MovieChat Forums > À bout de souffle (1961) Discussion > A VERY Mediocre And VERY Amateurish Film...

A VERY Mediocre And VERY Amateurish Film !!!

posted 9 years ago by JoeKulik
8 replies | jump to latest

"Film will only become an art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper."-J Cocteau
**********************************************************************

Frankly, I think Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless (1960) is VERY overrated. This is just a very AMATEURISH first attempt at filmmaking for Goddard.

That Jean-Paul Belmondo's character would murder a cop and then stick around Paris to get nabbed is unreal. Not even a DUMB criminal is DUMB enough to do that, especially since this guy has the means to flee the country and he is portrayed as a career criminal type with street savvy.

Jean Seberg's character is portrayed as an upscale, educated aspiring American journalist who is trying to make it in Paris, yet hooks up with an obvious low life like Jean-Paul's character? SORRY, but I just don't buy it. That she sticks around with Jean-Paul's character even after discovering his criminal nature is even more unbelievable.

OK, Jean's character finally smartens up at the end and turns in Jean-Paul's character to the cops. But then what does she do? She goes back to this low life thug and tells him what she did !!!! Either this gal has a latent suicidal wish or she is unbelievably STUPID. Why would any rational person go back to tell a fugitive on the run from a cop killer charge that she just ratted him out? Especially, since it puts her alone in in an apartment with this guy. UNREAL !!!!

Then there's the final scene where jean's character is running down the street toward Jean-Paul's character's bullet riddled body lying face down in the street. I mean, she actually still cares for this cold blooded cop killer even after he's righteously dead? GIVE ME A BREAK !!!! This film is just a love story from outer space, in my opinion. This film isn't about romance, it's about two DUMB people, just acting DUMB.

I mean I've seen a number of Absurdist / Avant Garde films that I thought were great because the unreal / absurd elements in the film had some sort of symbolic or interpretive meaning in the context of the whole film. Breathless, however, is a film with a basically unbelievable, not well thought out storyline that just has no symbolic or interpretive meaning at all, at least for me.

Although Goddard went on to make many great films, his initial effort here was a BIG FLOP as far as I'm concerned and the acclaim that Breathless got in its time was due to Goddard's already gotten fame as a film critic for a very influential Parisian film review and nothing more. That's the only sense that I can make of why such a MEDIOCRE film would get such high ratings.

Yeah! Yeah! I Know! This film was such a big "breakthrough" in filmmaking techniques. and let us not forget, "It's about style over substance". I've heard it all about this film, but no matter how much fancy wrapping that you put around the box, it all means NOTHING, if the present inside is just LOUSY. And that's what Godard gave the viewer here. This film is like a ham sandwich with lettuce, tomato, onions, mustard, pickle,and mayonnaise, but, WHOOPS!, he forgot the ham !!!

{{This review is also posted at "Forum For Film Reviews And Discussions" at groups.google.com. )}}

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

Time and Place make all the difference. Today, 'Mean Streets' would be a BAD film with a slow story, bad fight scenes and just an oversaturated Gangster Film... But it's not. In 1973, nobody had made a film anything like 'Mean Streets' and it's influences were Breathless and much of the French New Wave. While it IS amateurish, there's so much else to love. The use of improvisation, quick cuts, Avant-garde Style filmmaking. The beautiful "Dolly" shots on a Wheelchair. I mean, at its time, it was innovative in so many ways. It's not a perfectly made film at all, just perfectly imperfect

[–] Maniac_In_Black 7 years ago

Mean Streets is one of my favorites. Ive heard of it being influenced by Fellini's I Vitelloni, but never heard of it being influenced by Breathless

[–] alaninho 8 years ago

Breathless is one of my least favourite films of all time. Irrespective of its supposed game-changer techniques, the film is horribly boring to the point where I half hoped the main character would just drop dead so I could stop watching and do something useful with my life.

[–] Ore-Sama 8 years ago

That Jean-Paul Belmondo's character would murder a cop and then stick around Paris to get nabbed is unreal. Not even a DUMB criminal is DUMB enough to do that, especially since this guy has the means to flee the country and he is portrayed as a career criminal type with street savvy.

Either this is a parody or you really don't get what the film is supposed to be.

First off, the fact he can escape any time is part of the point. He's choosing his fate at the end. Getting away to him is secondary, he want Patricia. That's his downfall. Have you ever even seen a film noir? The leads, more often than not, damn themselves. and this film is heavily existentialist, which is all about your fate being in your own hands.

Secondly, this film is a deconstruction in many areas. It's blatantly ignoring it's own crime story narrative for most of the film. This is intentional.

Jean Seberg's character is portrayed as an upscale, educated aspiring American journalist who is trying to make it in Paris, yet hooks up with an obvious low life like Jean-Paul's character? SORRY, but I just don't buy it. That she sticks around with Jean-Paul's character even after discovering his criminal nature is even more unbelievable.

This happens all the time in fiction and real life. You can read many true accounts of these sort of things happening.

I mean I've seen a number of Absurdist / Avant Garde films that I thought were great because the unreal / absurd elements in the film had some sort of symbolic or interpretive meaning in the context of the whole film. Breathless, however, is a film with a basically unbelievable, not well thought out storyline that just has no symbolic or interpretive meaning at all, at least for me.

Everything you cited as unbelievable in fact does happen in life very often.

The only thing truly unbelievable about Breathless is how easily they evade the police, but again, that comes down to Godard's playing with the traditional crime narrative.

I find it hard to believe you've seen other Godard movies. Very, very hard. "Breathless" is very representative of his work, yet this post sounds like someone who has never watched such a movie in their life. How can anyone see Godard's other work and then be surprised by "Breathless", which follows pretty much along the same lines? Especially for such asinine reasons. Not only are the things you pointed out not that unrealistic, but this movie is, clearly, not aiming for realism.

Today, 'Mean Streets' would be a BAD film with a slow story, bad fight scenes and just an oversaturated Gangster Film.

Slow does not equal bad. In fact, many great films often are very slow paced. Slow is not a flaw and is more often a strength.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the fight scenes. They're realistic and serve their purpose. It's "Mean Streets", not a Jet Li movie.

"Mean Streets" is a great movie for any decade.

'I don't make deals with someone pointing a gun at me.'
'A principle?'
'A Habit.'

[–] dmariat55 8 years ago

It seems to me that Joe doesn't understand the real problem he has with a bout de souffle. As ore points out the story line is not hard to believe.

What Joe has a problem with is the format. Most crime dramas are told from the point of view of the police trying to catch the criminal. A bout is told from the prospective of the criminal with very little police presence.

It starts with michel killing a police officer and goes down hill from there. The film is counter culture and counter authority. That can be disconcerting to a lot of people.

A smart well off girl like Patricia taking up with a criminal is also worrisome to people like Joe. In the US we had Patty Hearst in real life.

By the way Patricia doesn't betray Michel at the end. She tells him the police are on their way thinking he will leave immediately for Rome. It is Michel who decides to stay.

[–] KyrKyr 8 years ago

Well said!!!

Watch my list on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FxGeULixWk

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HerrStrauss (122) a year ago

Probably one of the best comments on the forum! Agree 100%