MUBI

There is a dichotomy between films before Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless (À bout de Souffle) and those that followed. With its unlikeable protagonist, meandering storyline, swanky James Bond music, and daring sex references, Breathless is, in many ways, the first modern movie. Perhaps this was because of the happy marriage of talents. It was directed and written respectively by two pillars of the French New Wave. After directing a number of short films, Jean-Luc Godard joined forces with François Truffaut who had arrived on the scene a few years before.
As what could reasonably be called the ultimate film of the French New Wave, Breathless is clearly a movie lover’s movie. Throughout there are references to Humphrey Bogart and the Europeans’ love of silent cinema. Interestingly, the first dialogue that comes from Michel, the disenchanted hood played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, is classic stream-of-consciousness lingo. Michel even breaks the fourth wall, and this effectively feels more intrusive and aptly illustrates what a self-centered jerk he is.
Michel treats women like objects, is a misogynist, consorts prostitutes, and sleeps with women at his leisure. He wants to be seductive, charming, adventurous, and full of mystery, but it’s just a façade. He’s really just self-absorbed. Michel so wants to be an action movie hero, however, that he has become disconnected from the real world.
The real world has real consequences, however, and the gun that he was playing with at the beginning of the film really does get used when he shoots dead a policeman. The scene is especially powerful thanks to Godard’s trademark use of jump-cuts. We see the officer arriving, there is a cut to the gun, we hear a shot, and then a quick edit of the body tumbling, and finally a shot of Michel running through a field. This one scene we are seeing through Michel’s eyes. This murder originated from his childish play (the cop was chasing him for stealing the car) and he never saw any humanity in the officer. We don’t either, for that matter. We never see his face or hear him talk much beyond telling Michel to freeze. We don’t even see him die. Godard’s jump-cuts are especially useful in alienating us from the experience. It all happens to quickly and too sketchily for us to care much about the murder, because that is the way it all seemed to Michel.
What current actor hasn’t played a character like Michel? Jude Law did in Closer and Jonathan Rhys-Myers in Match Point. He has had such a huge influence into the seductive yet selfish male persona.
Ultimately, Breathless is a movie about empty lives. Exactly what is Michel’s purpose in living? We never see him do anything other than talk about sex, money, or driving aimlessly. It’s a self-indulgent and empty life. He lives only to serve himself. Could this be Godard’s comment on French society?
He doesn’t even love his girlfriend Patricia (Jean Seberg), an American making her way selling copies of the New York Tribune in Paris. Godard may have been the first director to paint a portrait of the City of Romance completely devoid of love. Patricia is an intriguing character, and the most curious thing about her is why she stays with Michel. Even his compliments to her are callous, “You rank an 8 out of 10.”
Patricia is a confused girl. She came to France to experience life, but doesn’t really (or is deliberately blind) to the nature of the people she is meddling with. She is like a Henry James heroine, a naïve American not savvy enough to survive in European society. She keeps asking, “What is your greatest ambition?”
It’s an empty question because no one in this film has one. Furthermore, it is ironic that she quotes Faulkner with, “Between grief and nothing, I’ll take nothing.” Fittingly, Michel agrees because their lives are nothing. Just look at how casually they discuss Patricia’s pregnancy and the large probability that it will be Michel’s child.
Godard’s jump-cuts once again are an effective way of removing us from the intimacy (or lack of) in Michel and Patricia’s sex life. “Can one still believe in love in our time?” Patricia asks. It seems like the movie’s answer is no and there is no love between them. Nor is there any difference between eroticism and love, another question the movie ponders.
In addition to the jump-cuts, Godard employs his famous external sounds (like a car horn or ambulance) to cover escalating conversation. The very banes of modern life that Michel complains of produce the sounds that keep cutting off his dialogue. His fanciful visions of a grander life are subdued by the ugly reality that created those sounds. Cars are a prevalent theme in the movie. From the car that Michel steals in the beginning, cars in Breathless play the same role they did in Fellini’s 8 1/2. Everyone is trapped in their own car, breeding their own selfishness.
Patricia, however, evolves more than Michel ever does. She sounds like a completely different person when she speaks her native tongue, and the allure of Europe is gone. Most revealingly, she is not that naïve. If anything, she becomes more involved with Michel after learning of the brutality of his crime. If it’s because she has, by this point, become too seduced with the low-life then how are we to interpret her next move? When Michel’s goal of moving to Rome seems finally about to be realized, Patricia turns him in to the police. Even here, it is clear that her intentions may not be as clear cut as they seem, but maybe Michel’s last words before his doomed attempt to escape contain a clue.
“I’m fed up. I’m tired. I want to sleep,” says the exhausted thug. Even Michel can have too much to lose. Apparently so did Patricia, but she too may have realized this too late. If her last line which closes the film with a close-up of her face proves anything it’s that she is, in the end, all too similar to Michel.

