It is truly remarkable how 70% of the dialog can be carried out on swearing and vulgar language and yet the film sustains the standard of something worth watching.

The plot takes place in what appears to be a Korean ghetto, where  loads of curses, a punch in the face and hard beating have somewhat replaced common expressions like “hello”, “goodbye”, “please” and “thank you”.

Nevertheless, between the industrial amounts of violent scenes, the viewer becomes acquainted with the main issue of the movie – domestic violence and the vicious circle it constructs. What at first strikes as a particularly thick and brutal character, the gangster Sang-Hoon, throughout the plot develops as the most complicated and intriguing one. His story illustrates the damage a broken family can do to its children and how they as grown-ups struggle not to repeat the same mistakes while at the same time being prone to the same type of violent behavior. Yang Ik-Joon plays his part excellently, revealing all the layers to an emotionally scarred sociopath, and even managing to get the public to sympathize with him at the end.

Another portrayal, deserving attention is that of teenage student Yeon-Hue, played by Kot-bi Kim. Despite this part being the debut for the actress, she handles her job magnificently and displays how the otherwise vulnerable personality of a young girl has to toughen in order to survive in her own violent world of constant struggle, loneliness, insult, and unappreciation.

To sum up, “Breathless” definitely deserves its 4 awards, because when a film has that much violence and vulgar language and still manages to actually be very serious and humane – you know it’s something worth seeing.

Every so often I’ve updated the list of films that I have already seen with brief reviews.  Call it the complete-ist in me, but when I’m done with reviewing each of the films in the book, I’d like to have reviewed every single film in the book.

Anyhow, here’s another batch for you to read.

Enjoy!

Shichinin No Samurai AKA Seven Samurai (1954)

The Seven Samurai is the first movie that I had the pleasure of seeing from the master director Akira Kurosawa, and it is also one of his most praised works. Without a wasted frame, the story takes place over the course of almost 3 hours. Kurosawa, as he does in each of his movies, explores more than just the action and injustice featured in the plot. He is a humanist first and foremost, training his lens on the interpersonal relationships of the characters, tracking growth across this epic. As good as this film is, I would have to say that Kurosawa has numerous films that are even better, check out Stray Dog, Rashomon, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and my personal favorite High and Low.

The Ladykillers (1955)

Existing as a special combination of dark humor, and slapstick farce, The Ladykillers is exceptionally funny and unsettling. Alec Guinness stars as the leader of a group of criminals staying at the home of a hardy, vivacious older lady under the guise of being musicians. The plan is simple, rob a bank, and utilizing the trusting nature of the kindly old lady, and the remoteness of her home to their advantage, get away with it. Easily my favorite of Alec Guinness’ films (thanks in part to the Star Wars prequels that is), The Ladykillers features a solid cast of great actors, including a very young Peter Sellers.

Bob Le Flambeur AKA Bob the Gambler (1955)

My introduction to the fantastic Jean-Pierre Melville, I was captivated immediately by the cool as ice gangster come gambler Bob. This film is filled with signature Melville-isms. Glorious post war street scenes in Paris. Trench-coats. Honor among thieves. And who could forget the caper. To talk too much about this film is to give too much away, and to do that is to ruin it for those who haven’t seen it. Other classics by Melville: Le Cercle Rouge, Le Samourai, and the recently released in the U.S. Army of Shadows. All are fantastic, and deserve to be in this book! Incidentally, Bob le Flambeur was recently re-made into The Good Thief starring Nick Nolte and directed by Neil Jordan, and while I’m not generally a fan of re-makes, I really, really liked this film. Not quite as good as the original, but it was one of my favorite films of 2002.

Kiss Me Deadly (1955)

The ultimate in hardboiled private eye crime stories, Kiss Me Deadly is a full on assault on decency. Kiss Me Deadly proudly presents itself as a grimy PI story, littered with bodies and intrigue. If you even have a passing interest in film noir, this should be your first stop. Violent, misogynist, brutish, and glorious, Kiss Me Deadly begs to be watched and dares you to look away. I myself, loved it!

The Ten Commandments (1956)

Apparently based on a book, The Ten Commandments is an epic in every sense of the word. Colored in bright explosive candy hues, and featuring huge sets, as well as a cast that number in the thousands, The Ten Commandments is more spectacle than great movie. Certainly not a waste of time, but not my first choice when choosing something light to throw in.

Det Sjunde Inseglet AKA The Seventh Seal (1957)

A classic, and well-loved film by Swedish auteur Ingmar Bergman, The Seventh Seal stars an extremely young Max von Sydow as a knight who faces Death at a game of chess to decide his fate. This film is filled with themes that find their way into each of Bergman’s works, ranging from courage in the face of death, religion, and humanity. The Seventh Seal still holds up to this day, with luminous black and white photography that, thanks to Criterion’s Blu-ray edition, has never looked better.

Note: Don’t be fooled by the similarly themed, but much worse, “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey”

Kumonosu Jo AKA Throne of Blood (1957)

Kurosawa’s retelling of Macbeth set in feudal Japan. Shakespeare has never looked better as it does in the stark black and white, twisting shadows and swirling mists as seen through Kurosawa’s camera. Toshiro Mifune doesn’t disappoint in the lead role, but the real stand out is Isuzu Yamada in the as Mifune’s opportunistic, poisonous wife. The plotting and scheming starts right from the get go, all the way up till the frenzied end of the film.

