Around the World in 24 Frames 08.14.09: Breathless

Posted by Len Archibald on 08.14.2009

Jean-Luc Goddard's debut film. That's all you need to know.

Around the World, BAY-BEE! From the country who brought you the ultra-talented Kish (man, is that an inside joke that even some of the insiders may not get), welcome to another edition of Around the World in 24 Frames! Let's do this!

So, last weekend I had a "screening" of sorts of the first few segments of my web show that I am currently developing, and the verdict is in…I think it will be a great success. The current cast loves it, I've been able to use it to convince a few more people to get involved and even those who have no idea what I'm doing is digging it. It feels so good when a plan (or a script) comes together. I got my shotgun and boom kit last weekend (cause you can't shoot properly without excellent sound) and everything is coming up roses. Stay tuned…You may see something on the horizon, soon.

The Rant

This is a public service announcement to all involved in some form of media (myself included.)

We need to get over ourselves. Seriously. We need to stop thinking we are doing the public a favor by spouting off our tired opinions on current events and feeding it as fact to them. (I've just opened up Pandora's Box with that one)

We need to go back to the basic days of journalistic integrity where we found a story, scooped it, researched the hell out of it, didn't release it until we had numerous confirmations from NAMED sources and then report just the FACTS. No split screen. No op-ed. No "final thought". We've become a culture of conspiracy theorists. In 25 years, no one is going to believe man walked on the moon. Everyone will believe that M.L.K.'s, John F and Bobby Kennedy's assassins are one in the same. In 50 years, people will truly believe 9/11 was an inside job. Everyone will question the legitimacy of Obama's Presidency because of his "birth certificate".

This is madness. We've peddled so much bullshit over the past 35 years. We've allowed the loons and the "loud personalities" to take over television and radio and music for no other reason that they are "loud personalities". We have confused someone who is passionate about what they do with "anger". We have become slaves to mass consumption and instant gratification. We have become lemmings to buzzwords and scare tactics and fear-mongering (haha, look how many buzzwords I've used! Even "buzzword" has now become a buzzword!)

I find myself surrounded by people who have been trained to be scared of EVERYTHING – myself included. Scared of loud noises, scared of blood, scared of bugs, scared of bruises on an apple, scared of a wrapping on someone's head, scared of a crucifix, scared of a box of cereal, scared of milk, scared of nuts, scared of child services, scared of brown skin, scared of white skin, scared of a police badge, scared of an (R) or (D), scared of cars, scared of scanners, scared of the self-checkout, scared of drugs, scared of tanks, scared of computers, scared of television, scared of government, scared of the ratings board, scared of the rich, scared of the poor, scared of the ghetto, scared of glamour, scared of a swastika, scared of the Star of David, scared of being sued, scared of helping their fellow man, scared of protest, scared of lack of protest, scared of shouting, scared of keeping quiet, scared of saying "no!", scared of saying "yes!", scared of saying "I need help", scared of taking responsibility, scared of not fitting in, scared of being an individual, scared of not conforming to the "norm". Scared – of being an imperfect human being, who just has dreams, goals and wants to be happy with a loving family and to be at peace.

We did this. We've terrified Western civilization halfway to death. We tell everyone to "watch out!", "pay attention!" and "listen to the truth!" – but we haven't known the truth for YEARS. We haven't tried to find it. We've attempted to make people believe something big enough that they'll want to come back. That's all. Don't sell the story; sell the IDEA of a story. Keep it episodic. Tease the audience. Don't give them your big story until the end, or give fragments of the story and branch out to "sub-plots" of people and places and events that are "related" (even if they're not) and feed them. Keep feeding them. Don't give them an opportunity to breathe – don't give them an opportunity to think. Because as soon as they do that, we're toast.

I do my best not to conform. Not in a way where I'm an anarchist and decide to oppose something for the sake of opposition, but I want to LISTEN and judge for myself if I'm being taught or if I'm being SOLD – there's a difference. Honestly, I can barely get by watching any news. I carefully listen to how the anchors and analysts choose and phrase their words; subconscious manipulation. I can barely survive watching any form of reality television. Oh, I'll watch it – I'm human after all and have a strange desire to live vicariously through others sometimes (it isn't right, per se, but I do it…) or I am attracted to "train wrecks". I know I shouldn't. I know I shouldn't eat that Quarter Pounder, either.

