Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Inches from documentary
11 January 2005
In the past couple of weeks, I've been on a Godard kick where I've seen "Alphaville", "My Life to Live" and "Breathless", along with "Le Petit Soldat." I don't think that it reflects all that badly on the latter movie to say that it's not really in a league with the first three, all of which are near-masterpieces at the very least.

This was Godard's first feature film made after "Breathless", and you can see him straining to give "Le Petit Soldat" a different feel - something where the stakes are a little higher, something more engaged with the political realities and real ethics of the world. One might conclude that this concrete engagement with politics isn't really Jean-Luc's cup of tea. It's telling that the best scene, Bruno's long closing monologue at the end of the film, is as involved with art and abstraction as it is with the milieu of the Algerian conflict around which the film centers itself.

The camera-work isn't as radical as some of Godard's other films, and his locations in Geneva and Zurich don't provide him with as much eye candy as his native Paris. Even more so than other early Godard films, it has the feel of a documentary. In this case, the documentary is a combination between a piece of political agitation and a seminar on individual freedom with respect to modern politics.

While the typical doomed Godardian hero spends most of his or her time in desperate circumstances, they frequently continue living in blithe ignorance of the fate that awaits them, spending their time in bed with one another or in pseudo-philosophical conversation. Bruno, the protagonist of "Le Petit Soldat", is different. The sense of desperation within him is palpable; Bruno is increasingly hemmed in by competing French and Algerian ideologies that make no sense to him, but nevertheless exercise more and more control over his freedom as the movie progresses.

The much-discussed torture scene is surprisingly long and effective. Torture, while no less in vogue now than it was in the early '60s, doesn't get much screen time these days. What Godard does so well is show the banality of the torturers, who go about their work with half-hearted second-hand assertions about what is necessary in times like these.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Breathless (1960)
10/10
totally thrilling
11 January 2005
My suggestion is that you begin watching "Breathless" with minimum expectations and a massive amount of caffeine in your system. I suppose that in order to meet the "minimum expectations" part of the previous suggestion, you might have to quit reading this review, go see the movie, and come back here later.

No, seriously, go.

OK, still here? Good. Now, I don't have much of a background in the French New Wave - my thought is that many people use "Breathless" as an introduction to the French films of the '60s. Fair enough - it's among the more accessible pieces I've seen in my limited exploration, although not as rigorously inventive or well-made as a movie like Godard's "My Life to Live" or a couple of others. Some of the film's charm comes from its majestic documentary-style shots of Paris cityscapes, which are wonderful but not entirely so different from a PBS travelogue.

What it IS, on the other hand, is one of the more fascinating, nihilistic, romantic films ever made. Michel and Patricia, the doomed semi-couple at the heart of the film, are two of the least appealing human beings ever to take up screen time. Michel, a petty thief who kills a cop at the beginning of the movie, is irritatingly pretentious, manipulative, and amorally violent in a way that the film does not excuse so much as shrug at. Patricia, an American student, is vapid, overly compliant, and completely capricious in her decisions - she seems to spend most of the film demanding attention from Michel while completely avoiding any sort of commitment or meaningful connection.

This having been said, these are among the most believable characters I've ever seen, despite their irredeemable awfulness. Part of this is that both actors are extraordinarily, uniquely attractive - Belmondo looks like a French Kennedy, while Jean Seberg is - well, she's Jean Seberg in "Breathless". She's like a composite model of cool, cosmopolitan beauty. My point is, though, that the characters make sense as Godard's vision of how some beautiful people act - the sense of entitlement that comes along with having immense surface charm.

The movie's piece de resistance, of course, is the 20-minute long conversation that Michel and Patricia have in and out of bed in Patricia's apartment. It's a movie unto itself, a mix of hipster non sequitirs and emotional gamesmanship that takes on a kinetic quality - if there's a more watchable conversation scene outside of a few Woody Allen movies, I guess I haven't seen it.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed