I don't know too much about the French New Wave aside from the fact that it features some of the most famous directors in film history. One such director is Francois Truffaut who is without a doubt one of my favorite directors of all time. Yet, as I have come to know and love Truffaut, there has always been one name that has been coupled with Truffaut's. Said name belongs to none other than Jean-Luc Godard, one of the fore fathers of the French New Wave. After scanning through Godard's career and his filmography, there was a hand full of films that I wanted to watch, but there was one film deemed quintessential for a Godard experience, and that was "Breathless." Released in 1959, "Breathless" was the film that put Godard on the map, and in many respects laid the foundation for Francois Truffaut's masterpiece "The 400 Blows", which was also released that year. But, where I completely fell in love with "The 400 Blows", I was barely invested in Godard's "Breathless", even though it had some great moments.
The film itself is rather thin on its premise. It tells the story of Michel, an everyday thief who wants his life to be as epic and romantic as a Humphrey Bogart gangster picture. Of course, such aspirations aren't met, but Michel finds himself in trouble after he kills a police officer. Out of desperation, Michel flees to Paris, where he steals money from an ex-girlfriend and attempts to woo an American woman, named Patricia, who sells The New York Herald Tribune along the Champs Elysee. The bulk of the film focuses on Michel as he attempts to convince Patricia to run with him to Rome amongst an ever growing concern of arrest. This potential of arrest does raise some conflict near the end of the film, but "Breathless" seemingly floats along a hip breeze as it layers much of its scenes with flirtation and dialogue. Obviously in order for a film like this to really grasp and retain the audience's attention it must have some damn good conversations, as well as some fine performances, and in the case of "Breathless", it does. The dialogue in the film isn't earth shattering by any means, but it's quite enjoyable and at times often feels like two everyday people discussing mundane events with great zeal. In one such scene, which runs on for at least ten minutes, if not more, Michel and Patricia loaf around in bed discussing a variety of subjects that do and don't have any bearing on the story at hand. They're just two people living their life and trying to understand one another on a variety of levels.
Of course the dialogue can only take you so far, so it's especially pertinent to have a decent performance to accompany the film's text. The two leads, played by Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg, possess a fair amount of charisma and bring genuine appeal to their characters, as well as the dialogue that spews from their mouth. They don't deliver fantastic performances, but they do enough to flesh out Godard's thin material and create some belief that these two characters do have some feelings for one another. With that being said, the material itself and Godard's direction don't particularly craft a love story that completely resonates, nor one that validates what should be an emotional and tragic ending. Instead, Godard seemingly keeps us at an arm's length away. He never truly lets us in on the mindset of both of our leads. There is some introspection, don't get me wrong, but never do we fully dive into the lives of these two people. Instead they're treated as absolutes and in many respects we're left with two dimensional characters we just have to accept. In addition to Godard giving us mostly surface level views of his characters, he also uses a few techniques as a director that disrupts the viewer's immersion into his world.
Such tactics include the breaking of the fourth wall, an interesting moment where Michel inexplicably speaks to the audience, and the massive use of jump cuts. In regards to the latter, I understand that this is most likely due to the fact that Godard had to shorten his film by a substantial amount, so instead of cutting scenes of any significance, Godard just cut moments of the film that had no weight on the final product. From this comes moments of abrupt and abrasive jump cuts that just ended up being distracting to me in the end, and eventually took me out of the film, thus forcing me to find my way back in numerous times. Now, although I didn't enjoy this particular aspect of the film, and a few of Godard's other directorial tricks, I could certainly appreciate the new ground they broke for the films of today. Hell, if it wasn't for Godard's lack of regard for his editing (or more specifically the jump cuts), it's very possible that such a technique wouldn't be found built within a film's narrative in this day and age.
So, if there was anything that I walked away with from watching this film, it would be an appreciation for the trends the film laid the foundation for, as well as the risks it takes with a film's premise. But, despite the film's revolutionary hold in 1959, it just doesn't translate well as a complete film. Ideas are presented within interesting shots and the performances are engaging, but the film struggles to capture the audience within its world without disrupting the viewing process.
.jpg)