Breathless is in the top three films if not the most important films ever made by anyone. Godard would surpass the film in terms of craft and technique in the years soon after Breathless but with this one film Godard made something so influential, groundbreaking, and just plain watchable. Film makers and critics alike have discussed and will continue to discuss this film for decades to come. Many have said there was cinema before Breathless and after Breathless. I’ve been a Godard fan(I’ve seen all but 5 of his films) since I was 19 years old. If you could only watch 2 of his films I would say Vivre sa Vie and Breathless are the two you must see. I count myself as a cinephile who has seen countless films like Breathless but return to Breathless often to be amazed at how jaw-dropping original and fresh it remains.

I was feeling somewhat bold last night and decided that I would watch Breathless. It’s been about 10 years since I first saw it and my memory of it, what little I did remember, was a positive one. This was the first Jean Luc Godard film that I ever saw and in the 10 years between then and now I’ve watched quite a few of his movies, most of which I did not like. With Breathless I made it about 10 minutes in before that old familiar feeling came back to me, the feeling of boredom, of nausea, of wanting to gouge my own eyes out. I’m just going to come out and say that I’ve evolved to the point where I simply do not like Godard’s films. I do not find them interesting, unique, fun, clever, revolutionary, intelligent — not cute, not hip, not funny — nothing at all. I attribute my initial reaction to Breathless to my being young and dumb maybe. The older I get, the more films I see and study, the more I learn, and, hopefully, the smarter I get the less I respond to his films. It is mind-boggling to me how he has remained the prominent figure he has for the last 50+ years, held in higher regard than his peers like Truffaut, Malle, and Melville. Apparently a lot of great filmmakers where influenced by him and he sort of opened their minds to the possibilities of what you can do on film. Okay, fine. Now lets get over it. All those filmmakers who cite Godard as an influence, such as Scorsese and DePalma, fortunately for the world, didn’t regress into creating Godardian-style cinema and instead went on to make great films, much better and more interesting films than Godard ever made. What is there really to say about a Godard movie or a Godard moment? There’s a scene early in Breathless where Belmondo, wearing a fedora tilted down to cover his eyes, brushes his thumb across his lips and we’re all supposed to go “Ooooahhhh, he’s doing Bogart. Bravo Godard. We get the reference.” This is basically the highlight of a Godard film. It’s rubbish, it’s drivel, it’s empty-headed, film-geek nonsense. I’ll end this rant with a few quotes by a couple really great filmmakers, Ingmar Bergman and Werner Herzog, and their thoughts on Godard’s films, which I couldn’t agree with more:

Bergman: “I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fucking bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin féminin (1966), was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.”

Herzog: “Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good Kung Fu film.”

