Breathless (1960)

In 1960, a director by the name of Jean-Luc Godard burst onto the scene and shattered the film community's preconceptions of what was essential in a film. Prior films would push that every film needed a decipherable beggining, middle, and end. Characters in typical films had to go somewhere, they couldn't remain static. A film couldn't be free-form and flowing, and everything had to serve a purpose. In this sense, Godard, France's Quentin Tarantino for the 60's, would make a film that would create a thematic revolution. It's a film that nobody saw coming. And while it is a landmark and influential film in its own right, it is just another example of "Just because it's the first, doesn't mean it's the best."

Michel Poiccard (Jean-Paul Belmondo) has stolen a car. He contemplates picking up two hitchikers but decides that they are both far too ugly for him. Suddenly, the cops are hot on his tail. "Shit!" he says and pulls off to the side of the road hoping that nobody saw him. A cop car flies past; one more, two more; he thinks he's free. Suddenly, a third cop car pulls into Michel's hiding spot. Shocked, he kills the cop and sprints off into the countryside towards Paris, to find his American girlfriend.

 

Popcorn

78%

So begins Godard's Breathless, a film that will frustrate and exhilerate at the same time. Breathless' best feature is the fact that it feels like jazz. Just as jazz is free form music, this is free form film. Breathless contains one of the few times where I was convinced that I was watching music on the screen. Characters dance through their roles, Godard tiptoes through violence, jump cuts to random points in conversation; this not your typical 1960-era film.

Because of the free-from style that Godard is able to produce, the film is easily able to thrust the viewer out of their state and into something more vibrant and shimmering. This is an enjoyable experience, even with the frustrating psychological mumbo-jumbo that Godard litters throughout the film. It's a fresh experience that at first glance, seems qutie amateur. But after further analyzation, one is able to decipher that Godard knew what he was doing throughout every frame of his film. It's fun to watch the director live out his dream so fully, and we are completely whisked away in the film's charm.

But it's not all fun and games. Godard's film is also a frustrating experience. Keep in mind, this is the first time that jump cuts were ever used to such an extent in a film. They are jarring and abrupt, and can easily jolt the viewer out of the experience. Also, Godard throws a lot of psuedo-philosophical prattlings in his dialogue, and scenes can drag quite a bit. But the beautiful Jean Seberg, for the most part, keeps the film afloat. Even though since 1960 we've seen this film a billion times over, it still is able to retain some of its original personality that Godard infused his films with.

 

Smarts

69%

I think Godard's main flaw with his film's structure is that it is built so that it can be improved upon. Many directors have since improved vastly on Breathless, most recently Richard Linklater in his films Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. The main problems with Breathless stem from its script. The characters bring up many specific questions about relationships, only to drop them and never come back to them. This is frustrating. As Godard bombarded the viewer with questions, Linklater asked questions, but then answered them through his characters. The development of Jesse and Celine is far superior to that of Michele and Patricia simply because the script allows for more developed dialogue.

Godard's film is also hard to grade because it was made to rebel against the studio system. It's something that is vastly different from the majority of films at the time, so a few things that are widely considered 'flaws' are easier to overlook here. Allow me to explain; the characters in Breathless go nowhere. They start at one point, and they end at that same point. The theme of the film is basically, to me, existing, without developing. This was frustrating to me simply because I didn't know what to think. I hated the character Michele. He's a one dimensional sycophant. He lives to serve himself. He tells Patricia that he loves her, but if it is love, then it is the love a seventeen year old has for his girlfriend the second after they make love. He's self centered and obsessed with sex. He's the typical male.

I almost hate Patricia as much as I hate Michele. She simply puts up with all of his problems and eventually gives in to his shallow plights of love. She's a pathetic character, and a vague one as well. She's vexing to watch, but she's also the film's most interesting being since Seberg plays her with a subtle innocence. It's almost impossible to completely know her thoughts and next to the fun, jazzy tone, she's the best thing about this film.

The editing can be a little shaky at first, but once you get into the jump cuts, they aren't as trying. The first few times you see them, it's very subtle, and very amateurish; I thought my DVD player may be skipping, but the sound was in sync. I applaud Godard for experimenting in this manner, but much like the film's script and it's ideals, it's been done much better since.

 

Final

Worth seeing for its historical importance, Godard's Breathless is a rebellious film that lay the groundwork for superior films to be created in its stead. Even with all it's flaws, it does enough right that I can't condemn it and must give it genuine respect. Check it out, then marvel at all of the references in modern film. Even though it's not the greatest film I've ever seen, I really can't imagine what film today would be like had Godard not made Breathless.