Touch of Evil (1958)

One of the many trouble spots on Orson Welles’ resume due to studio interference, and financing issues, still Touch of Evil remains as possibly the best B-Movie ever made. Iconic (and sometimes hilarious) performances by Janet Leigh, Charlton Heston (as a Mexican) and Welles himself as the crooked cop willing to do almost anything to ensure justice prevails (just so long as it’s his justice). The movie is almost as famous for its long tracking shot opening as it is for any of the performances, featuring a nearly 4 minute shot done in one take which travels around cars, actors, and buildings. The film The Player, payed homage to it by mentioning it a few times during a similarly complex shot in that film.

Vertigo (1958)

Flopping on its initial release, Vertigo didn’t gain the acclaim it deserved until much later after it was released on video. Vertigo visits themes present in each of Hitchcock’s other works, including the obsession with blondes, innocence tainted with corruption, and the schlub who get in over his head. Jimmy Stewart plays the schlub, Kim Novak plays the blonde, and gloriously technicolored San Francisco plays the innocence and the corruption. Vertigo has a twisty convoluted story with elements of surrealism, an interesting watch.

Mon Oncle AKA My Uncle (1958)

My favorite of Jacques Tati’s Monsieur Hulot films, Mon Oncle was also the first of them that I had seen. Tati, playing Hulot, is a master of visual comedy, and not in the same way as the Three Stooges, or even Buster Keaton. Tati is an artist whose work is appreciated the longer you watch. The plot of the movie is not so much important to the film as it is simply a guide to get our characters into interesting situations so we can watch them get out. If you liked this film, check out other films featuring the bumbling Mr. Hulot, including Trafic, Playtime, and Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot.

Les Quatre Cents Coups AKA The 400 Blows (1959)

My personal favorite of the French new wave movement was this small-scale film, personal piece from Francois Truffaut. Featuring the director’s alter ego, Antoine Doinel, The 400 Blows is the first in a series of movies, each about a different stage of life and the challenges that go along with them. The period from childhood to young adult is covered heart-breakingly here, following Antoine through the rough waters of his home life and his interaction with the outside world. Later chapters deal with finding love, getting married, having children, and growing old, but Les Quatres Cent Coups remains the directors most personal and his best.

North by Northwest (1959)

One of Hitchcock’s best, North by Northwest features Cary Grant, suave as ever, being mistaken for a government agent by a group of foreign spies. Just like in Hitchcock’s most famous works (of which this is one), the witty one-liners, suspense, and drama are heaped on generously. I can’t help but feel sad that a similarly themed, but better film featuring Cary Grant was left off this 1001 list. Charade, also featuring Audrey Hepburn, James Coburn, and Walter Matthau, is one of my favorite movies ever! Check out both Charade AND North by Northwest as a double feature! You won’t be sorry.

Some Like it Hot (1959)

Now this is an example of a classic, well-loved film, with actors that I really love (Jack Lemmon I’m looking at you), a premise that is more than suitable, yet the finished product never really caught me. It’s sort of like Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief. I never really saw what all the hype was about. That being said, I didn’t hate it either. It never made fun of me when I had braces, or turned me down for a date, my affections and this film have just always been mutually exclusive. Perhaps it deserves another watch…then again maybe I should just watch The Last Boyscout again.

A Bout De Souffle AKA Breathless (1959)

Jean-Luc Godard is nothing if not a sacred cow of French cinema, and while I have loved some of his other films (Le Mepris, Bande A Part, and Masculin Femenine), Breathless or A Bout De Souffle never really did it for me. I can still rationalize why it was so revolutionary (use of jump cuts, editing, non-actors, and subscription to the aesthetic of the French new wave style), and see it’s importance, but I prefer other examples of New Wave cinema. If you are interested in seeing a Godard film, try Masculin Feminine, it is just as revolutionary and a bit more accessible.

Psycho (1960)

A prime example of Hitchcock in his prime. Psycho was so good, and so affecting that some of its actors were type cast just on the strength of this one film (Anthony Perkins, and Janet Leigh), so much so that without a little research it’s hard to think of what other films either of them has been in. Psycho may not be as visually shocking and gory as horror films of today, but it still manages to hold up over time and be just as unsettling as it was back in its day. Hitchcock has always excelled at making the comfortable un-comfortable (motels, birds, tea, dreams, the list goes on…), and the subtle touches in this film work perfectly. Consider for a moment that Perkin’s Bates is an amateur taxidermist of birds, and then that Janet Leigh’s name is Marion Crane a type of bird, or the fact before the crime Marion is wearing a white bra and a white purse, while after it she is wearing a black bra and purse. His attention to detail, and knack for foreshadowing is demonstrated in full force in Psycho and remains one of his best films. Despite all the uproar over the Gus Van Sant remake, I thought it actually did some justice to the original film and if nothing else brought it a little more deserved attention.

Note: This film also has the distinction of being the first American film to ever show a toilet flushing on-screen.

