So says the novelist in response to Patricia's question, "What do you hope to attain out of life?" That response is the philosophy of the film and of every character in the film. All want to be in control of their destiny. All want to be something that they are not. None are able to do any of these things. They are all contradictions. How can you die as an immortal? How can Patricia be free and independent is so many other things determine what she can do? How can this film transcend the screen while existing on the screen? This is an amazing film to watch. Goddard fills every scene with ingenuity and energy. He puts his actors in a beautiful environment and lets them do their thing. And they do it extremely well. The actors are beautiful. Not just cosmetically, but spiritually and psychologically. I am not sure that I liked either of the two main characters. I am sure I could not keep my eyes off them. I could not take my eyes off the screen. Techniques that novices today use for no substantial purpose are utilized by Goddard to amazing effect. The greatest filmmakers are the great editors. Goddard makes the editing a character itself. It is the nervous narrator hurrying the film along. It breathlessly awaits the next scene, and leads us to do the same. I like the way Goddard spends prodigious time simply watching his characters. The conversation scene at the center of the film is amazingly long and drawn out, yet I did not find it boring. I found it fascinating. People are fascinating. Everyone is trying to be something. It takes tremendous talent to indulge in the minutiae of existence. A great film.
Add a Review
-
jdoan-421 January 2006
-
marissas7517 February 2007Together with François Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" (one of my favorites), Jean-Luc Godard's "Breathless" is considered the defining, instigating film of the French New Wave. It's more ironic and detached, less emotionally accessible than "The 400 Blows," and its technical innovations like jump cuts are perhaps even more surprising. For these reasons, I found "Breathless" easier to admire than to lovethough by the end I grew to enjoy its too-cool- for-(film)-school tone.
Ironically, the pace of this movie isn't "breathless" at all. It begins abruptly and takes a while to get going: Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo), a character we barely know, drives a stolen car around, talks at the camera, and shoots a police officer who has tried to pull him over. Then he goes to Paris and tries to borrow money from some friends, while the police-shooting plot goes undeveloped. I only became fully engaged with the introduction of Patricia (Jean Seberg), a young American who sells newspapers on the Champs-Elysees. The relationship between Michel and Patricia is the heart of the film, especially a 25-minute-long scene in Patricia's apartment where the characters smoke, flirt, and laze around in bed, though nothing really happens. That's where I really started to admire "Breathless," because I was so captivated by a scene that, on paper, doesn't sound all that captivating.
Eventually the police catch onto Michel and launch a manhunt, but this doesn't really ratchet up the suspense. Instead, Michel is (or at least, Michel acts) aimless and nonchalant about the whole thingthis is not a typical "man on the run" movie. The cool jazz score adds to the hip, laid-back tone.
Since I didn't care for the movie too much until the scenes between Michel and Patricia, I believe a lot of the credit for the film's success has to go to the charismatic performances of Belmondo and Seberg. Belmondo, with a perpetual cigarette dangling from the corner of his mouth, is the archetypal cocky criminal who models himself after Humphrey Bogart (there's a great scene where he sees some Bogart photos and gets a vulnerable look in his eyes, as though saying "I'll never be as cool as this"). Seberg plays Patricia as a confused girl who is delighted by the attention she gets as an American in France.
It's easy to see why "Breathless" was so influentialthe jump cuts, the ragged style perfectly match this story about amoral, aimless youth. Definitely a movie that expanded the range of stories the cinema can tell, and perhaps a major precursor to youth-oriented '60s culture. Nearly fifty years later, it still seems "hip," and still challenges our expectations of how movies should behave. -
ill_behavior8 December 2004This is the one that started it all kids, the daddy of post-modern cinema. MTV jump cuts, fractured soundtrack and images aplenty
Self reflexive to the point that it not only acknowledges its own existence, it revels in it.
All style and no substance is considered a bad thing today, unless its Tarantino. Well, if it wasn't for Godard, chances are there would be no QT.
All the characters and images, and dialogue and sets are constructed from all aspects of life - Michel is a Bogart collage. Patricia apes everything she sees, from her Interviewee's facial gestures to Michel's own.
Don't let all this technical mumbo fool you, I did my thesis on Godard and would happily bore the ass off you with a lecture in great detail about this film, but the fact is, it's a stormer.
