I apologize. Jean-Luc Godard’s landmark French New Wave film Breathless has left me totally confused and resonating with clarity.
Or does it?
I am indeed Breathless.
But is it a good breathless or a bad breathless?
Breathless has the feel of a documentary, but some of the contrivances and unnecessary film edits never let you forget it’s a movie.
Is he trying to say something about the duality of man?
Godard tries to make his film different than anything that came before it, but he openly embraces traditional Hollywood films.
Round up the usual suspects, but ignore them.
Important plot points, like the killing of the police officer that has the main character on the run are rushed through and scenes with inconsequential small talk linger and linger.
What is he running from again?
This film is now 50 years old. Has anybody really figured it out yet? A lot of people have, but nobody has.
I’m in a morass of confusion. I am not ready to commit an opinion on this.
What does Ebert say? What did Gerald Mast say again? What does the blogsophere say?
No, No. Forget all that. I’ve got to work this out on my own.
One film isn’t enough.
I've got to see more Godard.
Which is good.
And bad.
I’m honestly in a quandary. Have I already said morass?
Everything seems so inconsequential, yet so substantial and full of meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment