My advice: watch it like a movie that just came out, not as a “really important and heady film”. If not, you might miss the whole concept is funny - it’s about a French guy who looks like bogart who watches American films and wishes he was American, who falls in love with an American who wishes she was French.

I love Breathless but I think my interpretation is different than most - to me it’s about the meaningless of art, how the main characters drift aimlessly because they model their lives after superficial understandings of the other gleaned from media. Also there’s an artist character who iirc explicitly says that art is meaningless. But yeah its a difficult watch, it’s almost an easier watch if you watch it superficially since it’s so well shot.

No promises, but I would recommend trying Weekend (1967). I felt the same way about Breathless for a long time, until I watched it the third time and it just "clicked." It's easy to take that film way too seriously and miss the point.

That said, I don't really know why I've watched so many Godard films, since I almost never actually enjoy them (the reason is probably Anna Karina et al. hnngh). Still, he was undoubtedly a genius and I have the uttermost respect for his craft. RIP.

I didn't really care for the characters in Breathless either, but I did really enjoy seeing how avante garde (for the time) the filmmaking was with fast cuts, hand held camera, etc. It looks like a modern TV or streaming show but you have to remember this was 1960 and _no one_ was making stuff that looked like that (the big hollywood films were John Wayne westerns, huge epics like Ben Hur, etc.). It's pretty amazing that Godard pioneered a style that we all see and take for granted today.

It's been a while since I've seen it but I remember liking Masculine Feminine more than Breathless, at least liking the characters in it more. Give it a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRiVKoW18Fw

As always, an Ebert review will help you at least set the table for the discussion about it. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-breathless-19...

Excellent critic, thanks!

>and it was insufferable watching this complete jerk mope his way around.

Well, the key is not to let some rigid moralistic sentiments color the experience.

Cinema is for experiencing the point of view and lives of other people. Not for watching behaviors we already approve of.

I didn’t approve of what Raskolnikov did, yet I could empathize with him thanks to the writer’s prowess. I don’t see why cinema would be different than literature. The guy in Breathless was a jerk and the director failed to make the audience empathize with him.

The director didn't want you to take pity on the guy or feel morally superior to him. He wanted to you to see his viewpoint and his experience.

With Rascolnicoff, Dostoyevsky wanted from the start to condemn the ideas he had (and his actions).

> He wanted to you to see his viewpoint and his experience.

I don't think the protagonist has a viewpoint. My impression was that he was a random jerk. Why did I watch a movie about a random jerk who is not worth paying attention to. It was definitely a waste of time. If wasting my time was the intention of the director, then I would say that he succeeded.

Well, art cinema is not for everybody

Yep, that's what I said to those who found my movie stupid.

Well, if it wasn't stupid, you'd be right to tell them that.

More often than not, it's the audience that's stupid, especially the average viewer.

Which is also why e.g. the Monkeys sold more than Miles Davis, and Bieber more than any number of much higher quality pop.

I'm striking out with Jean-Luc Godard. I've seen seven of his films now from the "1001 Films to See Before You Die" and have found them all tedious.

It's too bad because there are parts of each that can stay with you like the "car scene" in "Week-End". But often they are peopled with unlikeable characters, have a meandering plot that feels made-up on the spot, are punctuated with obtuse poetry....

I appreciate what he did for cinema in showing all the things that it could be, but perhaps I like some of the films from other directors influenced by him that instead struck something of a balance.

Try Éric Rohmer for a different taste of French New Wave. He’s most well known for My Night at Maud's which is part of his “Six Moral Tales”, but my favorite of them is La Collectionneuse.

I subscribed to Criterion a while back just to watch all six.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ric_Rohmer_filmography

Highly recommend "l'Amie de mon Ami", my favorite Rohmer. "Maud" is probably second.

Any movie that’s someone’s favorite movie is one I’ll watch. So, watching it tonight. Thanks for the rec.

The only one of “Comedies and Proverbs” that I’ve seen so far is The Green Ray which is a very sweet film.

I hope you like it!

Thanks. I enjoyed it. That was a long setup for the final scene. I have to wonder if the outfits was Rohmer’s doing or if the actors decided to play a trick on him and he kept it in.

I still prefer the Six Moral Tales and La Collectionneuse remains my favorite Rohmer.

I think I particularly like this film because it is a highly structured story around feelings that can be illogical. The Green Ray is an improvised film, so the polar opposite in a way!

I don’t guess you’ll see this but on the off chance you do, you got me started watching the Rohmer films again and I just watched A Summer’s Tale. What a delight of a film.

Yes that's another great one. Often shown on French TV as one of the more "modern" Rohmers, and because viewers tend to appreciate the aesthetics of that film (Brittany, M. Poupaud)

If you like improvised films, you might enjoy Mike Leigh. His films are very heavy though. I don't know if I have a favorite, but Happy-Go-Lucky is as good to start with as any. His films are more structured in that he workshops them with the actors first, so maybe they are more a collaboration than improvised.

Why would you watch seven movies from a director you dont enjoy? I can understand giving a director a second chance, but seven?

