning! The priority of the presence of the images over their constructed narrative of their coming-together!
WE: How you both can agree that the film is brilliant while arguing opposing reasons...that’s a mystery to me!

FC: Hm.
WE: What?
FC: Well, the explosion of meaning, the fragmented narrative...this is not an end in itself. The beauty of this approach is that Godard allows us to interpret the film as we like. The meaning explodes and now we can think whatever we want. We are free.
WE: We are not free.
VA: No, I agree with our film critic friend on this one: the fact that I am interested in the power of the presence and he is still worried about the possibilities of the interpretation of this power, just attests to the fact that the great accomplishment of this film is to move away from the conventional film syntax, this authoritarian normative code which ties us down. Seeing a film by Godard frees us to think, like our friend here, and frees us to feel, beyond thought. We are free.
WE: I would like to understand better why do you both think this film attests to some kind of freedom.
VA: Don’t you feel it?
FC: Don’t you interpret it?
WE: I don’t feel anything, besides an itch in my butt, and I don’t interpret anything - I’m rather worried with the things I cannot interpret, very much like this itch in my butt.
FC: Allow me to explain - maybe explain is too strong of a word - let me present to you my point of view. Though I believe to be in accord with our friend from the art world on the liberating power of Godard’s recent work, it is probable that my broad interest in different films and film forms might make it easier to present to you what is new in his work, when compared to other, more accessible film productions.
WE: Please continue.
FC: The first thing to know is that we should not ask “what this film is about?” - the very fact that the film leaves us wondering about this is its quality.
WE: The fact that we don’t know what it is about?
FC: This is the difference between a bad experimental film and this masterpiece by the french realisateur - if I can already give away what I’ll be writing later on in my review. I mean, it surely would take more than one viewing to unlock all of the film’s mysteries...
VA:...or to assimilate all of the textures, images and sounds...
FC: ...that as well. It is a multifaceted film. But still, the thing which separates this from a bad experimental film...
VA: Let me just say that I believe that your position is very colonialist and authoritarian. Who are you to call a film ‘bad’? All films can have beautiful images. I, myself, have started a project to rehabilitate romantic comedies...
CL: Ah! I like those!
VA:...by screening them with a 300x digital zoom on a couple of pixels of the screen. It produces beautiful textures and images!
WE: To me that’s truly a romantic comedy! But please, my friend, proceed, if you like...
FC: As I was saying, what makes this film a work of art is that it plays with its political context as well. It’s form supports its premiss. This is the sign of a great film!
WE: What do you mean by that?
FC: It is a film about 'socialism', as the title already announces us, and we are invited to interpret the film as we like. Do you see the connection?
VA: I see what you mean. Its a beautiful interpretation!
FC: It’s just my point of view, you don’t need to feel obliged to accept it as the truth.
VA: There is no truth. This is the genius of Godard.
WE: Do you imply then that the film gives us freedom because it doesn’t give us truth?
FC: It doesn’t give us ‘a’ truth. You can construct your own.
VA: Yeah. Godard stopped being an authoritarian film director, trying to impose on us his view on the world. His films are plastic experiences.

CL: I know about plastic...People sometimes forget in their seats here those small plastic toys that come in their Happy Meals, you know? I take them all home to my kids. You just need to be sure they won’t swallow it!
WE: They are dangerous, those plastic toys. They come also inside those Kinder Egg chocolates.
CL: Yes, those are a bit smaller, even more dangerous!
WE: Have you heard of Zizek?
CL: No. Is that a chocolate?
WE: No, he is a man. He talks about these plastic toys we are rewarded with inside of Happy Meals and chocolate eggs.
CL: What does he say about them?
WE: He says that they are there just to stand in for the fact that the egg is empty.
CL: Empty?
WE: Yes. What do your kids do with the toys you bring home to them?
CL: Ah, they don’t care much for them. They play with the little cars and animals for two, three minutes, then throw them away. And I have to pick them up and throw them out, just like here, in the screening room.
WE: So the toy is not important.
CL: No, no really.
WE: And have you ever bought them the actual Kinder Egg?
CL: Yes, sometimes.
WE: Do they care more for the chocolate than the toy then?
CL: No, not at all. They rip the paper, then torn the chocolate apart to get to the toy inside. Sometimes they don’t even eat the egg!
WE: So the chocolate is also not important.
CL: No...