Grips you by the throat and shakes the hell out of you, and it doesn't let go until the final breath.
Fantastically, artistically magnificent. If Godard wanted to make his debut picture to show how well he understood American ideals and the history of cinema, he couldn't have made a better picture.
Top stuff French guy. -
IZMatt1 December 2005I don't blame those who state that they do not "understand" the superlatives surrounding Jean-Luc Godard's 1960 masterpiece, Breathless. It's primarily because to appreciate Breathless, one has to view the movie from a historical context, which also requires studying of not only the French New Wave, but film theories as a whole, and the lives of those apart of the New Wave. Breathless accomplished many things unprecedented prior (many completely unprecedented, but some things are not-so-much).
Roger Ebert put it best when he said that just as film fanatics may now stand outside a movie theatre waiting for the next Quentin Tarantino movie to be released, film enthusiasts were doing so for Godard in the 1960s. He was a revolutionary, which is why MovieMaker magazine called him the 4th most influential director of ALL-TIME (only behind Welles, Griffith, and Hitchcock)! What did Godard do different? Breathless is all style, simple as that. The story line is interesting, yes, but is Godard's aesthetics, production modes, subject matters, and storytelling methods that are key. First of all, the whole movie was shot on a hand-held camera, just like most all New Wave pictures. It was, however, only shot by two people (Godard and his cinematographer, Rouald) on a budget that did not top $50,000, a mere fraction of what most pictures cost at the time (another facet of the New Wave). It was shot completely on location in Paris, and utilized new film-making techniques that would be used by film-making students for decades to come (such as putting the camera in a mail cart on the Champs Elysees and following Belmondo and Seberg). Note Godard's use of American cinema influence, and how the montage art of the 1950s impacted this aesthetic.
(A brief New Wave lesson: Most New Wave directors were displeased with the "tradition of quality," or the older generation directors who, as Truffaut put it, made the "twelve or so" pictures per year that represented France at Venice and Cannes. Most of these pictures classic or modern literary adaptations, completely stagnant in artistic quality with rehashed subject matters based on historical periods. New Wave directors supported NEW tales of modern Parisian life, primarily, and were sick of the themes found in the tradition of quality films.) The storytelling methods in Breathless are perhaps the most fascinating part of the film. The jump cuts may seem lame, but one must again view them from a historical context: it had never been done before. This is exactly why Breathless is important -- practically every technique was revolutionary. They are so submerged into film-making practices now that Breathless seems typical. Yet at the time, it was, as I said prior, unprecedented. -
rjanderson7911 December 2001Jean-Luc Godard's, A Bout de Souffle is possibly the brightest star to shine from the French New Wave. The 'Nouvelle Vague' came about from a group of like minded film critics writing for the Cahiers du Cinema.
With his knowledge of classic film narrative and style Godard went out to create his own film in homage to, and also complete contradiction to, classic Hollywood film.
The plot reads almost like a crime thriller typical of the 1930-40's. A criminal on the run from the police; the distraction of a beautiful woman; the escape and eventually someones death. But it is in Godard's approach to film style and use of new technologies that the typical crime thriller was turned on its head.
In a break from classic Hollywood narrative the film opens with little equilibrium. Our protagonist's motives are unclear as he tears off to Paris leaving a woman and a dead cop in his trail. This in turn makes the ending somewhat open ended. With no sense of equilibrium to start with how can there be closure on what has happened throughout the film.
Another twist on the classic storytelling in film is the progression of plot. It is naturally assumed in classic Hollywood film, that everything the spectator sees they see for a reason. With Michel's constantly pointless phone calls to retrieve owed money the plot is not pushed along at all. The inclusion of a 25 minute digression from the plot stands to emphasise the spectators reliance on narrative structure in the watching of films. Although watching the film closely is, as always, important in following the story A Bout de Souffle requires that little bit extra to define where the plot is being progressed and where Michel or Patricia are just flattering their egos or each other.
