408 Breathless

[teddyleevin]

There's a weird audio skip on my disc, about 56 minutes or so in, when the camera zooms in on Godard's character talking to the police and then zooms out again, the music skips and then comes back for a final note. It might be an error, but I thought it might be intentional, considering the the nature of the film. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

[aox]

Not that it matters, b/c this set this fantastic, as well as the remastering and the film itself, but is there any word why they selected such a boring and drab cover? terrible. The inner layout is gorgeous and eloquent so I am shocked that the cover art is so bad.

[Matt]

You'll find existing discussion of the cover art in this thread.

[aox]

thanks matt...

I am new, so I am still trying to learn the nuances of how this board is run.

[LQ]

If anyone lives within driving distance of Bryn Mawr, Doylestown or Ambler, PA (all in southern PA), there will be a showing of Breathless on the big screen in each of these towns in late July. If anyone is interested, there will be a French-language discussion after the film at the Bryn Mawr Film Institute screening!

[mfunk9786]

If anyone lives within driving distance of Bryn Mawr, Doylestown or Ambler, PA (all in southern PA), there will be a showing of Breathless on the big screen in each of these towns in late July. If anyone is interested, there will be a French-language discussion after the film at the Bryn Mawr Film Institute screening!

As long as some marginal Villanova professor isn't moderating the discussion, I'll be there.

[Hopscotch]

Hey LQ, I'll be there!
At doylestown, that is.

[Michael]

I don't own the discs (I should probably pick it up very soon!) but I'd like to know if the discs contain any of the extras that definite/explain the importance of Breathless. I saw the film once at a museum, god! so long ago like when I was a teen. Readings all kinds of reviews and comments of the film, most of them insist that modern films begin with Breathless. I'm still baffled by that. Is it all bullshit? Why not The 400 Blows released earlier than Breathless? Was Breathless really that popular when it made its initial run in the US? Was it really that embraced by the mainstream?

Being a jaded film enthusiast, I feel kinda stupid for asking like this especially about films like Breathless. Enlighten me?

[LQ]

Oh Michael, you have to revisit it immediately! If I could pick one film to go back in the past and watch again for the "first time" it would probably be Breathless. I saw this when I was 14, a freshman hemming and hawing about having to take French and I imagine that I had the same reaction to it as those in 1959- it was so unlike anything I'd ever seen before, so new and alive. It truly invigorated me about film, and about French...two major components of my life today. You've spoken eloquently about the films that moulded your youth...Breathless moulded mine.
Godard, like his fellow critics at Cahiers wanted to make a filmic statement that encapsulated his feelings about the need for change in French cinema but one of the aspects that made Breathless so unique and different from the others was the way in which it was made...scribbled notes the morning before shooting became the dialogue, arbitrary cuts in the stock to shorten the length of the film, using handheld cameras right in the heart of the city...these tactics were revolutionary! And it could've so easily been a disaster! More so than 400 Blows, Breathless stood for a new way of creating cinema. Also, I can't think of a film prior to Breathless that so basks in the entire history of film making. Godard purposefully and lovingly wove something new out of strands of the past half-century of films, and I think those are just some of the reasons why this film is the hallmark of the New Wave, and one of the milestones of modern cinema. Hopefully someone else will pick up where I started, can't say I can place it in historical and cinematic context more than that... May I suggest the Breathless section of the Brody book for you to read? I also remember liking Dudley Andrew's essay in the Criterion booklet.
If for nothing else, I hope my outpouring inspires you to at least watch it again, and soon!! I think I'm going to pop it in again tonight myself!

[Michael]

Wow LQ. Thank YOU for this great encouragement, inspiration...I'm definitely going to pick up the discs this weekend. Analyzing my resentment towards Godard, I think I know where that came from. I was already into Criterion when it released Cleo From 5 to 7. I can't tell you how much it changed my life, it'd take pages and pages just to pour my heart out. I've spent so much time with friends awaiting their HIV testing results since I was in high school back in the mid 1980s. Cleo hits home for me and it will never grow old. But anyway, I've been into cinema since I was a baby I guess, since my mom placed me in front of The Wizard of Oz which pretty much gave birth to the life I know today. And I never heard one single word about Cleo until Criterion released it. Then I grew pissed at the fact Agnes Varda was ignored and it took decades before people started discovering Cleo and what a phenomenal director Varda is. So I turned my back to the chauvinist beasts of the French New Wave, mostly Godard who I always viewed as an immature bully. I think it's time for me for to get over that - that chip on my shoulder needs to be swept off. By doing that, I need to go back to where Godard started.