FC: Zizek is a funny little cultural critic, you know...his opinions are very radical, leftist. You don’t need to agree with him.
VA: Yes and he is very antiquate and authoritarian in his positions too... a totalitarian, old fashioned right-wing! Anyway, we are drifting off. I meant to say that Godard films are plastic in a different sense. The visual image is not conveying something more than itself. That’s what is beautiful about it.
WE: Are you saying that the beautiful is that something is itself? Would you agree with that?
FC: I see what he is saying. And I think that Godard manages to show us that the beauty of world is that we can have different points of view on things. So you can see that the title of his film is ironic.
VA: Yes, he is deconstructing the totalitarian notion of socialism. We have the right to define our own notions individually!
WE: That’s interesting - but if you remember what that old man was talking about with the young woman in one of the scenes in the ship...those were people mobilized around a single, similar notion...
VA: Yes, but that was just their opinion, you see? Different points of view...
FC:...and none of them are "the truth". In our globalized world, in need of tolerance, we need films like this, to show us that a unified Europe needs to learn how to tolerate all different beliefs and races. And a film which works by showing us many sides of the story, many individual truths, is helping us to think this new Europe.
WE: From what you are saying it seems that 'socialism' is now not a word to be opposed to 'capitalism'.
VA: Not at all! Capitalism is evil, but we are fighting it on different grounds now. We could say that socialism is the name of a strategy to create not a new economical system, but a new attitude in people. It has started already. Just look at Godard’s country: France. They have a socialist mentality and a capitalist organization. Though they know there is nothing better beyond capitalism, because the human being is a capitalist being, the artists are trying to remind us constantly that we are human beings all the same. Each one with his or hers own story.
FC: Precisely. You know, "socialism" is not some crazy utopia like the one those naive revolutionaries used to dream about. It is here, now, doing small things, thinking about the Other, hearing him or her. That’s why it is called ‘social’-ism. It’s about opening yourself to the social, to other people’s selves and their side of the story. That’s why Godard goes from city to city, showing us different terrible events from the history of each country.
VA: Really? He does that? I didn’t see it. I guess I was paying too much attention to the film to notice these hegemonic representations!


WE: I am very interested in understanding how you two can still agree on the film’s quality while also agreeing you practically didn’t see the same film. Would each of you, for the sake of making it clearer to me, mind summarizing the film we just saw? I hope I am not imposing.
FC: It’s not an imposition, but having seen the film only once - and it is still so fresh in my mind - it’s hard to say. I would summarize it as a symphony in different movements, a symphony on the theme of humanity - of how we all have different points of view about the world. It could be said that the synopsis of this film is that there is no unified synopsis.
VA: I would put it differently. It seems to me that there is nothing to say about the film because it is not a linguistic experience, it is a sensorial experience. This is also the political core of the film. It shows us that it is the skin that matters, the touch, in the same way that the film is treated as a skin, with different textures and sounds presented to us.
WE: So, if I understood it correctly, you think that the film could be summarized in the sentence that ‘there are only languages’?
FC: Yes, that’s a very good condensation of what I said. Though it is not the only one. Each one can have their own opinions about it, of course.
WE: And you stated that the core of the film is that ‘there are only bodies’. Would I be wrong in saying that?
VA: No, not at all!
WE: And you? Have you ever seen this film?
CL: No, I haven’t. But I have been in the screening room sometimes during the projection, cleaning up the empty seats when people left the screening before the film actually ended. It happens very often, and I can go home earlier this way. Even so, all I’ve seen of the film are the flashes that light the room and help me see underneath the seats I need to clean. But action films are better for that. But wait - is this an action film?
FC: No!
VA: Yes!


