- The story goes that Cahiers du Cinéma writer/critic turned first-time director Jean-Luc Godard had a finished film that he felt was 30 minutes too long. Instead of cutting out individual scenes (like pretty much every film not made by Godard before or since have)- he cut out what he deemed to be the uninteresting parts within the scenes and kept the total number of scenes overall in. What follows is a 90-minute jump-cut revelation masterpiece that may be only behind Welles in terms of cinema’s all-time great debuts (co-father of the French New Wave Truffaut may have the other main candidate). Happy accident? Or a stroke of genius? I think what would follow with Godard from after Breathless to Weekend in 1967 would confirm that “genius” is certainly the answer. I mention in my notes on Hiroshima Mon Amour that the flickering editing style of Resnais’ does seem like a relative (and precursor) to Godard’s jump-cut. They’re different, but share traits. Resnais’ work is first (you can see a marquee for his film in Breathless actually- just one of the many cinema references in Godard’s debut—Melville is here, Budd Boetticher has a film in there too.).
- The editing is main component that elevates Breathless. It is of course connected to the new radical form (Godard is making a statement on cinema beyond the actual story in the film)—and the pacing of the film (the actual film story itself). Breathless isn’t an overly beautiful film visually
- Confidence is another factor when considering Breathless’ magnitude- from Godard’s airy, genre examination to Jean-Paul Belmondo’s swagger (his first archiveable film, 26 years old at the time of shooting). The film opens with Belmondo talking to the camera in the car by himself. Reflexive– postmodern. Godard is constantly making the audience aware that they are watching a movie. He knows it and we know it (and Belmondo’s Michel knows it). It is casual, random, — “nothing like sunshine”. Michel changes moods so quickly. He’s both flippant and mercurial. He says he’s sad like 10 times in the 90 minutes. He’s a contrarian- disagrees with everything everyone says to him. When asked if he has anything against the youth- he says, “I prefer old people”. Haha
a backpedaling tracking shot catching Belmondo’s swagger
- I love the “hypnotically ugly” description of Belmondo by Bosley Crowther https://www.nytimes.com/1961/02/08/archives/screen-sordid-view-of-french-life-breathless-in-debut-at-the-fine.html
- Godard owes a debt to Martial Solal’s simple yet brilliant jazzy score
- A great two-minute tracking shot at the 14-minute mark when Michel gets his check, Godard tracks in front of them, backpeddling while they walk (a reoccurring shot he uses a few times in the film) in a wheelchair (apparently he couldn’t afford to put down real tracks). A shaky hand-held camera throughout -it is shot on 35mm though, not 16 as some guess.
- Again, a statement on the crime/gangster genre. Godard is so playful, he’s in love with cinema and critical of it. Belmondo’s Michel stares hard at the poster of Bogart here before the playful iris out and in transitions
an iris transition with Godard himself playing an informant– these iris transitions- a bit of whimsy both he and Truffaut share in the part of the New Wave
Most of the film is shot in these short bursts of narrative, playful action sequences, car rides, scenes in cafes (with Belmondo almost always jumping somewhere to steal something or make a phone call). But at the 28-minute mark Godard slows the film down and spend 25 minutes (roughly one-third of the entire running time) with Belmondo and co-start Jean Seberg in her room. They both speak in an almost stream of consciousness fashion—often talking past each other. It feels unrehearsed and refreshing. He’s really trying to sleep with her “take off your shirt” as she reads to him. Ends at the 53-minute mark
The Jean-Pierre Melville interview scene is excellent. He counts women on his hand (like Belmondo’s Michel– another moment of artifice), says lines like “to become immortal and then die” and then we cut to Seberg who stares at the screen (she does this a few times—reflexive, setting up the finale) and gets a dissolve edit.
- Utterly lively, characters just speak randomly, when talking about women’s dresses Belmondo’s Michel stops the car, runs over and lifts up a woman’s skirt
The final close-up of Seberg – staring the camera. Again, self-aware of the artifice of movie-making—and not wholly dissimilar from the mammoth final shot of The 400 Blows
- A masterpiece
This was the film that reignited my interest in film, after watching it the next 30 or so movies I watched were French movies (most from The New Wave).
And while there are a foreign directors who have moved past Godard in my book (Kurosawa, Truffaut, Antonioni) I never the less have a special appreciation for him.
I have been excited for this Godard study. Breathless is a film I came around on completely the second time. The editing is so confidently careless. After Belmondo is shot and he staggers down the street, that loud chaotic music also feels like he has gotten the brash climactic death of a gangster in a Hollywood movie.
