tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post8810911232295202243..comments2024-01-21T11:18:54.087-05:00Comments on Lost in the Movies: BreathlessJoel Bockohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-56578392096390376792011-11-19T00:41:34.735-05:002011-11-19T00:41:34.735-05:00Thanks, JPK - this was the first Godard I saw and ...Thanks, JPK - this was the first Godard I saw and I didn't like it at all at the time. Totally underwhelmed me. After that, I liked most of the Godard I saw and when I came back to Breathless it grew on me - but only when I was able to see it as a lark rather than a "Big Important Film" which I don't think is a weight it can really carry (ironic then that I included it in "The Big Ones" series I suppose but then the criteria for that is supposed to be others' opinions more than my own).<br /><br />I think Truffaut's input can be exaggerated - he provided the loose scenario - which I think was only a paragraph long, but all the dialogue and detail was conceived by Godard, often on the very morning of shooting (another reason I think the intellectual aspect of his work is exaggerated, he was usually working on a whim rather than anything more concrete and reasoned-out).<br /><br />The photographic appeal, on the other hand, I think can be distributed fairly well between Godard and Raoul Coutard - one thing I love about this era of cinema is how the rebels still believed in a sort of aesthetic discipline (that or the cinematographers they worked with did!). The looseness conceals a certain classicism, best articulated by Jean-Pierre Gorin on the Italian film Fists in the Pocket (I've quoted it a million times on this site and it's a bit too long to cite again here, but it's at the bottom of this visual tribute: http://thedancingimage.blogspot.com/2010/10/shaking-foundations.html). <br /><br />I'd say that's my favorite quote related to 60s cinema, but it has some stiff competition from Melville's infamous (and also quoted by me) line in this film, which you mention in your review! God, I love that one - and if it doesn't sum up the whole spirit of the 60s, nothing else does.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-63659732226178653432011-11-18T23:39:48.967-05:002011-11-18T23:39:48.967-05:00Hey Joel, thanks for leaving comments over at my p...Hey Joel, thanks for leaving comments over at my place. I thought the least I could do is return the favor. When I saw your publishing schedule for this series, and compared it with mine, I saw we were both getting to Breathless at nearly the same time. I knew you liked Godard quite a bit, and that I harbored my general suspicions about him, so like you I was surprised to see how much we agreed on here, particularly the love dynamic (such as it is) between the principals trumping the gangster elements. There's something very fresh and charming I think between the two of them. I suspect Truffaut may have had a little more to do with it than Godard, and the actors of course do a fine job in those scenes. Whoever is responsible, it's a part of the movie that reliably reaches me. I also think the whole thing looks really great generally, maybe something about the film stock? But also the way it's framed and shot from scene to scene is lively and alive. Thanks as always for your interest -- I don't think we'll be crossing paths this way again, but I will be following your series right along. Good stuff!Jeff Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17148737647138431543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-65138077810427193002011-11-16T13:14:52.674-05:002011-11-16T13:14:52.674-05:00That's a great observation and true, I think. ...That's a great observation and true, I think. Though I think there's a lot of verite documentary influence on Breathless, I also think Godard was keen on taking documentary aspects from fiction and fantastical elements from documentary (he once said something to the effect that Melies was the true documentarian and the Lumieres the true fantasists, which pretty well describes his way of looking at the world, and what I love about him, I think).<br /><br />This was an interesting essay for me to write because - while Godard himself is probably my favorite director - this is not really one of my favorites of his, as I allude to in the piece. But watching it this time, the bedroom scene really hit home with me in a way it hadn't necessarily in the past. I felt the film really came alive there.<br /><br />I'm very, very spotty on post-'68 Godard; I've only seen a handful of his films, maybe five or six at most. But I plan on rectifying that this winter or spring; I'm buying Histoires du Cinema when it comes out on R1 and when I have better online access I'll seek out everything of his I can get my hands on and try to do a really thorough retrospective. I like most of his later stuff I've seen though it doesn't hit me the same way as the 60s stuff.<br /><br />I did not care for In Praise of Love (ironically, one of the few Godards I've actually reviewed up to now) but I've seen Hail Mary a couple times, and it's really growing on me.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-68954688215865934012011-11-16T11:48:03.818-05:002011-11-16T11:48:03.818-05:00"Subsequent films would foster a rich dialect..."Subsequent films would foster a rich dialectic between his almost fanboyish regard for Hollywood entertainments (particularly thrillers) and his intensely unique (and very un-Hollywood) working methods and thought process."<br /><br />Well said Joel. You also put up many well put arguments and statements here that tackle the thing very well, from the irony angle, the wondrous bedroom scene. It's all there. I do appreciate Godard for his work up through Weekend, but after that I must admit he loses me. I don't follow Godard after Weekend, kind of like Mr. Juliano. That's neither here nor there, but Breathless is a landmark type of film. Belmondo's performance is legendary and his style works so very well for Godard. His insouciance and innate irony in his performances perfectly couple with Godard's style here. It's funny how Melville used Belmondo as well, but tried putting him more in "straight" roles. I still see him in his element more here than in say Leon Morin, Priest. But I think Melville was using Belmondo as a contrast if you will.<br /><br />Anyway, one quick thought. I was watching Nick Ray's They Live By Night the other day. I notice in that film there is a desire to film the two lovers "in space". By that I mean, the camera wants to regard them together and just let them be in the moment. It happens in fleeting glimpses, but I know Godard had quite a reverence for Ray. I kind of found a dotted line between some elements of Ray's film and the portrayal of the lovers here, in the way the camera is okay just filming people and letting them just be in front of us without trying push a storyline ahead as the main point of a scene. Maybe it's just me, but that's what I thought as I watched Ray's film.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10656287096270976604noreply@blogger.com