Original address: http://www.qh505.com/blog/post/5128.html
He seemed very depressed. He dreamed of the Marquesas Islands, just like it was written in Jack London's novel.
It's like mumbling, and it's like a conversation, but the book is co-authored, the sentences are in it, the paragraphs are in it, and the story like Jack London's novel is also in it, and the melancholy he must be there too Inside, I really went to the Marquesas Islands in my dream without being opened. But the closed book is only an objective existence, why are men still talking? An open state is to let "he", let the dream, make the Marquesas Islands, and even make Jack London's novel become a text again, just like after saying this sentence, it is typed on the black screen One line of subtitles: there is content after the list.
Finally, after a series of staff related to the video, the opened voice became the content: "Marlborough set out to fight, I don't know when he will return!" It was not a man muttering to himself, nor was he and a woman. Dialogue, but a collective slogan, echoes at the end of the image in an old, retro and exciting way, as if a book is opened, continuing in the depths of history, in the depths of fiction, and in the depths of language Presents a possibility: when will he return? Returning or not returning are all questions about time, and this question seems to be an existence that leads to infinity, but it is ended by an obstacle placed there: war.
The opening sound, the opening language, ending even a new beginning, and returning to the solution, this is a question of "goodbye" language. The title is "ADIEU AU LANGAGE", when it is displayed on the screen, it is the same black background, the same is the list, and the same is opened: Godard replaced this title into two forms, one is "AH DIEUX"—— The singular god, the other is "OH LANGUAG"-oh language. "The Tao is with God", language is God, Godard is restoring the logos of language, but when language becomes God, its meaning is to find a kind of identity, and there is an explosion, which is about war. While war expresses disaster, it also becomes a god-like existence. Godard quoted Heraclitus to see the identity of language and war, that is, language and war are the same. This kind of order even created all things like a god.
"We will maintain peace as if we start a war." This is a paradox. Godard actually derived two ideas from this paradox logic: war destroyed peace, which is the root of evil, but in this kind of "anti-war" "In addition, it is the equality of war. "The state must be responsible for the entire society." Even the state has taken away all terrorism. Therefore, whether it is the new legislation in the terror period of 1793 or Hitler’s democratic election in 1933, it actually represents the end of an old order. The current problem is actually the legalization of war equality, that is, war. The disaster created is tangible, and its possible equality is illusory, just like the law after the war, “if the law sees itself as justified, it’s deceiving others.”
Does language fall into an unsolvable paradox in this sense? Two children sitting on the ground playing dice, throwing, landing, showing the points above, God doesn’t play the game of throwing dice? Is this a kind of logos inevitability? But innocent children become gods in the game. They dominate their own world and dominate all opportunities. Even if random or even coincidentally, they are also part of the game. Or, in this sense, war and language, and God. , Is more like a self-oriented, "seeing oneself rational" game, so when such a logic is established, then "goodbye language" will become a topic about equality and freedom.
In fact, Godard has never tried to examine this human problem with theological and philosophical eyes. The 3D shot has become a punitive sign of being pressed on top of the 2D, and the shaking lens has become a problem for a stable world. The destruction, the babbling quotations, and the chaotic picture have become a deconstruction experiment on the image, but Godard, who originally directed behind the camera, said: “I’m old now. I can’t grasp the above things anymore. I’m thinking underwater.” It seems that an out-of-control state is pushing the so-called language to the extreme of unexplainable, and unexplainable language is neither for misunderstandings nor for the sake of Speechless, but found that "underwater thought" in this paradox like war.
