408 Breathless

[jojo]

I think ultimately it does come down to the surface elements rather than anything it does or says. It broke a lot of rules of what "proper" editing used to be about.

On a purely basic level, Breathless really is just a small, cute little crime/romance flick. It doesn't say anything special in particular and its content is pure fluff. But how it was told (editing techniques, how it was shot, etc,.) really did start a trend. Maybe not a good trend, but revolution isn't always about "good" change, just change in general.

So yes, there are many, many films which are more "modern" and have more artistic merit, etc,. but Breathless' film techniques are being felt today. You can say La Dolce Vita, L'Avventura and Psycho were BETTER overall films, but more visibly influential? Hard to say. I'm sure a lot of film people admired these films more than Breathless, and they probably "inspired" them to get into the industry, but I think there's a strong case that most of today's filmmaking are more like have (directly or indirectly) lifted technique from Breathless than those "better" films.

[HarryLong]

Speaking of cutting techniques, I always thought that Hitchcock's "zoom cut" - hard edits to successively tighter shots from the same camera position - was a marvelous device and very disturbing. Once the zoom lens came into fashion, filmmakers opted for the simpler "whip zoom" and quickly overused it. Hitchcock's approach was much more effective in my opinion.

Isn't this essentially what James Whale often did? Admittedly Whale didn't always cut closer from the exact same angle, but he did cut to progressively closer shots. (And offhand I can't think of anyone who did this prior to Whale.)

[Roger Ryan]

Speaking of cutting techniques, I always thought that Hitchcock's "zoom cut" - hard edits to successively tighter shots from the same camera position - was a marvelous device and very disturbing. Once the zoom lens came into fashion, filmmakers opted for the simpler "whip zoom" and quickly overused it. Hitchcock's approach was much more effective in my opinion.

Isn't this essentially what James Whale often did? Admittedly Whale didn't always cut closer from the exact same angle, but he did cut to progressively closer shots. (And offhand I can't think of anyone who did this prior to Whale.)

Actually, I'm now thinking that Eisenstein may have cut that way on occasion as well. The Hitchcock version was more for shock effect and was very rapid - think about the reveal of the dead farmer in THE BIRDS. Because it was shot from the exact same angle, the effect was akin to a "whip zoom", just a lot more stylish.

It just occurred to me that Kubrick uses this exact same effect in 2001 when he rapidly cuts to HAL's "eye" on the pod just prior to Frank Poole's oxygen cord being cut.

[karmajuice]

The merit I find in Breathless and the matter of its influence/impact are two totally different things. My post earlier in the thread had more to do with the former, and my comments regarding the use of jump cuts reflect that viewpoint. I certainly think the jump cuts had an impact, but they are just one element in the film's rejection of continuity editing. Which, in turn, is just another element in the film's rejection of narrative traditions. I don't see how anyone can say that Godard cut the film "inadvertently", knowing what we know about Godard. Maybe it's a miracle that the film is as cohesive and pleasurable as it is, but Godard knew what he was doing from day one. Take for instance the Raoul Coutard quote: "On A Bout de souffle, he'd [Godard] ask the script-girl what kind of shot was required next to fulfill the requirements of traditional continuity. She'd tell him, and then he'd do the exact opposite."

Clearly Godard is consciously rejecting traditional narrative storytelling -- even while he celebrates it with homage and genre conventions. Breathless is striking, and remains striking, because it attacks those principles by which films are still made today. So in that sense, no, Breathless is not modern. You could even call it anti-modern.

Anyway, that's the core of Breathless' impact, and the spirit and vivacity behind the enterprise lends the film a great deal of its attitude and appeal. Its techniques are very important and are still in use today, but were almost immediately copped by the mainstream for traditional narrative films. If we speak of influence, we should probably speak of that. And still I could say more about it, especially from a personal viewpoint (my previous post doesn't even begin to cover it), but I'll restrain myself for now.
In short: Breathless is revolutionary because it rejects, undermines, thereby criticizes narrative while masquerading as a narrative film. If we think of Breathless before we think of Kenneth Anger or other filmmakers, avant-garde or otherwise, it's because it accomplished this while maintaining widespread popular appeal, so it left a stronger imprint on the cultural consciousness.

I just can't see how Breathless is any more revolutionary or modern than La dolce vita, L'avventura and Psycho.

