Bad HTTP response: 0 (URL: http://api.ipinfodb.com/v3/ip-city/?key=105ec657a4ee4f6482dd913d7bf1cacb2def2dbb00e9573609e72a7d0048a66e&ip=54.80.169.119&format=raw). Branimira Maldeghem - Sun Square Neptune (part 2)


ISAR logo
 

Branimira Maldeghem - Sun Square Neptune (part 2)

JEAN-LUC GODARD:

The Filmmaker as Philosopher

“We walk through ourselves, meeting robbers, ghosts, giants, old men, young men, wives, widows, brothers in law. But always meeting ourselves.” ~ J. Joyce

Jean-Luc Godard is a Franco-Swiss filmmaker and a leading member of the “French New Wave” [4]. Known for stylistic innovations that challenged the conventions of Hollywood cinema, he is universally recognized as the most audacious, radical, and influential of the “New Wave” filmmakers. His work reflects a fervent knowledge of film history, a comprehensive understanding of existential and Marxist philosophy, and profound insight into the fragility of human relations. His career has been devoted to both honoring and destroying cinema, taking it apart and rebuilding it. Godard represents the filmmaker as philosopher, “the number theorist”21 who “conjugates” the prime numbers of social reality to create a comprehensible pattern.

His movies explore the nature of time and consciousness, the problem of language and communication, and the questions of causality and human freedom. To a small coterie of cinephiles and most professional film critics, especially in Europe, Godard is considered the ultimate cinematic genius. To others, his films often seem insufferably opaque and indecipherable. His works have been a source of inspiration for many directors, including Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen, Steven Soderbergh, Jim Jarmusch, and Wong Karwai.

The Sun in Godard’s chart is in Sagittarius in the 3rd house. Sagittarius is associated with the search for meaning and need for faith in a “Higher Power.” The 3rd house is related to language, learning and communication. This could indicate an identification (Sun) with moral truths (Sagittarius): “I am a philosopher” or “I am a judge.” One’s personal philosophy could relate to language and communication (3rd).

The Sun disposes [5] Mars, which is in the 10th. Mars reflects our capacity for assertion and need for freedom. The 10th house is associated with career, success, and authority figures. The Sun is the significator of the 11th house, which is associated with emancipation and causes. This could indicate an intention (Sun) to expand one’s influence (Sagittarius) via communications for the sake of human progress (Sun significator of 11th). The Sun is disposed by Jupiter [6] in Cancer in the 10th. Jupiter represents our ultimate truth. Cancer is associated with family, memory and history. It could indicate that the expression of personal truths (Sun Sagittarius) will be further advanced by theories related to history (Jupiter Cancer).

Neptune in Godard’s chart is in Virgo in the 11th house and signifies the 6th house, which is archetypally associated with Virgo. Virgo represents the need to be competent and of service, to analyze and solve problems. This could suggest an inspiration (Neptune) to serve (Virgo) the cause of societal change (11th). In its association with imagination and fantasy, Neptune represents the cinema: in Godard’s case, this might be analytical cinema that addresses societal problems.

The opening square between the Sun and Neptune in Godard’s chart suggests that expression of moral truths (Sun Sagittarius) is perceived as mutually exclusive to the ideal of sacrifice and service to the collective (Neptune Virgo). Partaking in collective dreams requires the sacrifice of personal identity. Therefore, personal creativity in the service of truth (Sun/Sagittarius) could be felt as conflicting with the Neptunian ideal of selfless service (Virgo) to the collective (11th). The originating cognition can be expressed as: “My will to find meaning and tell the truth is problematic and may cause suffering to others. Either free will is wrong or it’s merely an illusion.” The result may be irrational guilt leading to various acts of self-undoing.

Initially, this Sun-Neptune psychological dynamics would be mirrored in early childhood experiences that may involve a lack of adequate validation. The originally constructed sense of self may be confused and the person may exhibit low self-esteem. Analogous situations requiring validation of identity will be recreated in an attempt to disconfirm the negative belief and further integrate the aspect.

Archetypally, the Sun represents the father figure as first playmate. The challenging Sun-Neptune dynamic in Godard’s chart suggests a father wounded in his self-esteem and who perhaps has over-inflated opinions. Unlike his wife, Godard’s father, Paul, did not belong to the “high” Protestant society, and this may have damaged Paul’s self-confidence. He was often irritated by and overtly disparaging of Jean-Luc’s balancing on chairs, peering over his glasses, or incessant punning. Puns imply the holding in suspension of two conflicting patterns of meaning so that a new emphasis appears. Puns may have reflected Godard’s need to construct meaning, a form of creativity that was not applauded by his father, but rather mocked and censured [7].

