Watching Jean-Luc Godard's massively influential, unintentional-classic Breathless and discussing Jean-Luc Godard's massively influential, unintentional-classic Breathless are two totally different things. For one, the latter is more fun the other and, two, discussing the film almost instantly allows for quality, intelligent discussion of cinema to ring. There are certain cinephiles that take Godard himself more seriously than they take any other director who has ever lived. Just when you thought Stanley Kubrick-fanatical elitism was out of control, spend about ten minutes, as an exercise, scouring the internet for French New Wave forums and in-depth analysis of the Godardian methods and you may be surprised at what you find.

I'm only stating this because around a year and a half ago, I began my sporadic voyage into the depths of Godard with his most recent picture, at the time, Film Socialisme, which I found to be an assault on every conceivable sense and not in a particularly good way. The film was choppy, disjointed, messy, just about as incomprehensible as it could be, and trying to find justifications or analyses online proved ineffective. All and all, it's a film I just want to forget and I didn't care to dive into Godard much after that endeavor. I now realize that a decent part of the blame is on me for choosing perhaps the wrong film to begin my Godardian journey with. I emerge from seeing Breathless (known by its French title as À bout de soufflé) with a more of a positive reaction. This is a bravely-structured and maturely handled annihilation to every cinematic convention prior to its 1960 release down with class and impenetrable style on part of Godard.

The story - even though it is relatively the least of our concerns - follows Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo),who is trying to emulate the characteristics possessed by Humphrey Bogart during the particular 40s/50s era of menacing American crime dramas that billed him as the lead actor. One day, feeling intimidated and a perhaps a little adventurous, Michel shoots a police officer who has been tailing him and now must deal with being broke and on the run from the cops. His only companion is Patricia (Jean Seberg),an American journalist getting by in life by selling newspapers in downtown Paris. The two desperately skim through their options trying to hide from the police, one of which is skipping town and going all the way to Italy as fugitives.

I say the story is the least of our concerns because there is simply not much to it. After all, Breathless is an aesthetic breakthrough rather than a narrative one. Godard employs dangerously subversive jump cuts - where the camera cuts to another shot within the same frame creating a breach in continuity - along with rapid-fire, quick shots and lengthy dialog scenes. All of this broke French cinema convention, which, prior to this, was consistently polished and very elegant. Godard invited in a rebellious messiness to the picture, almost like the guy coming into a neatly-organized room and rustling all the papers and files to not only create a stir but to do something different, something completely new.

It's almost shortchanging to simply say that I have immense respect for Godard seeing as in 1960, a time when social change and civil unrest amongst adolescents and twentysomethings seemed to be so prevalent in many different places, he ushered in a new way of doing things cinematically and created a stylistically bold film because of it. He even threw in the element of using a hand-held camera, an unheard of practice during this particular time. I think I would also be in line to compare Breathless to Bonnie and Clyde, a film that would enter the picture seven years later in American studios that would simultaneous shock and stimulate audiences everywhere.

Godard's films have a unique power after you watch them. For example, it has been about four days since I sat down to watch Breathless and since watching it - and now writing a medium-length analysis of it - I have a strong, biting urge to watch more of Godard's films. His films have the kind of impact where you just want to talk about them and talk about their impact in great length; which, once more, brings me to the point that watching the films is actually the weaker part compared to discussing them.

Starring: Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg. Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard.

I've been watching Breathless for the first time in many years on the Sundance Channel. Jean-Luc Godard's cinema changing film about a young tough in love with American movies and an American girl changed European cinema.I don't know if it was for the better or worse. My only real memory of watching the film from my film class days was the sense that one could see how it was copied by other filmmakers of the period. I retained very little of the plot. Actually I retained very little of anything concerning the film after each of the two or three times I've seen it. Watching it again for the first time in probably five or six years I'm struck by how silly it all is. Once the height of fashion and hip coolness I was not so quietly giggling to myself. The film has not aged very well and has become almost a parody of itself. I could feel the pretensions flooding off the screen. This isn't to say the film isn't good, it is on some level, however I think its better if viewed in the context of when it came out, instead of what it is today. Forgive me if I offend with this position, but watching Jean Seberg struggle with her French and Jean-Paul Belmondo attempt to be cool, is almost too funny for words. (Belmondo reminded me of a cousin who always tried to be hip and cool and tough, but instead came off as silly). Worth a look if you're interested in milestones of the cinema, however I think you may be hard pressed to make it to the end with a straight face.

OVERRATED "ART FILM" ALERT: The following film is adored by sophisticated and "with it" film fans. The fact that the average person may find the whole thing unfunny and bland is due to their just not being smart enough to understand and appreciate this masterpiece.

While this is not a terrible film, part of me wishes this film had never been made. After all, this was the "granddaddy" of all French New Wave films and it ushered in many, many self-indulgent films that were proclaimed "art" despite the fact that they often deliberately used shoddy production values and were disliked by the ordinary person because they "just didn't get it"--yeah, right. This elitism was really just an excuse to make lousy films that, on occasion, really, really made no sense. While the movie's writer, Truffaut, went on to far better things--actually making some very good New Wave films, the success of this film encouraged Jean-Luc Godard to make worse films--such as ALPHAVILLE, PIERRE LE FOU, A WOMAN IS A WOMAN and FIRST NAME: CARMEN. All these films shared common denominators in that they made very little sense, had rotten camera-work and featured people that the average sane person could care less about as their stories unfolded. Oddly enough, Truffaut and Godard got their show business start as film critics who hated traditional French movies. They began making films that deliberately violated conventions and, at times, sensibilities.

My biggest problem with BREATHLESS in particular is that I truly hated the central character. Once again, Jean-Paul Belmondo plays a real self-centered jerk (what I actually want to call his character is a lot less pleasant, but kids also read these reviews). There is NOTHING redeemable about the man--he steals car after car, murders a cop and lies almost every time he opens his mouth. Plus, he just seems cocky and unlikable. How Jean Seberg's character can even stand to be around him makes absolutely no sense.

A second problem, and it was deliberately done by Godard, is the annoying edits he sometimes made. He deliberately made some scenes choppy and wanted the scene to appear very choppy. Well, if bad camera-work was his goal, why didn't he just film the movie in a coal mine or put his hand over the lens! These would make about as much sense and annoy the public just as well.

The third problem is that the film is very, very, very talky and dull. For a major portion of the film, the central characters lie in bed and talk and talk about pretty much nothing. Yes, I know that IS the point of FRENCH NEW WAVE in many cases, but it makes for a terrible film.

The only good thing about the film was a reference to "Bob the gambler". I assume this is a reference to the 1955 French Film Noir film BOB LE FLAMBEUR--especially since they also say that Bob is now in jail (that's how the movie BOB LE FLAMBEUR ended). This is a cute "inside joke" to an exceptional French film.

By the way, I actually saw the film twice. Once, years ago and just yesterday because I thought it MUST have been better than I remembered it. Considering how I have trashed most Godard films I have reviewed (there are some exceptions),I felt an obligation to see it again just to give it a fair chance. I did and it STILL stank.