J’avais oublié à quel point le montage était efficace dans le film de Godard. Avec du recul, je constate l’intelligence dans la mise en scène et le montage, qui donne un style unique au film. Dès le début du film, Michel Poiccard passe à l’action, on apprend vite à connaître ce personnage assez excentrique, irréel. Inspiré du film noir, à la limite, Godard trouve un équilibre entre l’incohérent et le cohérent, l’homme et la femme. Les dialogues ne sont pas improvisés, certaines scènes sont tournés avec une ligne directrice, mais laisse une place au jeu créateur très fertile de Belmondo et Seberg. Une belle complicité dans le jeu des personnages qui donne le ton au film. Une dualité entre eux, mais un amour aussi. La femme est libre, mais toujours confuse, en questionnement ; sur elle, sur Michel, sur le monde qui l’entoure, sur son avenir. (…)

Il y a un manque flagrant de réalisme dans le récit. Dans ce qui est de la mise en scène, les éclairages sont très naturels, et le film est tourné en muet. Tourné aussi dans les rues, on peut facilement faire le lien avec le néo-réalisme italien.

À noter les nombreuses références artistiques et culturelles que Godard fait tout au long du film. JLG emploie les figures de style pour mettre son histoire en image et en sons, comme l’énumération que fait Michel sur Patricia dans la voiture.

En sommes, À bout de souffle est un collage signé JLG.

Godard, à peu près en même temps que plusieurs autres cinéastes à travers le monde, a imposé un style nouveau, qui inspirera d’ailleurs les générations futures du cinéma français, et mondiale. 1959-1960, les années du commencement de la Nouvelle Vague française. On peut aussi parler du cinéma new-yorkais (la ville longtemps nommé comme la capitale de l’art…) avec Cassavetes (Shadows en 1958), ou le Free Cinema en Angleterre. L’âge d’or du cinéma.

Breathless is a landmark in the history of cinema. No doubt that statement has been made countless times before, but why is it so? It was not the first modern film (that would arguably be Resnais’ Hiroshima Mon Amour); it was not the first film to employ improvisation and a spontaneously written script (that would be Cassavetes’ Shadows); and it was not the first film to playfully deconstruct the gangster film (that would be Melville’s Bob Le Flambeur). It was, in fact, the first film to critique, reference, and celebrate the cinema all at the same time. The French New Wave revolutionized and deconstructed the cinema, and Breathless is the key film of that movement. Like Citizen Kane before it, Breathless redefined how we view films by reinforcing the importance of the auteur and the power of editing, as well as introducing new narrative techniques that would influence every film made afterward. Its main character was the first of his kind- amoral, self obsessed, and detached. His very existence seemed only to challenge authority and model himself after his pop culture influences (Humphrey Bogart). Godard, inspired by filmmakers such as Welles, Rossellini, Fuller, and Melville, essentially took everything he knew about film technique and history (tracking shots, crane & dolly shots, fade outs, etc.) shot in a documentary style and put everything together through his revolutionary jump-cut editing. This resulted in the most audacious and innovative film since Citizen Kane. Its whimsical tone, rapid pace, and detached anti-heroes were like a breath of fresh air that set the tone for what Hollywood films would become later on in the 60’s and 70’s. It would also get the ball rolling on the cultural revolution that would come later on in the decade. What gets lost in all of the film’s breakthroughs is the pure joy and satisfaction one gets from watching it. It still seems hip and fresh when viewing it today. If Godard had never made another movie (and he made plenty more) he would still be known as one of the most important figures in the history of cinema. Not too bad for your first film.

It was the film that introduced the world to the French New Wave, and as such, it more than deserves its immortality. However, its stylistic innovations are not its only merits. It also tells an engrossing story of a young hoodlum on the run and the ambivalent object of his affections. It’s an existential film that concerns itself with living in the moment and the amoral behaviour of its characters. It’s one of those rare films that changed and influenced whole generations of films and filmmakers.