Godard was not allowed to speak at the table unless he quoted someone else’s opinion related to the subject of discussion; if disobedient, he had to eat alone in the kitchen as punishment. Identifying with someone else’s “truths” was encouraged at the expense of originality and authenticity of personal opinions. Arts and culture were strongly emphasized in Godard’s upbringing, but not cinema. Cinema was dismissed and the subject was forbidden, just like Jean-Luc’s opinions.

Godard’s family dynamics seems to reflect the conflict between differentiated individuality (Sun) and blissful “oneness” (Neptune). On one hand, his protestant upbringing placed strong emphasis on individual independence. On the other, the extended family on mother’s side [8] evoked the fantasy to belong to “an idyllic world of gods and goddesses.”22 For Godard, partaking in this magical world necessitated a loss of individuality, a denial of originality, and wearing a mask. Behind the mask was an impostor who felt undeserving of his destiny.

The Solar age in Godard’s chart corresponds to 5.4 years (1936). According to the DAM, significant events reflective of the level of integration of the Solar archetype may have occurred at this age [9]. In his Mars planetary age of 64.4 years (1995), Godard released the documentary “JLG/JLG: Self-portrait in December” – a profound self-reflection on his identity [10]. In this documentary, Godard repeatedly refers to an image of himself as a boy at the age of 6 and wonders why he appears so somber: “I was already in mourning for myself, my soul companion, and I suspected that the soul had stumbled on the body and that it had left again without offering its hand”23. He speculates that this was an unconscious mourning for victims to be in WWII concentration camps. In the ensuring years, the Holocaust would be fully underway. His Sun-Neptune dynamics at age of 6 seem to reflect Godard’s psychic attunement to the collective unconscious as well as an intuitive understanding of suffering; that is, suffering that overwhelms the self and induces guilt.

The Holocaust happened during his Leo developmental stage of 14-20:

When [it] happened, I was 15 years old. My parents kept it a secret from me, despite belonging to the Red Cross. I only found out about it much later.24

The anti-Semitic and anti-war family background of his parents must have exacerbated his guilt: “Even today I still feel guilty... I am sorry I couldn’t stand up for them.”25

In his Leo developmental stage, which is associated with the consolidation of identity and separation from the family matrix, Godard produced a family pamphlet:

“The Family Circle: Overall Impressions”, which was an elaborate play of self-signification26. The front page was signed with his nickname IAM and moi-meme (myself). The back cover read “Off with the masks.” It was indicative of Godard’s intention to also drop his mask and sep- arate from this “too much loved and seductive world”27. Unconscious guilt associated with the will to differentiate led to destructive acts of self-undoing: procrastinating and failing school exams, dropping out his studies in anthropology, and engaging in regular petty theft from family members. Following a theft from his employer in 1952, Godard’s repressed identity (Sun) became a prison and a mental hospital (Neptune) on the outside, for he was temporarily required to be hospitalized as a means to avoid conviction and actual prison [11]. Godard considered his criminal behavior as an expression of his need to become a fully-fledged decision-making agent: “What I wanted was… to spend it as I liked”28.

Following his release from the hospital, it was time for Godard to transform the Neptunian feeling of loss and confusion into inspiration, to identify his dreams, to substantiate them, to prove himself deserving to belong to the elevated world of “gods and goddesses” on his own terms.

The imaginal world of cinema offered the answer. The magazine “Des Cahiers du Cinema” [12] and the circle of artists constituting the French “New Wave” provided a platform for the creative expression of Godard’s philosophy regarding the purpose of cinema and filmmakers.

