Åndeløs
I guess I
am a bit stupid. Or dense. Or just conservative. Watching “A bout de soufflé” I
kept asking myself, what is it I am supposed to love about this movie, what is
so special that really ought to be super excited? I am through the movie and
the extra material and I still have not come up with an answer. I do not hate
this movie, but it does very little for me. Critics swoon over it so I must be,
well, a bit stupid.
“A bout de
soufflé” is supposed to be the movie that started the French new wave in
cinema. It was a collaboration of all the filmmakers that made a name for
themselves in France throughout the sixties and honestly that may be its claim
to fame, as the starting point for all these people: Godard, Truffaut, Chabrol
etc.
It is a
rambling sort of movie, cheaply done using almost exclusively location shots
and hand held equipment. The dialogue is not improvised, but seem often random,
stylized at times, but also natural. That is all very nice but hardly new. The
Italians started this 15 years earlier and Cassavete’s “Shadows” is far more
out there than “A bout de soufflé” ever goes.
Then there
is the story of a charming crook, Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo) who wants to be
Humphrey Bogart and spends his time looking cool, picking up girls and steal
and swindles friends and foes. He even kills a policeman. Michel hangs out with
an American student journalist, Patricia (Jean Seberg) and much of the movie is
dialogue between the two of them. I am not sure what to make of that. Is this a
theme of ultimate freedom and rebellion, sort of a “Thelma and Louise” story?
Or maybe “Natural Born Killers”? Could be. Or maybe a theme on sexual freedom,
that you are free to choose who you want, and with that free love you get into
the confusion of sex and love. Clearly Michel and Patricia have very different
positions on that and those positions the movie makes a lot out of. Patricia
would say something to the effect of her position and Michel would answer by
not answering at all but saying something entirely irrelevant to what Patricia
was saying. Yet the two of them are inexplicably drawn to each other.
Inexplicably
I say because although the movie makes a lot out of Michel’s charms you really
do not have to look very far to realize he is a despicable character, not so
much through his talk, stupid as it is, but simply through his actions. The man
is an asshole and Patricia is way too smart not to realize that. So what does
she want with him? It is my guess that she does not even know herself.
Certainly when she turns him in she explains it as a test on if she really
cares for him.
So, yeah,
an examination of love and attraction is as close to a theme as I think we get
here. Unfortunately as I cannot see what she wants with him in the first place,
expect for his Belmondo lips, the theme is lost on me. She is playing with fire
and he loves himself too much to really care about her. Not a good basis for a
love story.
All is not
lost however. Even I can find something of value here, though it is mostly in
the detail. I love that the move was filmed in the real Paris and not in some
studio version. The streets very not poor and grimy nor romantically bohemian.
They were simply streets in Paris and that felt like a window into reality. At
some point they were listening to Radio Luxembourg and that was what everybody
in Europe did at the time. When the big radio stations were slow to adopt the
new music you could always find it on Radio Luxembourg.
Of course
Jean Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg became big, romantic stars and as the movie
where their careers began “A bout de soufflé” deserves some credit I suppose.
It is just not enough for me. Having a narcissistic criminal and a girl too
smart to be there discussing love and sex for an hour and a half just does not
cut it. In 1959 that was probably pretty awesome, but in 2016 this is just
lame.
You are in for a rough decade of Godard.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably the only film of his I enjoyed, and I'm actually a little afraid to revisit it in case I end up hating it like I hate almost every other films of his I've seen. That should say enough about Godard and his so-called craft, though it certainly won't be enough because holy god in all heavens and then some does Godard love to watch people talk.
Ughh... I was afraid of that. I have noticed that the sixties are particularly heavy on this type of movies. Well, nothing to do but to sit through it.
DeleteI had a similar reaction. I don't love the French New Wave; the most I could say is I appreciate the techniques it introduced to film. But this film are the epitome of "cool," which is something I am very much not.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind it is a misunderstood cool. Or a cool that is not cool at all. How on earth a narcisistic gangster can be considered cool, especially when we can see what he is doing, is just beyond me.
DeleteI think this is a film that's more important than good. I say that as someone with a weird connection to Jean Seberg.
ReplyDeleteI will have to find out about that connection. Are you related?
DeleteImportant, probably. Good, hardly.
This movie and Band of Outsiders are the only two Godard films I can tolerate. He is all about style. I like style and cinematography but, if you can believe it, his other movies are even more vacuous than this one. I say this as a fan of Truffaut and a budding fan of Chabrol.
ReplyDeleteSounds worse and worse. I understand I have to brace myself for some really terrible Godard. Ugh...
DeleteWith the Godard films, I watched most of them fairly closely together which I think helped with my appreciation of them. I really like Alphaville and Weekend(I hated it the first thirty minutes in before it hooked me)I think is a true classic! That being said, I think eight Godard films (I think that's the number)on the list is a bit much. I think four or five would have sufficed.
ReplyDeleteAs Breathless and Alphaville are the only Godard movie I have ever watched I cannot (yet) generalize. I hope there will be something to get from all those entries, but based on these two movies my hopes are not too high.
DeleteJean Seberg is cute and the camera vibrant, although I agree the film is not as great as its reputation. The girl finds aimless main character Michel to be dangerous and mysterious, I find him to be shallow and unlikeable. If I was able to understand her interest in Michel, I might like the film more. But I guess I will never fully understand how a woman's mind works (:
ReplyDeleteYes, it felt like a very odd pairing, no? She is way to smart for him and he is a complete jackass.
Delete