Film \"Breathless\" Directed by Jean-Luc

¶ … film "Breathless" directed by Jean-Luc Godard. Specifically it will discuss a distinctive formal device from the film and detail how that device is related to questions of state and government. This film is really much more than the story of a petty thief who never seems to amount to anything. It is really a commentary on society and government of the time, from the rather inept investigators to the casual way society deals with death in the film. It is a classic New Wave film, and some critics call it the best of all time. It is a masterful film that created a new art form in film, and jump cuts used throughout the film were an innovation that commented on society and the state at the time.

Godard's film "Breathless," ("A Bout de Souffle" in French) is one of the most highly acclaimed of French New Wave films. Many film critics and experts believe Godard invented the jump cut technique with this film, and uses it quite effectively to question the state and government of the time (1960). The film uses series of jump cuts to indicate action in the story, and leave some of the action up to the imagination of the reader. For example, in the opening scenes, Michel shoots a motorcycle police officer, but the only way the viewer knows that is by the sound of a gunshot and the sight of the officer falling violently backward into the underbrush. Godard does not have to show the actual shooting for the viewer to understand exactly what has happened. The jump cuts make the film seem to move faster (and it is rather slow moving), but they also add tension and commentary to the film. Godard seems to be saying that people do not have to actually see the actual events to know they have occurred, and this could be a commentary on the state and government of the time. He shows the police and inspectors as a bit ridiculous and always one step behind, and he seems to show a disregard for authority and human life. This is confirmed when Michel casually notices a pedestrian killed in an accident, and then just as casually knocks out the man in the bathroom to steal his money. Michel is casual about life and death, and of course, in the end, he pays the ultimate price.

This could be a commentary about society at the time, as well. Society at the turn of the 1950s was becoming more open, looser, and it seems more unconcerned with rules and regulations. Children of the baby boomer generation (like the young girl Patricia played by Jean Seberg in the film), were rebelling against their parents and their uptight morals, and these two characters epitomize that rebellion. Michel is the ultimate rebel, who goes against society and yet wants to be accepted in society, and attempts to appear affluent by stealing and cheating others. He is ruthless and cunning, quite the opposite of the innocent Patricia, and this pits the two sides of society against each other in the film. It is clear that Patricia is basically honest, which Michel clearly is not. They make an incongruous couple, and that is another element of the film that Godard uses to criticize society. The jump cuts throughout the film also signify the great gap between the two characters, and how they will never really come together in a meaningful way; they are too far opposed from each other.

Society is the same way; it is polarized between "black and white," (as the film's black and white theme indicates), "good and bad," and "kill or be killed." The film's motifs indicate that society and Michel's flaunting of society are intertwined, and that as long as there is an organized society, there will be those who simply cannot accept the rules of society, or fit inside it comfortably. The jump cuts in the film can often be uncomfortable to watch, or irritating, and this too is a way of the director to comment on society and government. Often, there are aspects of the government and state that are uncomfortable or irritating, but the people have to put up with them or make an effort to change them. In this film, Michel does not try to change them, he simply refuses to adapt to them, and it costs him his life. The jump cuts illustrate the other side of the argument, that many people will just endure the aspects of state and government that are irrigating and uncomfortable, rather than do anything about them. The jump cuts are like that - to enjoy the film you have to "suffer" through the jump cuts and their irritation, or simply stop watching. The viewer has the choice, but as in life, often the choice is the lesser of two evils, rather than a clear-cut choice for the better.