FC: It’s ok, I tolerate your opinion! But tell us yourself, how would you summarize Film Socialisme?
WE: Well, listening to what she had to say about the film, I must admit I don’t think I understood much more than she did. I know most people will leave this screening before the end of the film.
VA: They don’t feel it...the media is numbing us...
FC: They can’t interpret it...its the problem of the educational system in this country...
WE: As for where the problem lies - Again I believe to be in accord with what she said.
VA: But what did she say?
CL: Yeah, what did I say?
WE: The film’s utility for me was also that of shedding some light into places I had to reach, but couldn’t properly see.
CL: I did say that.
WE: I must admit: I came to the cinema not so much because of Godard, but of Badiou. I had heard that the philosopher would be appearing in this film. So this was what caught my attention in the first place. Then, like the two of you, I believe, who drew so many interesting conclusions almost exclusively focusing on this, I was interested in the title. ‘Film Socialism’. I wanted to find out what sort of film would feature Badiou and this word, ‘socialism’, together.
FC: What’s the difficulty there? Doesn’t that other cultural critic, Zizek, also have a film? Don’t we have now films featuring the word ‘Capitalism’ in a derogatory sense as well? We can all express our views now.
WE: This is exactly what I believe the film’s utility was.
FC: To show Badiou’s opinion?
WE: No. Not at all. Actually, if you remember it, the scene in which he appears has really bad sound, recorded from a far, so we can’t hear what he is saying, and he is speaking to an empty auditorium.
VA: Who’s Badiou?
CL: He is a philosopher - are you not paying any attention?
WE: And that empty auditorium was the only thing that I could think of from that point on. I watched with mild interest the pretty images of the ocean moving, the family walking around the petrol station, talking very superficially about topics connected to politics, all those people in the ship, that strange singer...
VA:..that’s Patty Smith!
WE: I don’t know who that is.
CL: Me neither.
FC: I also don’t know her - but that doesn’t devaluate her work, of course.
WE: But all the time I was worried about the double nature of that empty audience of Badiou’s lecture.
VA: What do you mean?
WE: I was worried because I could see myself inscribed there in a twofold manner: as the absent listener of a truth, and the absent viewer of a film. And I wonder if the two are not connected.
FC: You are wondering if the fact we didn’t hear Badiou speaking is the reason the cinema tends to get empty during the screening of Godard’s film?
WE: Yes.
VA: Oh...I don’t think you knew where to look...you looked at the film, but you didn’t see the film - do you get what I’m saying? This man was just one more body in the film - that’s why the sound of his lecture wasn’t clear, and also why there was no one in the audience to treat him like a master: he was exposed, deconstructed into the beautiful body, the beautiful image he actually is, just like the rest of us.
FC: Yes, what he had to say was just one more thought, one more perspective on the world. It is important to gather all perspectives, but you shouldn’t get too attached to any of them, otherwise you are not impartial and you might fall trap of some authoritarian stance. It is important to remember, always, that there are only different languages.
WE: Its a curious thing, the point you two are making. This is precisely why I think the image of Badiou speaking to an empty hall is the symptom that gives the truth of the film.
CL: I did talk about an empty room, but I didn’t know I was speaking about the truth of anything...
VA:..that’s because there is no truth, only...
WE:...only bodies and languages?
FC: That seems precise enough!
WE: “There are only bodies and languages” - this is what Badiou calls democratic materialism...

FC: That's a beautiful name!

WE:..which accounts for the attitude of including in the same series all different things, under the pretext that serialization has only itself as a guide, and no over-arching principle.

VA: It's ryzomatic! Yes!

WE:...the attitude which allows us to put in the same series this chair, the film, these clothes...

VA:...the experience of being here, yes!

WE:...labour...time...a woman...as if it was all just like chairs, or bricks.

CL: I'm no brick! My husband does say sometimes that I am 'stupid like a door' though.

WE: Well, against - or better, beyond - the principle of democratic materialism, Badiou argues, and I - we, that is - emphatically agree, the formula of a materialist dialectics, which needs to be affirmed: “There are only bodies and languages, except that there are truths”.