One kind of experiment started from that text of "Literary Exploration Experiment." Solzhenitsyn’s work was placed on a table in the small town of Nyon on Lake Geneva in Switzerland where Godard grew up, and the woman picked it up. In one book, a man looks at the Solzhenitsyn portrait on his mobile phone. In a realistic scene, the language of text and technology are combined, but it is only a tool for use as books, mobile phones, search, and avatars. All become a kind of language. What is the significance of the exploration and experiment of literature written by Solzhenitsyn? One of the games? The deconstruction of language is actually a construction of war: the woman first sits on a stool, the man comes from a distance, and then pulls the woman from the chair and pushes it, a kind of violent implementation, and when a woman and The man left the camera, a car came from the other side, and then remembered the gunfire, and then someone ran over to check what happened from the camera. Finally, another man walked over from the other side. He took the newspaper, walked into the chair, and looked at the chair where the woman had sat, thinking.
A game? A performance art? Outside and inside the lens, men and women, violence and gunshots all seem to be using image language to interpret all this, and the hidden clues can be interpreted as: why there is no resistance? "Does society see the murderer as social resistance?" The woman's voice said, and the voice asked questions, and it seemed that the voice should also be used to provide the answer: "He is sick." Like words, in the sense of resistance, the murderer A victim of social order? But when they resisted and created violence, even disasters, and wars, did they also become the perpetrators? So it becomes a paradox again: in any case, in a state of lack, language cannot explain language, war cannot end war, and of course, law cannot protect itself.
This is just an introduction to Godard. In the shattered image world, in the deconstructed language paradox, he seems to want to find the true meaning of the two forms of language speech: the first part is called nature, the second part It’s called a metaphor, and, on the theological, philosophical, and sociological levels, a plot is added: “A married woman and a single man meet. They fall in love, quarrel, and shed tears. One wandering between the town and the city Dogs. Four seasons reincarnate, men and women meet again." A man, a woman, and a house, the plot text provided by Godard seems to be naturally arranged for the language of war: First, the woman is married, and it is said in the man’s mouth His husband once said, "Organizing the incident, but it's only an individual." The woman answered the man's question like this, organizing the incident, is it like the person who shouts the slogan at the end? When women speak of "Kinshasa" and the Congo Bay, they undoubtedly prove the existence of a kind of war, but "just an individual" also has a certain contingency, even the power of free choice. Secondly, the two people omitted the process of getting acquainted with each other, but now they are together at this moment, they are arguing, is this another war? The woman said, four years, I love you, I can't do without you. But he said another time, you hurt me, you sexually assaulted me.
In a dark and depressing world, men and women do not have too many physical conflicts, and they even spend time in a way of intercourse. Therefore, when two people are together, their individual warfare is only language: not only It's a war between two people, and it's a clash of different opinions, even how two people get along, how to love, and how to hate. Married women and men seem to have formed an unequal relationship by nature, so on the so-called language issue, the first question they face directly is how to be equal. The woman said, I can’t stay, “Today, everyone is scared. Today is a nightmare. Everyone thinks that the dream belongs to someone else.” The man said, “I’m not afraid.” The woman said, “You violated me. "The man said: "We must do something." Then he took possession of the woman's body. The woman said: "I can't live without you." The man said: "Now, leave, leave with a smile."
A kind of disequivalence in the verbal sense, so when a woman seems to be more eager for an "equality intention", a man tells her: "The basis of equality is that all people in time and space are instantaneous, so the only thing Thoughts are produced in feces." Inequality is because there are thoughts. When all people become animals that produce feces, there will be no such inequality. This is an act that cancels the subject. In fact, it cancels thinking and speaking—a sentence must have a subject and an object? So as long as there is a subject and an object, a subject and an object, and even a man and a woman, there will be inequality between the past and the present: she is standing naked, he is squatting on the toilet, she wants to take a bath, he Stroking her but was rejected-they are always in opposition, always in the position of subject and object.
Therefore, in such a situation, if men and women want to eliminate opposition and establish equality, they must "goodbye language." They seem to use two ways to achieve this goal. One is to return to the state where there is no language without thinking. "If a person's eyes are locked by the attention of others, then he cannot think freely. As long as the eyes are locked, we The two are no longer the two of us, and being alone becomes unbearable. It is not that animals are blind, people are blinded by their conscience and cannot see the world clearly." Becoming an animal is like a man quoted by Rilke: It can be perceived through the eyes of animals.” So, there will always be a dog in this world, a dog without bitch love, and a dog without companion dialogue.