When you watch television or listen to the radio, what is the purpose? To be entertained? Sure, you'll find plenty of entertainment. To discover new talent? That's a slippery slope. To find information? Please, God – no. To latch on to people who may share your views and take comfort in the fact that you aren't the only one who's "in on it"? Most people do. That's why most cable news companies are goldmines.

Remember when the internet first exploded, and we got those chain emails, that spouted off insane urban legends? Forward this to 16 people or they will find you! Or forwards that were nothing more than rumor starters, an electronic and interactive game of "telephone"? Imagine that now these are being considered as news sources. The rumors have become the spark for the story. Doesn't matter if it's nowhere even close to the truth – the truth doesn't sell. Sex, violence and scandal make that paper.

I don't know if it's the death of Walter Cronkite, or how I've noticed every major cable news channel subtlety (or not so subtlety) pushes it own political agenda, or how TMZ.com, of all things – is considered a "reliable" news source because it scooped the confirmation of Michael Jackson's death – or the barrage of reality "lowest-common denominator" television we've been assaulted with, or the impending death of print media caused by the takeover of internet-based "news", gossip and opinion pieces, but I've been left a little cold lately with how the MSM (Mainstream Media) has been dealing with current events lately – All steak and no sizzle.

I started this rant by saying we in the media; writers, columnists, newscasters, etc. need to get over ourselves. This doesn't mean we shouldn't take what we do seriously. It means we need to learn to be OBJECTIVE again. Take ourselves out of the story and just present it. No frills. No bells and whistles. No taking the audience for granted or hitting them over the head with what we "feel" they need to know because they're too stupid to know. If they need to know it, they'll SEEK us out and discover for themselves. If we start acting intelligently, there's a chance that our audience will react intelligently. Then we can debate and possibly – live intelligently.

It's up to us to put everything back together. We need to bring some credibility back to "news".

...And then I go into a movie review – HA! [/end rant]

********************

I love movies. They represent escapism, art, intellect and spirituality. Some are nothing more than popcorn flicks, designed to ease the burden of "real-life" for a couple of hours. Some bring important issues to the forefront that challenges how we perceive our surroundings. The most important thing for me – if one is a serious filmgoer – is to constantly expand and discover new movies. This includes experiencing stories told outside of North America.

Yes, I know: "I don't like to read while I watch movies". Well, neither do I, but I won't use that to prevent me from finding a great story within the screen. It is important, as human beings to discover other cultures and expand our perceptions of those different from us and how they see the world. There are reasons that Bergman, Kurosawa, Fellini, Ozu and Truffaut are important in the movie world – They are just great at what they do.

I intend to highlight a new film every week that is considered "foreign-language"; now that definition is simple, yet broad and complex. For example, if you need subtitles to understand the events of the plot, I will discuss it. If it is a film from a primarily English-speaking nation, but is *NOT* in English (i.e. Leolo or Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner from Canada), I will discuss. If it is a film from outside the U.S. and it *is* in English, I will not discuss (sorry, Brits & Aussies) – for now. My goal is to shed light on some of these gems, and help quell the insatiable appetites for those who can't live without seeing a new movie. Enjoy!

À bout de souffle: Breathless (1960)
France
Dir. Jean-Luc Godard
Runtime: 87 min



Roger Ebert proclaims that modern movies began with Jean-Luc Godard's stunning film debut, À bout de souffle (Breathless) in 1960. I'm inclined to disagree with him, as I feel that modern cinema actually came into fruition with Citizen Kane, but I understand his reasoning. The film caused an absolute sensation upon its release, complete with amoral characters and jump-cuts being considered the great innovation in film. It is funny, because that "innovation" was created more out of necessity than invention (as most notable works are.) Godard's finished film was a half-hour too long, and instead of discarding whole scenes he took scissors and snipped out moments within scenes that were considered "boring". The happy accident/technique created a jaggedness to the film, one that perfectly captures the near-episodic tale of two characters who are destined to cut each other deeply.

When Breathless was released, it was met with polarizing results. Critics such as Bosley Crowther of the New York Times considered the jump-cuts to be nothing more than "pictorial cacophony" and followed up with, "sordid is really a mild word for its pile-up of gross indecencies" in regards to the film's main characters. Every other filmmaker though, took the ball and ran with it. Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde is a direct descendant. Both Godard and Francois Truffaut (who wrote the screenplay) were originally slated to direct the depression-era film that sparked a youth movement. Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola were able to use the crafty exuberance (as well as the template for the main characters; young, hip, cool, products of Americana) of the film and apply it to their own iconic careers in the 1970's.


Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg in their iconic roles.

Breathless (in which the literal French translation is "The End of Breath") follows Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo), a petty criminal who attempts to emulate the American gangsters he worships in the movies. He has just stolen a car, declining to pick up a couple of female hitchhikers along the way because they are "too ugly" for him. He also finds a gun in the glove box. He realizes that the police are after him. He attempts to pull over, hoping no one saw him. Two cars fly past. He thinks he's in the clear...Until a third police cruiser appears. More out of shock than compulsiveness, he kills the officer, dashes into the countryside and towards Paris to find his American girlfriend.

This is the first seven or so minutes into the film and it is played with such life that it feels like two. I always remember seeing that shot of Michel running through the tall grass after killing the officer and thinking, "My God, that looks like video!" – it had a graininess and lacked a sheen that the older films had. For me, it gave the story somewhat of a heightened realism and playfulness, like everything was being made up on the spot. I know some feel this can be a detriment to some films, to feel like there is no story and/or the plot meanders, but Breathless knows what it is, and where the story is heading from the opening reel. The first real question posed right from the beginning is, "Is Michel really the person who is introduced?" – I think Godard attempts, and in some ways – succeeds, in convincing the audience otherwise. Ponder: Would Michel have killed the officer in another way if he stole a car that didn't have a gun?


Michel, thinking he can get away with murder like Bogart.

Michel meets up with Patricia (Jean Seberg), who has desires to enroll at the Sorbonne (University of Paris), but roams the streets of Paris selling the New York-Herald Tribune. She taunts him, brushes him off, and scolds him – all the while exuding an attraction for Michel. She knows he's a "bad boy" but loves being around him – or maybe it's not so much that Michel is a "bad boy" as much as Patricia is a "naughty girl". One of the traits of this film is the characters' nonchalance and amorality. I have seen reviews that dismiss the film because they "hated" Michel and Patricia or claims the film fails "because the leads have no redeeming qualities". I think these critics are approaching the film from the wrong point of view. Films do not exist to teach morality – or worse yet, give characteristic examples of what "morality" is (some fail on the pretense of being "too preachy") but to give the audience a story and follow through on it. Breathless is simply the tale of Michel and Patricia; two characters who need each other, are not right for each other and are in way over their heads.

Maybe it's not that simple. Godard's free-form take on film language brims with life but can also be maddening for those not accustomed to unconventional means used to tell a linear story. Godard's trick to the audience is weaving a tale with a clear beginning, middle and end, but doing it in such a way that you can't tell what event sparks what. Everything on screen is in place to move the story forward, but it is done in little bits, with a headlong pace that gives the Paris on screen a vibrancy that is rarely captured.


The two faces of Patricia - a reflection of amoral youth in the 60's.

The techniques used to film Breathless are the stuff of film legend: handheld shots were created even though lightweight cameras did not exist yet. Godard could not afford long tracking shots, so he and cinematographer (and New Wave collaborator) Raoul Coutard got a wheelchair and had it pushed to achieve the same effect - something pretty much every independent filmmaker can relate to; Godard's meticulous and perfectly timed shot of Michel standing as the streetlights on the Champs Elysses illuminate - a moment that Spike Lee paid tribute to in Do The Right Thing.

The film races from crime-drama, to playful comedy, to film-noir homage to existential philosophy. Famed filmmaker Jean-Pierre Melville, whose crime film Bob Le Flambeur (1955) may have been one of the main influences of the French New Wave, plays a writer interviewed by Patricia in the movie – giving proverbs on sexual relations. (The other possible film that may have sparked the French New Wave, Henri-Georges Clouzot's Les Diaboliques, was highlighted last week.) Michel references Melville's film when he exclaims, "Bob the gambler would have cashed my check." It works, because it is true to form. There are many references to films in Breathless; Michel watches many movies, mostly the gangster films of the 30's and 40's, attempts to recreate Humphrey Bogart's cool swagger, and even smokes as much - or maybe more - than the characters in those movies as he is never, ever without a cigarette. Godard offers the audience a sly punch line to that character trait as the film ends.


Godard and cinematographer Raoul Coutard going handheld before it was the norm.