Where would you say this ranks in the history of editing landmarks? Battleship Potemkin always takes #1 for me but it gets more difficult after that. Top 3? Top 5? 10?
@Declan- Good question. So I’ve never sat down and listed them out but I think I have a good idea of what’s in that top eschelon. Editing is doubly- tough because does that include the way films are structured as well? Like say Pulp Fiction? Intolerance? Godfather Part II (which may be there anyways). I like Taste of Cinema- they do a great job with these lists. I’d change some stuff (I’d plug in JFK, Moulin Rouge– take out Lawrence and City of God)- maybe a few more small tweaks but still. http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2017/the-10-best-edited-movies-of-all-time/
Is Jean Seberg a one hit wonder like Cathy Moriarty? I haven’t heard of Seberg beside Breathless aside from her controversial death.
@Anderson- so Lilith from Rossen is in the archives for 1964- so not quite but close
How does this movie change with Anna Karina playing the Seberg character? Or does it not change at all?
There is an obvious nihilistic streak to both Belmando and Sebergs characters. I’m trying to think of how Anna Karina would fit in. The characters she plays in other Godard movies are not as passive as Sebergs character.
@James Trapp- I’d certainly love to see that version of the movie (taking nothing away from Seberg). I think you’re right here about Karina vs. Seberg being passive.
@Drake – I guess in a way we got to see something similar with Pierrot le Fou (1965) several years later. A number of obvious similarities between those two films.
Hi Drake, what are your thoughts on Jean-Luc Godard as a writer? I find it a little difficult to pin down those writer-directors like him or Terrence Malick who have a very loose approach to their screenplays (perhaps those who find their films more in the edit), and yet come up with some undeniably brilliant pieces of dialogue or voiceover. Then there are also his genius interrogations of popular genre conventions as well.
Godard’s Breathless cinematographer Raoul Coutard claimed that the film was pretty much improvised on the spot, and that he wrote lines of dialogue in an exercise book. He has a really brilliant command of the French language in parts with his wordplay, and deliberate misunderstandings of French words with Jean Seberg’s character which becomes a bit of a motif (and pays off wonderfully in the final seconds). Still, it makes me wonder how much we can praise the “screenplay” if there never really was one. Can we still praise him as a writer then? And are there any Godard screenplays that you think are particularly impressive?
@DeclanG- Tough one- I guess I don’t think about him as a screenwriter in that context. The man is a genius for the ideas he has had (and certainly that sort of originality and creativity is part of a screenplay) but I don’t know that I’m printing out a screenplay of his and reading it on my vacation on a beach somewhere if that makes sense.
I would like to attempt to prove that Last Year at Marienbad is a vastly superior film to Breathless. If I succeed, I will give anyone who reads this a new appreciation for Marienbad; if I fail, then someone will be able to come up with a better arguement for Breathless, and I will finally be able to understand what makes this film so great
Under what standards can movies be judged? Form and style primarily, loosely corresponding to editing and visuals; screenplay, storytelling, performances, all also important, though not on the same level.
Breathless’ crown jewel, its claim to fame, is its editing, specifically its inventive use of jump cuts. Yet where Breathless uses jumpcuts inventively but without much structure, Marienbad employs a wide variety of inventive editing techniques (fast cutaways, breaking continuity, jump cuts), more often and more consistently than Breathless, and in service of highly defined artistic vision.
If Marienbad is better than Breathless at that thing which Breathless is most known for, how does Breathless stack up in other areas? Not well.
Breathless’ visual style is incomparably inferior to Marienbad. @Drake said very fairly the Marienbad might be the “most attractive work of cinema of all time”. The frames within frames, the baroque enviroment, the meticulous lighting and shadow. Select any shot from this page and the page on Marienbad, and see the difference.
Breathless’ audacious storytelling? Can anyone say that Breathless’ narrative is as audacious or experimental as Marienbad?
The structure? There is nothing in Breathless to compare with the meticulous repetitions, ambiguities, contradictions, of Marienbad.
The script? Every line and detail in Marienbad recurs throughout the story, often many times in many variations. It is one of the all time great screenplays, easily as meticulous as Chinatown (though in a different way), and with Alain-Robbe Grillet’s poetic dialogue to elevate it even further. Nothing in Breathless compares to the sophistication of the dialogue or meticulousness of the script.