“Des Cahiers du Cinema” and the “French New Wave”

Godard’s new identity was born in a conservative society that was not conducive to new ideas or artists. For Godard, the cine-clubs of Paris reflected the 11th house milieu of groups of like-minded colleagues and associates. There, Godard encountered “allies” who, like him, were cripplingly shy, had problems with the law, or were academic dropouts. They were equally addicted to cinema, which Godard defined as “the wall we had to scale to escape from our lives.”29 Substituting reality for fantasy seems to have induced a false sense of omnipotence and an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

To define themselves against the existing establishment, the writers for “Des Cahiers du Cinema” operated like a revolutionary “cell” with a utopian political program by promoting an educated taste to improve cinema and thus the world. For Godard30, there was no difference between reality and cinema, between documentary and fiction. By creating movies, film directors created reality. This idea was further supported by the elaborated “politique des auteurs”, elevating film directors to the status of great artists, solely responsible for the style and meaning of the film31: “A director is as alone on the film-set as the writer before the blank page”32 and he could express his vision by finding the most appropriate articulation (camera or editing) when filming this reality. The audience was expected to participate in the co-creation of meaning. Therefore, the audience had to be put at a psychological and emotional distance instead of being lured into identifying with the narrative.

It seems that Godard’s emerging philosophy about the role of both film-making and film-makers reflected an unconscious fear of the Neptunian imperative to dissolve and render irrelevant any volition or creative self-expression (Sun). Therefore, his threatened “identity” overcompensated by constructing an inflated, narcissistic theory about the film director as God-like creator exercising unchallenged volition. His relationship with the intentionally alienated audience would test whether others could trust the reality presented by the director. Godard’s films would replace the Neptunian defense of fantasy, enabling the audience to rise to the level of the director and thus fulfill the director’s less conscious need for self-importance (the “New Wave” cinema). His movies (Neptune) would function as a way of verifying whether his creative vision, e.g. truth about reality (Sun), was acceptable.

Godard’s film “Breathless” (1959) made him the front- runner of the French “New Wave.” It was an incredible success, which over the next decade would be repeated only occasionally. With “Breathless”, Godard dismantled the language (3rd house) of cinema, revolutionized editing and broke with the classical construction of narrative by introducing false matching shots and jump cuts [13]. His improvisational style went as far as to expect the actors to receive their lines only on the set. There were no rules, or in his words: “I believe a film should have a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily in that order.” The abundant use of quotations in his films became a source of creative self-expression as: “It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to.”

A square between yang (Sun) and yin (Neptune) planets can manifest as an alternation between repression and acting out of emotions. During this period, he was described as shy, alone, withdrawn, particularly secretive and enigmatic, but also arrogant, uncompromising, and vicious. Undeniably, however, he was primarily recognized as a genius, a guru whose rules no one dared to oppose.

During this period, Godard was strongly influenced by the existentialism of Sartre and the absurdism of Camus. Existentialism emphasizes individual freedom and defines free will as a responsibility [14]. Absurdism postulates that there is no meaning in the world other than the one we construct ourselves.

The Sun-Neptune dynamics in Godard’s chart could indicate that any consciously appropriated belief system could be problematic. His movies from this period demonstrate this, for his characters claim free will as a responsibility, but their free will turns out to be an illusion. In “My Life to Live” (1962), a drama about a young woman who dreams of becoming an actress but slips into prostitution instead, Nana claims responsibility for her choices: “I raise my hand – I am responsible! I smoke – I am responsible! I am unhappy – I am responsible!” At the same time, becoming a prostitute equals the loss of her free will (Sun), for she becomes merely a play- thing for others. The film is full of uncanny, mysterious connections and premonitions that turn Nana’s death into a formal necessity33. When interrogated by the police for theft and asked what she will do next, Nana answers: “I don‘t know. ‘I’ is someone else.” Godard demonstrates how the inability to contain and balance the conscious and unconscious parts of the psyche may lead to unconsciously motivated acts of self-undoing and ultimately death. Clearly, this film is largely autobiographical.

Towards the end of the 1960s, the unprecedented censure of the Gaullist regime and the war in Vietnam shifted Godard’s interest from the individual to social systems and the collective unconscious. The individual was perceived as having lost his life purpose, and as performing self-deception or “bad faith ”to avoid existential “anguish.” Man (Sun) became addicted for his sense of meaning (Sagittarius) to existing societal norms promoting a culture of consumerism and selling illusions (Neptune).