Peeping Tom (1960)

Released the same year as Psycho, and dealing with similar subject matter, Peeping Tom wasn’t received with the same acclaim and attention that the former was. On the contrary, Peeping Tom was seen as subversive, perverted, and generally too shocking. The story revolves more around the killer than the victim in this one, whereas Psycho is presented more from the victim’s point of view. Either way, Peeping Tom is a fine film, one worth watching, however it is so similar to Psycho that I’m not sure it needs to be on the list of 1001 films.

The Apartment (1960)

As far as light-hearted, touching movies about someone recovering from a bout of depression, this one is my favorite. Billy Wilder directs Shirley MacLaine and Jack Lemmon in a sweet touching comedy without losing any of his trademark cynicism or the pointedness of his dialogue. The Apartment is another chance for me to champion the somewhat maligned talents of Mr. Fred MacMurray as Lemmon’s boss. MacMurray plays a fantastic creep who really defines the term “heel”.

Spartacus (1960)

Containing almost none of the trademark elements that make up a Stanley Kubrick movie as we know it (Kubrick apparently dis-owned the film before it’s release), Spartacus remains an interesting movie that isn’t great. It is, however, another example of a film that enabled an up and coming filmmaker to gain his voice, and define himself later on in his career. If only for that reason, Spartacus is a great film, but luckily for the studio, it has some other things going for it. Kirk Douglas plays the title role of Spartacus, and despite all the lavish set production, and concentration on spectacle, brings some heart to the slave who defied Rome.

Jules Et Jim AKA Jules and Jim (1962)

One of director, Francois Truffaut’s most well thought of films, Jules and Jim may be the Lost In Translation, or Juno of its time. Viewed from a certain angle, the plot is a completely moving and emotional story that you believe, so much so, that you can see yourself and those around you in the roles that these characters embody. Viewed from another perspective, it can seem a little precious or purposefully manipulative. Depending on what is happening in your life (I’m mostly thinking about whether or not you are in a relationship, and if you are happy), this movie can preach the glory of love and the pain of rejection. On the flipside, if you have shaken free the angsty, teenager-esque feelings everyone has had in their youth, you may feel like you’re being talked down to.

Cleo De 5 A 7 AKA Cleo from 5 to 7

Taking place, as the title suggests, from 5 to 7, we get a slice of the life of Cleo played out before us. Sometimes we, along with Cleo herself, are a voyeurs into the lives of people around her, and other times we are focused on her as she roams around Paris. By and large Cleo lives a carefree, spoiled life, yet we still sympathize with her when times are hard, and cheer for her when they are good. This is a small film in a lot of ways, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t impacting and beautiful.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

I have to admit.  I didn’t like Lawrence of Arabia that much.  Perhaps I was too young to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of Lean’s desert panorama camerawork, or just maybe it was the epic length that decided it for me.  One way or another, I didn’t appreciate it as much as everyone else seems to think I should. 

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Overly reliant on gimmicks and quick editing techniques, The Manchurian Candidate doesn’t flesh out the story nearly…wait, no that was the terrible re-make that came out in 2004.  The original 1962 version, is just as taught, and well executed today as it was at its release.  While the story between the two versions remained virtually the same, the consistent building of tension and anxiety, combined with the pitch perfect acting of Lawrence Harvey, Frank Sinatra (yes…Frank Sinatra), and the devilish turn of Angela Lansbury as the Queen of Hearts, makes for a fantastic film.

Lolita (1962)

It took me forever to finally see Lolita.  I have known the basic story (older man, younger girl) but had just never gotten around to seeing it.  And while I’ve been told that the book is much better, I thought the film was pretty good.  Not great, mind you, but definitely solid.  The shocking and controversial nature of the relationship was toned down a bit for the screen, and maybe as a result doesn’t seem all that shocking in today’s day and age.  Memorable turns by Peter Sellers, and Shelley Winters, not to mention it’s an early film of Stanley Kubrick.

The Birds (1963)

Despite being one of Hitchcock’s most popular, I actually think that The Birds is one of his most over-rated.  I think I owe it to myself to give this one another look someday, but right now I feel that it was too heavily based on the gimmick that had to rely on special effects.  Though it is not necessarily the fault of the movie, but the special effects seemed particularly dated and old fashioned.  Worth a watch, but not my favorite by a long shot.

8 1/2 (1963)

Federico Fellini is, by most accounts, a master of cinema.  One, that I have always had a little trouble getting fired up over.  It’s not that I don’t like his films once I’ve seen them, the problem comes in when it comes to motivating myself to see them.  I couldn’t tell you why, but his films consistently get pushed off when they come up on my Netflix Queue or when I see the one or two I have on my shelf.  I shouldn’t feel this way, considering I really loved the moving poetry, and soul baring passion in 8 1/2, yet it still happens.  One very definite reason to watch this film is the man-crushable Marcello Mastroianni, swaggering through as the alter-ego of Fellini himself.  Dealing with all the reservations with women, making movies, childhood, and the future that the director very famously dealt with himself, Mastroianni embodies a certain cool, yet believable character that begs to be watched.  Combined with imagery that leaves the audience wanting more, 8 1/2 is a fantastic film.

Well, that’s it for this time.  Thanks for reading!

