For instance, dubbing is a travesty in a medium that relies on the dramatic value of dialogue. I would not have anyone tamper with the shape and tone of the dialogue even if it were in another language.

You approach Breathless from a fixed position. While knowing your own mind may have been a critical good in the early 18th century, canonical and restrictive views of art are now out-of-place. That is why your critique will earn both vociferous support and violent criticism - it is because your position is obviously closed. Instead of giving us quiet insights that allow us to form our own opinion, you have given us rhetoric. The same mistake Godard made sometimes. I, for my part, ignore the rhetoric, and find that the film still serves me wonderfully. Why?

Your ideas on ‘realistic character development’ signify a fixed idea of the human, of what human beings are expected to do. I consider that a myth, a myth that filmmakers have propagated down the ages. That a Phyllis Dietrichson must be evil to lead an originally flawed Walter Neff astray is exactly the kind of false reality film conveys. You seem to prize it, and I prize it too - film’s capacity to sustain an illusion is a wonderful thing. But is it therefore the only thing that film must do? That is like saying becoming President of the USA is a wonderful achievement, and everyone should be gunning for the post. No. Please allow film and filmmakers their freedom.

And not only freedom of intention, which you do allow them (by not caring for it, and I agree with you there). Ignore intention, but please do not ignore the way Breathless constructs its own language. Try and follow the thread of its own reasoning, as it is presented (and not as critics present it, or as Godard himself presents it). I found in the film many valuable moments - the stuff you called mundane was for me insights and recollections of similar situations, a case of almost watching yourself from a detached perspective and understanding how you behave. The long sequence in Seberg’s apartment is wonderful because it is not staged reality. It is as real as any afternoon that you and I have spent; the conversations falter and the characters are as unable to understand each other as people usually are. And Seberg’s character is real because it houses contradictions.

Some of us may view film as a medium of escape from our lives, or even as a chance to arrive at some exalted, or aesthetic, or simplified world. Some of us expect films to be as honest as possible so we can rely on the artist’s insights. The rigour in question is of artistic integrity, because artists are master illusionists. I’ll only trust an artist who will use illusion to show me reality, and yet make reality pungent and extra-mundane by giving me the benefit of his insight. An artist who uses illusion to completely transport me is a very skilled illusionist - and I’ll love him for it - but I will not rely on him or believe in him.

And yet for me both are artists, and as a critic I will deeply consider both their projects; I will make an attempt to understand them and break into their meaning. That attempt I find lacking. Always remember a critic is a nobody who talks, like I am talking right now. The artist is the one who creates, the one who’s doing the real work. Even as a viewer I would ask people to give the artist a chance, to really listen to him instead of imposing their own beliefs on him as part of their judgment. My problem with you is at a very human level. I don’t think you have bothered to understand the film at all, and have summarily dismissed it on account of its most surface appearances.

I would have given examples, but considering your review was theoretical with no close detail, I can’t be bothered to comment on it. I am doing a paper on the film at present; I will send it to you if you like.

What I gleaned from your review is that you percieve the art of intent to be a negative characteristic - of both cinema and of filmmakers - but that while holding this belief you simultaneously practice the opposite extreme in your criticism.

Is there no respectable middle ground?

–Mark

That’s all I need to read to know I’m wasting my time reading your reviews. Don’t bother replying, I won’t be coming back.

But, he got better. Contempt, while not great, is leagues above it. And Louis Malle was better’n both Godard & Truffaut.

It can be argued that American and European Cinema could do with a New Wave today as well.

Godard is basically doing what Rossellini already did almost a decade before: Making “ugly” movies that throw traditional Hollywood filmaking out the window.

Rossellini, in “PaisÁ ”, created something Sublime. Godard, in “a bout de souffle” created something Juvenile.

But the theory behind these two directors are very similar (although the practice is different. One must not forget that Rossellini hates Hitchcock, Godard idealizes him).

This is quite comprehensible, after all Truffaut worked on Rossellini’s side before making his own films and brings these theories across the border into France.