Another legendary masterpiece, another important, detailed release from Criterion, this time presenting Jean-Luc Godard’s New Wave classic with the best restoration it has ever received, making Godard and Raoul Coutard’s brilliant tracking shots of Paris, and those rapid fire jump cuts, look sparkling in all their rough black and white beauty. I’ve seen this film so many times I think I could recite the dialogue in my sleep, an I’m pretty sure I don’t know a lick of French, so seeing the luminous Jean Seberg and the Bogart worshiping Jean-Paul Belmondo frolic in the legendary 30-minute bedroom sequence, talking about existentialism and the paintings of Picasso and Renoir, with jazz music on the soundtrack, in a print this gorgeous is as fresh a viewing experience I’ve had in months, and currently ranks as the best DVD issue of the year. The lengthy extras, including two documentaries, but without a scholarly commentary track, will help the uninitiated and hardcore cinephiles alike better appreciate why this film was so important, and still is so important, in the advancement of on-the-fly low budget filmmaking and editing. In a very long career, Godard’s first film is still his best, and film schools for the rest of time will be suggesting just the same.

I wanted to rate this a 3 and a half, but you can’t do that on here, so I gave it three stars, although I truly wouldn’t rate it that low, but I hesitate to give it a 4.

Breathless is a good film, but it gets in its own way. The story is very good, written by Truffaut although the direction lacks the proper tension that it calls for. The film doesn’t know if it wants to be a Noir or if it wants to parody a noir. I don’t like this kind of lack of commitment, and neither do I like parody. But what keeps the film from getting a four or five, the most for me, is the sound. The score is one of the absolute worst in the history of films. The terrible Jazz that permeates the entire movie does nothing but grate on the nerves, and it completely wrecks the great final scene. Also, the sound is just too much. The car noises just intrude on the scenes and it doesn’t make a difference to me whether this was a conscious choice or not, why put something into your film that detracts from it? I’ve never understood this kind of modernist philosophy toward art, sabotaging your own work to prove to the audience that nothing is perfect or that imperfections can be beautiful to-yes they can, but you can do that without being intentionally sloppy on the technical side.

And this happens throughout the film. Why, in the restaurant use a handheld on a wheelchair, when a dolly could have been used? What do the arial shots in the middle of the film have to do with anything-put that at the beginning or end, but too much in this film there are too many things done in the film simply to be different or to artificially make it appear amateur. Its like watching the home and garden channel where people are ‘antiquing’ some piece of furniture to make it appear something it isn’t. My philosophy is to do your best, you flaws will come out, there is no need to create more flaws artificially for the sake of a style.

I like the improvisational nature of the acting, because life is spontaneous, but the camera capturing it, in my opinion should not intrude onto the scene. When the camera is shaking all to hell, and you have these odd cuts and cuts to things that have nothing to do with anything. It just ruins what might have been, especially combined with the score.

But as I said, Breathless is a good film, forgive me if I’m not worshiping at the altar of it as many do, I just felt that the director got in the way of what could have been a great film. The story of a decent girl who is in love with an idiot, lowlife is an interesting one. I like the dialogue, and the intellectual aspects of the film, but for me it was ruined by the filmmaking and the music. The director got in his own way. so I give it 3 and a half stars. Sue me.

“I was only two years old when Breathless was released (1960). I probably first saw it in a cinema studies class. I may have seen it again at a revival house. I’ve rented it a few times. But still, even though all of the movie’s revolutionary elements—its narrative inventions and seat-of-the-pants mise en scéne—are now on view in hundreds of other movies, Breathless excites like no film since, and should be required viewing for anyone thinking of making a movie. In fact, it should be required viewing for anyone thinking of even “thinking” about movies. Everything you could possibly come up with, every fresh idea, is right there in 89 minutes. Godard beat you to it.

Watch Breathless and you’ll see the birth of guerrilla cinema: jump cuts, handheld shots, long unbroken takes, tracking moves accomplished with a wheelchair; scenes filmed in natural light; street sequences shot without permits or lights or craft services; gunshots and off-screen crashes.”

— MovieMaker Magazine

I saw Breathless last week. I will see it again some other time. Only the beautiful moments fade fast! Well, that’s it. History is history. You’ve time to create a new one.