Breathless

This is obviously not intended as a work of surrealism or Dada. Godard has a story to tell, and two characters to introduce to us. I suggest that the film techniques be measured by whether they contribute to these goals. The use of handheld camera, long shots, candid shots of Paris do. They give the film a sense of energy and reality, and have perhaps been adopted by others because of this. The "jump cuts" (which I take to mean the abrupt cuts in the middle of scenes, with no attempt to maintain continuity) do not. They are distracting and remind you, with a jolt, and indeed never permit you to forget, that you are watching a film. This is not like noticing that a great painting is made up of the artist's individual brushstrokes; more like brushstrokes that keep you from seeing the overall picture. It just comes off as amateurish, and interfers with plot and character development.

Seborg didn't seem to me to work in this role. I think Godard means to tell us that she is not vulnerable but in fact the same sort of animal as Belmondo, but the toughness was not persuasive (esp. the obvious self consciousness of the closing shot). If this is not what was meant, then she failed to communicate to this viewer what exactly it was that motivated her character. Does that mean she is "deep"?


Godard's first shot   December 14, 2003
Yoon Min Cho (chicago, IL USA)
Breathless has the improvisational style of jazz. The movie opens up and seems to take on a life of its own, lurching left, right, forward with fits and starts. It's also multi-layered, a story of a smalltime hood wrapped around a romance wrapped around hollywood movie myths. In a way, it's like a very small version of Scorsese's Goodfellas--which too examines the warped relationship between popular art and real life--infected with the worldweary mood of the Beatniks.
Jean Seberg is cute and Belmondo plays the most charming lout ever.


Breathless   September 7, 2003
Older movies are like Shakespeare. They are to be appreciated by all and enjoyed by few. BREATHLESS, while cutting-edge at the time, plays in today's world like any student film one is likely to see. This reviewer found the flick very charming and very interesting in a historical context. I understand, however, how others may find it tedious, boring, and ultimately unfulfilling.

I recommend BREATHLESS to anyone interested in film history and/or anyone interested in old film noirs. The later group will find the european version of the old American crime movies rather interesting.

Additionally, if you happen to be a Tarantino fan, check this film out as the grandfather of RESEVOIR and PULP FICTION; it certainly is that.


After seeing it a few times, I see it for what it is   June 6, 2003
J. Christal (Teaneck, New Jersey United States)
When I first saw Godard's Breathless, perhaps I had my expectactions high, or rather manipulated to be as such from reading other reviews, and I ended up thinking that while there was a flair for style and a rhythm that was a reminder of the jazzy feel in Cassavettes' Shadows, the characters, inparticular the lead, were too shallow, self-righteous, and all-too-vain for comfort - or perhaps too, well, French.

On a few more tries of the "groundbreaker of the French new-wave" (which I believe was at it's absolute best in Truffaut's 400 Blows, accessible to a wider audience), I see that Godard, as much as he probably loves his characters, he despises them as well, in a sense. It could even be suggested that Godard sees himself in the lead Belmondo's role, and if that's the case then Godard is practicing the old self-reflection trick (though the story is loosely based on a newspaper article, scripted by Truffaut himself). For those that can take such filmmaking, this is the treat of the week. And for film buffs it should be seen at least once to get an idea where most "affluent" independent filmmakers get their edge, and indeed its rhythm will give inspiration to struggling filmmakers. I might even see it again in several months to remind myself how inspired the jump cuts were that Godard used. But, I certainly don't think that it's among the greatest films ever.