Fuck it good or don’t fuck it. Don’t half fuck it. If you are already on the way, keep going. There is no point in falling from a first floor when you can fall from the top. Fear smells like shit. Kiss her or be her friend for the rest of your life. Live dangerousluy until the end. Be a Jean Paul Belmondo in Breathless.

Tunes:

Nothing really matters – Los Superelegantes

Breathless…

i just finished watching a movie called breathless and honestly i really liked it and it made me think about richard gere in a totally different and more positive way. his performance in this film is just awesome.

valérie kaprisky and richard gere in breathless

doing a little research on the flick, i learned it’s a remake of à bout de souffle by jean-luc godard starring jean-paul belmondo and jean seberg.
i actually can’t wait to see it.

Checking for a pulse in a man’s dead, lifeless hands, then wandering off aimlessly puffing on a giant cigarette like death never even phased him, this bad boy character Michel Poiccard has got some swagger!  I have heard a lot of things about this film, À bout de soufflé or in English Breathless (Godard 1960).  After seeing Week End (Godard 1967), which I enjoyed a lot sometimes, I was looking forward to seeing the film Goddard is supposedly most famous for.  I knew just through observing the time periods in which these films were made that the art pieces message and style would be quite different.  In terms of narrative flow and strategy Week End definitely relates to Godard’s philosophy that a film “should have a beginning, middle, and an end…but not necessarily in that order.”  I feel like Breathless has its story roots in classical Hollywood style, yet it has its quirks that speak to the audience.  I felt like this film was very subtle, yet very powerful.

The opening scene with Michel looking at the paper as the camera is fixed on a pin up girl on the back of the paper is brilliant!  He then begins to speak saying, “I am after all an asshole,” which completely introduces his character as the bad boy.  Soon one realizes after, due to his glamour glances at Humphrey Bogart and his lip caressing habit, he is not a pure bad boy; he’s more like a pretty boy with something to prove.  This makes him more of an introspective character, which I feel is important in art cinema.  As he steals the car he begins to talk.  This is great because it is perceived that he is just talking to himself at first.  The audience feels as if they are seeing a private part of Michel’s life.  They hear him gleefully singing and shouting “Patricia! Patricia!”  This transitions into a brilliant scene in which Michel directly addresses the audience, looking in to the camera and talking about France.  This takes the audience out of its original orientation with the movie thus far.  This documentary, hand held cinematography follows the stylistic devices used in European Art films.  As we see the first couple jump cuts of traveling through the French country side I can’t help but become nostalgic of seeing these scenes in one of my first film classes.

At this point I would like to interrupt my analysis and comparison of the film to acknowledge something that really annoyed me.  I feel like this film is pawned off and underappreciated due to its astounding, progressive approach to editing.  Although it was brilliant that Godard uses these jump cuts as a separation of space and time to progress the narrative in a really awesome unique way, I feel regardless of that this movie should be appreciated solely on the fact that the writing and story are genius.  As a film student I heard nothing but “jump cut” when this movie was mentioned, but I feel like it is much more than that.

Ah!  That feels good to get off my chest.  So after these jump cuts he finds the gun in the stolen car.  This scene is a really important scene in terms of seeing through Michel’s character.  Him shooting at the mirror and shooting at cars coming by makes him seem like a child almost.  It is as if he is just on the playground, imagining that he is a hardass.  This definitely puts some clout behind some information I read on analysis of this movie.  This description said that everyone in this movie was trying to be someone their not.  In this scene as well as the scenes of Patricia’s interview with the novelist, the novelist himself, and the policemen the audience can see that these characters are trying to perform in front of society to be something that they are not.  This is an interesting way to look at the film because when thinking about it in these terms the film has more of a message and is less of an entertaining story.  It sides more on the political modernism side of the European Art film spectrum that Week End is in through its reflexive dramatic theory.  Also, the ending of the film has a sort of alienation effect, but that is more due to Michel’s character trying to be a bad boy, rather than the actual film.  The political roots of what Godard has in store for other films is apparent in Breathless however, I think it is very, very subtle, if at all there.

One thing I really appreciated the beauty of was the long establishing shots of Paris or the French countryside that were sometimes in jump cuts, or sometimes very long takes of the city.  The shot of the streetlights coming on at dusk was a really awesome shot.  Overall I enjoyed the unique juxtaposition of long takes and shot, jump cuts.  I thought it was a very interesting approach to filmmaking that I don’t think was previously done before this film.  This is truly representative of the new wave movements’ reliance on the philosophy that directors should be the auteur of their movies.  My favorite Godard auteur moment is the jump cut scene in the convertible.  Although, I like it not because of it’s editing, but mainly because of the dialogue (hence my thoughts on how this film is mainly praised for its editing).  The dialogue in that scene is brilliant and made me go back and forth rewinding to listen over and over.

This film is interesting because it has a modernist take on a classical genre.  It is truly a bad boy, bad girl, love story but it’s also so much more.  It deals with identity, which is obviously part of the reflexive trope of European Art Cinema.  I also enjoyed this film a lot because it reminded me of footage I would shoot on the fly.  I have endless scenes of actors and rotten passer-by people looking into the camera and ruining the shot.  I enjoyed the films, classy but cheap feeling.  The only thing I didn’t like a little was at times when I could hear the blatant dubbing, especially when Patricia yells, “New York Herald Voice!”  All together I thought this was a wonderful movie.  I definitely can feel and see how Godard got to Week End from this movie.  It is interesting to see his progression!