I don't know about modern, which seems like a precariously vague word to me, but my explanation above could be used to argue for Breathless being more revolutionary. As complex and intelligent as these other films might be, they largely sustain customs of narrative, continuity editing, etc. They cannot be revolutionary because they are not revolting against anything. They are building upon and expanding the existing tradition; they are not deconstructing that tradition at every chance they get. That's not to say they don't subvert expectations or try new things, but they mostly play by the rules. (Although I must confess ignorance toward L'avventura, which I have not seen, and I base my comments on what I know of Antonioni's other films.)

Even so, Breathless was only one of a myriad of films which pushed the limits, from various new waves (French, Czech, Japanese) to the avant-garde and the New Hollywood. Breathless just happens to be the cultural figurehead for this zeitgeist. We can argue whether or not it deserves this honor, but no one can deny its place there. It is one of many films, but the one in the lead, cutting the waters for the rest -- because it was the most daring, and the first to be so bold. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you deny the significance of the films that came before or after. After all, Breathless deliberately and self-consciously reflects on those which came before, and it couldn't exist without them.

No one is trying to argue that Breathless is the BE ALL END ALL of cinema. It ain't. Nothin' is. But its impact was profound and widespread, and it serves as a useful landmark for the changes it helped to start.

[Michael]

Very wonderful, karmajuice.

Quoted from various reviews:

"every jump cut signaled the beginning of modern cinema"
"Breathless ushered in an exciting and completely new world of modern cinema"
"Modern movies begin here, with Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless in 1960"
"Breathless” marks the birth of modern cinephilia"
"...the beginning of modern cinema, 1960's Breathless.."
"the founding film of post-modern cinema"
"Breathless is modern filmmaking’s first exercise not in style over substance but style as substance."

Not that I'm trying to shred Breathless to pieces, I love the film and it's still my favorite Godard film. Godard at his most playfulness.
It's just that I'm trying to understand what is it about Breathless that prompted many critics and historians to honor this film as the "grand-daddy" of the cinema we enjoy today. The jump-cuts can't be the only reason, no? French New Wave, yeah but we have been having many waves around the world.

I can argue that a few films released the same year, such as Psycho and La dolce vita, are just as revolutionary and modern as Breathless - they still changed cinema. Why don't we celebrate La dolce vita as the "grand-daddy" of modern cinema - disrupted narrative, "papaparazzi" entered our vocabulary, celebrities playing themselves, and so much more?

[domino harvey]

Michael, lazy writers will always recycle the same tired lines to save time. See: every Interpol review from a few years ago, where it simply was impossible to not read the words "Joy Division." Breathless was maybe not the "first" to do a lot of the things it is famous for, but for many, including myself, it opened up the viewer to the possibilities of cinema. This is the only movie that I can literally say "changed my life." The first time I saw it, I sat there agog-- I had no idea that films could do that. It is solely responsible for me being a film lover. Don't look at one aspect-- jump cuts, cinematography, Seberg and Bellmondo, etc-- look at the whole effect. Maybe the things I found so charming weren't exclusive to Godard's film, but so what? Firsts don't mean anything. Rally at its popularity and legacy all you want, its importance isn't debatable. Make your claims for quality, that's fair, but you can't really dispute its position as a seminal film.

And plenty of people do argue for Psycho's importance and revolutionary aspects, but there's no need to discuss that in an article about a completely unrelated film!

[Michael]

I see your point, Domino. I have been reading reviews of Breathless (I know they are not to be taken to heart) because I am curious to see what new "revaluations" are like, with the new theatrical release running now. Most of them pointed out the historical importance of Breathless, which I wholly embrace. But when the mention of it giving birth to "modern cinema" popped up in numerous writings, it just irked me.

I don't expect such reviews to mention Psycho or compare Breathless to Psycho, save that for theses. Based on what I have read, all I was asking is why Breathless gets the credit, not Psycho. Perhaps that is not important but I was merely curious.