[GringoTex]

So I turned my back to the chauvinist beasts of the French New Wave, mostly Godard who I always viewed as an immature bully.

Godard was a big supporter of Varda, and as you know, agreed to the small but important part in Cleo. That should help you get over some resentment.

[LQ]

Haha I don't think you're too far off when you call Godard an immature bully I think that his torrid relationship with Karina kind of fucked up his treatment of women characters in his films of the 60s; that, or something did. I certainly have problems with his films, but the sheer immensity of the passion and the wit and intelligence, color and life that is present in his films kind of cancel out any reservations..! Antoine said something in the Pierrot thread, something about the beauty of seeing such a potent expression, warts and all, onscreen...and I completely understand where he's coming from.
At least in my mind, Breathless is kind of a separate entity apart from the rest of Godard's other films. I know people who hate other Godard films, but who LOVE Breathless. To me the difference is that Godard is omnipresent in his later films...they belong first and foremost to him, and then to the viewer. But Breathless, that one, he left it to the world. (I suppose he might agree with me...in the interviews I've seen with him he seems to divorce himself from it, mainly because it was so beloved and popular).

I'm very curious to see what others think about the treatment of Seberg's character; hers is a very equivocal and inscrutable treatment. Every single scene of Breathless is just bursting with so much...and I think there is somewhat of an investigation of feminism going on amidst everything else, although I don't know what Godard's trying to say, or if he's trying to say anything at all... Melville's character tells Seberg that women do in fact have a role to play in modern society...if they're pretty and wear une jolie robe. Her cryptic smirk and the treatment of the interaction lead me to believe that Seberg knows better-and so does Godard. But then of course, the ending frame condemns her as degeulasse.


Michael, I don't think I ever gathered exactly why Cleo meant so much to you, but that is truly touching, what you wrote.

[HerrSchreck]

Breathless is one of the films from Godard that I can watch every now and then, and enjoy. But I don't think it's a masterpiece, I think it's a fun little low budget film with a lot of balls.

FWIW, I always fail to see this:

Also, I can't think of a film prior to Breathless that so basks in the entire history of film making. Godard purposefully and lovingly wove something new out of strands of the past half-century of films,

If anything, Breathless (and to a larger degree Godard) seems to go out of it's way to show other filmmakers, and producers, that one can make a film which uses all the things termed quote unquote 'mistakes'-- that there are no official and formal mistakes. That you can make almost anything work. He seems to be trying to (and this is one of the inherent contradictions in JLG that for me seems to muddy most of his efforts but it's not as much of a problem here) say "The immediately preceding history of filmmaking is limited and stodgy, and drives me crazy thru it's shortsightedness," while at the same time saying "The immediately preceding history of filmmaking is wondrous and the substance of my life," and this love/hate with cimema, when he "made it", resulted in films that for me just feel schizophrenic in their aims and sincerity. Indeed one can love a medium deeply and passionately, and yet (indeed be required to) acknowledge the limitations of it's preceding practioners and seek to advance to new frontiers. But for me in JLG these two aspects of his feelings on the medium don't blend into a functioning filmmaking personality: they clash into each other while running parallel at seperate aims. They don't know whether to tell a story or throw a dart at the industry. And his technical chops for me just don't facilitate the succesful juggling of both. But this is just my own opinion.

He seems to go out of his way to employ devices that other filmmakers would have deemed No-No's. (But Epstein had been doing this since the early 20's-- his weirdness on Usher famously confused none other than Bunuel himself, who walked off the set... "You can't do that-- it'll never work and I don't want to be part of your public embarassment," paraphrasing) To show them, I'd imagine, how potentially limited their conception of cinema was. I think in Breathless, though the result is very ragged and often teetering right there on the edge, he succeeded wildly. The film is very entertaining. Unfortunately the film seems to have manifested it's influence primarily in Eternity commercials and Madonna videos. wink wink.

I think the films most precious commodity, at this time and place in cinema history, was it's sense of C O O L. The haircut, the shirts, Belmondo, Seberg, the patter, the sunglasses, etc... A generation walked on stage and announced it was looking to take over.