After watching Week-End (Godard 1968) for our screening this week, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to see another Godard film. As an RTF Major, I’m aware of the necessity to be open to many possibilities and see many different styles to become well educated in the film spectrum, but Week-End to an extend was too much for me. The extensive use of narrative ambiguity; it seemed that the plot was going nowhere. Then the drastic political message incorporated in the film along with some of the actions the characters committed made me feel a little uncomfortable. However, I understand that the purpose of this film was to stir the viewer’s attention. It got very annoying at times.

Although both films are part of European Art Cinema, French New Wave to be precise, they are very different. Breathless (Godard 1960) is a more enjoyable film to watch. The story revolves around Michel who has just killed a police officer and then runs away. He turns to Patricia and asks her if she wants to go to Italy with him. Patricia, unconscious of Michel’s situation, accepts and then they hide in a hotel room while Michel is trying to find money for his escape. At the end, Patricia realizes Michel is being “wanted” by the authorities and decides to betray him and calls the police. Michel is killed while Patricia observes his death.

The romance blended with the adrenaline would camouflage this film as a CHC, but the style and techniques sets it apart. The film has a strong sense of documentary style to it. The scene at the beginning of the movie where he has just stolen a car and is driving on the road is heavily influenced on Michel’s psychology. Here, we are quickly introduced to this guy who is kind of “eccentric”. He addresses the camera and “talks to us” about random stuff. The viewer feels as if he or she is right there in the car with him, playing with the fictional and real world. Another scene that it is very “documentary-esque” is Patricia’s interview. This scene did not complement a lot of information to the narrative but it sure gives the feeling that the viewer was watching something else. It was interesting listening to this person answering the questions.

Another important aspect of this film is the editing and the jump-cuts. I was reading the trivia section for this movie in imdb (yes, I do that after every movie I watch) and the discontinuity present in it was probably an “accident.” Godard had to edit the movie since it was too long for distribution, but instead of getting rid of scenes; he just removed little parts from the movie. That is why sometimes the camera angle suddenly changes or we see one thing then we switch to another.

One of the most predominant examples of Jump-cut is the convertible scene with Patricia. While driving around the city, the camera is only focused on her but the angle and the background suddenly change from time to time. This gives a sense of discontinuity and even though it is supposed to be one time and space, it seems as if it is very different places not following a time-lapse.

Also part of the editing, sometimes there was no flow of narration. For example, one shot he was inside a room, and then suddenly he was already in a restaurant. In CHC, we would probably see Michel going to the room, getting ready, actually exiting the room, just going outside and then entering the restaurant to create a sense of space and time. Having just one shot to another construct an elliptical narration very distinctive of European Art Cinema, the viewer is supposed to build conclusions.

What other European Art Cinema troupes are visible in this film?-The use of long takes as in the scene where Michel encounters Patricia selling the newspaper on the streets. The camera follows them from the back while they are walking but then suddenly they turn around and now the camera is following them from the front, getting closer as they walk, all in one shot. It is also very particular how their relationship is being set with just this one shot. Also, it is very noticeable that the film was filmed “on the fly” as in the scene where Michel and Patricia are walking and discussing about how she has to go meet someone. People around are staring at them and at the camera too, it just show how it did not employ very high production values.

The scene in the bedroom was fantastic. Although it might seem that this scene does not provide anything to the plot, it actually connects Michel and Patricia’s relation to an extreme. We see them interact in an intimate space and see how they love each other. The use of jump-cuts and elliptical narration beautifully establishes the emotions and thoughts they have. They go through many different “phases” in just this scene than by the end of it, we feel that we know them a lot.

The ending was a little bit confusing for me. I was not sure if Michel reproaches Patricia for betraying him or he has just resigned to die. Either way, the final shot of Patricia looking at the camera is absolutely fantastic. It transmits a sense of despair that finishes the movie on a great note.

I think that the main reason Breathless is more pleasing than Week-End is that the latter belongs to “Political Modernism” while the former is just “Modernism” through the use of form and stylistic techniques. Week-End is full of “subliminal” messages about government and criticizes a capitalist society. On the contrary, if Breathless is trying to portray a message, it is not so abruptly presented. It gives the viewer the opportunity to “fall in love” with the story and the structure.

A bout de souffle (Breathless) (Godard 1960) took my breath away. Too cheesy? Well regardless, this film is an easier New Wave (La Nouvelle Vague) example to watch than the primary screening this week by the very same director. This movie is subtle and quite beautiful. When we are introduced to the main character, Michel, we (the audience) are viewing him from a documentary type point of view. The scene in which he steals a car is the best example of the documentary feel of the film. The camera is positioned in the car and focuses on Michele as he talks to himself. The camera will turn and show the pretty French countryside and then turn back to him. This is a shaky shot to be sure, but it feels as if the audience is right in the car with Michel. I especially like the way the camera moves from the front passenger seat to the back driver seat. This, to me, alters the feeling of time and space in a subtle way that Le Week-end (Godard 1967) takes to a bizarre absurdist level. The camera, after all, is the audience’s eyes, so moving the camera the way Godard does within the shot makes me as a viewer feel like I climbed over the seat to sit behind Michel. Another new wave convention is again present (vaguely) in this scene. Michel directly addresses the camera, telling it and the audience by extension the way he feels about the countryside. “If you don’t like the sea… and don’t care for the mountains… and don’t like the big city either… go hang yourself!” Here also, we are introduced to a young Humphrey Bogart. 

