User reviews

Godard's subversively titled twelfth feature is an constantly mystifying hodgepodge of film narration, images, and memorandums. Dedicated to Nick (Ray) and Samuel (Fuller), this ironically long-unavailable film in America is, technically anyway, a political noir about people acting like they're living in a movie. "You can fool the audience, but not me," Anna Karina, tells someone. This Criterion-salvaged piece, as can invariably be expected of its director, makes reference to its own forced artificiality as well as aware of that aspect of itself as the central object of notice for even the most accustomed viewer of avant-garde and experimental films: When characters talk, it's almost always to either contemplate the character of language or frankly observe the time passing.

Neon signs and electronic news ribbons proliferate. So do comic strips and film stills. Most of the characters, like Donald Siegel and Doris Mizoguchi, are named for Godard's favorite movie figures, and allusions to American movie characters are everywhere, including three from three separate films by Otto Preminger, who also has a street named for him in the movie's make-believe Atlantic City. This stunningly self-conscious political diatribe's cinephilic gags and cartoon violence smack of Alphaville.

In her final performance for Godard, Anna Karina is Paula Nelson, a P.I. swathed in an overcoat and packing heat. As The Big Sleep has an infamously indecipherable plot, one of whose many murders not even Hawks could clarify, so this is Godard's most unrelentingly unbalanced of plot convention. Crucial scenes, if you can call them that, are systematically minced right at the moment of revelation. Information in the dialogue is resolutely buried by street noise or two brash Beethoven chords, as, variantly seductive and apathetic, Paula goes looking for an ostensibly vanished lover, likely dead, in a tangled, tortuous, never elucidated international political conspiracy.

Supposedly, Godard had much more than Raymond Chandler and Donald E. Westlake on one's mind. This patchwork mingles the Americanization of French life with the widespread controversy of mid-60s France, the vanishing of Morocco's foremost leftist, a political expatriate in France and a third-world personage then akin to Malcolm X or Che Guevara, kidnapped by French police acting in cahoots with the Moroccan government, which evidently had him tortured to death on French terrain. That he disappeared while traveling to a development meeting for a documentary, made the incident even more dramatic for Godard. Supposedly, this work of sociopolitical meta fiction is an imagining that he'd not died but had hidden in the provinces, wrote to his girlfriend to meet him. When she gets there, she discovers him dead.

So the movie starts with Paula secluded in a shoddy hotel room in the characterless Paris suburb that doubles for Atlantic City, reflecting on her state of affairs while a couple of hooligans, played by New Wave regulars László Szabó and Jean-Pierre Léaud, linger portentously under her window. "Hanging out" is one of the movie's "active" (if that word could be used) factors. This awkward satire has characteristics of the sometimes fascinating, sometimes pedantic time-languishing revue that distinguished the art-house of the '60s. Early on, Marianne Faithful sits inexplicably in a neighborhood café, nonchalantly trilling As Tears Go By a cappella. But chiefly, Raoul Coutard's camera stares at the star, a statue. Frankly, you could forget all about the political and sociological vinegar and find the movie's really all about contemplating Karina's concealed grins, her dark hair, her switching clothes, and her eerie ability to turn any given shot into a fashion promo. Considering that we hear her voice-over all over, it's not unlike a Jarmusch-esque lone wolf enterprise.

Plot, to use the term carelessly, accelerates when Paula slays the irritating midget stoolie Mr. Typhus: "Now fiction overtakes reality," she self-narrates. Storytelling is leaps and bounds more complicated and theoretically brutal here as in The Big Sleep or Kiss Me Deadly. Like Marlowe or Hammer, Paula finds a succession of corpses during her mission. She also leaves a footpath of others as her own upshot, including one whom she just shoots at close range. Later on, she serves the movie's most celebrated, and loaded, line: "We were in a political movie. Walt Disney with blood." Roughly when characters named Nixon and McNamara show up as hoodlums, played by young film critics, the reel-to-reel tape recorders that have been sporadically stationary in close-up to play messages left by Paula's lover change to egalitarian discourse.

The movie is anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist, condemning miniskirts and rock and roll as manner of fascist brainwashing, but more invested in the kitschy modernism favored by the informal consensus within the mainstream of Western culture than any movie Godard made prior or since. Paula asserts that advertising is a form of fascism, representing the director. It's a legitimate grievance and an upsetting one, considering that Made in U.S.A. is a relentless commercial for itself. Perhaps the cleverest thing about it might be its title, which offers perspective on that element.

Pending this work, Godard was a nationalist for some, a populist for others, but didn't folks assert the same thing about Orson Welles? And yet for others, he was just an armchair politico. Made in U.S.A. is an opinionated exploit that's equally as sincere as a formal expression of political will, a judgmental breakdown of pop culture and a cautionary lecture in which, this time, the filmmaker has become so explicitly caught up that he felt he had to film it himself.