All in all I personally think that A Bout de Souffle brought about a sense of realism not seen in Hollywood cinema before 1959 and even now. The fact that life isn't full of clues that will help us progress in say our relationships or escape from authority, but is infact full of digression; self exploration; and the confusions of love, ego and aspirations. -
NykDex23 October 2001This Movie, a triumph of the French Nouvelle Vague, marks a turning point, not only for the Director, Jean-Luc Godard, but for anyone who sees it. The plot, though intriguing, is secondary to the incredible presentation. Use of hand-held cameras and jump-cuts (where the director cuts from one angle to a shot of the same angle two seconds later, a stylistic effect that can show freneticism or boredom) were revolutionary at the time, yet can still surprise and delight today.
Jean Seaberg is excellent, with the nicest accent you'll ever hear, as are the supporting cast, all rounded stereotypes. But the leading man outshines all the others. A virtuoso display from Jean-Paul Belmondo as Michel Poiccard makes the viewer swoon and scorn in equal measures. He doesn't make it easy for us to empathize with him, yet we still do, and in doing, we feel we have earned something.
Revolutionary. Brilliant. Oh so pretty. -
Xstal15 January 2023There's a rogue with several pseudonyms in tow, a small time crook who several girls think is a beau, not the most, trustworthy guy, he'll spin a yarn or two and lie, so be careful where you keep your hard earned dough. He's been known to shoot and kill with firearm, after being chased by the local gendarme, so he's off to Italy, when he's collected fiscally, will take Patricia, who's been caged by Gallic charm.
Still a wonderful introduction to the world of French cinema of the time, but needs to be taken in context as familiarity breeds contempt and this was, after all, part of the foundations and a cornerstone of so much of what was to come. Imaginatively and innovatively directed by one of the greatest, with two flowers of the 60s revealing their early petals, and after smoking so many cigarettes, is it any wonder you'd struggle to catch your breath! -
StevePulaski22 January 2014Watching Jean-Luc Godard's massively influential, unintentional-classic Breathless and discussing Jean-Luc Godard's massively influential, unintentional-classic Breathless are two totally different things. For one, the latter is more fun the other and, two, discussing the film almost instantly allows for quality, intelligent discussion of cinema to ring. There are certain cinephiles that take Godard himself more seriously than they take any other director who has ever lived. Just when you thought Stanley Kubrick-fanatical elitism was out of control, spend about ten minutes, as an exercise, scouring the internet for French New Wave forums and in-depth analysis of the Godardian methods and you may be surprised at what you find.
I'm only stating this because around a year and a half ago, I began my sporadic voyage into the depths of Godard with his most recent picture, at the time, Film Socialisme, which I found to be an assault on every conceivable sense and not in a particularly good way. The film was choppy, disjointed, messy, just about as incomprehensible as it could be, and trying to find justifications or analyses online proved ineffective. All and all, it's a film I just want to forget and I didn't care to dive into Godard much after that endeavor. I now realize that a decent part of the blame is on me for choosing perhaps the wrong film to begin my Godardian journey with. I emerge from seeing Breathless (known by its French title as À bout de soufflé) with a more of a positive reaction. This is a bravely-structured and maturely handled annihilation to every cinematic convention prior to its 1960 release down with class and impenetrable style on part of Godard.
The story - even though it is relatively the least of our concerns - follows Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo), who is trying to emulate the characteristics possessed by Humphrey Bogart during the particular 40s/50s era of menacing American crime dramas that billed him as the lead actor. One day, feeling intimidated and a perhaps a little adventurous, Michel shoots a police officer who has been tailing him and now must deal with being broke and on the run from the cops. His only companion is Patricia (Jean Seberg), an American journalist getting by in life by selling newspapers in downtown Paris. The two desperately skim through their options trying to hide from the police, one of which is skipping town and going all the way to Italy as fugitives.
I say the story is the least of our concerns because there is simply not much to it. After all, Breathless is an aesthetic breakthrough rather than a narrative one. Godard employs dangerously subversive jump cuts - where the camera cuts to another shot within the same frame creating a breach in continuity - along with rapid-fire, quick shots and lengthy dialog scenes. All of this broke French cinema convention, which, prior to this, was consistently polished and very elegant. Godard invited in a rebellious messiness to the picture, almost like the guy coming into a neatly-organized room and rustling all the papers and files to not only create a stir but to do something different, something completely new.