This film acknowledges other films and particularly actors. I have yet to see this in our screenings. The young protagonist idolizes Bogart and there is even a moment in the film where he is staring at a photo of the American Icon. His character adopts the Bogart “Bad Boy” image, and his even claiming that he “always get[s] interested in girls who aren’t right for [him]” mimics Bogart’s role in Casablanca (Curtiz 1942). The female lead, Patricia, alludes to this further by saying in the bedroom scene that she would like to be called Ingrid, the name of the leading lady opposite to Bogart in same film. There is a recurring gesture that Michel does to show that he is, in fact, a bad boy whose in love with an equally bad girl. He moves his thumb across his lips–a classic Bogart move–and in the end scene Patricia does so as well to indicate her role as a subtle femme fatale. 

A scene that I fell in love with and will most likely remember is the bedroom scene in which we establish that Michel loves Patricia and wants to be with her. Patricia, in turn, comes off disinterested and distracted. Herein, I think, is the main drive of the film. I translated the American title of “Breathless” to be present most in this scene in particular. Michel loves (or thinks he does) Patricia, is is constantly trying to tell her this as well as know if she feels the same in return. Though she is involved with other men and he as well, they are referenced to the tragic Romeo and Juliet–a couple doomed to die for love. Jumping ahead to the end, after a rapid evasion of the cops and a stealing of more cars, Michel is betrayed by Patricia and killed. It is Patricia’s doing. Unlike the Shakespearean tragedy however, Patricia does not follow him in death. She is rather indifferent about his death, as he is also. He does not necessarily show any type of anger at her betrayal, rather a tired acceptance. Jail was his first choice, but after he falls at the end of the tracking shot in which he runs with a bullet in his back, he surrenders to death quite indifferently. This is where I have a problem with catching the “troubled, introspective protagonists” tropes consistent with new wave film. Michel seems only to be a bad boy because his film idol, Humphrey Bogart, is a bad boy. His choice of woman is consistent with the women in Bogart films, and he simply succumbs to his fate without any real internal evaluation. (Or external for that matter.) Though he embarks on this exciting Jason Bourne like evasion of the law, he is driven not by his own emotional and mental convictions, but the Hollywood bad boy image. (Maybe someone could clarify this for me…) Patricia on the other hand is the classic femme fatale used by many French filmmakers. I loved how in the beginning we see Michel looking at a paper with a pin-up girl facing the camera, and soon after he finds the gun in the glove compartment in the car he steals. “All you need for a movie is a gun and a girl,” and Godard does as he says. To wrap this up, the bedroom scene was by far my favorite of the entire film, and it displayed use of jump-cuts and small talk that led me to believe this was more of a romance movie instead of a crime film…

…That is until you hear that music for the zillionth time! The score for this movie confused me at times, but I understood it to be taken as an indicator that there was some sort of gang related crime afoot. That sly, sleuthing music is used throughout to remind audiences that within this dramatic dysfunctional love story is a thrilling game of good cops and bad boy. Needless to say, the music was entertaining as well as the narrative. 

There were many subtle beauties in this film. The scene in which all the Parisian lights turn on at dusk made me rewind to watch it again and again.

Also, the dialog was well translated in the english subtitles and reminded me of that deep sort of dialog found in films like Casablanca (Curtiz 1940). “When we talked, I talked about me, you talked about you, when we should have talked about each other.” 

A bout de souffle (Godard 1960) is a subtle majesty of French new wave cinema. I enjoyed it as I could never enjoy Le Week-end, (Godard 1967) but I can see the similar use of tropes. The use of jump-cuts, hand-held camera shooting, long takes, and unfocused narrative were practically highlighted in the primary screening with the bright blood-red paint plaguing the satyric film, but the supplement I chose approached these tropes in an elegant, quiet way. One must actually look for them for they are not screamed at the audience, rather, whispered to us from the meandering streets of Paris. fin. 

Breathless by Jessica Warman

Katie lives in a small town about an hour away from Pittsburgh.  Her dad is a respected psychiatrist and her mom is an artist.  Beneath the surface, though, things aren’t as good as they seem.  Her dad is never around.  Katie calls him The Ghost.  Her mom is drunk all the time.  And her brother is in and out of mental hospitals for schizophrenia.  One day, after a particularly bad episode where her brother tries to kill himself in front of the whole neighborhood, her parents decide to send Katie to a boarding school in West Virginia.  The good news is that the school has a great swimming program, and Katie’s already beaten all the records in her state.  But when she gets to the school, she doesn’t want anybody to know about her brother, so she tells everybody he died.  She makes friends, finds a boyfriend, but underneath it all is the lie about her brother.  And sometimes it feels like Katie just can’t breathe.