In “Two or Three Things I Know About Her” (1967), a movie-essay treating the vicissitudes of human existence, the sequence of a cosmos in a coffee cup reads:

Perhaps it will make it possible to link up, to move… from living in society to living together. But then… since I never stop finding myself guilty, even though I feel innocent, since every event transforms my daily life, since I always seem to fail to communicate… Since… I can’t tear myself away from the objectivity that crushes me, nor from the subjectivity that isolates me, since it isn’t possible for me either to raise myself into Being, or to fall into Nothingness… it’s necessary that I listen… that I look around me more than ever... the world… my fellow creatures… my brothers.34

Godard reveals a new expression of his Sun-Neptune dynamics by posing the question of how the individual can belong to the collective without dissolving into it or exhibiting guilt for acting upon his free will. For Godard, the answer was filmmaking, inciting revolt against the illusions of the enslaving neo-liberalism, and promoting new ideals for containing the interests of the individual within society.

In “Weekend” (1968), an apocalyptic film about a society in which moral responsibility does not exist and self-interest predominates, the end credits include the enigmatic statement: “The end of cinema.” It prefigures the upcoming reinvention of Godard as a political activist, a teacher of Marxist philosophy and Maoism, who brooks no interference when lecturing his audience with his films35.

The Dziga Vertov Group

In 1968, Godard co-founded with Jean-Pierre Gorin the Dziga Vertov Group. The collective was inspired by Marxist ideology, asserting that communism is the historical moment at which individual subjectivity (Sun) and the societal whole (Neptune) could be brought into a transparent and productive relationship. They made „political films politically“ and without authorship. These are almost unwatchable militant films, meant to provoke political discussion among the viewers. The camera was used as a scalpel and a weapon to brutalize the audience by daring them to make sense out of an inchoate jumble of words and images, scraps of music, and political diatribes.36

It seems that during this period Godard expanded his egoic boundaries by identifying with the whole of society.

His higher truth became a Neptunian/Utopian ideology meant to save the lost victims of consumerist society. The Neptunian defense of denial was utilized for the purpose of avoiding the painful truth that many of his movies were neither commercially successful nor widely popular. He projected his own disillusionment onto abstract societal victims and engaged in self-destructive saviourvictim dynamics fuelled by irrational guilt where “saviours” feel compelled to rescue “victims” from the natural consequences of their own self-defeating ac- tions37. Again, Godard was substituting fantasy for reality for the purpose of narcissistic self-aggrandizement. The overextended intention to shape the individual’s vision led to totalitarian dominance of the audience, leaving no place for free will. The ultimate resolution was compassion fatigue: burnout for the savior, [figurative] death for the victim. 38

“All is well” (1972), the last and most pessimistic film of the Dziga Vertov group, implied that even leftwing idealism cannot prevent the descent of modern society into soulless consumerism. Godard and Gorin had to accept that their works did not attract sizable audiences and were commercial failures. During this period, the irreverent and arrogant dogmatic style of Godard led to the breakup of the relationship with his friend Francois Truffaut. After Godard asked for financial support with the words: “You have to help me so the public does not get the idea that we all make films like you”, Truffaut replied: “Here you are in 1973… as arrogant and dogmatic as ever, secure on your pedestal, indifferent to others... Between your interest in the masses and your own narcissism, there is no room for anything or anyone else.”39

The Cosmic period and “Histor(ies) of Cinema” Godard’s next period (80s-90s) was profoundly melancholic and introspective. The works he made during this period inspire self-reflection and a conscious choice(Sun) to look “inside” and search “beyond” (Neptune) for an answer as to how individuality can exist in the universe or how an individual can relate to God. Neptune transmutes ideology into cosmology.

Godard asserted that our identity (Sun) and conflicts are reflected in and mediated through images (Neptune). In order to identify ourselves in the chain of images, we need to compare images from the “unknown” elsewhere to images from the “known” here. In “Here and Else- where” (1976), Godard compares fragments of revolutionary scenes of “elsewhere” (Palestine) with the footage of “here” (France). He lists a series of binary pairs: “here and elsewhere, victory and defeat… interior and exterior… dream and reality” and adds: “All or nothing, always or never, live or die… too simple and too easy to divide the world into two.”

This contrast stressing the relevance of the conjunction “and” indicates a new evolved paradigm regarding the question of identity. Fixed boundaries should be loosened to become a line of flight that is continually crossed in the on-going process of identification.40 This seems to be a declaration of a willingness to let go of attachments, to sacrifice a fixed identity, and to expand the boundaries of the self. He refers to himself as a “walking network” and “fraction in a world of whole numbers”41 and states:

I believe I come from elsewhere, let’s say space. I have a need to go to Earth. There’s something of mine. There is an image I have to uncover, and cinema allows me to do so. Movies are like clouds that sit over reality: if I do cinema well, I can uncover what is beneath, my friends, my allies, what I am, where I come from. Others can’t do it. It’s too heavy for them. But it’s not too heavy for me, because I come from elsewhere.42

Other themes of this period are the reinstatement of faith in the divine structure of all events on earth, the reaffirmation of the centrality of God in matters of daily existence, the mystery of creation, the meaning of ego-sacrifice, and the alignment of our will with the Divine.