It's almost shortchanging to simply say that I have immense respect for Godard seeing as in 1960, a time when social change and civil unrest amongst adolescents and twentysomethings seemed to be so prevalent in many different places, he ushered in a new way of doing things cinematically and created a stylistically bold film because of it. He even threw in the element of using a hand-held camera, an unheard of practice during this particular time. I think I would also be in line to compare Breathless to Bonnie and Clyde, a film that would enter the picture seven years later in American studios that would simultaneous shock and stimulate audiences everywhere.
Godard's films have a unique power after you watch them. For example, it has been about four days since I sat down to watch Breathless and since watching it - and now writing a medium-length analysis of it - I have a strong, biting urge to watch more of Godard's films. His films have the kind of impact where you just want to talk about them and talk about their impact in great length; which, once more, brings me to the point that watching the films is actually the weaker part compared to discussing them.
Starring: Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg. Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard. -
loydmooney-118 July 2006Though I do feel guilty only giving this a 6. In some ways, however, it does not even deserve that. Godard was a great critic. Verbally at first. Then spent his life criticizing movies with a camera. Probably out of boredom with the essential insubstantiality of almost every movie ever made. Here you can almost hear him perpetually yelling at behind the camera, well life is boring but not when you rev it up with a Mitchell at 24 frames a second.
That said, I am grateful to something like Breathless. There has still been no movie quite like it. Its innocence is really astonishing. Not sure if anyone here ever mentioned (while allowing for the tremendous influence of the film) if Bonnie and Clyde would ever have remotely looked or sounded like it did without this precursor. And Bonnie and Clyde is another movie that I am extremely ambivalent about, another guilty pleasure, feeling both movies fall very short of greatness. But both really are a lot of fun.
If any part of Breathless bothers me more than the rest it is the last, the scene where Patricia starts practically yodeling to herself about why she turned Michel in. And then almost everything after that. Here Godard tries to finally give reasons for these lunkheads actions and betrays the film.
Still.
Right.
Glad he made the thing.
Just don't get too involved in the philosophy which is ridiculous, mostly. Very great look at Paris though. And maybe the best home movie ever made. -
SilkTork8 December 2004À bout de soufflé is fast, cool, literate, entertaining and stylish. Just rush the words out and there you have it. A stunning classic. Loose, casual, and bad to know. This film is attitude. A knowing and intelligent film deeply influenced by American gangster thrillers will itself becoming influential. Look at who we have here: Francois Truffaut as writer, Jean-Luc Godard as director and Jean-Paul Belmondo as the star. This is the start of the French New Wave. Bang. Like a shot out of a gun. This is how the French do A Rebel Without A Cause - as Peter John Dyer said: "A film all dressed up for rebellion but with no real tangible territory on which to stand and fight".
-
This is the one that started it all. With the story of a man on the run calling himself Laszlo Kovacs (a cinematographer of the time), Jean-Luc Godard arrived in the movies (well, on the production end, at least). This also more than his typical film essay. The story by Francois Truffaut makes for a terrific Godard script (the Truffaut stamp makes it comparable to SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER). Jean-Paul Belmondo does well in the Kovacs role, humanizing our bad-guy hero right up to the slam-bang finish. Jean Seberg is his conflicted lover who must... well, just watch. A landmark of the French New Wave, which is one of the most important movements in cinema. Vastly superior to the 1983 BREATHLESS with Richard Geer and Fassinder's homage THE AMERICAN SOLDIER. This is guaranteed to be like few movies you've seen before (unless, of course, you're a fan of the New Wave). BREATHLESS is also very memorable for its music and unusual photography. Shows how European film brought out the importance of character in film and raised it to new heights (whereas in American film, a close-up is the closest you'll get to character development). This is a must for any film student and for anyone who just loves movies.
-
Paul-25023 May 1999An early piece of New Wave cinema by Goddard in the days before his films became totally incomprehensible, it was inspirational for directors like Bertolucci in its vigour and willingness to challenge conventional attitudes. The film is, in fact, deeply morally ambivalent, with Belmondo as the 'cool' hero with no apparent loyalty or obligation to anyone but himself, but like Antonioni's L'Avventura it seems to usher in a new kind of world, a world of complexity, uncertainty and, in the case of Bout de Souffle, a world dominated by the young. It would not be too far from the truth to see most pop videos of today as direct descendants of this film. Seberg's performance is strangely melancholic, presaging the later tragedies of her own life, and the image of her wandering the streets of Paris as a young girl selling copies of The International Herald Tribune is for some reason the one that I remember most clearly from this film.