There is no questioning the power of Godard. His cinematic talent reaches much farther than my mind could even begin to escape, and upon watching some of his lesser known films these days - his sheer imagination was something that is decidedly missed in today's film experience. Watching "Pierrot Le Fou", the vivid color, the uncontrollable ability to combine any genre into one frame, and the dedication of his actors was demonstrated. A less-fan of his "Breathless" film and more into his experimental work, "Fou" was right up my alley - yet, watching "Made in USA", I was completely flabbergasted. This film was confusing, colorful, intelligent, philosophical, brutal, and a slice of what America was producing at the time, while all the while being completely Godard. Destined never to be a favorite among purists, "Made in USA" requires more than one viewing and an accompanying owner's manual to navigate, but the final destination is worth all the work. Using Anna Karina as our guide, this spy-thriller (if I could say that) takes off with a huge step and never looks back.

Do not watch this movie late at night or while doing anything that will cause you to glance away from the screen. Every moment in this film is necessary, every word that Godard has our actors speak - while at times confusing and thought provoking - is needed to tell this dis-narrative story. Godard is a master behind the camera for this film - giving us an early glimpse as to what was in store with "Pierrot Le Fou", his bold color and well read characters (each one is always holding a book - Bravo!), are just the crust. What made "Made in USA" stand out was the obvious connections to Walt Disney, the "Big Sleep", and nearly everything coming out of the 60s in America, but what makes Godard impressive, is that one needs to search to see it. He doesn't spoon feed you a narrative that makes your heart gush at the end, Godard creates challenging cinema that will not be enjoyed by all, but if developed - if watched over time - if studied, remains important even 43 years later.

"Made in USA" is another Criterion release that looks and sounds perfectly, but - even with my discussion on how great Godard's work is - isn't the greatest release from the master. Yep, I am a Godard fan, but I am picky. I didn't enjoy "Breathless", but "Pierrot Le Fou" I hold very highly - and this - well, "Made in USA" is intelligent, but perhaps a bit too pretentious. The idea behind this film is solid, but it is the execution that had me nervous. Godard is eloquent in introducing us to certain characters and elements, but gives them names of his favorites like McNamara and Nixon that just feels weighted by symbolism and inside jokes. The viewing took place over the course of three days, not due to the diminishing subject, but because a rewind was needed to ensure that parts didn't go missing or lost. Crafting one part puzzle, one part social commentary, one part comedy is difficult - and for the beginning film watcher - this probably isn't the best film to first experience Godard. Here is what I liked - I loved not knowing. What was exhilarating about this feature was the unknown. The confusing dialogue, the menacing tape voice, the constant barrage of planes flying overhead (if that IS what that noise was), and the possible hope of knowing Richard's last name - keeps one wanting to finish, but getting there is a battle. The dialogue is either a love or hate moment. As there is no linear story, from the spoken perspective, and it is easy to get lost in Godard's cluttered words. For myself, it was at times refreshing - and at other times a disaster. Without a linear narrative, it was difficult to understand how one character fit within the scheme of events. What was happening between Paula and Mr. Typhus? Just thinking about it gives me a headache.

The scenes that stood out in this film were the bartender moments (where you could call him Paul or Bartender, but not "sir"), the pinball machine in the garage, and the billboard store room characters. These made me chuckle and see the humor that Godard was demonstrating, but the others just felt murky and disjointed. Again, I would like to state that every scene was necessary, but were they great? The imagery was spectacular - giving us the color palette that he would later use in "Pierrot Le Fou" - and the cinematography followed suit. For me, it was just the language the bogged me down. I wanted to know these characters further, I wanted to further know the story of the skulled man, and who was double crossing who. "Made in USA" is an important film, I am glad to see it within the Criterion catalogue, but it is an advanced film. The average film watcher will not like this movie, even I felt lost sometimes - but I am so very happy that I watched it.

In another review, this film was quoted as a "B-side" to the Godard cannon, and I couldn't agree more. Could I watch this movie again? Absolutely, but not right away. I look forward to re-exploring this piece of cinema, understanding what I missed, and seeing the inside moments that may have slipped by me the first time. "Made in America" isn't perfect, and I don't know anyone that can take a ten minutes of a tape playing discussing politics, but this self-proclaimed "B-side" finally has a release it deserves.

Grade: *** 1/2 out of *****

Nothing is every straight-forward in a Godard movie and MADE IN USA is probably as baffling as they get! It's a bizarre tale that confounds logical dissection but if the weirdness of the story and structure sometimes make it a trial to watch, the beautiful late 60s colour photography and the dazzling Anna Karina offer considerable compensation! Quite why Godard wastes so much screen time on a tape recording of left- wing rhetoric can only be imagined. If it was to make a political point, that simply gets lost by overkill and makes one reach for the fast- forward button.