As for tributing with sincerity the history of the medium, every generation has had these kinds of cineaste filmmakers who live and breathe and love the medium, and show this in their films.

[LQ]

Our opinions on his success in juggling and interpreting into film that hate the cinema/love the cinema dichotomy will differ but I gotta say, to read that even you enjoy Breathless kinda made my day
And yes, Belmondo is the cooooooolest, jazziest cat in town. That tidbit about Epstein is fascinating, and head-scratching! I can't wait to see Usher now, to see what so bothered Bunuel.

[HerrSchreck]

My pleasure madame, (bows gracefully and bonks into endtable and knocks over lamp).

PS: It's no secret around here that La Chute de la maison Usher is perhaps my favorite film of all time (in the permanent top three, at least).

[LQ]

All the more reason to procure it post-haste.

[GringoTex]

(But Epstein had been doing this since the early 20's-- his weirdness on Usher famously confused none other than Bunuel himself, who walked off the set... "You can't do that-- it'll never work and I don't want to be part of your public embarassment," paraphrasing)

What I've read is that Epstein fired Bunuel because the latter hated Gance's films and refused to work with him.

[Michael]

Michael, I don't think I ever gathered exactly why Cleo meant so much to you, but that is truly touching, what you wrote.

And there's so much more. The moment Cleo turns to us singing as tears trailing down her cheeks - is like shards of glass darting through heart. Then she disappears into black drapery and emerges with a new look sans the claustophobic, swirly wig. There is a shot later in the film that's permanently imprinted in my mind and soul, that very shot blooms in my mind at least once every day! (wondering if that happens to any of you?) That shot is the exterior one of Antoine and Cleo inside a moving train. As Antoine looks at Cleo with a smile in complete silence, we are peeking through the train window at something so beautiful and personal - the whole universe suspending between just the two of them just for the moment.

[HerrSchreck]

(But Epstein had been doing this since the early 20's-- his weirdness on Usher famously confused none other than Bunuel himself, who walked off the set... "You can't do that-- it'll never work and I don't want to be part of your public embarassment," paraphrasing)

What I've read is that Epstein fired Bunuel because the latter hated Gance's films and refused to work with him.

I've read varying accounts, and Gance was definitely part of the conversation. I've heard it said Bunuel quit, that Epstein fired him, etc. But the larger conversation evolved from a funamental disagreement over the work they were doing on Usher, which extrapolated out into a Big Cinema Conversation. Some say Bunuel quit, others say Epstein fired him-- whatever the case, the wind up was that Bunuel, when he saw the finished film (which was a success, and the only film by Epstein to be exhibited in US), said that he liked it very much, and said that the film, and all that was great within it, was entirely Epstein's.

[GringoTex]

(But Epstein had been doing this since the early 20's-- his weirdness on Usher famously confused none other than Bunuel himself, who walked off the set... "You can't do that-- it'll never work and I don't want to be part of your public embarassment," paraphrasing)

What I've read is that Epstein fired Bunuel because the latter hated Gance's films and refused to work with him.

I've read varying accounts, and Gance was definitely part of the conversation. I've heard it said Bunuel quit, that Epstein fired him, etc. But the larger conversation evolved from a funamental disagreement over the work they were doing on Usher, which extrapolated out into a Big Cinema Conversation. Some say Bunuel quit, others say Epstein fired him-- whatever the case, the wind up was that Bunuel, when he saw the finished film (which was a success, and the only film by Epstein to be exhibited in US), said that he liked it very much, and said that the film, and all that was great within it, was entirely Epstein's.

I've also read that Epstein warned Bunuel against his surrealist tendencies during the blow-up, which always confused me a bit becaue of the surrealist nature of Usher.

[HerrSchreck]

I wouldn't try to argue with you since much of this is interpretive (not to mention OT); but I will say that Usher exhibits for me purest qualities of what is generally categorized as Impressionism, as well as Avant Garde. I see none of the absurdity and mocking exaggeration of human behavior and hypocricy in most surrealist works, Bunuel in particular. For me the personal hallmark of the best of cinematic surrealism is not the visual rendering of that which is (a la "surreal") impossible in the real world (at least on it's face), but the ruthless caricature-- to the point of comedy-- of human behavior, its absurdity and obscenity, rendered in a hallucinatory fashion. Joyce's Circe episode (in Ulysses) is, for me, pure surrealism.