-
dbborroughs5 February 2008I've been watching Breathless for the first time in many years on the Sundance Channel. Jean-Luc Godard's cinema changing film about a young tough in love with American movies and an American girl changed European cinema.I don't know if it was for the better or worse. My only real memory of watching the film from my film class days was the sense that one could see how it was copied by other filmmakers of the period. I retained very little of the plot. Actually I retained very little of anything concerning the film after each of the two or three times I've seen it. Watching it again for the first time in probably five or six years I'm struck by how silly it all is. Once the height of fashion and hip coolness I was not so quietly giggling to myself. The film has not aged very well and has become almost a parody of itself. I could feel the pretensions flooding off the screen. This isn't to say the film isn't good, it is on some level, however I think its better if viewed in the context of when it came out, instead of what it is today. Forgive me if I offend with this position, but watching Jean Seberg struggle with her French and Jean-Paul Belmondo attempt to be cool, is almost too funny for words. (Belmondo reminded me of a cousin who always tried to be hip and cool and tough, but instead came off as silly). Worth a look if you're interested in milestones of the cinema, however I think you may be hard pressed to make it to the end with a straight face.
-
Galina_movie_fan18 June 2004I finally did it. I finished watching À bout de souffle. I kept putting it off because I usually have problem when everybody tells me that such and such film is the epitome of its era or it breaks all the rules, starts the revolution, and reinvents the cinema. That's why, probably, I cannot like Citizen Kane - try to watch the arguably best film ever made - you will be under a lot of pressure.
Well, À bout de souffle does not put you under the pressure, it takes you for a ride, and you follow for 90 minutes its incredibly young characters, common crook (Jean-Paul Belmondo) and his American free-spirited girlfriend (Jean Seberg) on their journey on the streets of 1960-th Paris along with Raoul Coutard's legendary camera. I am not going to tell here how great the camera work was, how fantastic the music score and the views of Paris were - the fans of the film know that already. They also know about the beginning of French New Wave, and how it influenced the future cinema. I just want to say that the movie was made over forty years ago - the smoking was cool back then, and Belmondo made smoking look very sexy. Belmondo fascinates me in this film. I've seen him in a lot of later movies - he's always been good (I recommend Le Magnifique, 1973 and Le Professionnel,1981 ) - but in À bout de souffle he is not just good - he is embodiment of cool, his face changes its expression every moment, you can not take your eyes off him. Is it me or he does remind the very young Mick Jagger - not commonly handsome but irresistible and sexy? He and young (she was 21 at the time) Jean Seaborg made one of the best screen couples ever. My favorite scenes:
Michel drives the stolen car in the beginning of the film, and he starts to talk to us, the audience. The day is nice, the sun is shining, and the life is beautiful...
Michel and Patricia drive in the convertible. The wind plays with her short hair. We only see the back of her head and her neck. Michel tells her that he loves the girl with a beautiful neck, wrists, knees, but she is a chicken...
Patricia comes to the hotel to find Michel in her bed. They start talking about nothing and about very serious things. They smoke, she tries to find a good place for her new poster, and he wants to sleep with her. In the end of the scene, his face, he looks at her - there is love in that look...
There is more - I am sure everyone who saw it has his/her favorite scenes. -
tayuf16 November 2010I am not an expert in movie techniques or cinema history, I couldn't even give a definition of new wave. I am not even a big fan of Godard, except for "a bout de soufflz". This movie deserves to be in the top 10. But if you look at ratings, it's basically either 10 or 1. I am not going to describe why this movie is so good, I wouldn't be able to anyway. But I think the effect of it lies in Michel's character (kind of crazy, cynical, with an incredible distant and happy attitude and self confidence that gives him some particular charm. Belmondo's performance to act this especially complex and subtle character is outstanding), and the overall realization that gets you like some abstract paintings sometimes do. Surely lots of people wrote tons of technical stuffs to explain all this. Now why so many of so-called movie enthusiast in the IMDb hated it? I understood from reading the reviews that many of them are from students who "had" to watch it for their class. I guess it's not the best way to appreciate it. As there is no way anyone could appreciate the Mona Lisa in the Louvre museum, looking at it at 10 m in a crowd. A word that comes a lot is "boring". I guess some people don't see in movies anything else than a technique used as a support for a storyline. It's like saying food is just fuel to walk. I guess they're the same who put all these blockbusters in the top 250. Not that I don't like Hollywood big productions but they don't go at all beyond entertainment, which is good but not enough. And finally, there might be some cultural misunderstanding. A reviewer wrote that he hated Michel because he kept stealing cars...I was just puzzled by such stupidity. This is definitely not a movie to be watched if you have been formatted by TV and Hollywood blockbusters since you were born, like apparently a growing majority of IMDb members.