I don’t know enough about movies to say for sure. It is very possible that I have missed many aspects of Breathless that would elevate it. But I just cannot comprehend how it is praised so highly (#18 on TSPDT, #20 on the last update of this site’s list), when it seems to me inferior in every way to Last Year at Marienbad (#104 on TSPDT, not even in the top 500 on the last list – though to be fair @Drake is going to update the list).
I figured it was best to at least write out my thoughts, and if I am missing something, give someone else an opportunity to challenge me.
@K- You make a good case here- thanks for putting this together
@K – Your argument makes me want to check out Last Year at Marienbad, meant to do it at one point so looking forward to that. As far as Breathless (1960) goes its status begs the question; how much, if any, should a film’s influence count toward its greatness? And just as importantly can a film be graded in isolation? You make the case that it can and to be honest I have trouble with this concept myself. I had an interesting back and forth with @Pedro on the Truffaut page where I defended placing The 400 Blows as a top 25 film of all time. Its a position I still stand by. Films like Bicycle Theives, the 400 Blows, and Breathless among others have significant historical importance and are influential. How much should this matter? Again difficult question to answer. Those films don’t have stunning compositions and technical prowess of some of the films they are often placed above.
@James – Perhaps Breathless is more influential than Marienbad, precisely because it is less perfect. Marienbad is fully realized work of art, where every aspect serves every other aspect. But this also means it is (from one point of view), a creative dead end: where Breathless has a jumble of ideas, and throws out a hundred obvious directions for development, Marienbad has brought all of its ideas to culmination. It might be the greater movie, but it may also be the less “useful” movie.
On the other hand, the legacy of Breathless has also many negative aspects: movies that have substituted artistry for pretention, chic, vague ideas. Would you stack the negative influence of a film, against its position? I think if you were magically able to calculate the positive and negative impact of a film, and rank films by their net positive influence, the list would be identical to a list of films ranked by objective merit. In any case, an interesting question.
I hope you enjoy Last Year at Marienbad! When you eventually check it out, I would love to here your thoughts.
@K – I will definitely do that, very excited.
Regarding Breathless, interesting concept but I probably would not try to balance the potential negative aspects of a films influence with the postive aspects mainly because its easy to avoid the negative aspects of that influence by simply not watching those mediocre films it inspired. I have seen some people make a similar argument for Jaws (1975) as it inspired a slew of of weak “Summer Blockbusters”.
The question of grading a film in isolation, in other words with no context is possible, I think you made this point clear above in listing some of the central elements of filmmaking. However, one drawback is the fact that not all films set out to accomplish the same thing. I think this can make direct comparisions tricky. Here’s an interesting article I came across (link below). The writer does not gives a definitive answer but poses important questions.
Godard’s Breathless at 60 — is it any kind of masterpiece?
https://www.ft.com/content/879955e0-8b9e-4e35-8a89-a3265d1ae753
That article requires a subscription to the magazine, sadly.
My point with including the negative influence, was just to say that judging a movie by influence can be self-defeating. I agree that different films set out to do different things, but you can evaluate them based on how well they fufilled their own aesthetic (a black-and-white movie can’t be judged for neglecting the “use of color” as an extreme example). Of course, even this becomes more complicated – at the highest levels of quality, the aesthetic goals of a movie can be extremely subtle.
I think we are maybe helped in comparing Breathless and Marienbad, by them both having similar aesthetics and similar historical context. In any case, comparing masterpieces can be a very subtle and difficult question.
@K – yeah, I can’t get back into it either, I guess it was one of those 1 free article situations.
All great points, and for the record I am not even saying that I do or do not think influence should be a factor, it is difficult to assess. I still love Breathless (1960) but I prefer both Jules and Jim and The 400 Blows. Still I would place Breathless as the # 3 best film of the French New Wave and certainly an all time great but I can absolutely see why some people might find it underwhelming, at least in comparison to how highly its placed on many lists.
I was actually able to find a different link: https://www-ft-com.ezproxy.tees.ac.uk/content/879955e0-8b9e-4e35-8a89-a3265d1ae753. Maybe this one will work better.
The most interesting point of the article for me was its emphasis on Breathless’ audaciousness relative to movies of the time. To make it clear, I don’t think Breathless is a bad movie, I just think its stratospheric acclaim is more of a right-place, right-time situation, a good movie that perfectly encapsulated a movement. Not #18 of all time, though. I have seen neither Jules and Jim or The 400 Blows, but I will make sure to watch both of them.
So many films, so little time!