In “Hail, Mary!” (1985), a modern version of the story of Joseph and Mary, Godard asserts: “Life was willed, anticipated, organised, and planned in universe” and “Our free will should not be expanded by force, but recovered in oneness from level to level to eternity.” The notorious final close up of Mary’s open mouth symbolizes to me the opening to mysteries (Neptune) greater than us (Sun) by looking inside of ourselves as we contain and mirror them.

During this period, Godard exhibited great interest in human suffering, which he defines as “the most intimate knowledge one can have of oneself, beyond identity.”43

Godard suggests that “cinema perhaps has role to play as a depositary, or a guardian of suffering,” a place where we can transcend ourselves, learn compassion, and alleviate guilt.

At his Jupiter age of 56.2 years, he started working on a video project, “Histor(ies) of Cinema” (1987-1998), which reflects Jupiter’s placement in Cancer (history). Godard is not only the filmmaker philosopher, but also an archivist and historian of cinema [15]. His intention is to find answers about his life-purpose by looking into his place in the history of cinema, or thinking of himself “historically.” Self-transcendence is sought by claiming sainthood through self-canonisation in the cinematic/human annals.

These films are a kind of elegy for the decline of cinematography resulting from the betrayal of its documentary power and thus the failure to adequately present and confront the Holocaust. For Godard, the documentary function of cinema implies anticipation and bearing witness. Cinema is a kind of clairvoyant that “shows illnesses before they become visible”44. Besides anticipation, the cinema must bear faithful witness to an ever-changing present.

The image is like evidence in a courtroom. For me, making a movie is like bringing in evidence. The image can be accepted or refused, but it is there for discussion and it awaits a verdict. The very idea of montage is the scales of justice.”45

For Godard, montage involves bringing together fragmented images (Neptune/Virgo) in order to create new meaning (Sun/Sagittarius) in support of cinema’s predictive and “curing” function. Godard justifies this by the rapprochement of the terms “Jew” and “Muslim.” Prisoners in the concentration camps in the final stages of starvation, exhaustion, and despair were called “Muselmänner.” He claims that if concentration camps had been filmed at the time, this usage of the word could have been perceived as an anticipatory indicator of the subsequent conflict in the Middle East.

These films are clear evidence of Godard’s attempt to atone for his irrational, unconscious guilt about the Holocaust. He believed that if filmed at the time, the “reality” of the Holocaust would have not been replaced with the Hollywood “fantasy” about it. In the “Histor(ies) of Cinema”, Godard was the judge who found that European cinema had committed a crime of omission and Hollywood a crime of commission. While he sees partial atonement for European cinema in Italian postwar Neorealism, there is no redemption for Hollywood for falsifying European history [16].

In his Neptune planetary age of 72.6 years, Godard produced a film fragment about time - “Ten minutes older: the Celo” (2002). It gives substance and identity to endings, dissolution, suffering, and the impossibility of love. It is a succinct and brilliant diachronistic reflection of the level of integration of his Sun-Neptune dynamics. Under the subtitle “Last minutes of fear”, Godard reveals self-acceptance in an attempt to assuage his existential guilt:

I don’t know what will be after. I do not want to and I cannot know it. But if it is my wish, if I want to be famous, if I want glory, if I want to be loved by people… yet I am not guilty to wish for it, to desire only that!46

Under the title “The Unspeakable”, he revealed documentary images of the Holocaust, the only moments in which the music stops, frozen fractions of time as reparation of guilt on behalf of the collective for the tragic events that he unconsciously sensed at the age of 6 (Sun) and was unable to prevent. This was an act of redemption for the crime of omission.

