breathless rough draft

8/11/2019 Breathless Rough Draft

1/5

S A N D O R |1

Frank Sandor

Dr. A. Pcastaings

USSY 287X: Paris in the Arts

28 February 2011

BREATHLESS

1. LITERATUREREVIEW

The critique ofBreathlesswritten byNew York Timesfilm critic Bosley Crowther is by far

the most scathing of these collected reviews. Written in 1961, it is also the only critique to be

written by a contemporary of the filmmakers. Crowther takes offense at both the subject matter

of the film and the ethics displayed by its characters. Crowther describesBreathless as vicious,

completely devoid of moral tone, concerned mainly with eroticism and the restless drives of a

young punk (Crowther). The only worth Crowther sees in the film is as an exercise in cultural

anthropology; a sort of keyhole through which to glimpse the deviance and decay of Western

youth (Crowther).

In Icons and Zombies, Stuart Klawans seems taken by the atmosphere of the film

cinematography, artful editing, the presence of the actorsand praises the success ofBreathless

in creating an intense and immersive experience. The critic balances his appreciation of

ambience with an analysis of the films subtler message: a pointed commentary on American

cinema, with elements of both a caricature and an homage. Kawans attributes this ambivalence

towards Hollywood to director Jean-Luc Godard, and the New Wave French filmmakers as a

whole (Klawans).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times


2/5

S A N D O R |2

David Gritten of The Telegraphhas nothing but praise for the film as well. Gritten is smitten

by the technical sophistication on display inBreathless, and he presents a thorough inventory of

the films stylistic innovations and groundbreaking techniques. Breathless, says Gritten, was a

game-changing movie (Gritten). Director Godard is commended for his invention of jump

cuts, the spontaneity of the dialogue, and the timeless youthfulness of his masterwork.

Cinematographer Raoul Coutard receives credit for the films frenetic pace and documentary-

feel. Certainly, these aspects are not lost on the other critics who favored this film, but Gritten is

alone in his estimation of their worth, and the volume of his praise (Gritten).

Roger Eberts review ofBreathlessalso voices firm approval of Godards big-screen debut.

Ebert commends the filmmakers for the distinctive look and feel of this work, with emphasis on

the contributions of cinematographer Coutard. Ebert also tips his hat to the films best-known

strengths (jump cuts; the stories frantic pace). However, the lions share of his accolades

belongs to leading actors Belmondo and Seberg, and the depth of the roles they portrayed. What

fascinates above all, says Ebert, is the naivet and amorality of these two young characters

(Ebert).

The Potency of Breathless, Paula Cohens review of the classic, is remarkable for the

potency of its ambivalence. From her opening words, Cohen sets a tone that combines grudging

respect with lingering resentment. At 50, says Cohen, Godards film still asks how something

so bad can be so good (Cohen). Cohen accepts the films contributions to cinema, and even

acknowledges a certain amount of intellectual appeal. However, there is no confusing her

estimation of its entertainment value: she finds the film dull, pretentious, and completely devoid

of authenticity. To Cohen,Breathlessis the dramatic equivalent of a knock-knock joke, and it

holds little appeal, beyond sentimental, for the adults in the room (Cohen).


3/5

S A N D O R |3

2.BREATHLESSNOT POINTLESS,BUT POSSIBLY TACTLESS?

In the fifty years since its release, critics and filmmakers have praised and condemned

Breathless in every form of media imaginable. The film certainly incites strong opinions in those

who choose analyze it, and even the films detractors admit thatBreathlesshas had a powerful

impact on international cinema, and that modern cinema would not exist in its current form

without it. Film students around the world can recite the technical and stylistic innovations taken

by director Jean-Luc Godard and cinematographer Raoul Coutard. Every review, good or bad,

lists those contributions as facts, and well they should. However, inventing a technique is not

synonymous with mastering it, which begs a different sort of question. For all of its innovations,

Breathlessis still a film, and films are also judged on their entertainment value. WasBreathless

an entertaining film? Did it tell a gripping story, suspend disbelief, and evoke emotion? Or could

this be a case of style over substance?

The murder of the police officer is the best example the filmmakers stylistic heavy-

handedness, and the negative consequences of this approach. The event is swift and random; so

fleeting that viewers spend the next fifteen minutes certain they missed something important.

Perhaps Godard meant this as a commentary on the casual violence in American cinema, or as a

statement on the moral bankruptcy of the protagonist, Michel. Both of these sound wonderful in

theory, and I have seen similar approaches used to great effect (Stanley KubricksA Clockwork

Orangecomes to mind). However, in the hands of Godard and Coutard, the scene is rendered flat

and meaningless, and any trace of suspense is removed with clinical precision.

The technique of jump cuts was certainly a breakthrough. One can respect this kind of

innovation on an intellectual level, and Godard deserves credit for inventing what would become


4/5

S A N D O R |4

a reliable tool of the filmmakersrepertoire, accidental or not. However, as someone who has

grown up watching the technique used correctly (Kubricks Space Odyssey, anyone?), the

clumsy fumbling on display inBreathlesswas, at best, distracting. Jump cuts dominate the scene

in the caf between Patricia and her American newspaper friend, and the result is so

disharmonious that Godards intent is a mystery. Is it meant to be a long encounter, or

particularly intense? Does Godard know himself, or is he just enjoying a new toy?

This is not to say that the filmmakers did everything wrong. There is a palpable sense of

urgency throughout much of the film, a finely tuned crescendo of tension as we follow Michels

rambling, frenetic dash around Paris. Banners, newspaper articles, and random people on the

street convey the fact that Michels doom is swiftly closing in on him. Likewise, Michel and

Patricias obsession with celebrity adds an interesting dimension to both the characters and the

story. However, inscrutable subplots water down both of these elements. Take, for example,

Patricias relationship with the American editor, or Michels failed attempt to sell a hot car.

If the filmmakers had avoided the senseless and distracting gimmicks, and done something

anythingabout the tortured dialogue between the protagonists, they would have come much

closer to achieving the gritty realism they sought. Likewise, if they had focused on the elements

that worked, rather than meandering off on aimless tangents, the overall experience of this film

would be cleaner, clearer, and much more powerful. As it is, the importance ofBreathlessseems

to be inversely proportional to its own merit as a work of art and entertainment. And everyone

knows this is a very, very important movie.


5/5

S A N D O R |5

Works Cited

Cohen, Paula. "The Potency of Breathless." Spring 2009. The American Scholar.org. 28 February 2011

.

Crowther, Bosley. "Screen: Sordid View of French Life: Breathless' in Debut at the Fine Arts." 8 February

1961. The New York Times. 28 February 2011 .

Ebert, Roger. "Chicago Sun-Times." 20 July 2003. RogerEbert.com: Breathless (1960). 1 March 2011

.

Gritten, David. "Jean-Luc Godards 'Breathless: so chic it takes your breath away." 22 June 2010. The

Telegraph. 1 March 2011 .

Klawans, Stuart. "Icons and Zombies." 14 June 2010. The Nation. 2011 28 Feb

.

breathless rough draft

Documents