-
SnoopyStyle4 June 2019Michel Poiccard is a brash, arrogant, violent male chauvinist, and minor criminal. He murders a motorcycle cop on his way back to Paris. He hangs out with his American journalism student girlfriend Patricia Franchini, and continues his violent petty crime wave as he looks to collect a debt. He becomes wanted for the cop killing.
This movie announces the arrival of a new voice and new vision in world cinema. The twenty-something director Jean-Luc Godard makes his theatrical debut. It's very French. It's indie. It's revolutionary. His jump cuts give it an edge although the cop killing scene is diminished by the edit. A more visceral action sequence could have elevated the tension and the thrills. They spend a little too much time in that tiny apartment. There is a real thrill in being in the streets of Paris. It's guerilla filmmaking. This is laying down a marker. -
Recently I saw this movie for the second time; the first time was over ten years ago. Vaguely I remembered that it made quite an impression, just like all the early Godard movies (which, in those days, were fortunately broadcast by the German tv). Well, to be short: this movie is absolutely stunning, fantastic, sublime, smashing, et cetera. This is film just like film should be: not a stupid story told in a boring matter - like most movies do - but downright art, excuse me, ART. There is a wonderful co-operation between director, photography, actors, and the scenery of France, Paris in particular. Jean-Paul Belmondo has never been a truly great actor; after playing in some early Godards he appeared mainly in quite bad Hollywood-style French thrillers. But somehow he seems to be the right man in the right place. Jean Seberg is not only unbelievably beautiful but also the absolute star of the movie (at least on the screen). She is just perfect in her role. And last but not least: the soundtrack by French jazz star Martial Solal is completely spot on. There is clear synergy between the restless photography, the restless music and of course the restless characters of the protagonists.
This movie cannot be missed. It belongs in a league with for example Bertolucci's Il Conformista, Bunuel's Belle de Jour, Godard's own Le Mépris (completely different by the way). More than that: it was an important step in creating an entirely new way of making and assessing films. In other words: one of the - if not THE - best and important movies ever made. -
The cinema movement know as the French New Wave (nouvelle vague) arose in the late 1950s. Leading the charge was François Truffaut, whose semi-autobiographical movie "The 400 Blows" shocked people with its intensity. But another major player was Jean-Luc Godard, whose "À bout de souffle" ("Breathless" in English) was a new kind of crime drama. Jean-Paul Belmondo's suave crook comes across as a nice guy but will stop at nothing to get what he wants, while Jean Seberg's naive journalist just wants to do what she thinks is the right thing.