Breathless / A bout de souffle (1960)
Director: Jean-Luc Godard
Starring: Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Seberg

The Breath of Life & Meaning

Next time you find yourself in a discussion or giving a speech, take your time as you speak. If you sense that you are about to run out of breath, simply stop what you are saying and let yourself breathe for a breath or two, paying attention to the silent pause at the end of your out-breath. Rest there, recollect yourself, before continuing on. These pauses are not only good for your breathing, they are also good for your soul. They give you an opportunity to come home to yourself and see if what you are saying is worth saying and what you really wish to say.

It is important to realize that the very same same principles generally apply when you are writing articles, books, e-mail messages, discussion posts, and so on. As you think to yourself and write, you can also run out of breath and lose your connection with silence. Long concentration at your computer, typewriter, or note pad can constrict your diaphragm and result in fast upper chest breathing and insufficient oxygen to your brain and body.

Finally, does what you say and write spring from deep within, from silence? Does it help you and others reflect on what is important? Or is it simply a mechanical, associative expression of “like and dislike” or of self-love or vanity? As you learn to listen to yourself impartially as you speak and write, your words will reconnect with silence and thus carry new energy and meaning. You will discover a new breadth of both discernment and openness.

This is what I have discovered in my own life. It isn’t always easy for me to listen to what I say and how I say it (sometimes it’s nearly impossible), but such listening brings me a greater appreciation and wonder for the “unstruck sounds”* that lie at the heart of being. It is the unstruck sounds that bring real meaning and substance not just to our words but also to our lives.

Copyright 2009 by Dennis Lewis

*From Rumi, Unseen Rain (Threshold Books, 1986, p. 12): ”Listen to the unstruck sounds, and what sifts through that music.”

I must say, one of the best thing about being a librarian is getting or order books that I want to read.  I just did a book order for next month and I’m pretty excited.  There are a ton of things I’m going to snap up when they come in the door.  Some being:

• Pirate Latitudes by Michael Crichton
• Under the Dome by Stephen King
• Breathless by Dean Koontz
• I, Alex Cross by James Patterson
• Ford County by John Grisham

so, now you know what my review list for November looks like!

My second favorite thing about working at the library…Getting the new books first!

I watched this film yesterday. And the day before. I might just watch it again today- it just edged out Revenge of the Sith for my top five spot of favourite films of all time, alongside the Godfather Trilogy (in case you’re wondering- my list is as follows: (500) Days + the Godfather for tied fifth, Magnolia + Amelie for tied fourth, Lost in Translation, Godard’s Breathless, and my favourite of all time is Casablanca; I’m a sucker for well-told narratives peppered with good lines mind). Anyway, here’s an article from the August LA Times, courtesy of blogger Lisa Fung, including a quirky dance video from the film’s stars that plays a song by She&Him, a band fronted by Zooey Deschanel (who with the talented J. Gordon-Levitt, mesmerises in this simple, odd yet memorable piece). Enjoy.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/08/500-days-of-summer-director-marc-webb-.html

Omdat we volledig neutraal zijn, en de Antwerpenaren in alle sereniteit hun beslissing over ‘de Lange Wapper’ wilden laten nemen, brengen we nu pas de video van Ademloos.

Het is er serieus ‘over’. Kinderen opvoeren in reclamespots is sowieso al bedenkelijk. Hen in een anti of pro campagne laten opdraven is zelfs verwerpelijk.

Hopelijk stopt die Antwerpse cinema nu even.

Vorig jaar werd ‘swaffelen’ tot woord van het jaar gekozen.  Langewapperen zal er in 2009 niet ver naast zijn. (jt)

lens7616312_1255859099www_amazon_ca_google_books_660_amazon_best_sellers_list_on_squidoo_linda_randall_idea_girl_consulting_the_idea_girl_says_writing_books_read_shopping_gifts_christmas

Well I finally am taking the plunge in the world of sales.

I’ve created a new lens on Squidoo with a list of 22 books that are on Amazon’s Best Selling List.

Now you can go shopping for birthdays, anniversary’s, Christmas gifts, friendship gifts, Company gifts for employees and you can buy Twilight Saga merchandise and books on this lens.

You see Squidoo says they will pay me a commission for selling stuff.

I need to make money to help pay for my expenses as a writer – printer toner, a new printer ( I’d like to get a color printer so I can make up business writer cards to pass out to people so they can visit my web sites), A better computer with a decent graphics card (mine is a 10 year old clunker), and top speeds would help with posting blogs, pictures and you tube videos.

Anything extra, I’ll use to invest in my Idea Girl Consulting business and start working on getting an editor for my seventeen books that I’ve written, then I can send them to a publisher so you can all read them, or buy them as gifts for your friends, family and co-workers.

I remember when I worked at Nucomm ( a call center) , we all used to sit around in a group during lunch hour and discuss a book or a movie, or do the Cosmo Quiz that we were all reading and watching. It was always funny when we did the movies, because one guy would always point out bloopers during the movies we were discussing. Things like a glass that is empty in one minute, then it’s full three minutes later? The problem is no one filled it up.

I’ve found typo’s in best selling books and I’ve found mistakes that the author’s made in a name, or a place that their character went to in an earlier book. I didn’t write about it (one of the Shopholic books by Sophie Kinsella had a tiny boo boo in it – I’ve forgotten which one.)