The often curious soundtrack features a passing jet aircraft (or is it an express train?) which always obscures the surname of Karina's mysterious, deceased lover in a fashion that Tarrentino late used to obscure the name of the'The Bride' in KILL BILL.

What's it all about? No idea! But the film, or maybe the style, certainly the luminous Karina, does somehow get under your skin and even though I found it hard to endure on a first viewing I'm increasingly keen to watch it once again . Amongst the mind-boggling strangeness I'm sure I must have missed something vital....now, where is that DVD?

A cinematographic experiment by Jean-Luc Godard! Not too accessible. Interesting opening credits with just the initials of the cast. The colors are bright, contrasting with the usual black and white movies that Godard made before this one. At some point, the movie reminded me of the hit series "Twin Peaks" by David Lynch. But this is way more incoherent. In fact, it's hard to figure if there's anything to be made of this film. Still, Godard get to explore the fascination of the French for everything that comes from the U.S.A. Another interesting fact: some of the talks exchanged by the characters (ex. in the bar scene). A linguist would probably have some fun analyzing this. Some scenes are just painful to watch if you're tired (ex. the political manifesto on tape)! Anna Karina is great to watch, as usual.

Out of 100, I give it 71. That's good for ** out of ****.

Seen at home, in Toronto, on November 26th, 2002.

There's no filmmaker from the time that makes his influence more obvious, Hollywood and French semiotics, also no one who is more original in creation than Godard, but as to the use and power it has we'll have to see. To face a Godard film is to face the mind of its author after all, it's always so revealing.

It seems the real inspiration behind this was the disappearance of a prominent Moroccan leftist leader in Paris, Ben Barka. One can imagine the scandal caused at the time, how much it said about France and the West, especially to someone like Godard who would be attuned to receive it.

The first thing to glean then is that instead of filming the outrage, the obscuring of truth and malaise, using fiction, Godard reverts back to image and cinema, about fiction. To that effect he plucks a potboiler story from a book about a woman who travels to a coastal town where her revolutionary lover has told her to meet him only to find him mysteriously dead, but instead of filming the mystery and noir conspiracy, Godard films a disjointed tapestry of image and citation.

There are many of these, quotes, abrupt cuts and insertions, ruminations on camera, agitprop played from tape-recorders, all first of course Godard's fooling with cinema to see what it is made of, but moreover his oblique way of delivering the obscuring of truth, the disjointed nature of living in a world where people can mysteriously disappear and we can only grasp at fictions. As more of an afterthought he can joke that this knot of indecipherable plot is his version of The Big Sleep.

More fascinating is what all this shows of Godard. There's a bourgeois intellectual in him, that side of him he would run away from after Weekend, who wants to present his view of a concave reality, but none of it deep, transformative or unsettling, always thinly exposing thin artifice. There's of course talk of Disney and Bogart, there's a Rue Preminger, an inspector Aldrich. Tarantino- isms.

But also a spiritual side of him, a burning desire to transcend the clutter of narratives and mind; at one point Anna Karina whispers about how she would rather have nothing instead of everything as a way of reaching the absolute, it's this absolute that likely he chased in the chimera of politics and beyond. He doesn't know yet that this nothingness is not only another thought or another belief but a cessation of thought, a suspension of disbelief. He would later.

It's this other Godard who is a gentle soul, contains the child fascinated by image, the poet fascinated by love, perhaps not the philosopher troubled by being which was only more thought stood in his way. This side is as stifled here, unable to pierce through the cutouts, as it was after Weekend when he wasted his talent in things like Pravda, and was only really let flourish in the 90s, his transcendent period when you must find him again.

It's probably useless to say anything against Godard, since it's some kind of an unwritten law, that Godard is a cinematic god, and if you don't confess your belief to him, you're a vulgar idiot. - still I have to say that he's one of the most overrated directors in film history.

Yeah, sure I admit his historical value, the man made a huge change in to the course of film making, and I respect him for that. I have also read Godard's book about the structure and nature of film, and found it very fascinating. Still, for a man who knows a lot about the structure of cinema, a decision to throw every single characteristic in storytelling away, feels very strange to me. It just doesn't work. He, if anybody should know, that they don't exist for nothing.

I can see why he achieved this "film god" status. He was something never seen before, something outrageous. But hey people, let's face it. An hour long political essay disguised as a movie is not "beutifully poetic" or what ever you want to call it. It's just plain boring. No one ever has anything else to say about Godard's movies, than they are "surrealistic" and have such a "strangely poetic mood" in them. Like it's some kind of a magnitude. Poetic or not, The characters are unidimensional and flat.

If you want poetic movies with surrealistic mood, I suggest you to watch for example Robert Bresson's, Andrei Tarkovsky's or Krzysztof Kieslowski's films. They have a lot more in them than just the mood.

