Breathless (2006)

One of my all time favorites.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I was filled with anxiety before beginning Breathless. As someone who is firmly entrenched in the Truffaut camp, #TruffautisLife after all, I was terrified that I would see what is often regarded as the director with whom Truffaut shared an open and intense parting of ways with and see the masterpiece I've always been told it was. Obviously, I know that appreciating a Godard film will do nothing to diminish my love for all things Truffaut, I'm just a loyalist and was worried how I'd feel enjoying a Godard film. Little did I know, I had nothing to worry about. I actively disliked Breathless, I may have even hated it. Jean-Luc Godard's 1960 film was important, I suppose, to the burgeoning French New Wave. I'm sure to subject myself to more Godard films in the future as my journey through cinema goes on, but Breathless did not live up to its reputation, for me.This is where the plot would go if there was one. Just kidding, sort of, there are happenings in Breathless but it is clear that there were not many rehearsals with a script taking place. I've read that Godard was rewriting the script each day, removing nearly all of the influence of Truffaut, who had given the film's story to Godard. Godard would then feed the lines to the actors from offset resulting in very little familiarity between the words of the script and the actors speaking them. Michel Poiccard (Jean-Paul Belmondo) a self-absorbed narcissistic sociopath, surely modeled after Jean-Luc Godard, steals a car then murders the police officer who chases after him. Needing a distraction and a place to hide out, Michel renews his relationship with Patricia Franchini (Jean Seberg) an American in Paris studying journalism whom he met a few weeks prior. Despite their relationship being new and unestablished, Michel expects Patricia to accompany him on his getaway to Italy. Like a true narcissist, Michel is oblivious to the fact that his face is in all the papers and the police are closing in on him as he goes about his way collecting his money and planning his getaway. Focusing his attention on the American films that interest him and his American love interest, Michel ignores the fact that his very life is at stake.During the opening minutes of the film, Jean-Paul Belmondo breaks the fourth wall by looking at and speaking directly to the camera which is a device that almost always works for me. I thought that meant that I may be in for something good, but almost immediately after this scene ended, I nearly ran out of things to enjoy. The jump cuts were amazing and served the story well. I don't give Godard credit for inventing those cuts, as many do, however. An idol, Sergei Eisenstein used jump cuts in film--most memorably in depicting an explosion in The Battleship Potemkin. Georges Melies, whose work I have memorialized on my body also used jump cuts through most of his career in silent cinema. Despite the fact that Godard often gets credit for inventing the jump cut which he surely did not, I can't argue the fact that he used the technique effectively cementing certain aspects of The French New Wave. The music was phenomenal, so kudos to Godard for that. From his first film, however, one can see my biggest criticism of Godard. Godard has no problem excluding his audience. Just listening to Godard speak in interviews, it's clear to discern that he only expects the highest brow of intellectuals to enjoy his films. If an audience member doesn't fit into that category, he doesn't really care. He created terribly unlikeable characters engaging in a plot and a romance that no one could possibly care about, all the while carrying on pseudo-intellectual conversations grating on the last bit of patience I could muster. Obviously, Breathless works for almost everyone except me, but after seeing his debut feature, there's not much encouraging me to try more Godard films.

Still fresh as ever four viewings later, this debut feature from Jean- Luc Godard shows the acclaimed French director at his most experimental while still spinning a half decent story (the same cannot be said of all of his subsequent efforts). A key piece of dialogue crops up around halfway through as lead actress Jean Seberg tells the car thief protagonist played by Jean-Paul Belmondo that she cannot see anything beneath his face, no matter how hard she looks. Belmondo is a man who has modeled himself on the heroes of film noir (twisting his face to match Bogart's face in a photo at one point) and has lost his true identity in a near fantasy existence; Godard's inclusion of gun sound effects as Belmondo imagines firing his gun from his moving car hint at an overactive imagination. Godard's use of jump cuts is also indicative of fragmented thinking. Fascinating as this all may be, 'À Bout de Soufflé' misses the mark for a top tier Godard effort. It is not even of his five best films as it does not spin as tight a narrative as something such as 'Contempt'. The scenes in Seberg's hotel room run too long and as appealing as Belmondo's non-urgency in fleeing the country may be, the film misses the opportunity for thrills and suspense. It also debatable how much sense Seberg's decision near the end makes. There is, however, no flawing the film's music, a mix of different moody styles for a mixed up world in which Belmondo feels many different emotions, and the way we get inside the mind of the film noir-influenced protagonist is superb. Godard's cameo is lots of fun too.