While Michel, wearing a fedora, mimics facial expressions of his movie heroes in front of a mirror, Patricia remains a stoic mystery. She learns of the events that has made Michel a wanted man (among other startling revelations) and doesn't budge. If Michel acts cool, Patricia is cold. She carries a detachment that is unsettling, if only because she truly understands how the story (and their life together) may possibly end and does absolutely nothing to prevent it. There is some fine acting here done by the two leads, creating an unlikely ying-yang that contradicts the outer facade of these people: Michel has killed someone and looks tough but is playful, exuberant and even shows naivety, fear and remorse. Patricia looks innocent, and convinces the audience that she may wind up the victim in all of this, barely showing signs that she is playing everyone she encounters.

Jean-Paul Belmondo was considered "hypnotically ugly" by critics, but the 26-year old actor was quickly hailed as the biggest star from the French cinema because of this film. Jean Seberg had a career resurgence after a hellacious start in America. The Iowa-native starred in two Otto Preminger films, Saint Joan (1957) and Bonjour Tristesse (1958), received abysmal reviews for her acting and fled to Europe – only 21 years old when she was cast as Patricia. It's safe to say her career was never the same again after. There is a strange chemistry the two stars emit from each other, the type that exemplifies a young couple that will burn out quickly, like a summer fling than fade away like a painful romance. It is a reflection of young love in the 1960's: tough, anti-authoritative and ultimately tragic.


A mad-dash through the streets of Paris.

Along with Godard and Truffaut, who played small roles in the film (Godard as the informer), there were many other major names from the French New Wave that contributed to Breathless: The police inspector was played by famed writer Pierre Boulanger. Claude Chabrol was the production designer and technical adviser. It was a family of friends who got together to make the movie they would want to see, reminiscent of John Cassevetes casting his wife, Gena Rowlands and other friends for his independent films or Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez trading through their small circle of reliable cast and crew. These were people who talked the talk and walked the walk, proving you didn't need a big budget, big effects or a big cast to make a successful movie.

I remember when Pulp Fiction was released in 1994, and the sensation it created. Tarantino was able to create something fresh and new out of (what is considered) old film conventions and created a new launching pad for up-and-coming filmmakers. He was a guy who worked at a video store who suddenly was winning awards at the Cannes Film Festival. He represented the story of all filmmakers who wanted to take a chance and break away from not only how movies were made, but who made them and what movies to make. Tarantino achieved something many filmmakers struggle to find their entire careers by his second film: artistic freedom. He opened the door for people like myself to walk around with a Canon XL-1 thinking, "It's not that hard, c'mon everyone, let's make a MOVIE!" That is how many people connected with him. Jean-Luc Godard was the embodiment of Quentin Tarantino over 30 years before, achieving a freedom to make whatever film and tell whatever story he wanted to because he went for it and had the support system to back him up.


Jean-Luc Godard, perhaps the most influential filmmaker since Orson Welles.

Despite what some critics may say (and you may hear or read them) about À bout de souffle, always take this into account: how many movies are out there right now, trying to do something new? How many filmmakers exist right now (even the new ones coming out of Hollywood) are willing to take a chance, or are even willing to stand by a radical idea, technique or story – even if the possibility exists that it may horribly crash and burn? These filmmakers should be encouraged and nurtured because they are the future innovators. Everyone got their start somehow. Not everyone can make a movie that will gross $200 million at the box-office, but there may be a filmmaker, or group of filmmakers waiting in the wings, about to give us something that will bring us to the end of our breath. No one was able to tell the French New Wave filmmakers – particularly Godard – what to do or how to make a movie. I think we're better for it. We need more films like Breathless.

Side Note: A little in-joke for film-buffs, filmmakers and those interested in film history – from Roger Ebert's review of Breathless...

One inside joke in the film is always mentioned, but is not really there. Michel's alias is "Laszlo Kovacs," and countless writers inform us this is a reference to the legendary Hungarian cinematographer. In fact, Godard had not met Kovacs at the time, and the reference is to the character Belmondo played in Chabrol's A Double Tour (1959). In a film with so many references to the past of the cinema, it is amusing to find a coincidental reference to its future.

I don't know why, but I always found that amusing.

Trailer for Breathless


{Film Passport Stamped}

Coming Attractions: Francois Truffaut's free-form tale of a magnificent love triangle.

Questions or comments? Email me at [e-mail]!!!

Bookmark 411mania.com on your computer!

-or-

Check us out at Twitter!

TWITTER

http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411mma