Godard makes “A Bout de Souffle” as a parody, a homage, a divertissement but more than anything he makes it as a “Manifesto”. An example of destructive cinematography, where everything that a movie “must not do” is happily done, over and over again.

It’s quite o.k. not to like this movie because, in fact, it is not a good movie.

It’s an emblematic movie.

You are practicing the criticism of intent. Homage or not, it fails.

John: ‘And the Jerry Lewis joke was completely uncalled for.’

Same could be said of this ‘homage.’

Godard was making a statement with this film (But I’ll agree that this alone doesn’t make it in any way “good”). He was “rubbing it in the face” of critics and audiences alike, I would even go so far as to say that he was deliberately stirring up an uproar if only to bring more publicity to the then rampant “Nouvelle Vague”.

Godard was also filming on a tight budget, this is the real reson behind his “jump cutting” (if a scene came out badly he couldn’t afford to redo it, he would just cut out the bad part and stick the ends of the good parts together) and his “handheld camera” style.

The storyline, on the other hand, is openly ironic and has only grown moreso with the outdated fashions.

The jump from Interdiegetic to Extradiegetic music is just as ironic, and plays with the fact that the movie itself was completely filmed without sound (the entire film was completely dubbed and even reimprovised in studio, much inspired by Jean Renoir’s experiences with the same techinique).

All in all I find this film bad, very bad, but in a cute way. All in all I enjoy it.

And the Jerry Lewis joke was completely uncalled for.

As for your other logorrhea, was that you or Homer Simpson who said, ‘D’oh!’?

2. So, Godard has lost all sense of your opinion of art. I’m sure he’d be torn up to hear that.

3. I guess when one sees a universally canonized film (not even Breathless necessarily) and finds it completely beyond them, one feels the need to concoct a simple, easy-to-swallow definition of art. At least you’ve been successful in that.

4. Anything that can be boiled down into one sentence is essentially a rant. Your “review” on Breathless is: “Godard thinks he’s a smarty pants but he really isn’t nah nah ne nah nah”.

5. Sorry to deflate your hero bro. Compare him to anything, guy’s got two great films, tops.

6. I also grew out of thinking girls were “icky”. Neither had anything to do with peer pressure.

7. This is such posturing. You barely even mention anything visual in your “review”.

8. A chain of events in a cause and effect relationship occuring over time and in space. Hope you’re satisfied, I don’t normally do requests.

10. I can, and they about equal yours (Here’s a tip: might wanna put a question mark at the end of a question, yes?)

1) In criticism, I do not deal with like nor dislike, but good or bad. I like some bad art, I dislike some good art, but I recognize the difference between the two.

2) My view of Breathless is certainly not from Wikipedia- an example of Lowest Common Denominator thinking. It’s from the film. Godard is so manifest in what he is trying to do, that he has lost all sense of what I state in the opening paragraph.

3)His intent is meaningless. Ironically, the schlock films of an Ed Wood are far more cogent a commentary on then contemporary culture because he and his films embodied it, and did not masturbatorily think himself superior to his time. Again, intent is meaningless, and if you understood as much of art and film as you claim, you would know this, and not be so entranced by such a puerile work of art.

4) My review was not a rant- your post is. Nor is it anti-intellectual, it’s anti-effete art. One need not know the Three Tenors’ entire catalog to understand when Placido hits a bum note. Fortunately, Godard seemed to improve somewhat- unlike Cocteau, for Le Petit Soldat is a bit better, albeit still very weak, and Contempt is a pretty good film- if not great.

5) Re: Kubrick, I’m comparing him to American directors- it’s called reading.

6) As for growing out of Kubrick- so, you’re saying that you are so still influenced by peer pressure that you do not think independently. Got that from Post 1. Fer sure, dude.

7) Where do i state I refuse to watch subtitled films. In a visual medium, subtitles are like tape over the Mona Lisa’s mouth. Dubbing is superior. Again, read before responding.

8) Define narrative.

9) My right to comment on anything is from the Constitution (look on Wikipedia), but not from Wikipedia.

10) Can you count your grammar errors? If so, is it more than these enumerated points?

If so, you’ve graduated to Neolith 201!