When this film was originally released, it was very revolutionary. It is also, arguably the film which started the "French New Wave" movement. It is very influential, and it has had a huge impact on cinema. I had a couple issues with it, but overall, it was a pretty impressive film, and I'm glad I watched it.After a small time car thief named Michel Poiccard shoots and kills a policeman, he reunites with a love interest named Patricia Franchini as he attempts to convince her to run away with him to Italy, all while trying to avoid the cops.This is arguably one of, if not the most influential movie of all time. It has made many contributions to cinema that have been used again and again in other movies. When it was originally shot, the filmmakers attempted to film it differently than how most films were shot. They used real locations instead of man-made sets and it was filmed in mostly natural lighting. Raoul Coutard, the cinematographer of the film, said "When we were shooting Breathless, we tried to film it the way news reports were shot, i.e., with a hand-held camera and natural lighting. In other words, for me it was very much like filming in the heat of battle." Also, since the cameras they used were very loud, Jean-Luc said the lines to them as he filmed it, and he edited their voices into the film later. These differences made it stand out from other films.However, what this film is perhaps mostly known for is its use of jump-cuts or discontinuity editing. Jean-Luc got the idea for this in director Jean Rouch's 1958 film: "Moi, un Noir". Jean-Luc was a huge fan of that film, and it's credited as a major influence for this film. However, Jean-Luc gave his own interesting twist to this concept. Instead of jumping from one scene to another, he would cut short clips out of the middle of scenes to shorten the films running time to 90 minutes instead of just removing entire scenes altogether. This caused some of the scenes to skip from moment to moment. This gave some of the scenes in the film a jagged and fast-paced feel. Essentially, what Godard did was take an already existing cinematic technique and add his own, unique style to it to spice it up or to change it around in an appealing way.Also, since Jean-Luc didn't have that big of a budget, being that this was his first film, he had to make use of what he had and try to find clever ways to cut down on cost. Godard had to film in locations that he already had access to, use cameras that he already had access to (the entire film was shot by using hand-held cameras), and he hired people he knew to help work on the film. Often, he would film on the streets of Paris without any permits. At some parts, cinematographer Raoul Coutard would film scenes while sitting in a wheelchair as he was pushed along by crew members.I've spent a lot of time discussing its influence, but now I'm going to talk a bit about what I think of its story.I thought that it was really interesting how Michel was slowly able to gain Patricia's trust as the film went on. At the same time, Patricia had to decide whether or not she should stay with him or inform the cops that she knows where they can find him. As the 2 made their way through Paris, there was always a slight amount of tension since Michel's face is everywhere in papers. Also, people often happened to be reading them when he would be going by. There are also a few scenes in which people recognized him, and he had to escape the area quickly.However, there are 2 flaws (mostly minor ones) that I had with its story.The first one is a minor complaint towards its intro. I felt like it rushed the entire intro scene when he steals the car, murders the policeman, and meets up with Patricia. It seemed very fast-paced to a point where I could hardly keep up with it. I wished for it to slow down a bit to an enjoyable pace. I was a bit worried that the entire film would be like that. Fortunately, it wasn't, but my complaint here does not vanish despite this.My second issue with the film is not as minor as the first one, but it bugged me a little bit more. This complaint is about the predictability of the films ending. After Patricia informed Michel that she did tell the cops where he lived, and that they were coming for him, it became clear to me what was going to happen next, and I was instantly able to figure out how it would end. It became obvious which direction the movie was going to head in next. I wished that they revealed it in a less obvious way than that. For example, they could've revealed it right when they were about to drive away, and the cops could show up right after that revelation. My issue might still exist in a few remnants, but it wouldn't be nearly as glaring.In conclusion, I really liked this film, and I can respect it for its huge influence on cinema history. It did many things different from most other films, and it showed that you don't have to follow any rules when writing films. I did have a couple issues with its intro and outro, but other than that, I liked everything else about the film. I can understand why it would be brought up on "best movies ever made" lists and I'd probably add it too if I made one. It has had a huge impact on cinema history, and I can respect it for what it's done.

Frankly, I think Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless (1960) is VERY overrated. This is just a very amateurish first attempt at filmmaking for Goddard.That Jean-Paul Belmondo's character would murder a cop and then stick around Paris to get nabbed is unreal. Not even a DUMB criminal is DUMB enough to do that, especially since this guy has the means to flee the country and he is portrayed as a career criminal type with street savvy.Jean Seberg's character is portrayed as an upscale, educated aspiring American journalist who is trying to make it in Paris, yet hooks up with an obvious low life like Jean-Paul's character? SORRY, but I just don't buy it. That she sticks around with Jean-Paul's character even after discovering his criminal nature is even more unbelievable.OK, Jean's character finally smartens up at the end and turns in Jean-Paul's character to the cops. But then what does she do? She goes back to this low life thug and tells him what she did !!!! Either this gal has a latent suicidal wish or she is unbelievably STUPID. Why would any rational person go back to tell a fugitive on the run from a cop killer charge that she just ratted him out? Especially, since it puts her alone in in an apartment with this guy. UNREAL !!!! Then there's the final scene where jean's character is running down the street toward Jean-Paul's character's bullet riddled body is lying face down in the street. I mean, she actually still cares for this cold blooded cop killer even after he's righteously dead? GIVE ME A BREAK !!!! This film is just a love story from outer space, in my opinion. This film isn't about romance, it's about two DUMB people, just acting DUMB.I mean I've seen a number of Absurdist / Avant Garde films that I thought were great because the unreal / absurd elements in the film had some sort of symbolic or interpretive meaning in the context of the whole film. Breathless, however, is a film with a basically unbelievable, not well thought out storyline that just has no symbolic or interpretive meaning at all, at least for me.Although Goddard went on to make many great films, his initial effort here was a BIG FLOP as far as I'm concerned and the acclaim that Breathless got in its time was due to Goddard's already gotten fame as a film critic for a very influential Parisian film review and nothing more. That's the only sense that I can make of why such a MEDIOCRE film would get such high ratings.{{{This review is also posted at "Forum For Film Reviews And Discussions" at groups.google.com.}}