Godard at his most infuriating. "Made in U.S.A." is visually superb, (Raoul Coutard is once again the DP), but so enigmatic as to be virtually pointless. It's like an academic treatise on American Film Noir; in other words, how not to do a film noir. If it's meant to be politically relevant it was lost on me. Dropping words like 'Communism' and 'Hanoi' in the middle of a scatalogically surreal screenplay don't imbue them with significance anymore than naming your characters Donald Siegel, Richard Widmark, David Goodis adds up to anything other than a cheap homage. Karina is the star, in colour, and she's gorgeous and you might say that as 'pure cinema', unencumbered by logic or reason, the film actually works but I think you need to be a real Godard aficionado to appreciate it or even to get it. The best thing I can say about it is that it's quite short.

So Godard is not for everyone. I need to preface things here with that. Godard is such a polarizing figure some folks actually get angry at not just the director, but also with the people who enjoy his work. I've actually been accused a few times of simply pretending to dig the guy by those who didn't have the patience. But, for my money, when Godard was in his power (ie the Sixties) no one could touch him.

Made in USA, so Godard claims, is a remake of the Big Sleep. But, and it should be noted up top, I don't think we can believe him. Part of the fun is dealing with how he will lie to you, treat you with contempt, and/or in general mess with your head. There are constant interruptions in the film, Godard forces you to face the fact you are watching a film and to size it up constantly. Godard doesn't exist to watch on auto pilot; he wants you to analyze the act of viewing. It can be infuriating, especially when he removes action sequences or very awkwardly names characters/places "Otto Preminger" or "Richard Widmark." The political statements get a little heavy handed as well, though treated with humor.

As much fun as I find the film, and this entire period of Godard, watching a film like this or Pierrot Le Fou or 2 or 3 Things About Her or Weekend is work. You are expected to be actively involved. If you want to be told a story or feel like you are looking into another world, maybe Made in USA is not for you. And that's cool, these films are obnoxious and pretentious. But it can be extremely rewarding if you are willing to admit you may not "get" chunks of the film and maybe enjoyment will only kick in after thinking about the movie for a couple days. That sounds like faint praise, but Made in USA is an audacious, bold, exciting film that makes you confront what you always took for granted in classic Hollywood.

In 1966 Jean-Luc Godard was approached by producer Georges de Beauregard, who said that he had some money he needed to spend and asked if Godard could make a film on very short notice. Godard said sure, and proposed adapting a pulp crime novel (Donald E. Westlake's "The Jugger"). But when Godard made the film, which would get the title MADE IN U.S.A., he did everything possible to break out of a straightforward adaptation, using the novel as a mere skeleton over which he could explore other themes that interested him.

Paula (Anna Karina), a journalist, goes to a small town where her estranged boyfriend Richard has died in mysterious circumstances, surely murder. Determined to get to the bottom of things, she takes on the air of a hardboiled detective, wielding a pistol and wearing a Bogartian trenchcoat. She meets the doctor who did the autopsy and has a run-in with the police, but mainly we see her tangled up with two gangsters, played by László Szabó and Jean-Pierre Léaud.

Godard maintains just enough conventional dialogue and action to let the viewer know where we are in the crime novel's plot, but most of what transpires before the camera must be understood as only abstract metaphors for what would have happened in the book. The interaction between his characters mainly has other purposes. They have absurdist conversations with a great deal of wordplay. They allude to French politics in a time when Godard was worried about the compromised values of the French Left and the spectres of fascism and consumer society. The Ben Barka affair, where a Moroccan dissident was murdered in France in 1965 with the apparent involvement of the French security services, looms very large over MADE IN U.S.A., almost elbowing Westlake's original story out entirely. As if aware that he had stripped the plot down to such a degree that he now had too much time to be filled, he gives little asides like Marianne Faithful singing "Tears Go By" a cappella in a cameo and Kyôko Kosaka strumming a guitar and singing in Japanese.

This is not one of Godard's best films. For one, Godard reused many of the elements of his masterpiece PIERROT LE FOU from the year before. PIERROT LE FOU was itself assembled as sort of a collage of shots from Godard's prior films, which worked well as a wonderful summing up of his early career. But when he does the same with MADE IN U.S.A., it is to greatly diminished effect. But even if this is weak by Godard standards, it is nonetheless a moving experience. Shot in colour and in Cinemascope, this is a feast for the eyes. The very best of what the 1960s had to offer in terms of fashion and product design is on hand here and it just jumps of the screen. The image feels electric. (It is a pity that Criterion's edition is only on DVD, as a Blu-Ray would have yielded even greater pleasures.) Godard's longtime cameraman Raoul Coutard gives us some elaborate long takes that impress. And of course it's Godard's last major celebration of Anna Karina's beauty and poise, which really was something for the ages, still stunning half a century later.