[Roger Ryan]

I think an important aspect of why BREATHLESS is considered revolutionary is that it is a bit like punk rock. Regardless of how they may have subverted genre expectations or broke certain rules, PSYCHO and LA DOLCE VITA look like they were made by professionals with the backing of a prominent studio (L'AVVENTURA a little less so, but it still looks handsome). BREATHLESS looks like it was made on the cheap by some guy who could care less about the proper way to make a film, but was remarkably inspired to attempt things that shouldn't have worked, but kind of did. Truffaut's first two films have a similar woolly look about them, but they're still well-mannered compared to Godard's take on what Truffaut was going for (since Truffaut was at least partially responsible for what BREATHLESS was going to be). Critics, for the most part, want to raise up something like THE VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO and NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS over, say, SGT. PEPPER and DARK SIDE OF THE MOON because the former examples fly in the face of what the accepted practice is...and they sound kind of dirty and street-wise (forget the multiple guitar overdubs Chris Thomas masterminded for the Sex Pistols!).

BREATHLESS is like EASY RIDER in that it gave the impression that it was birthed by an outsider with little resources and less concern with proper filmmaking practices. Personally, I really love the films that came after those two, when the floodgates were opened and multiple filmmakers were allowed or inspired to try something different, but I have to realize that those subsequent movies may never have happened if it weren't for the possibly-less-than-perfect ones that challenged expectations.

[ellipsis7]

Veteran critic Philip French in 'The Observer' on why BREATHLESS continues 'to shock and surprise'...

Memories also from Raoul Coutard of making the film...

[Michael]

Thanks, Roger Ryan and ellipsis. This is exactly what I was hoping to gain - looking closer to Breathless to understand its uniquesness with more depth.

[karmajuice]

Roger Ryan and domino have both made good points (domino's feelings about the film are virtually identical to my own), so I'll just throw in a few more remarks.

Michael, regarding those reviews, domino is dead right about lazy writers. In fact, the very word "modern" strikes me as being troublesome. The word is vague. It has no objective meaning. What does it mean when we call a film modern? That it resembles the films made today? Is that even a good thing? Are we distinguishing between films which feel contemporary and films which feel dated? Because the notion of something being "dated" is an idea I'm becoming less and less comfortable with -- at least, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it's a bad thing.
I don't think Breathless is any more the birthplace of modern cinema than Kenneth Anger or Ed Wood or anyone else. Far as I'm concerned, modern cinema started with the Lumiere Brothers and every film along the way helped shape what it is today. If anything, Breathless only passed along an ever-growing torch.

As for Breathless vs La dolce vita or Psycho:
I believe, without reservation, that Breathless was the most daring, experimental, and revolutionary of the films made that year that I have seen. That doesn't mean it's better, only that it pushed more boundaries, asked more questions, and took more risks. When it defied narrative, Psycho clung to it. When it defied character, La dolce vita clung to it. Again, that doesn't mean it's better -- narratives and characters are very useful things. But when Psycho and La dolce vita were improving upon the wheel, Breathless was out flying. It took a new form. And while its techniques have been cribbed by countless films, they've usually applied them to conventional narratives. Only a few, rare films have followed in the true footsteps of Breathless: its willingness to reconsider everything that came before it.

I would like to say more about Breathless, more personal things, but now is not the time. It can be very difficult to express how a film affects you; we can talk about its influence and style all we want, but when you mention how a certain glance in the film gets you every time. . . well, that's much less concrete. Still, I'd like to discuss one detail from Breathless that I love and cannot define, as a more personal aside.

Consider the lip-petting gesture Belmondo practices throughout the film. We've heard time and time again that the gesture is an homage to Bogart. We know this. But we can't stop there. The gesture is repeated numerous times throughout the film: deliberate and uninterrupted, like a ritual. So much emphasis and time is dedicated to this one detail, while entire conversations and plot points are omitted. Why? This attention gives a strange gravity to the gesture, one it never had when casually performed by Bogart. It seems to stand for something, like a cipher or some lost form of sign language. It comes to mean something to us, even if the nature of that meaning is inherently elusive. And when Seberg performs it (for the first time) at the end of the film and turns away from us, having betrayed Belmondo, I find it one of the most beautiful and enigmatic gestures I have ever seen.

[Murdoch]

Announced for blu-ray

[Oedipax]

Announced for blu-ray

Man I'm good. I sold my DVD on half.com yesterday

[aox]

The new print that showed in NYC last week was fantastic.

[Napier]

Announced for blu-ray

Man I'm good. I sold my DVD on half.com yesterday

A lot of people sold their Contempt DVD's when that was announced.

