Belmondo: C'est vraiment dégueulasse.
Seberg: Qu'est ce qu'il a dit?
Guy: Il a dit que vous êtes vraiment "une dégueulasse".
Seberg: Qu'est ce que c'est "dégueulasse"?

It's really disgusting.
What did he say?
He said "you're really a (disgusting as a noun. Scumbag?)".
What does "disgusting" mean.

BAM!

How much involvement did Truffaut really have with this film? I find it interesting that Godard and Truffaut supposedly worked together on the initial script, but since Godard was writing new lines every day and the significant portions of the film were improvised, I wonder how much of a hand Truffaut had in the final product.

None at all pretty much. The Crit booklet outlines this very well, but he had no serious involvement beyond the initial treatment.

I'll have to finish making my way through - the Criterion booklet is a behemoth, and I've only read a couple of the essays in there.

What really impresses me is how much (by volume) the nouvelle vague directors seemed to do in such a short time. So many movies!

Sadly not true of Rivette. Fortunately he makes for it with length.

Haven't seen any of his films - any place I should start?

I was really referring to, just glancing and Truffaut and Godard alone:
1959: The 400 Blows
1960: Breathless
1961: Shoot The Piano Player, Une femme est une femme
1962: Jules and Jim, Vivre Sa Vie
1963: The Little Soldier, The Rifleman, Contempt
1964: The Soft Skin, Band of Outsiders, A Married Woman

Celine and Julie seems like the usual place most people start. His first feature is also a good place to start.

That's really not that remarkable. It was the norm for most established directors to be making more than a film a year in the 50s and 60s. Some random comparisons for 1960s output:
Pasolini - 17 films
Bergman - 15 films
Oshima - 14 films - even allowing for the fact that he spent several years in exile from feature filmmaking
Lelouch (non-New Wave French contemporary): 14 films

That's leaving out people at the higher-output exploitation end of the spectrum, like Suzuki (29 films!)

And of course, even that pales in comparison to the first ten years of Fassbinder's feature output (33 films).

Or even some of the quicker worker bees under the Hollywood system. Joesph Lewis had seven films one year! Some of them were good even.

Thank you very much for this excellent translation.

A few days ago, I saw the marvellous Blu-ray from Criterion, and then I noticed the discussion here about these famous last words. For these you must slightly sharpen your ear: Does he say "s" followed by "a" or "sh" followed by "e"? "C'est" or "J'suis" (chui = je suis, oh yes, in France they say that too, not just in Canada).

In the script it is: "C'est vraiment dégueulasse". What is it in reality, i.e. in the film? As we know, Godard always was a last-minute guy. But such a difference may be not in the least minute. Asked by that interviewer on the phone he recommended: "Rêvez" (Dream!) and hung up.

What does 'dégueulasse' mean? A scumbag, a bitch, sth to puke? "La gueule" - is it the throat, the kisser, a snout? There was another movie, years ago, "Une gueule d'amour" but the English titles ("Lady Killer"or "Lover-Boy") do not help us at all.

"La gueule" is a serious word. "Ta gueule" is a bit ruder and means "Shut up". And the verb "dégueuler" indeed is to vomit, to puke - but it's a reputable word too, no slang. Just "dégueulasse" is a bit more than that - yes, "disgusting" or "disgusted" may be most precise. And - as a next step - "un/une dégueulasse" is an abominable, a detestable, a really disgusting person.

So, one could translate (depends on what one hears):

Belmondo: "J'suis vraiment dégueulasse".

It pisses me off - I feel awful - Makes me wanna puke - I'm truly disgusted

or: "C'est ..." - It's really disgusting

And the last one ist the best version with regard to the following lines. But there's no need for the cop to introduce a wholly different and discording word like scumbag. Suffices to say: "He said: You are really disgusting." No need for a noun either. So, Criterion may use your translation for subtitling the next reedition.

So, re: discussion earlier in this thread, I finally saw From the Journals of Jean Seberg and as a work of film criticism and/or feminist critique, I found it laughably off the mark. The biggest sin present is the almost total misreading of every film presented by Rappaport-- he follows the conventional wisdom about Saint Joan being awful, mocks Tall Story as a rote sexist antique, etc without much evidence to support his brash claims other than misappropriation of clips (several of which don't even confirm his claims) and an arrogant swagger towards so-called conventional wisdom. It's telling that the only compelling aspects of the film concerned Seberg's work with her novelist ex, but that's only because I hadn't seen the films-- no doubt based on the rest of the work, these too are totally misconstrued to fit Rappaport's narrow thesis

That Rappaport mostly ignores or diminishes the films irked me about Journals as well--as if Preminger and Godard weren't doing things that were new, unique or heartfelt in their movies, but merely exploiting a promising actress. The creepiest thing to me were the multiple references to how young Seberg was at point A or point B in the narrative, because it always seemed to underline a kind of moral outrage on Rappaport's part. Was Seberg really always the victim of men with some sort of "greater sophistication (or, in Rappaport's reading, callous, perverted debauch)?" I thought that central premise was intriguing--and interesting way of looking at the life of Seberg, or any fresh female phenomenon of the film medium--but it seemed as if the factual details rarely added up, or supported Rappaport's thesis. The film also completely ignores the way in which Seberg appeared in a small grip of fresh, dynamic and now classic films, and it also fails to admit to what degree Seberg's own unique energy and ability was key in the success of the films. Rappaport's Seberg seems bitter about every film experience. Are there really actors whose images or identities are not exploited for the sake of making great or ordinary or terrible movies? Doesn't being an actor sometimes mean surrendering yourself to be clay in another's hand? More than that, might not glamour, poise and presence be just as important elements to bring to a film as is more dialog, or a meatier role? In the clips on display, the chauvinism Rappaport claims seems more a claim impressed on the films than reading the films necessarily assert. But I wonder if these feelings might simply be the hindsight of another era? It's become good form to reclaim Preminger nowadays as a serious auteur, and dig even his less successful movies out of the trash, whereas in the 90s he was less of a favored figure--at least, it seemed that way to me. A feminist reading of the life of Jean Seberg might have been more relevant and unique in the 90s than it seems now. The films of Seberg herself seem more worthwhile and more precious in the era of big-budget movies about the Transformers than they did in the 90s, when it seemed as if new eras in film were blossoming and that the medium would be vibrant and vital for so many years yet. Maybe in that context, it was easier to dismiss the achievements of the films themselves in favor of the secret actual lives our movie stars had suffered through?

Watched this again for the umpteenth time and for the first time watched all the extras which were quite good, especially got a big kick out of seeing Chabrol pimp his way thru his segment of the documentary. Reading the thread, especially some of critiques of the film, that I whole heartedly disagree with and to an extent do not understand at all did get me thinking tho. How much of Godard becoming 'Godard' is really a function of the greatness of Seberg & Belmondo? Personally I think he owes a great of his detached coolness towards sex & love reputation to them both and wish there was far more of an appreciation for Breathless being their vehicle as opposed to Godard's. Where as with Anna Karina I feel that it is she who is in debt to him for uncovering her greatness.

Have always wanted to see Rappaport's Seberg doc but, have always been hesitant out of fear for what I might find out about Seberg's ultimately tragic life.