Jean Luc Godard's Made in the USA is a smug bore of a film with the director riding high in his peak period during the Sixties that featured abstract works mocking narrative style and bourgeois lifestyle while embracing Maoism. While some of his works ( Breathless, Weekend, Alphaville, Les Carabiniers ) hold some fascination his overall canon is one of grand tedium where he drones on in endless political thought and non-sequitur with cloying pretense and name dropping for the post modernists to dig. Enter "USA," looking like a refugee from a Jaques Demy musical, featuring another of Godard's obsessions, adorable wife and muse Anna Karina seeking out the man who murdered her husband. Wearing some pretty Paris frocks and inflecting monotone Godard gets the rest of his cast to go along as well while slathering his jarring but underwhelming compositions in gaudy color, sloppily editing (signature Godardian artistry) then sitting back and waiting for the art house critics to proclaim this dull goulash a "subversive indictment of..." take your pick.

Along with Fellini, Bergman, Kurasawa and Truffaut Jean Luc Godard was part of the foreign film movement that helped transition film appreciation in America from entertaining block-busters to carving out a niche in the market with small personal art films. His first feature Breathless is considered for its introduction of a new film language (ellipses) the birth of the new wave. After that came a series of similar broadsides against the decaying West that may well be still going on today given the old guy is still making highly obscure films. But the game was up by the end of the 70s and all very evident in this flaccid mess (sorely missing the camera work of Raoul Coutard) re-hashing the same theme, ideas, distance seen in all his other works. I admire Godard for still be able and desiring to make films in his 80s. But given his messy incoherent, filmography he may be more con artist than film artist. Looking back at that seminal moment in film history where film editing changed forever, John Cassavettes Shadows (59) seems to have beat Godard and Truffaut to the punch. For Godardian loyalists only, especially the ones willing to fall for his Big Sleep re-make blurb and his hackneyed visionary politics that might aptly re-tile this mess as Made in Venezuela.

It's probably a given to note one of Jean-Luc Godard's notorious Godard-isms, likely the one that everyone knows even if they haven't seen a Godard picture: All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun. While this is a pointed reference to the simplicity possible and/or inherent in the gangster picture or noir, and about how inexpensiveness should be taken usually into consideration. But at the same time, I think a picture like Made in USA or even something like Band of Outsiders or Vivre sa vie emphasizes that Godard was really the one to go for this in the only way that he could: all Godard needed to make a movie was a girl (his girl, pre Masculin Feminin which was immediately after Made in USA, Anna Karina), a gun (or sometimes more than one), and Jean-Luc Godard. Because, really, a girl and a gun is fine, but in the 1960s, with this man at the helm, it was just a little bit more.

Called by the director himself as a "remake" of the Big Sleep, which perhaps makes the best sense of all, this was the hardest to find of the French New Wave wild-man-poet-anarchist's films not just with Anna Karina but in the 60s in general (pre-Criterion). Interesting, since this is, to my somewhat biased estimation (biased in that this was, to me, his absolute prime period before his very hit or miss period in the decades to follow), one of his most entertaining "B-movie" movies about movies. And not just about movies, but also about living with oneself, the politics of France, Walt Disney, and things pop culture flavored all around. This is another in a line of pictures Godard made that was very anti-capitalist while at the same time embracing to an extent (if only ironically) the images and names and attitudes of American pictures and pulp fiction and comic books and other things. There's such an array of references that at the theater I saw this film at, the Film Forum in NYC, they had to put up a glossary-key to fill people in.

And as much as it's a love letter to wild quips, eccentric characters, guys in trench-coats and hats, Nick Ray and Sam Fuller (especially them as providing Godard's "love of sound and image" as noted at the start), bright colors filmed in wonderful Technicolor, stretches of time filled on a tape recorder about French politics, and to the dark and warmth of American B-movies, it's also a fine goodbye to Anna Karina. Here, as pretty and tough and contemplative as ever, going through some classic Godard scenes like when she and the detective who may have killer her character's lover explain to the camera what they are saying in a scene instead of playing it out, or just lying on the ground in a moment of existential upheaval, Karina shows how good she could actually be. While not her very best- I'd save that for Pierrot le fou and Vivre sa vie- it's a very memorable performance, and one that, like everyone else in Godard's films, knows so well about the performance as she's performing, that the "fiction" itself becomes wrapped around in the very documentary-like act of filming the movie.

