Review LVI
À bout de souffle (1960)
.jpg)
While I have been trying to find time to watch films, it hasn't been working out as well as I hoped. Due to foreseeable circumstances (primarily school), and a few unexpected ones (staying at school until 00:30 on a Friday), I haven't had all that much time to watch any films. However, I have managed to catch up on most of my school work, so I decided to sit down and watch a French New Wave film. What is French New Wave, or la nouvelle vague, as it is known in French? It was basically just a term coined for a number of filmmakers in France during the 1950s and the 1960s who rejected the idealism at the time, which was primarily classical literacy (thanks Wikipedia!). It is known for its pretty crazy ways of editing, as well as its super long takes. One of the big names of la nouvelle vague is Jean-Luc Godard, and I decided to check out his film, À bout de souffle, or Breathless, as it is known in English.
Michel Poiccard (Jean-Paul Belmondo) steals a car (a common act for this kleptomaniac), and promptly kills a police officer who pursues him. This sends the Parisian police force on his case, but that doesn't stop Michel from chasing Patricia Franchini (Jean Seberg), a young American woman who works for the New York Herald Tribune. While he tries to seduce Patricia into living with him in Italy, he must also avoid being caught by the police.
The film is known for its jarring film cuts (jump cuts are cuts between shots that obviously point out that a person is no longer in the same place) and innovative filming techniques. While jump cuts can be used to effectively demonstrate a certain atmosphere, that is, one of an unrelaxed scene and to emphasise speed, I don't usually think they're very good. I mean, it goes against all idea of continuity and seems odd at times. Nonetheless, they seemed to work well in Breathless, even though I think maybe it's because I find it works in 1960 films, for whatever reason. I thought the filming style was different - with shots from high altitudes with a specific character being filmed, for example - and I enjoyed it. I won't go ahead and say it was amazing, but I thought it was enjoyable. It definitely has a contemporary feel to it due to the weird put-together of the film, but contemporary in the sense of the 1950s and 1960s. Aside from the story, which definitely dates it, it has a very 50s feel with how everything is edited together. Experimental films nowadays don't rely on camera techniques as much as they do just weird and ambiguous (ludicrous?) in story. For this reason, you get the impression it was filmed early in the years of film. Alright, fine, early is a bit of a bad term to use since film had existed some forty years when Breathless was released, but whatever. Bottom line - the film technique is very 50s/60s, very contemporary, so if you're into that, you'll enjoy this.
As for the story, well, it isn't anything special. A crass man kills a police officer only to pursue a woman he believes he actually loves. Again, it is a typical 50s/60s plot, but the reality is, if you watch Breathless, it probably isn't for the story, but to get a sense of what la nouvelle vague was. Some films you watch because you're interested in how they got a point across, but not for the point itself. This, in my opinion, is what this movie tries to accomplish, and it does. While the plot isn't anything special, I had fun watching it for its different filming style. While I love watching movies, I usually really dislike experimental films because of their ridiculous notion that they can be "deep" and "meaningful" just by splicing random scenes together. Breathless, while it is experimental in a sense, doesn't do this, and that's why I like it. The plot is simple, but it uses cinematography to stand alone. This is what experimental films should be about - not just randomness.
I'd give the film seven point seven stars on ten. It was an interesting piece to watch. Jean Seberg and Jean-Paul Belmondo did a fine job (even though Jean Seberg's accent bothered me because of how English it was, but hey), and the filming techniques were interestingly done! If you like older films, I highly recommend this one. If you aren't really, I don't see this film changing your opinion.
