wheretheskiesaresoblue It's an absolute criticism like Godard's himself. It's unique and impressive. However, it's not a masterpiece. Just because it's different and experimental in some ways, doesn't make it a really good movie. The dialogues are natural, that's alright. But do they get you? Get you into the movie? Unfortunately, for me they are not working at this way. Jump-Cuts are revolutionary, admiring by many people. For me, it just looks it a bit amateur. Alright, may be that was the idea (it helps to make it unique) and it works in that way. However, it could be done in a more professionally way. I like the sarcasm in that movie. "You are the audience and it's a motion picture" is clearly defined. What about emotions? I have to say that, it's sentimental, the background music just make it better. The theme is great. All these powerful jazz instrumentals make me want to cry. Especially, New York Herald Tribune scene is just so deep and powerful. It gets you; actually the only scene gets me in that movie. As a personal statement by myself, A bout de soufflé will always have a sad way for me. It's because of the person who recommended to me. Unfortunately, there are no connections between us anymore. I didn't want to, it just happens sometimes. Like the relationship between Patricia and Michel. "But l can't do without you. Yes, you can. Maybe. But l don't want to"

akash_sebastian Jean-Luc Godard's audacious debut is one of the films that started the French New Wave, and it has most of the directors from the New Wave associated with it - with the script written by François Truffaut and Claude Chabrol, and Jacques Rivette appearing in a cameo as the dead man on the street. Even director Jean-Pierre Melville, whose reporting style and use of real locations had a big influence on the New Wave, appears in a short scene where he's an author being interviewed by Patricia and other reporters.Though not his best, Godard's 'Breathless' is his most famous and discussed film. Even after 50 years, it hasn't lost its vitality; it's interpreted in so many different ways. We all know that most of these New Wave directors (formerly critics at 'Cahiers du Cinema') wanted to shift away from the style and rules of Classic Hollywood, which most of the mainstream French films had adapted over the years. Godard tries to break these conventions and tries experimenting with various aspects of the film. Firstly, he casts Jean-Paul Belmondo, with his punched nose and unconventional looks (though quite charming), and Jean Seberg in a boy-cut tomboyish role, introducing her wearing a T-shirt and selling newspapers on the street (an intriguing and memorable intro). With regard to Patricia's character, though intended or not, the film did have quite a feminist undertone (much different from the female characters portrayed at the time). Other than this, the film mainly comprises of random conversations and a meandering plot. All these elements went on to reinvent Modern Cinema. Godard believed that most of the mainstream films tried to seduce people with their fictional reality, tried to entertain them and make them forget the worries of their daily life; he said that's how capitalist systems kept their people happy and content. He wanted to defy establishment and authority, both in terms of film and politics; though this film is not as Marxist as his later films, it's certainly quite anarchist in nature and his contempt for capitalism is clearly visible. Just like Patricia wonders, "I don't know if I'm unhappy because I'm not free, or if I'm not free because I'm unhappy." With random jump-cuts in a single scene or characters looking/talking to the camera, Godard constantly reminds the viewer that they're watching a work of fiction, thus making us watch the film in a different light, evoking a higher level of consciousness and compelling us to interpret the film's intended meaning. He wanted to stress that none of it was real, and that the director has complete control of what's being shown on screen. The film circles-in twice (in the style of film noir), once pointing to almost nothing conspicuous (to draw the attention outside of the film), and the next time when Godard himself appears in a cameo as the informer, thus ingeniously highlighting the fact that it's Godard (the director) who's controlling the plot from within and outside of the film. Even when Michel shoots the policeman, the scene is shown in such a haphazard and unusual way; the scene is as detached from the event as the protagonist, highlighting the moral jumps he takes in the situation. Though the New Wave directors were tired of the rigid style of Classic Hollywood, they were big admirers of Film Noir. Even in this film, Godard pays homage to it in various ways, whether it's the way Michel's admires and imitates Humphrey Bogart or the random circle-ins. Michel informs his identity with the tough-guy persona of Bogart's films, and the tragedy is that even when he decides/tries to escape such a life and identity, he's still pushed along the tragic fate of characters in such crime thrillers; he's stuck within it, there's no escape. And if we analyse both our characters, we realize they have none of the usual characteristics of a film hero or anti-hero; they are quite self-obsessed, amoral, aimless, so absorbed in the world of art (Michel in cinema, Patricia in literature), yet so oblivious to the world around them. Godard tries to highlight the absurdity of life without a political, philosophical or moral commitment. The final scene is as alluring and mysterious as the rest of the film. Whether it's the statement that's said or the gesture of tracing the lips - both being carried forward and reinterpreted by different members in its chain of action. Overall, let me state that 'Breathless' isn't a great film by itself; it's not even close to the brilliance and emotional resonance of Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" or Resnais' "Hiroshima Mon Amour", New Wave works which released the previous year. Other than a few captivating scenes and dialogues, most of the film is dull and boring; I wonder how dragging the original two-and-a-half-hour runtime might have been like. But the film is important for two reasons - the way it experimented with the format opened up new possibilities in cinematic storytelling, and it's the kind of film which offers such interesting interpretations and opportunities for discussion with other cinephiles.

