No one has reviewed this yet?

I watched this last night for my French New Wave class. It's certainly.... interesting. I'll have a full review up sometime tonight, I have to gather my thoughts on it and hammer out a grade.

uh
oh

Four letters, kypade? Oh well, at least it's an improvement.

It really is an interesting film. It's certainly an exercise in style over substance, as the real 'meat' of the story is expressed through the camera work and the images. The narrative itself is pretty much second to the visual aspect. That's not to say there isn't a solid story, because there is, but the film's not about that at all. If one were to ignore all the technical and artistic aspects and just focus on the plot and characters, they probably wouldn't like it very much. The story is meandering and doesn't seem to fit all together; the characters are mostly unlikeable; the ending is certainly weak. Yet I loved the film.

At once both a homage to and a mockery of film-noir, the film requires of its audience a certain cinematic knowledge. For instance, Michel's idolization of Bogart would be lost on someone completely unfamiliar with Bogart or his films. The exaggerated quirks (such as the lip rubbing) that the actor Belmondo adds to his character may seem irrelevant or annoying to an ignorant viewer, but it is essential to the film. The genre conventions are there, but twisted and revised and updated; everything from the femme fatale to the dark ending is intact. The jazzy score only adds to this feeling. For a lover of film-noir, this is a must-see.

When it comes to the direction of a film, this is as good as it gets. Godard's famous use of jump cuts is perfectly utilized, energizing scenes that would otherwise be static. The alternation between quick, flashy editing and steady long takes is effective at reflecting the main character's actions and nature. There are no boring scenes in this film, as one can just admire the camera work when the dialogue becomes meaningless. And there are many instances when the dialogue does nothing to further the story, but the direction makes up for that.

As a newcomer to the French New Wave, I have no idea what the majority of films in this movement are like. If they are half as stylish, innovative, energetic, goofy, and wild as this film, I'm sure I will enjoy them all. As it stands now, this is a terrific piece of art film and a landmark in post-modern cinema.

i admit, you win. :O
your initial post tho, had me worried...far too much vagueness and (seemingly) indifference. glad my fears were unfounded.

It's a lot easier to review a film after discussing it in class, especially one of this nature. I admit, my judgement of the film went up after the in-class discussion.

This is one of the few things that still makes a film school environment semi-relevant. The discourse you have with fellow movie buffs after a great film is second to none. That, and the networking opportunities.

But seriously, Criterion has the same impact as intense discourse. Their DVDs could make you see the seminal artistic merit in John Leguizamo's The Pest.

As for the movie at hand, not my favorite Godard, but it's impossible to deny the sheer impact its had on the film community. So much has been written and discussed, it's virtually impossible to say something new about it.

What I liked most about this the movie is how natural everything feels. Both the dialogue and interaction between characters, as well as the jostling streets and setting, feel totally real. It's a complete antidote to the wooden stage acting that most older American movies suffer from. This is mostly thanks to Godard, with some of the best editing I've seen in a film, and the actors of course.

It's definitley a film where although the noir plotline itself runs secondary, I do think the characters themselves and their mediations on love and existence do have the "meat" trixster alluded to as being absent. The bedroom scene is probably the highlight of the movie for me, I just thought everything from the dialogue to the facial expressions were played out perfectly throughout the entire moment, and you can see how movies like Before Sunset and Once were inspired by such a simple full act in the film. The screenplay is pretty electric and once again, it just feels like two people genuinely talking.

I think it's interesting how the main character is a twist on the regular cinematic noir lead. He's not really a "good" or heroic guy, in fact he's pretty much a hornball, but that almost makes him seem more real. People have faults, you know. The girl too, of course.

My only complaint would be the ending was a bit... I dunno, it left a bad taste in my mouth. I think I would've liked it better if they just handcuffed him and drove away, the whole shooting thing and death on the streets felt out of place. But maybe it'll grow on me on repeated viewings.

Anyways, I loved this a lot. It's definitley a film I could see myself rewatching in the future.

4.5/5

Oh, and I'm also in love with Jean Seberg... That's the girl I wanna marry, even if she is a philanderer. I'll take it.

Glad you liked it Shack, but...



I didn't really say that the film was lacking in substance, just that the substance was expressed through the camerawork, not the story.

Got it from netflix, but my New Wave education will start tonight.

Excellent indeed. I actually don't mind the ending, but rather like the irony that his friend was trying to help him by throwing him the gun but instead contributed to his death even though he had no intention of using it.

I don't think I got it.

Going back to trixster's review: "an exercise of style over substance:"
While I agree that the style is certainly what has been most influential about the film, and that there's not much importance given to the narrative, Godard's main interest seems to me to be characterization, largely through stylistic methods (rather than narrative), but also through dialogue. The problem with the characterizations is, at least with Patricia, that we can't really draw many conclusions about her, and since Belmondo's doubly named character is so simple (basically, implicit in that he has two names), we revert to praising this film for its style rather than its substance.

But then yeah...I can't really get much out of analyzing Patricia. Is she in it for the ride, or does she have feelings for him? When she chases after him once he's shot, is she curious or regretful? And when she needs a translation of his final words, this dichotomy still exists. She's not really a typical femme fatale...there's something more genuinely indifferent about the implications of her actions on others: she's not getting revenge, she's not enabling herself in any way.

There's a sort of contradiction in the style: both the editing and constant references (especially to art and film) are shortcuts to cut out "the boring parts" and get straight to the point...but then the point of this film is not at all the action or plot. As much as it draws from but also condemns Noir, it does the same with Italian Neo-Realism, both employing its techniques but reversing its perspective. In many ways, this film feels a Sparknotes version of itself, with a couple chapters here and there read in full, but we ultimately don't know whether we're missing important parts are not. Oh wow...i think I'm making a case that this film IS style over substance, but I still don't feel that it is. Meh...maybe I'm just trying to study its importance as "Art" rather than as "Art History," because in the former sense, it certainly is harder.

It's funny, I'd probably disagree with the me of a year ago (funny how much film opinion changes in just a year) in that it's "an exercise of style over substance", since that's not really a fair qualification. I'd say it's more like an exercise of style AS substance, in that the form of the film contributes to its meaning, rather than the narrative, as was the case with most film I had seen up to that point. But with my cinematic education of the past year or so, I've come to understand that the 'style' of a film is not different from the 'substance' of a film - they are intricately and forcibly tied together. So yeah.

Anyways, I'm not really sure what you're saying about this film, nor do I know how to counter it. I don't think the characterizations are the most important parts of the film, I think it's the form and the shallow reflections of Hollywood genres that are at the forefront. It's basically Godard saying "man I love those noirs... I'm gonna make me one of those", but of course, since he's Godard, he has to fuck with it.

I dunno. I think I need to watch the film again.

I definitely agree with the " "I love those noirs" and then proceeding to fuck with it" mentality, but how he fucks with it, besides the obvious stylistic innovations, is in dissembling the characters into something completely different from their Noir archetypes.