And that last part, I think, is the handle for this time period for Godard. What was essential to his craft, when it clicked just right, was that he could master together his love of quotations and pop-culture and movie references on top of a daring and sometimes wacky exploration of reality and fiction. Made in USA us based on a Donald Westlake crime book about a woman looking to find out who killer her man, but in Godard's hands the very act of this plot, joyously convoluted as the best possible homage/remake of Hawks' Big Sleep as could be outside of Coen brothers, is subjugated to scenes where actors talk to the camera about what they would normally just say to each other in a scene, or when they make point of, of course, that it's just a movie. It may be a "B-side" in the Godard 60s cannon as a NY Times review pointed out, but damn it all if it isn't one of the most enjoyable B-sides in all cinema.

Made in U. S. A was a French movie that satire the story of the Americans; the movie were weird with the character name like Richard Nixon and Robert McNamara.

Rarely has a filmmaker utilized such gorgeous photography, gorgeous locations, and gorgeous people to create a film so pretentious, amateurish, and mind-bogglingly dull. Watching "Made in U.S.A." is like watching an entire can of the world's most beautiful paint drying.

I want to like Godard. I really, really do. But the only one of his films that I've even come close to truly enjoying was "À bout de soufflé." (Back in school I went to great efforts to see "Alphaville," and after finally getting hold of a VHS copy and viewing it, I was just left wondering what the big deal was). If I didn't have respected film critics and historians to tell me otherwise, I'd be of the solid opinion that Godard was just an amateur whose lack of traditional skills in his art just happened to coincide with the anti-establishment feeling of the day. In other words, he hit it lucky a time or two.

"Made in U.S.A." is interesting to watch as a "thing," but impossible to watch as a movie. It would make wonderful video wallpaper. It's as though Ed Wood had hired the best European cinematographer available and improvised a movie with a bunch of his drinking buddies.

Made in U.S.A. (1966)

** (out of 4)

Jean-Luc Godard's homage to American film noir has a mysterious woman (Anna Karina) trying to figure out who killed her former lover. The woman travels throughout France questioning various men trying to figure out who was behind the murder while the viewer tries to figure out why they're bothering watching the film. There's no question that Godard is a legend of the screen but there's also no question that many, many people hate him. Hate's too strong of a word but I do admit that I think the director likes to be frustrating and the more people he makes mad I'm sure the happier he is. The story itself really isn't all that interesting and I found it funny that Godard had said in interviews that he was influenced by the Humphrey Bogart classic THE BIG SLEEP. The two films have very little in common and I'd say there's also very little homage to the classic noirs of the 40s and 50s. For the most part the film succeeds in being weird but like most Godard movie it's still well-made no matter how silly, boring and stupid it gets. I think what I liked most about the film were the colors that Godard uses on our main character. When we first see her she's wearing a multi-color dress and throughout the movie her wardrobe is clearly the most interesting and entertaining thing on the screen. I liked the way Godard used this colors to really light up the scene just like filmmakers would use shadow and fog to bring to life their noirs. The story itself I found to be very uninteresting and there wasn't a single second where I cared what was going on and I certainly didn't care who killed the former lover. I'm sure some Godard fans would say that was what the director was going for and I'd personally believe this but at the same time I just don't fall into the group who believes you can be pointless and unconventional and make it entertaining. The performances are pretty good for what they are but none of them really jump out at you. The film has fun mentioning earlier films and we even get Bogart's name thrown up and one character is named Richard Widmark. MADE IN U.S.A. is a film that I'm sure has some fans but I found it rather hard to sit through even though it's well-made.

Dwight MacDonald might not have liked Goddard's 'Made in U.S.A.'It is a film that marries high culture and low, which bristles DM disdain for 'masscult'. For 2016 film goers 'Made in U.S.A.'is a 20 questions quiz. It has everything thrown in from soup to nuts, from pulp fiction to politics to literature to American politics to Hollywood and even to the signature of the 'last of the Red Hot Mamas' Miss Sophie Tucker. Goddard references Horace MaCoy's 'Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye', which rests on Anna Karina's breast in the opening shot, but substitutes it with the words of say Samuel Beckett. His characters have the names of Hollywood directors, Goddard admired. Selig or Misoguchi for example. Or writers like Ben Hecht. His bad guys bear the monikers of Nixon and Robert Macnamara. Into his script he doffs his hat to the poet Prevert or Louis Aragon or the writer Jean-Paul Sartre. Otto Preminger is a street name. Richard Widmark is in good company as a killer, and he delights in Karina killing the detective novels David Goodis. Who today recalls the abduction of the Moroccan leftist opponent of Hassan II, abducted at noon in St. Germain des Pres? Or Mers El Kebir or the failure of the Free French to wrest Dakar from Vichy control? Or the destruction of Agadir during a strong earth quake or the crushing to death of protesters when the police closed the Metro Charonne? And Goddard's disembodied voice rings out on an AIWA tape recorder as he condemns the sterile politics of the French Right and Left and the pusillanimous Communist Party, a condemnation which finds echos into America's presidential brouhaha for the White House. 'Made in U.S.A.' is full of talk that today might send the viewer to turn off his DVD player. Is it a museum piece? an obscure film that best be viewed by cinema students? Goddard's film is a relic of the turbulent 1960s, of a France exiting from a long war in Algeria in 1962, ending fighting wars from 1939 till June 1962. As the country under DeGaulle's Fifth Republic energized a tired France, the American war in Vietnam brought about what the French called the 'May Days of 1968', but we are ahead of the story the film tells. 'Made in U.S.A.' reflects through Goddard's lens the 'Sturm und Drum' of those seemingly forgotten Times.