[ccfixx]

Godard is their most represented Director on Blu Ray.

How so? Won't this mean that Godard will be playing catch-up with Kurosawa's three blu-ray releases?

[perkizitore]

Contempt is Studio Canal property, Breathless isn't.

[aox]

Godard is their most represented Director on Blu Ray.

How so? Won't this mean that Godard will be playing catch-up with Kurosawa's three blu-ray releases?

Well, they are tied now. I mistakenly thought Gimmie Shelter was Godard's Stones film.

[Brian C]

A lot of people sold their Contempt DVD's when that was announced.

Contempt was never actually formally announced, was it? I know Criterion said it was coming at one point, but I don't recall it getting to the announcement stage like Ran did.

But either way, a lot of people sold their Ran DVDs when that was announced ... like me. So I suppose your general point stands.

[agnamaracs]

Contempt is Studio Canal property, Breathless isn't.

But "Chambre 12" is...

[CrazedCollector]

A lot of people sold their Contempt DVD's when that was announced.

Contempt was never actually formally announced, was it? I know Criterion said it was coming at one point, but I don't recall it getting to the announcement stage like Ran did.

But either way, a lot of people sold their Ran DVDs when that was announced ... like me. So I suppose your general point stands.

Contempt was sort of "announced" for Blu in May, 2008:

Dear Criterion Collection Newsletter subscriber,

We’ve got some exciting news for this fall, and we wanted you to hear it first.

Our first Blu-ray discs are coming! We’ve picked a little over a dozen titles from the collection for Blu-ray treatment, and we’ll begin rolling them out in October. These new editions will feature glorious high-definition picture and sound, all the supplemental content of the DVD releases, and they will be priced to match our standard-def editions.

Here’s what’s in the pipeline:

The Third Man
Bottle Rocket
Chungking Express
The Man Who Fell to Earth
The Last Emperor
El Norte
The 400 Blows
Gimme Shelter
The Complete Monterey Pop
Contempt
Walkabout
For All Mankind
The Wages of Fear

Alongside our DVD and Blu-ray box sets of The Last Emperor, we’ll also be putting out the theatrical version as a stand-alone release in both formats, priced at $39.95. Our Blu-ray release of Walkabout will be an all-new edition, featuring new supplements as well as a new transfer; we will also release an updated anamorphic DVD of Nicolas Roeg’s outback masterpiece at the same time.

[Brian C]

Right, that's exactly what I was talking about ... that's not an announcement.

[dadaistnun]

Film Forum's website states

This new 35mm restoration, with freshly revised subtitles by Lenny Borger, is the first in Breathless history.

I don't have my dvd handy, but isn't the Borger translation what is used for the current dvd, now a few years old? I also assumed that the new prints making the rounds were based on the Coutard-approved digital transfer. Wasn't this basically how the Rules of the Game prints from several years ago were created (35mm prints based on a digital restoration)? Or is this a new new Breathless restoration?

[ianthemovie]

Just saw the new print the other night here in Boston and it's beautiful. This is also a new subtitle translation (I believe), though, and I noticed that it translates Belmondo's final line to Seberg as "you really make me puke" (and so her last line is "What does that mean, 'puke'?"). If I recall correctly, previous versions have translated the line as "you really are a bitch" and "you really are a scumbag" (i.e., a used condom--this must have been what Pauline Kael was referring to when she said that translating it as "bitch" was really softening the insult). I don't have the Criterion DVD on hand so I don't know how that translation reads.

Naturally, this led to a discussion within our group after the film; none of us knows French well enough to have caught what the actual line is, or what it most closely translates to. Anybody know anything about this--either what the line actually is in French or what it means? My apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere.

[FerdinandGriffon]

Naturally, this led to a discussion within our group after the film; none of us knows French well enough to have caught what the actual line is, or what it most closely translates to. Anybody know anything about this--either what the line actually is in French or what it means? My apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere.

My French is far from impressive, but the word is actually "dégueulasse", which means something like disgusting or terrible and is fairly strong but I don't think as strong as Kael seemed to think it was. Certainly "scumbag" and all it's literal connotations (I had no idea that that's where it comes from; thanks for the factoid!) may be a a bit much. Also, "scumbag" has aged a bit since Kael's day, it doesn't feel as vicious as it used to anymore.