I understand that the movie is a tribute to some US movies that Godard liked. Apparently, he and Truffaut felt that a number of French movies were pleasing to the eye but otherwise empty (Truffaut later interviewed Alfred Hitchcock, whose clever storytelling techniques he admired; while writing for Cahiers du Cinema, Godard praised Otto Preminger's works). Just as important as "Breathless"'s plot is the soundtrack. The smooth jazz drives the movie as Michel goes from place to place, with or without Patricia. The jump cuts are distracting at times, but they don't subtract from the movie. Everything about this movie bears analyzing; you should see it at least once. Outstanding. -
Theo Robertson11 November 2004... You will love this
I know little about French new wave cinema except that it's an acquired taste . Off the top of my head I think the only movie I've seen in this genre is ALPHAVILLE a crime drama does as science fiction unless you count FARENHEIT 451 where Francois Traffaut uses some of his French art house influences in the movie
I did enjoy A BOUT DE Soufflé ( BREATHLESS ) for the most part mainly because of its bizarre feel . We see anti hero Michel lay down how he feels about both France and woman drivers in the opening sequence , we see the first use of a technique called " Jump cut " in cinema ( It's not but is often claimed to be . The truth is " jump cut " is as old as cinema itself ) , we see hand held camera / fly on the wall directing and perhaps most strangely of all we are treated to an inappropriate soundtrack though this is of course done on purpose
The only other performance I recall seeing from Jean Paul Belmondo is the end scenes of CASINO ROYALE but he's very good here as Michel . Considering he's a murderer who is not above mugging and conning people you can't help liking his cheek and arrogance , he's very much an anti hero from a byegone age where sexism and chain smoking wasn't a sin . How I miss that era
I gave this movie seven out of ten but I should point out I have seen a massive amount of movies ( I've reviewed over 1200 on this site )and like many other people who have praised A BOUT DE Soufflé I am a film buff . If you've come to this page , seen all the good reviews and decided that you must see this movie at all costs then I still have to warn you that you may not like it much if you only watch Hollywood blockbusters . I don't say this in an arrogant elitist way , only that French new wave cinema is an acquired taste -
Hitchcoc29 March 2015Since there have been a great many conventional reviews of this movie (far more positive than negative), I will address a criticism, that we often praise things that are groundbreaking, even when they are not that good. What, of course, is "that good"? This is by all accounts a simple story. A sociopathic young man kills a cop and feels nothing. This film pretty much made Jean-Paul Belmondo, who muscles his way through life, finding pleasure, while he is being pursued. His bad boy charm attracts the young female and she becomes embroiled in his impulsiveness. There is a love story here but there can be nothing but pain. Live fast, die young, leave a beautiful memory was created here. One could say that D. W. Griffith films are not as good as modern films on the same themes because they were silent and not in color. Even though the jump cuts and other fundamentals of filmmaking were introduced (or at least enhanced) in the French New Wave, there are those who criticize this film for being uninspired and repetitive. While it's hard to have sympathy with the two principles in this film, it does present a dizzying ride.
-
evanston_dad18 December 2006One of the least intolerable films Jean Luc Godard gave us, if that praise is faint enough for you.
"Breathless" is easily one of the most accessible of Godard's films, and while it still features a great many of the French New Wave trappings that exist for the sole purpose of pulling you out of the world of the film, it still manages to tell a story peopled with characters that we care about. Godard owes much of his film's success to the tremendous screen presence of his two leads, the smoldering Jean-Paul Belmondo and the hipster gamine Jean Seberg. These two create a vision of spontaneous romance that feels loose and free, in contrast to the rigid romantic formulas imposed on Hollywood products of the time.
Grade: B+ -
Breathless was a film I did not warm up to easily the first time I saw it, as it was my first film I had seen from Jean-Luc Godard, and thought it was (un-fairly) too "French". On top of that, I felt displeased with Jean-Paul Belmondo's performance. After seeing the film again, and then a third time, I still find it to not be my absolute favorite Godard, but it is a lot better film than I first remembered. Much better. In fact, it is what pretty much anyone who has praise for the movie says it is: It's one of the benchmarks of post-modernist film-making (what Godard said was accidental in "jump-cuts", evident in the fast pace of when Michel is in the car at the beginning of the film), and it is quite a good deal of fun even when it slows down and we get those long hand-held shots by Raoul Cotard.
The music is catchy (I find myself whistling the theme music and some of the other music in the film), Belmondo is interesting even when he's acting like a ironic rebel (and, upon repeated viewings, Belmondo grew on me even more as I realized my initial reaction was to the punk-like quality of the character, which is of course the point), and Godard seems to be relishing in his Jazzy usage and control of the camera. It is exhilarating and I look forward to re-watching it again and again; bottom line, A Bout de soufflé was appropriately Godard's breakthrough, and on a first viewing it may turn off some more than others who aren't prepared - or, indeed, may be prepared but are too used to what Godard had already broken through with some almost 50 years ago. It does deserve a second viewing, or more, to understand it or perhaps be enthralled or whatever by it. -
A thief accidentally kills a policeman and needs to collect on debts in order to skip town.
If I was to write my own personal milestones of cinema - and this would be one of them - you might be surprised at some of the names that crop up. Not all the films on my imaginary list would be that good, but all would have a role in forming the cinema that we know and enjoy today.