Now, I'm not exactly the "goddard type". I like movies with metaphors without a specific way but a journey, where you can solve or can't, and above all can reflect society or youself in the picture. Still i tend to pick more linear films that don't want me to raise that many questions. This movie is packed with philosophical thought, political reflections while still has a narrative and still is a murder mystery. but on his own, without following any type of specific "script" in order to get there.

it's still a film that is linear in time: her finding the partner, the scenes where she finds more information about him, the police, the final resolution. it's in the middle, the inbetweens where we watch godard reflect about his world, the existencialist views, how the world is moving, love and cinema.s. It's not all about what is said, but what he wants to say.

i found this movie a bit impenetrable for those that are starting goddard like me. i remember loving alphaville when i sw it, i think this one might be a bit harder to engage. it's probably my fault i admit it. Technically is flawless and the best part is in the great use of colour and even the wardrobe (something i never mention in movies i think this is the first time). It seems to be also an anti consumerism film that hopes repression will die at the same time as fashionable items.

maybe i could give a better grade, but for now it's this. I might come again to see more of this world and have to check more godard films in order to get used to see how he makes cinema. We are too used to want to feel comfortable while in the movies. and on having a film as a piece to consume, not to think or feel anything.

Who told Jean-Luc Godard that he was a good filmmaker? Even his best regarded films ("Breathless," "Contempt") can be a challenge to sit through. This mess is an exercise in pure self-indulgence, as if putting a camera in front of a pretty girl is enough to keep an audience interested while nothing of any consequence happens. Or having to listen to Marianne Faithful's a cappella rendition of her one hit tune.

This film is really great and is typical of Godard films. I've seen that someone said on this board that the film wasn't good because another director had to direct it and Godard hadn't the rights but I really think that all this is a matter of justice and doesn't concern Cinema at all (and Godard has to be written with only two "d" and not three...). Anyway, this movie is great. It's full of non-sense, it's very poetic and we follow the beautiful Anna Karina trying to find and kill the people who killed her husband. It's a new experience of Cinema in the way to make movies, to write dialogs... it's a kind of reinvention. And you can see many famous people at the time of their youth like English singer Marianne Faithful, french actor Jean-Pierre Léaud and french writer Philipe Labro. It's a non-conventional film by someone who really experiment Cinema as an Art : Jean-Luc Godard.

In response to user Planktonrules, if you dismiss 'Made in U.S.A.' as too unconventional then Godard films really aren't for you. I did not find 'Made in U.S.A.' to be very unconventional in terms of its narrative structure any more than any film he made before it.

With that said, 'Made in U.S.A.', is essentially Godard's cross pollination of his three main interests: his wife/muse, his political views and his love of films. This was made right before he really went off the deep end into Maoist political tracts and essentially still holds to a solid narrative while utilizing his typical Godardian techniques.

Those include deconstructed narratives which remind you you're watching a movie, on screen text, film references galore (particularly to Otto Preminger), copious amounts of closeups of his gorgeous wife Anna Karina in her last film with the director and political rhetoric.

And, if you're wondering, the genre he uses this time is film noir. Another thing people fail to note is that it's quite a pro-feminist move to cast Anna Karina as the lead reporter/detective, going quite the opposite than most in the genre.

In conclusion, even without a solid knowledge of Godard's personal life reveals an entertaining film, that's surprisingly quick moving for Godard and further examination into his personal life reveals a lot of what this film says.

So to all you naysayers who 'don't get it' and to those who love his films based on the fact that you're supposed to, hope that helps!

Well, here I go again. I've seen quite a few Jean-Luc Godard movies and disliked quite a few of them. But then, like a dummy, I come back for more! That's because again and again, I hear how brilliant and creative his films are and I want to see this. But, once again, I see pretentiousness disguised in the form of creativity and unconventionality. And, once again, I see rave reviews that give him the absolutely highest possible scores. Yet I wonder, who is the audience? I know I am a reasonably bright and intellectual person (who has seen and reviewed a bazillion films and has six years of graduate school under my belt) and yet I hated the film--so who is the audience other than a small group of Godard acolytes? The point to this film, I assume, is that what we say isn't important. People talk and talk--for no apparent reason. People have names like 'Ruby Gentry' and 'Richard Widmark' and no one acts the least bit like any person in the real world--more like folks who live in a Bizarro World. All this in a city called Atlantic City--a fictitious French town in the near future--much like Godard's Alphaville. There's a lot more to the film than this, but I had a hard time forcing myself to watch it and frankly don't particularly care what occurred.