Its fun to share stuff at work, or while your out for a coffee at Tim Horton’s I’ll often see someone reading a book and we will start up a lively discussion about something that they have read lately.

It’s great to see that people can become very passionate about an author or a book they’ve read. You can really see the joy it gives them. I’d like to be that kind of author. One that people will smile about when they talk about a book that I’ve written.

stephen king under the dome number 1 on Amazons best selling list

,,You leave me breathless
You’re everything good in my life
You leave me breathless
I still can’t believe that you’re mine
You just walked out of one of my dreams
So beautiful you’re leaving me

You must have been sent from heaven to earth to change me
You’re like an angel
The thing that i feel is stronger than love believe me
You’re something special
I only hope that i’ll one day deserve what you’ve given me
But all i can do is try
Every day of my life,,…

My chest heaves a heavy sigh.

Tingling, down my spine

A quick pass of my tongue over my lips.

Don’t stand so close.

Do you know how I feel?

I can smell your scent, you are so near

My fingers curl into my palms, frustrated

I wish I could kiss you

Don’t stand so close

I can feel the air between us

It is hot and stagnate

It draws me closer

Don’t stand so close.

You leave without me

I stand motionless

your cologne lingers

It is all I have

To remember

You stood too close

shia

Copyrighted 2009

At first glance Jean-Luc Goddard’s 1985 drama Detective looks and feels like a Robert Altman film. You have pretty much four intertwining stories that feed off each other as they move along. Altman was famous for the multi-story narrative that would eventually have the stories collide into one theme. Many directors have been influenced by Altman and his focus on character.

Jean-Luc Goddard was one of the founding members of French New Wave cinema. Which showcased a departure from standard cinema and explored a deeper and often darker approach to conventional storytelling. Goddard’s two most famous films “Breathless” and “Alphaville” were famous because of how they pushed that boundary even though they were two decades a part. If you haven’t seen either, seek them out especially Breathless.

In Detective, Goddard mixes up the crime drama into a multi-story narrative like Altman. The whole movie takes place in a hotel. You have one story that involves two detectives investigating a murder. One that involves a couple going through the ups and downs of marriage. You have a young boxer preparing and dealing with the aftermath of a fight. And finally it is revealed that the couple is blackmailing the boxer’s promoter.

French New Wave auteur Jean-Luc Goddard

What is really off-the-wall about the film is that it certain places the story will stop and the movie will start quoting random things. Like you have Shakespeare’s The Tempest, John Milton’s Paradise Lost, etc. On top of the crazy “quote” pauses, you have some rather disturbing images and frank nudity.
One scene that made me scratch my head was when the couple is delivered a tea cart for breakfast. There is a wet dead mouse on the cart and when the man pours his coffee it is blood. What was the significance of that scene? What effect was it trying to convey? Does “new friend” echo the blackmail scheme? I still don’t get it. But it was a rather intense image.

My favorite scenes were always the quieter scenes between the boxer and his lover (Stephane Ferrera and Emmanuelle Seigner) and the tenderness they shared. It is not what you would expect. Detective was Seigner’s second film. Three years after the film, she became famous for becoming director Roman Polanski’s most significant muse and wife. She then starred alongside Harrison Ford in Frantic.

I also adored the performances from Nathalie Baye and Claude Brasseur who play the couple. They seemed to be the most genuine and examined characters in the film.

Side note, this is the fourth film of Julie Delpy, who was 14 when she made the movie.

I can’t say I thoroughly enjoyed Detective but really anything that pushes the envelope in cinema is good to see at least one. Easily Breathless is still my favorite Goddard film. Look for more Goddard films as the blog continues.

3 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

The last article I checked out on Drift was ‘Sentenced to Surf’: http://www.driftsurfing.eu/surf_article.asp?ID=1819. Instead of continuing to lock up the most troublesome groms in France, the government is now sending some for behavioural rehabilitation… on the Basque coast!

In a much less literal sense I think about freedom and captivity absolutely every time I head out to surf (and whether I find waves or not). Surfing is usually seen as the ultimate escape and the ultimate liberty. Yet I often ask myself if we who check the surf forecasts/webcams/weather reports night and day are actually more enslaved than anyone to their passion?

A man who may be much more capable of coming up with a coherent response is my favourite film director, Jean-Luc Godard… Think of that nice line from Patricia in ‘Breathless’: “I don’t know whether I am unhappy because I am not free, or not free because I am unhappy”. Which brings me on Python-like to a poem I co-wrote with Philip Larkin in praise of one of the founders of the ‘Nouvelle Vague’ (definite surf credentials)

Annus Mirabilis

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather early for me) -
Between the end of the “Chatterley” ban
And Jean-Luc Godard’s ‘Le Mépris’.

Up to then there’d only been
A sort of bargaining,
A wrangle for the ring,
A shame that started at sixteen
And spread to everything.

Then all at once the quarrel sank:
Everyone felt the same,
And every life became
A brilliant breaking of the bank,
A quite unlosable game.

So life was never better than
In nineteen sixty-three
(Though just too early for me) -
Between the end of the “Chatterley” ban
And Godard’s ‘Le Mépris’.