Vivre sa vie - Thinking about the rules of cinema being broken and also thinking about it through Sonntag's essay "Godard's Vivre Sa Vie".

 In this essay, Sonntag argues that the film is a "work of art ...'about' ideas", and that it is a detached document of the life of the characters. Generally, the majority of films are about the emotions, inner workings and motivations of a character. They are interested in why a character does something. It's rare that a film is interested in what a character does without these things. 

Everything that happens in Vivre sa vie is about sex and love but it's no where near describable as a romance film.

You just feel like you are watching the world happen. In general, Godard's films are "proof" that something has happened and are edited in a way that an audience has no time to think about it until after. 

We never really find out Nana's inner feelings about self worth, men, her attitude to sex... these are all things that we'd usually expect a film to get into in order to explain a character's decisions but in Vivre sa vie, this never seems importance.

In the essay, Sonntag says that "Photography is truth" , I don't think that this is true, especially in Vivre sa vie. I think photography is the best artform at tricking an audience into believing that something is "true". Photography creates distance and impartiality between an audience and a subject. Lack of emotion isn't truth, impartiality isn't truth. 

The same goes for Sonntag saying that it is a "serious" film. I think seriousness comes from caring and the last thing that anyone does in this film is show that they care. We also don't feel like the director cares, of course it's all very French. Everything is totally detached from emotion and life is viewed as a "testing ground". 

The usual cinematic cliché of lingering on characters' emotions and inner worlds is therefore totally ignored by Godard. If you've seen it you know what I mean.