Conclusions

My research was intended to answer the question of whether Godard was able to redefine himself and change his personal narrative through an ever-evolving integration of the Sun-Neptune subplot in his chart. My answer is -- he did, by inventing the “plotless cinema” in which he was present, almost visible as the director behind his films. He abandoned narrative in favour of an expanded interior, reciprocal dialogue between filmmaker and audience. As he admits: “I tried to… tell a story. But it is not in my nature... I want to mix everything, to restore everything, to tell everything at the same time”47. Thus he himself became the plot of his films. Through his unique eclectic cinema – a mixture of images, texts, sounds, noise, and silence - he constantly redefined himself by reinventing his own “truth.”

His “self” as a series of multiple performed roles of “I”s was constructed in the exploration of personal illusions, political ideals, and divine mysteries. It ranged from the self-aggrandizement of the “politique des auteurs” and the dogmatic overextension of the Dziga Vertov group to the deep mytho-poetic self-reflection and increased awareness of individuals as “fractions” in the world of “whole numbers.”

In the opening credits of “My Life to Live”, a quote by Montagne reads: “Lend yourself to others and give yourself to yourself.” I believe it succinctly reflects the imperative of an integrated Sun-square-Neptune aspect. Only an authentic and self-owned “Self” can appropriate the overwhelming transpersonal dimension of the psyche. Only then are meaningful sacrifice, surrender, humility, and trust in a Higher Power possible.

At his solar age of 5.4 years, Godard, overwhelmed with existential guilt, was struggling to exhibit self-confidence in a world overshadowed by loss and suffering. His volition felt wrong, his identity unseen, and his life undeserved. At his Neptune age of 72.6, Godard accepted his will to feel “special” without guilt or fear as to whether this can happen. Over the years, he gradually embodied his personal imperative for “specialness”―the “specialness” that necessitates a conscious choice of self-sacrifice; the “specialness” of becoming a channel of divine love; the “specialness” of feeling “special” in the all-embracing, indiscriminate “whole” of humankind.

I love. There is a promise. I have to sacrifice myself so that through me love‘s word makes sense. The reward for this long enterprise: I shall all become the one who loves. Thus I shall at least deserve the name I gave myself: A man. Nothing more than a man. No better than any other, but no other better than him.  ~Jean-Luc Godard

 

Biography:

Branimira Maldeghem has an MA in Political Science and Public Administration. She has worked as a consultant for various NGOs and political parties in Bulgaria. For the last 12 years Branimira has served as a policy advisor on economic and monetary affairs to a Member of the European Parliament. Having been involved in both drafting and negotiating legislative proposals in the field of financial services, taxation, competition policy and consumer protection, she has developed comprehensive expertise in the institutional architecture and decision-making processes of the European Union. Branimira is passionate about psychological astrology and she is currently enrolled in a diploma programme at the Academy of AstroPsychology and Mercury Internet School of Psychological Astrology (MISPA). She is particularly fascinated by the theoretical model of AstroPsychology as developed by Glenn Perry, Ph.D. Branimira is particularly interested in exploring the psychological dynamics underlying the charts of various artists through the lenses of AstroPsychology and the manner these are reflected in real life experiences and artistic works. You can contact her at branitzve@gmail.com

Notes:

[4] The New Wave is a term coined by critics for a group of French filmmakers in the late 1950s and 1960s, such as Francois Truffault, Jacque Rivette, Maurice Sherer, and Godard, who were linked by their appreciation of the American films-noir of Hawks and Hitchcock, Italian neo-realism, the philosophy of existentialism, the politics of auteurs, experimenting with editing, visual style, and narrative as a rebellion against established paradigms of film making.

[5] A dispositor is the planet that rules the sign that another planet occupies. Mars is in Leo, thus Sun as the ruler of Leo disposes Mars. Mars as the disposed planet would provide the background motivation of the Sun as dispositor.

[6] Jupiter as dispositor of the Sun seeks to promote the Sun’s agenda and act on the Sun’s behalf. It is perhaps relevant that Jupiter Cancer in the 10th is conjunct Pluto, and that Pluto is associated with danger. Pluto widely op- poses Saturn Capricorn conjunct IC, which is associated with restrictions. This could indicate opinions and beliefs (Jupiter) that are perceived as dangerous and subject to criticism and censorship both in the family and career environment (Cancer-Capricorn dynamics).

[7] This dynamic is additionally reflected by the placement of Saturn in his chart. Saturn represents father as authority. Saturn Capricorn opposes Jupiter/Pluto in Cancer.

[8] Godard’s mother Odile was from the rich and prestigious family of Monod, daughter of Julien Monod, the founder of the Banque Paribas.

