Breathless (1960)

 Jean-Luc Godard's "Breathless"

Whether or not Jean-Luc Godard's 1960 masterpiece "Breathless" started the new wave movement is a moot point. I personally see Agnes Varda's 1955 film "La Pointe Courte" as being the ignition point for this phenomenon. Others view it as Francois Tuffaut's more subdued 1959 film "The 400 Blows." Regardless, there's no denying that cinema as a whole changed completely after Godard's "Breathless." As the Criterion summary of the film says, "There was before 'Breathless,' and there was after 'Breathless." 

"Breathless" is considered a 'thriller' in story, but doesn't really play much like a 'thriller.' It tells the story of Michel, a youthful and dangerous criminal who models himself on the film persona of Humphrey Bogart. After killing a policeman and fleeing, he turns to an American love interest, Patricia, a student and journalist. The two spend the day together. Eventually, Patricia realizes that Michel is a wanted fugitive from justice. After turning him in, the police shoot Michel in the street.

Such a plot on paper would not seem to raise any eyebrows or offer some to remark on the film's majestic qualities. The power of the film does not rely on the script. In fact, Godard wrote much of the script on the exact shooting days of those particular scenes. He wanted to make the film feel more like a documentary and more freeform. The single narrative of a fugitive on the run is the only piece of important information required to follow along. That, as well as the romantic connection shared by the two protagonists. 

The film's grandeur comes from the visual language of the film. Godard does not hold back from the experimentation with shot framing, editing, camera placement, etc. Watching the film feels like you're watching visual jazz. As I'm writing this, I feel myself becoming underwhelmed with the explanation for the way the visual film operates, as no words could put it into justice. No explanation of the film seems necessary. Only watching the film will remedy this curiosity. 

I would instead like to focus on my emotional response to this enigmatic film. I intellectually understand the creative visual explosion of "Breathless." I understand the freeform ideas that created such a cataclysmic event in the visual language of cinema. It was visual jazz, it was completely free of conventional restraints that are normally imposed on the cinematic language. Godard has completely broken the door open and allowed film to be entirely whatever it wanted to be. Visual language was now radical and experimental. I understand all of that. Rather, I don't understand the film itself. That's not to say I don't find incredible admiration and value in the film. On the contrary, I feel far more connected to it because I don't quite understand it.

To me, there are many ideas to explore within the film. Like our protagonist, Michel, the film feels both incredibly restless while also remaining very calm and confident. The 'breathless' nature of the film, to me, lies in being swept away by Michel's carelessness and on-the-run necessity. The film is playful and rebellious. It simply doesn't care. There's a certain detachment in the film, while also having a certain attachment to external things. In all these ways, the film feels full of paradoxes and contradictions. 

Michel and Patricia both connect very deeply with things in their life - Michel with his films and Patricia with her philosophy and art. These external arts impose themselves on the characters through their behavior and topics of discussion. However, it also seems like the characters never feel completely attached to much of anything. Their detachment is in regard to both themselves and everything around them. Their philosophies are so scattered and all over the place, coming from all different external sources, that they find it harder and harder to actually adhere to a single philosophy at all. This causes all of their actions to be thoughtless passivity. 

In this way, the film feels very modern. In fact, it feels post-modern. There is so much we're inundated with, that it can feel difficult to connect to much of anything or adhere to any formal practice. Our modern society seems to grow more and more detached to any sense of 'self' and instead, attaches themselves to the external 'art' that exists around them, replacing others' emotions with their own. The language of our lives is a borrowed language from external art. Godard, who was a film critic before venturing into filmmaking himself, has been inundated with film and art much of his life. The film can be seen, in my opinion, as an extension of his viewpoints of art and life. 

All of these views are simply my own individual examination and interpretation of the film. I firmly believe that many others can come away from the film with entirely different interpretations that are equally valid. In fact, this is what makes "Breathless" and the New Wave that followed such monumental pieces of cinematic art. It's a completely free piece of art that explores the varied contents of our world and of our human spirit. It's a post-modern look at the nature of art itself. It is a whimsical, yet cold view of two humans as the glide through a series of circumstance as they face moral decisions and speak about these decisions through the lens of art and philosophy. It is a film about film. It is a film about ourselves. Above all, it is a film about....