The dog is by the river, the dog is looking at the fallen leaves, the dog is looking for food, the dog is observing, a pair of dog eyes are the eyes of people without language, it is in the stream, on the bank of the river, on the grass, this is a natural state , And this is also an interpretation of Godard’s so-called "nature", and the natural theme projected on the dog has such a logic: dogs have no language, so they are equal, and dogs are naked, so they are free. There is no nudity, and animals are not nudity, because they are born nude.” Nudity becomes free in nature without nudity, and this is just another paradox. Dogs will also be thrown on chains and Calling sadly, you will be lonely and helpless. Isn't this the language of a dog? The dog also produces intertextuality in the world of men and women. It is also sitting on the sofa and in the room. This state completely deconstructs the so-called freedom theory of men and women: they also learn to be naked like dogs. Also walk freely, but still there. There is a kind of opposition in the two people's world.
"All face-to-face will create language." This is what a man says, and when using language, something must appear. "Find a translation", this is a way to switch languages, and even eliminate language opposition and quarrels. This kind of translation It is action. Whether it is a man entering a woman’s body or a woman acting as a model for a man to draw, they are in translation without creating language, but the language is only hidden, not disappeared, and even the action itself is language, so women are taking While holding the tray and holding the canvas, he said: "Only by doing something, I can speak." What to do is language in itself, but in the sense of action, they insist on going their own way, "Facts cannot interpret what we are doing, but it can be interpreted. Unfinished business."-pointed the action to the future, and the future does not exist in the language? It’s just a kind of illusion, just as they stand naked in front of the mirror, the man says: "We are both here." But the woman says: "It’s four." So when two become four, when the virtual image becomes an entity, it points to The falsehood of the future has become a new cage of language.
"Maybe we have children." This is a certain expectation of men for the future, and women's answer is: "Not necessarily, then raise a dog." The future is a child, the future is a dog, and the future is a child who plays dice. The future is a naked dog-what is the difference from the present? So language may become something that can never be said goodbye, like a man and a woman, "The shadow of God, isn’t this for a woman who loves her other half? Everyone can stop the existence of God, but no one does it. "So the natural question becomes a metaphorical question: the language is the phrase spoken by the woman leaning on the beach: "Listen to your command", and the following phrase: "Obey me"; the language is the opposite of the Nazi violent world. Ask the mother’s child’s order: "Don’t ask why", and the woman asks the man: "War, how do we deal with the corpse?"
Language is command or obedience, why it is how, and it is also creation. “If you use language, something will appear.” This creation is to see the abyss in the sleeping river, to see the tragedy in Shelley’s story, and to create The revolutionary power seen in the symbol is to find infinity beyond the zero of the "Laurent-Schwarz-Dirac curve", and of course to find the "shadow of God" among men and women: God is the way and language, It’s logos, it’s war-not totalitarianism, planned economy, state machinery, capitalism, exploitation in the peaceful age, not nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms, nanotechnology, advertising, terrorism, but revolution, such as from men and The image of the woman goes back to the British poet Byron who wrote "The Prisoner of Chillon" in 1861, "A pleasant discussion about the revolution, a good opportunity for friends"-a construction of image death to be able to be in the revolution" Talking loudly", so Godard wants to change from Solzhenitsyn's "literary exploration experiment" to "film exploration experiment": "You must start from the bottom. Left and right are created, only up and down are not." Irrelevant to political factions? Irrespective of the collision of views, it is only to penetrate the deepest part of the language. In the downward speaking, the infinite language can be reached. Just like "there is content after the list", in the "goodbye language", everyone starts from "Marburg". Set out to fight"-whether to return is second, because language never bothers to answer unfinished things.
View more about Goodbye to Language reviews