[9] The reference to the integration of the solar archetype includes as well the solar aspects, especially Sun square Neptune.

[10] Recall that Mars is disposed by the Sun and provides the background motivation for the Sun to “will”, “identify”, and “creatively self-express.”

[11] Godard’s father helped Godard escape charges by transferring him temporarily to a mental hospital.

[12] Established in 1951, this is the most influential French film magazine. It reinvented the basic tenets of film criticism and theory.

[13] These techniques are meant to advance the action. It reflects the Sun as dispositor of Mars, which is associated with improvisation and spontaneity. Furthermore, it could be associated with the prominent placement of Uranus in Godard’s chart as a focal point of a T-square to Saturn and Jupiter/Pluto as well as part of a trine with Mars and the Sun.

[14] In terms of astrological archetypes, existentialism can be seen as a blend of Mars/Aries with its emphasis on “existence before essence”, implying a world in which “man is freedom”, and Saturn/Capricorn as regards the idea that free will is responsibility – not only personal, but for all humankind. With the Sun as dispositor of Mars and the strong emphasis on Saturn in his chart, I find it unsurprising that Godard was influenced by existentialism.

[15] Recall that Jupiter is dispositor of the Sun and therefore would seek to advance the Solar agenda in the resolution of the conflicts associated with the Solar archetype in Godard’s chart, including Sun-Neptune dynamics. Jupiter is in Cancer, which relates to history and the past. [16] Recall that Jupiter is dispositor of the Sun and therefore would seek to advance the Solar agenda in the resolution of the conflicts associated with the Solar archetype in Godard’s chart, including Sun-Neptune dynamics. Jupiter is in Cancer, which relates to history and the past.

Citations:

21 MacCabe, C. (2003). Godard, a Portrait of the Artist at Seventy. UK: The Blumsburry Press, p.63

22 MacCabe, C. (2003). Godard, a Portrait of the Artist at Seventy. UK: The Blumsburry Press, p.18

23 New Wave Film.com Jean-Luc Godard, p.18-19

24 Buchanan, K. Jean-Luc Godard says Honorary Oscar meant „Nothing“ to him.

25 Buchanan, K. Jean-Luc Godard says Honorary Oscar meant „Nothing“ to him.

26 MacCabe, C. (2003). Godard, a Portrait of the Artist at Seventy. UK: The Blumsburry Press, p.34

27 MacCabe, C. (2003). Godard, a Portrait of the Artist at Seventy. UK: The Blumsburry Press, chapter I

28  MacCabe, C. (2003). Godard, a Portrait of the Artist at Sevent. UK: The Blumsburry Press, p.34

29 New Wave Film.com Jean-Luc Godard p.2

30 MacCabe, C. (2003). Godard, a Portrait of the Artist at Seventy. UK: The Blumsburry Press, p.72

31 MacCabe, C. (2003). Godard, a Portrait of the Artist at Seventy. UK: The Blumsburry Press, p.73

32 Morrey, D. (2005). Jean-Luc Godard. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, chapter 3

33 Morrey, D. (2005). Jean-Luc Godard. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, chapter 3

34 Dixon, W. The Films of Jean-Luc Godard. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, p.76

35 Dixon, W. The Films of Jean-Luc Godard. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, p.88

36 Dixon, W. The Films of Jean-Luc Godard. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, p.91

37 Perry, G. (2016). Saturn square Neptune and the Danger of False Narratives & Perry, G. (2012). An Introduction to AstroPsychology. East Hampton, CT: APA Press, p. 173 - 176

38 ibid

39 MacCabe, C. (2003). Godard, a Portrait of the Artist at Seventy. UK: The Blumsburry Press, p.273

40 Morrey, D. (2005). Jean-Luc Godard. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, p.108

41 Morrey, D. (2005). Jean-Luc Godard. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, p.153

42 Dixon, W. The Films of Jean-Luc Godard. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, p.178

43 Morrey, D. (2005). Jean-Luc Godard. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, p.143

44 Witt, M. (2013). Jean-Luc Godard, Cinema Historian. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, p.124

45 Witt, M. (2013). Jean-Luc Godard, Cinema Historian. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, p.126

46 Godard, Jean-Luc (2012). In the Darkness of Time. Ten minutes older: The Celo.

47 Dixon, W. The Films of Jean-Luc Godard. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, p.73