I think I am done. I have seen ALPHAVILLE, FIRST NAME: CARMEN, PIERRE LE FOU and quite a few other seemingly pointless Godard films. I am done trying to understand or see value in them. It seems that for every good Godard film I enjoy, I see three others that bore me to tears. I guess I'm just a neanderthal.

the critics call it incoherent and lynch-like and i thought from one point i started to loose it cause of my poor french, nevertheless godard's communist manifesto will really get u "high"!the cinematography is amazing with orange colour as base,amazing gros plan and surealistic dialogues that take you to another level!I think Godard tries to take a little bit of taty's magic and really manage to make a film of both totall irrationalism and clear political manifestation combined with the glamourous 70s feeling!Of course u can blame him for talking too much nonsense from time to time and some noises heard are really impossible to connect with anything on the film.But this is la Nouvelle vague,its take it or leave it and as far as im concerned its super stylistique and stucks in ur mind for quite some time!

New Wave pioneer Jean-Luc Godard was in his most creative period during the 60's and thus made some of his most influential works, marking the history of cinema forever. "Breathless", "Pierrot le fou" and "Le petit soldat" are some of them. "Made in USA" is not well-known, but it is also very different from the commercial films of the period and inaccessible to the average film viewer.

Godard characterised this film "un film policier, un film politique, un film poétique", something also written on its poster. I'm thus going to examine it from these three aspects.

Un film policier : "Made in USA" is a loose adaptation of the Howard Hawks feature, "The big sleep" (1946), a classic of the film noir genre starring Humphrey Bogart. Godard's film has a plot resembling a film noir or a policier, about a woman (Anna Karina) searching for the murderer of her lover, Richard P. , in a fictionalised version of an American city, named Atlantic Cité. In her search, she becomes entangled in what seems to be an international conspiracy, with party officials following her every move. Murders, characters ranging from a crime writer (Yves Afonso), to an exuberant barman (Marc Dudicourt) make for a suspenseful atmosphere and the mystery centered around Richard's fate (is he really dead?) gives the film its story, on the surface typical of a film policier.

Un film politique : If on the surface the film is, indeed, a policier, it soon becomes quite clear that Godard's aim was to comment on the state of French and American politics of the period through this movie. The characters are named, among others, Richard Nixon, David Goodis, and Robert McNamara, most of them serving as the enemies of the protagonist. The excellent photography of Raoul Coutard, emphasizing the shiny neon lights and the intense colours of the city, is used to show the superficiality of the modern society. For all the colours and the light, what is hidden behind them is corruption and political incompetence. As for consumerism, it's just another form of fascism, and so is advertisement. In this sense, Godard may have agreed with his fellow compatriot's, Jean Baudrillard's opinions about the consumerist society, as expressed in his book of the same name. To him, consumerism satisfies nonexistent needs in the society, giving value to useless objects based on their exchange value only, and making people leave in a fake reality, that is, a copy of a copy of reality, in which objects act as signs, estranged from their original purpose. In the film, the settings in which Paula walks are real, but nothing in them shows the pressing political problems of the time. Everything is centered around the visual, the shops, the objects.

Un film poétique : "Made in USA", is most of all, a poetic film, but like poetry itself it is often incomprehensible. For the characters, literal language is but a surface way to express their thoughts. The film relies on extensive wordplay to make its points clear, with the characters debating about the meaning of what they say rather what they say. Reinforcing his vision of a fake reality , Godard has his characters use similes. "It seems at if we're in a film, Walt Disney with blood", Karina says at one moment. It seems, because we don't really know. Language itself is distorted by incomprehensible sounds, heard when anyone mentions the infamous Richard P. , and unexpected reactions. In one such scene, a character played by New Wave regular Jean-Pierre Leaud laughs at a joke, and is hit in the head by someone else. Almost mechanically, his face freezes to a serious expression. All this happens inexplicably, without words, but the aforementioned joke. The film's poetic character is its most dominant element, combining the previous two.

For all these reasons, one must treat this film like a book in order to understand it. It requires one's full attention, and is an example of a short movie that communicates so many ideas that its duration feels to be the double of what it is. Like poetry, the film relies on a familiar topic - the film noir convention - to make its points, that is, the director's opinions about politics, clear. Unfortunately, it is too poetic to have any real substance, coming off more as an oxymoron, showing the visual elements of a society that the director despises, and keeping the viewer concentrated on it only because of its being a feast for the eyes. It's an film made in France, but looking like it was "Made in the USA".