@K Influence can be a useful metric since it is often the most innovative and singular films (and creativity is definitely an aspect of artistry) that remain influential, but it isn’t a perfect metric since this is sometimes more due to popularity and position within the cultural zeitgeist than genuine artistic inventiveness. For the record, I think Breathless is both influential AND genuinely very innovative, but not everything fits in there.
I would agree though with your main point that Marienbad is a solidly better film, largely due to the fact that Resnais was a far more refined and well-rounded directorial talent at that particular point in his career than Godard was. I’d suggest you watch Godard’s later work Contempt/Le Mepris, which is a far more beautiful and precise execution of his ideas. Its phenomenal colour use and wonderful set pieces make it the closest contender to Marienbad for my personal title of best French New Wave film.
I think influence can be useful when guiding you torwards films that might be interesting, but ultimately every film needs to be evaluated on its own merits. I have heard some people perfer Contempt or Pierrot le fou over Breathless. I will definitely watch them both when I get chance. Would you recommend Pierrot le fou as well, or is Contempt better?
@K – A little late, sorry (and the question wasn’t for me), but I’m of the opinion that Contempt is better than Pierrot and a part of me also thinks it’s better than Breathless. I have them much closer than Drake. Remarkable films. Breathless is the more instinctual work; Contempt feels more polished. You can’t go wrong with either.
@Pedro – I am with you on Contempt (1963) over Pierrot le Fou (1965).
Top 5 Godard
1. Breathless
2. Contempt
3. Pierrot le Fou
4. Vivre sa vie
5. Alphaville
@K – While I do believe that Marienbad is the superior work of art – in our last conversation, I mentioned it might enter my top 10 of all time and that only seems more likely as time goes by -, I’m going to try and defend Breathless (a film that’s in my top 25 but will drop down once I add some new films to the list). Obviously, the editing is a big, big part of its genius, but you already know that, so I’ll focus on other aspects of this masterpiece. The first thing I should say is that over the last few months I’ve incorporated a new term to my film analysis vocabulary: immortal images. This is very subjective (although most cinephiles agree on most of them) and a little silly, but it’s the idea that there are images so powerful (either because of their formal significance or their visual beauty or both) that they single-handedly elevate the overall film – think of the final track and freeze-frame in The 400 Blows, the opening/closing shots of the The Searchers, Suzy Bannion finding the secret door in Suspiria, etc. The track of our two leads walking down the Champs-Élysées in Breathless belongs on that list. (And you could argue the Bogart gesture does, too.) Additionally, one interesting way to look at Breathless is as if it were an essay – because in many ways it is; Godard himself said that. The film is making statements, calling attention to itself and comparing its structure, characters and dialogue to Hollywood’s. Word is important – because it is or because it isn’t. After a 25-minute foreplay session in Seberg’s apartment, she witnesses an interview with a novelist in which essentially all he’s asked about is men, women, sex and love. Seberg asks a question about ambition and the novelist ignores it. Later in the film, Seberg mishears Belmondo (the “dégueulasse” bit of dialogue). Words lie. The characters in Breathless talk a whole lot, but cinema is the art of images.
I love Breathless. It’s such a confident and awesome film. It reminds me that cinema belongs to the youth, the rule-breakers, the new waves. I hope you can enjoy it even if you don’t think it’s a big masterpiece.
@James Trapp @Pedro and @K- keep up the good work- I’m certainly getting a lot out of this discussion here. Thank you for the comments.
@Pedro – I have not heard that phrase before “immortal images”
Here is a great Kubrick quote I love:
“When you think of the greatest moments of film, I think you are almost always involved with images rather than scenes, and certainly never dialogue. The thing a film does best is to use pictures with music and I think these are the moments you remember.”
Seems Kubrick agrees with you so you’re in good company
@Pedro I don’t really have anything to argue. It seems we are on the same page – I do think Breathless is a good movie, I just can’t put it as high as #18. I haven’t seen all the “immortal images” you listed, but I 100% agree with the principle. Movies, actors, directors, should all be ranked by the highs they achieve. The long tracking shot was well-done, but I don’t think I would put it on the same list as, say, the bookends from The Searchers or the hotel scene in Vertigo – that doesn’t mean it’s not a great scene, I just don’t feel that level of transcendence.
The perspective on dialogue and the film’s form is interesting. I suppose I had noticed some of the subtexts, but you make it seem a lot more systematic than I noticed.
Part of my views are obviously, also subjective. You find Breathless confident, an affirmation of youth and rule breaking. To me, the movie comes across more as patronizing and irritating, almost “How do you do, fellow kids?” But that is also a matter of taste.