CL: What an odd thing to say!
WE: Odd indeed. But when I think of Godard’s film, it frightens me that this goes unnoticed. It is not only us, the audience, and the potential audience of Badiou’s lecture in the film, who are deprived of this odd, paradoxical, supplement to the otherwise clearly stated formula of the film. It seems like Godard himself didn’t attend that lecture Badiou was giving. It was an empty auditorium - empty of us, of them, and of the director! To actually listen to Badiou would put in jeopardy the whole film.
FC: Why do you say that?
WE: Because if we caught that word - truth - somewhere, as a hard bone which doesn’t get dissolved in the ocean of fragments and cut-up informations, we would have to ask ourselves where is the truth of this film. And the truth of this film, as you two stated so clearly, is that it proposes the stratification of scenes and situations, the multi-perspectivist approach, the dissolution of truth as the very truth. This is proposed here as the Good.
VA: “The Good”...you are funny...
FC: Wait. Let’s indulge him for a second. Yes, this is the Good. This is democracy. And this is what this film does, it brings democracy and socialism together, by having a democratic approach to the discussion of the theme ‘socialism’.
WE: My lady, if I told you ‘I am good’ what would you ask me back?
CL: What do you mean?
WE: If I came to you and said - while trying to make myself useful, for example - ‘Hello, I’m good’...
CL: I would ask you “Good for what?”
WE: Exactly. This is the whole point here. When we agree that ‘there is only bodies and languages’ is the proposition that defines a certain Good - a certain mode of action, an attitude towards others, etcetera...we should also ask...
CL: Good for what?
WE: And good for whom?
FC: For all, of course!
CL: You seem pretty certain of that!
WE: You see? In presenting such a multi-faceted, fragmented view of the film’s subject - a subject which is itself mixed up in this attitude, because it is a film about politics, about a subjective stance, a position - the film hides its attachment to a very solid and particular position under the grounds of a welcoming of all opinions. It does welcome all stories. But it does more than that. It is the Empire of Stories. It is the sovereignty of opinions.
VA: Well, thats just your opinion, my friend!
CL: Oh...
WE: It is my opinion, no doubt. But it is more than that. And the fact is that I can answer you from a position that demarcates a disjunction from you - while you two have opposed opinions, but you cannot but agree on everything. Should I say that you two share the same opinion...
VA: No!
FC: Of course not!
WE:...or that my position is not one of opinion at all?
CL: You do sound different!


WE: You know what the only difference is? It is simply that I want to know where the work is taking place, and they prefer not to know. And because of that, the empty cinema is not a surprise for me.
CL: I didn’t understand what you said. But I must say that I agree that somehow it is not a surprise.
WE: Let us just for the sake of the argument agree that this film is a work of art. In the arguments both of you used to convince me of this, it became very clear that there is some sort of participation of the audience - feeling, interpreting - which accounts for the brilliancy of the film. Is that correct?
VA: Yes, I think you could say that.
WE: So my point is that the reason why this happens is because the film does not work - it is the audience who works.
CL: It does seem like a lot of work is involved in watching this film.
WE: The audience works, this is the truth of this film. And because most people do not come to the cinema in order to ‘redeem’ a film through their own conceptual powers, they just leave. Who would like to pay to work, and then to have the product of one’s intellectual labour named ‘Godard’? It makes 'Godard' sound a lot like 'Bill Gates'...
FC: Wait - Are you suggesting the film should be screened for free??
WE: Yes, of course! That’s the minimum we should ask for! There is a patent contradiction in the form and the contend of this film. Though I’m not sure it could be made to be useful even if it was watched without the audience paying for it, maybe the audience should get payed.
VA: You have no respect for the artist!
WE: The question is rather: does the artist have any respect for us?
FC: Oh-oh! It looks like we have ourselves a socialist here!

Right about this time, the manager of the film theatre comes in and gives a fierce look at the cleaning lady, who gets up from the seat in a quick beat, prompting everyone to follow her to the exit door. The three leave the cinema. The film critic goes on discussing the multiple interpretations of the film with the video-artist. We, the party, leave the cinema quietly, wondering what is the next word that might soon become a cynical reminder of itself.