Whereas Impressionism's visual plane is modified by the impinging of mood, atmosphere, by how the inside of the head affects what we see outside; a layer over reality, but not a changing of the underlying physical reality really. (though there are some flirtations with Expressionism in Usher viz the sets, and the bizarre walking of the pallbearers in the funeral procession-- that's a fundamental warping of the actual objects beneath the impressionist veneer. And there are some moments in Usher that defy categorization, really.. a genre all it's own.)

Now-- about that Breathless film...

[Michael]

Now-- about that Breathless film...

Wanted to use up my Best Buy gift card so I went to pick up Breathless last night. At Best Buy, there was a case holding only Criterion discs separated from the rest of DVDs. With a banner promoting Criterion and its logo. Pretty cool. I went straight to Breathless and a cute employee approached me saying that I was the first person he saw landing a finger on Breathless. He went on saying what a great film it is. That was really nice, to be chatting with a cute college boy with Breathless in my hands. Came home, went straight to my DVD player. The package designs knocked me off completely as I opened it. Gorgeous minimalist style, just perfect for Breathless. Love it.

When Breathless was over, I was amazed how fast it went by. I was completely hypnotized by the beauty of the heros - Belmondo and Seberg. Belmondo and Seberg, smoking in bed. Smoke swirling the air of lust. I love that shot. I was also hypnotized by Breathless being so living, so breathing, Belmondo and Seberg coming off so real. They are alive - in the same sense I get watching Cleo and Antoine in Varda's masterpiece and Denis' Friday Night (LQ, have you seen this?). Total strangers clashing into each other, sharing magical, fast-burning intimacy that you dont get from people you know too well - friends, lovers, relatives.

I never imagined Belmondo to be this so hot. His facial expressions, wearing a fedora...you could not help falling for him despite his pathetic activities. And what can I say about Seberg? She's tough and beautiful. I love how she remains an enigma, wondering if she's actually pregnant, what is really up her sleeves, etc. It's really startling to see her stepping out in a pretty striped dress, wearing white gloves in the best 1950s fashion - maybe masking her truth. She had me totally hooked and it was so much fun and fascinating watching her. I never expected this type of treatment of women coming from Godard. Opposite of Anna Karina, I have to add.

Love that shot of the couple's profiles facing each other as a Western flickering by them. And many others. Despite how real the couple comes off, the film still feels to me the morning after like a beautiful dream from another world where everybody smoke, wear sunglasses, hide inside cinemas all the time.

I'm very happy to have finally revisited Breathless.

And HerrSchreck, come on. Low-budget or not, this is undeniably a masterpiece.

[domino harvey]

Your comments about Belmondo reminded me of Colleen Curran's Whores on the Hill, in which the novel's private school girls would go watch Breathless screenings at the repertory theatre and then talk about how hot Belmondo was. Though I disagree with most of his points, Schreck is right to recognize the role the film's "coolness" (for lack of a better term) plays in its popularity-- this and Band of Outsiders appeal far beyond the usual audience for Godard.

[Michael]

LOL Gotta check out that book. A handful of guys here would love to be cornered by Alain Delon but I never get it. He doesn't do much for me but Belmondo... aww, lets not get started.

Though I disagree with most of his points, Schreck is right to recognize the role the film's "coolness" (for lack of a better term) plays in its popularity-- this and Band of Outsiders appeal far beyond the usual audience for Godard.

Band of Outsiders misses something that makes Breathless a great film. The bittersweet, surprisingly humane intimacy between Belmondo and Seberg anchors Breathless for me and Band of Outsiders is bleached of any of that greatness.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Being a jaded film enthusiast, I feel kinda stupid for asking like this especially about films like Breathless. Enlighten me?

I wouldn't feel too stupid/embarrassed for asking this. In my experience, it's always Citizen Kane or Breathless getting called the greatest film ever. I felt the same doubts about the Godard film. I'd seen many of his films rather haphazardly so by the time I felt like watching Breathless I didn't know how it could begin to compare to his later work like my favorites Contempt and Alphaville. I saw it finally this year and I think his later films (Vivre sa vie and Pierrot to be exact) better show his talent. Still, it's a great thriller just for Belmondo and Seberg alone. It's a good thing you finally bought it because the extras (some of the best this year) due the film justice. It helped me appreciate it all the more.