For example, 1930's horror taught the industry a lot of tension and cinematography tricks that you see today in mainstream productions. Today's thrillers such as Se7en and Silence of the Lambs (to use two obvious names from thousands) have more to do with The Bride of Frankenstein than, say, Kiss Me Deadly.
Another example would be the way that the James Bond series gave heroes the right to casually kill those that opposed him. Starting first with Doctor No.
The French "New Wave" introduced naturalism, honesty and sexual tension to the screen. The subtitles allowing them to get away with things that no Hollywood films would allow at the time.
(However don't think I am blindly championing it - it produced just as much dross as Hollywood.)
Goddard is not actually my favourite French New Wave director because he is too self-indulgent, but he has a lot of courage and he is his own man. If something intrigues him, he holds it in frame until his curiosity is spent. For him the thing is personal and if you say you don't like it his answer would be "well go and make your own film then."
The problem with some people reviewing this film is that they seem to believe that because there are tricks for foreshortening scenes they should have been employed. This is a not a chase film per se, but a look at people under a stressful situation.
It is easy to say that this is a cheap film. However the real Paris is a wonderful set and I prefer it to any of the Warner Brothers cardboard and plywood versions.
The dialogue seems fresh and interesting, but my French isn't good enough to do without the subtitles. The lovers seem questioning of their relationship (they started without the aid of a full script) and Jean Seberg's character is hard to work out from the evidence presented here.
(Obviously a liker of bad boys, but I don't really have enough evidence to make any strong statements about her. Her look is more memorable than her acting which remains hold-it-all-in.)
Belmondo does a good job of portraying the kind of criminal that is under represented on the screen and over represented in real life: Young, stupid and reckless.
This film opened up a new way of making and enjoying films that went against the Hollywood rules - especially to do with sex and sexuality. Even if the sex is actually performed totally off-screen! -
Lechuguilla15 May 2009When critics or viewers praise a film only because it was technically innovative when it was made ... beware. It may mean that the film has either minimal entertainment value or minimal thematic content. Such is indeed the case with "Breathless", a film noted for the director's willingness to break rules of traditional cinema. This film is far more improvised, more off-the-cuff, then "staged" films made in years prior to 1960.
The story, about an unlikeable cad who romances a young woman in Paris, is dull as dishwater. It has no thematic depth. The script treatment, written by Francois Truffaut a year or two before Jean-Luc Godard filmed the movie, is used more or less as the basis for the plot and the dialogue, sans screenplay. And it shows!
Characters are not well thought out. Our cad is a killer and a petty thief who smokes a lot. He's also obnoxious. At one point he looks directly into the camera and tells viewers: "If you don't like ... then get stuffed!" The young woman is unremarkable in every way, apart from her unisex hairdo, which may have been chic in 1960; today it looks atrocious.
Likewise, the film's improvised dialogue is horrible. At one point the cad asks the young woman: "Why are you looking at me?" Her response: "Because I'm looking at you". And then later, the woman says "Well, I don't know yet whether I love you". The cad asks: "When will you know?" She responds: "Soon". He asks: "What does soon mean? In a month, a year?" She answers "Soon means soon". Submit a screenplay to a studio these days with dialogue like that, and see what happens.
Casting and acting are mediocre and bland. The two main roles are not demanding. The film's production design conveys the impression that Godard was trying to appeal to an audience of haughty sophisticates. Thus, we get an artist's studio, convertible sports cars, and lots of cigarette smoking. The background music is mostly light jazz, and when combined with the costumes, production design, and hairstyles makes the film seem very dated.
Maybe "Breathless" was Godard's way of breaking through as a major film director in 1960, specifically by thumbing his nose at Hollywood film directors from previous decades. And there's some merit to that. But I'm viewing this film in 2009, not 1960; and I'm a viewer, not a film director. A film that has nothing to offer but innovation, invisible to the viewer, runs the risk of being time bound, imprisoned in its own era.
And I have no doubt that "Breathless" was technically innovative. As such, it's a film that deserves to be read about in film history books, and seen by film historians and film students. But as entertainment for a general audience decades after it was made, and in its overall thematic content, it has little or nothing to offer.