elvinzhang A character study about Michel ( Jean-Paul Belmondo ), a young criminal who acts tough and tries to be like Bogart, and Patricia (Jean Seberg), an American who sells the New York Herald- Tribune. Patricia's involvement with him seems to be purely because of her curiosity towards his affection and his strange, comical behavior almost identical to the one which is shown again in "Pierrot le Fou". Jean Seberg's acting is ridiculously dull and her expressions throughout the film are almost as uneventful as the plot of the film itself. Jean- Paul Belmondo's acting on the other hand, although full of style is still unconvincing. You cant really blame him though, his character's persona is just not in any way believable. The level of detachment and obliviousness is simply too extreme. The Film's music is also absolutely horrendous, I doubt I could recall a movie that has a genuinely worse soundtrack.However, the truly disgusting thing about this movie, is the amount of jump cuts Godard forcibly tries to stuff down our throat, it makes me wonder whether the films last lines were really referring to Godard himself.Out of boredom ( due to the films basically non-existent plot ) I couldn't help but resort to wondering whether these extremely disturbing 'jumpcuts' were necessary. The answer, which is also the answer to most French New Wave films is yes and no. If the film did not contain these 'jump cuts', many of them purposely used in the most unconventional way possible, the film would not have its historical importance and status of being revolutionary. The jumps cuts in this Film have no real purpose other than to rebel against cinema norms at the time and attract attention as a result. In other words there was no 'message', 'deeper meaning' or even aesthetic purpose behind them. Its only purpose was to distinguish this film, which without all its pretentious bull would be no more than a boring, poorly written and poorly acted character study, from all the other boring, poorly written and poorly acted character studies. The Film instead is a NEW, DIFFERENT and MODERN boring, poorly written and poorly acted character study. These days the film is met with enthusiasm, mainly because without objective standards, style is valued over substance and originality is valued over genuine merit. Although you cannot deny the historical importance of this film as a cinematic landmark, you can definitely question it. There's no harm in rebelling against norms to create effect but never at the expense of overall enjoyment. Breathless however, simply rebels for shock value and to standout as something new, different and as most New Wave fans would put it 'Bold.'

Hitchcoc Since there have been a great many conventional reviews of this movie (far more positive than negative), I will address a criticism, that we often praise things that are groundbreaking, even when they are not that good. What, of course, is "that good"? This is by all accounts a simple story. A sociopathic young man kills a cop and feels nothing. This film pretty much made Jean-Paul Belmondo, who muscles his way through life, finding pleasure, while he is being pursued. His bad boy charm attracts the young female and she becomes embroiled in his impulsiveness. There is a love story here but there can be nothing but pain. Live fast, die young, leave a beautiful memory was created here. One could say that D. W. Griffith films are not as good as modern films on the same themes because they were silent and not in color. Even though the jump cuts and other fundamentals of filmmaking were introduced (or at least enhanced) in the French New Wave, there are those who criticize this film for being uninspired and repetitive. While it's hard to have sympathy with the two principles in this film, it does present a dizzying ride.