Well, I suppose it's possible I need to ease into his style and one film might not do it. But in fact I'm a completist and all 7 are included among the "1001 Films to See Before you Die". So I suffer 6 more because I want to see all the films in the list.

Now, despite not enjoying his films (and others in the "1001" list, c'mon Warhol!) I was in fact able to appreciate that he has died and the impact he had made on cinema (whether I enjoyed his work or not). So I suppose I look at "1001 Films" as my "film school" class. (That has been going on for several years now, ha ha — and I'm only just closing out the 1960's.) I'm less film-stupid than I was a few years ago — maybe still not erudite (?) enough to appreciate New Wave though.

Thats a really weird way to work, if it doesnt click with you just move on, life is too short to follow some other's ideas and values. Being completionist may not be the best direction if it drags you like that.

Especially since you are getting consistent feedback from your own sub-consiousness. Or just go with the masses and watch top imdb rated ones if lists must be

I did not watch Breathless, but the feeling you describe reminds me of what I experienced watching La Piel Que Habito by Pedro Amlodóvar (a loose adaptation of a novel: Mygale by Thierry Jonquet).

It was an incredibly difficult movie for me to watch, the amount of psychological violence was so unbearable I barely made it to the end, couldn't help but think what could possibly go through the mind of the writer to give birth to such a twisted story.

(Note that Breathless has Godard for direction and screenplay but the story is Truffaut and Chabrol)

oh yes that Almodóvar movie was really weird. I remember feeling a bit nauseous in the end.

Why do you want to? If you prefer movies about likable characters overcoming challenges and setbacks but eventually prevailing due to their core of goodness, then there are plenty of great movies to watch. This is just not Godard.

Well, people whose opinions I respect say they're great movies and there's a lot to appreciate about them, so I suppose I'm wondering if there's a way I could learn to enjoy them more. The responses here have been helpful!

I really enjoy Koyaanisqatsi but I can understand how someone else might not like it at first, but perhaps enjoy it more after the theme and intended meaning become more clear.

Eh, “moping insufferable jerk” and “good, likable overcomer” can be thought of as ends on a potentially broad spectrum of character types. Perhaps the commenter doesn’t care for either.

I would suggest looking into Pierrot le Fou, and Bande à Part (Band of Outsiders in NA).

It's the only one I've watched and that stopped me from watching more of his movies, it just bored me so much, I wonder if all his movies are at the same pace or if I should give another try to `A bout de souffle`.

Pierrot le Fou was the one that clicked with me. I’d already appreciated Breathless, Contempt, and Bande a Part but I didn’t feel a lot of emotional connection to them. Pierrot le Fou delighted me.

Can’t say why, but in part perhaps his use of color and in part I’d been reading a lot on the Algerian War at the time, so there was some resonance there. I think it’s also just lighter in spirit, despite some serious themes.

Try Pierrot le fou, Contempt, Alphaville... However Breathless is (one of?) the easiest of Godard's movies.

Notice that you're supposed to suffer to watch many of his movies. It's part of the experience, to prove that you're part of the intellectual elite that "gets it".

If you are suffering watching Breathless and Pierrot le fou, I feel a bit sad for you.

I'm not, but for some of his movies it's obviously part of the project.

His films take apart the mannerisms of film and French society. anti-intellectual shots at him are only a lost opportunity to know a moving, meaningful artist

In fact it's the opposite: I'm a staunch intellectual, snob Frenchman. I can't stand brain-damaged Hollywood entertainment (I'd rather stand 2 hours under the rain than watching any Avengers movie). The cultural gap may require time and effort to cross to be able to appreciate Godard (or Bergman, or Rohmer, ...) when you're into mass culture.

LOL, this reminded me of Gene Hackman's character in Night Moves on Rohmer:

https://vimeo.com/8688973

attempt to scramble to the top of some crumbled European high-cultural ground to throw stones at low culture is just as dumb as being dismissive of Godard

but, that said, i was responding to the parent comment and accidentally got nested under you

Probably still the best piece introducing him is by Craig Keller (@evillights) for the Senses of Cinema's Great Directors series: https://archive.ph/ncWrG

I've only seen Bande à Part, but found it charming.

"Contempt" is much more accessible and enjoyable.

I’ve watched a significant amount of his 60’s output and yeah…he’s pretty insufferable and sexist. Brilliant and innovative, sure, but the man could not write a film without deeply unlikable characters and an incoherent plot. The closest he got was Vivre Sa Vie which has some really poignant moments with Anna Karina.

IMO Eric Rohmer and Agnes Varda are more my style. Rohmer can be rather talk-y but that’s not necessarily bad. Definitely influenced the Woody Allen/Noah Baumbach school of directing.

Edit: And don’t feel guilty if you don’t care for Godard. Great filmmakers like Werner Hertzog and Ingmar Bergman shared your views. Hertzog famously said he’d prefer a good Kung fu movie. Which in fairness, I’m not sure Godard would have objected; he did love his B movies.