Sunday, August 9, 2009

(Vainly) In Search of an American Godard

Had I not mentioned Godard a few weeks back in this blog, I would have ignored the comments of A. O. Scott, the chief film critic of the New York Times, about John Hughes being “our Godard”. But I had, and there he was, writing a posthumous review about a director that he said was the “auteur of teenage angst”.
Especially for those of us born between the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Bicentennial, the phrase “a John Hughes movie” will instantly conjure a range of images, including the smooth, pale faces of a bevy of young actors.

But I don’t think I’m alone among my cohort in the belief that John Hughes was our Godard, the filmmaker who crystallized our attitudes and anxieties with just the right blend of teasing and sympathy. Mr. Godard described “Masculin FĂ©minin,” his 1966 vehicle for Jean-Pierre Leaud and Ms. Karina, as a portrait of “the children of Marx and Coca-Cola.” Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Ringwald, in “Pretty in Pink,” were corresponding icons for the children of Ronald Reagan and New Coke.
Note the pretentious reference to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. It is meant to give the discussion a political bent. Scott could have easily said “Kennedy assassination” or the mid 1960s; a few years would have made no difference in a time line that was intended to establish a generational reference point. But he says “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” that, for those who know, stands for government duplicity – an outright lie in order to escalate a war.

Why is he saying that?

Because Godard is political. But not one in 10,000 adults in the U.S. who came of age during the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution have heard of it or know what it signified. The proof is Scott’s own writing. Look, for example, at his analogy, meeting Godard’s witty, immediately-accessible contrast of Marx and Coca-Cola with a meaningless and nonsensical contrast between Ronal Reagan and New Coke. The man knows nothing about Godard or his work.

John Hughes was the director of this generation. Breakfast Club, his magnum opus, is a sophomoric and pretentious movie about mall rats – all white, of course – whining about their “angst”.

So, why mention Godard at all? Why not just compare Hughes to say, Spielberg – John Hughes was the auteur of teenage angst the way Spielberg is the auteur of extraterrestrial angst.

The answer is that the lack of a U.S. Godard is embarrassing. Scott invokes Godard’s name in the same spirit that the New York Times writes about “New York intellectuals” and finance professors speak of Modern Finance Theory. These are things that one wishes existed because their absence is embarrassing.

But they do not exist. American Godard, New York intellectuals, Modern Finance Theory – where they ought to be, there is a big hole.

I cannot do too much about the other holes. But I intend to plug the one about finance theory.

Meanwhile, let me know if you are looking for a good movie. I fancy that I know a thing or two about movies.


Anonymous said...

This is Norman. Congratulations for maintaining such a wonderful site here:

I own some quality financial websites (on-Stocks, Mortgage, Debt issues, Loans, Credit etc.). Yesterday I visited your website. Indeed, the content of your website is excellent and useful. We are really willing to build up a nice and effective link partnership with your site. We would feel honored to have you as our link partner.

By the way, here is my personal finance site:
I welcome you to check it out.

Please advise whether we should go ahead. Feel free to contact me at: norman(dot)spencer08(at)gmail(dot)com

Awaiting your earliest reply...

From Finance Care community

Anonymous said...

This is horrible. Why is the sole link to your post a piece of spam?

Nasser Saber said...

Dear Anonymous;

Please explain. What link are you referring to? What link to my post is a spam? (And what spam?)


Anonymous said...


I didn't think you would respond. I am baffled that your posts get so few comments. I made a mistake in my first comment. What I meant was that the sole comment on this post was from someone trying to get visibility for their own site. To me, the nature of the request qualifies it as spam. It's frustrating to see this kind of noise where I would expect to see some discussion on the contents of your post.

Please keep posting content as you are able, knowing that it is read and appreciated. I especially enjoy the exposition on arbitrage strategies. There is so much going on in the markets that warrants discussion. For my part, I increasingly view the stock markets as far more risky than I once thought.

Nasser Saber said...

Dear Anonymous,

I always respond to email and messages left for me. I am no celebrity!

Thanks for the encouraging words. You will be happy to hear that I am very motivated. In fact, unless I am physically unable to write -- not that there is any problem but that is one eventuality one must always be mindful of -- this blog will not stop. Absolutely.

I know there are many very serious readers and thinkers such as yourself all around the world who read the blog. Now, I can count them and gather demographic information about them if I choose -- which I don't. But my conviction about such readers presence goes beyond analytical software. In fact, when I started the blog, I purposefully avoided any advertising; only mentioned it to a few friends. For the first couple of months, there were only 3 readers. And then gradually traffic increased. It did so purely by the word of mouth. That is how I know that there are people who want to make sense of the events around them.

Having said that, it is perhaps time that the word got around about this blog. I will look around to see what venues are available--without linking the site to commercial vendors. In the mean time, you and your friends could also get the word out. The blog then will have the impact that it should.

Finally, do not worry about the lack of comments. Napoleon said do not wake me up except for bad news. My of the readers of the blog do not write comments because they agree with what they read! Nothing else is then left to say.

Keep your critical comments coming.