In 1960, Pier Paolo Pasolini struggled with his directorial debut, Accattone - the story of a troubled roman pimp. He had shot some test material, which reportedly looked terrible, and wasn't able to formulate his thoughts into a coherent story. Thus, his friend Bernardo Bertolucci, recommended to Pasolini to go see A Bout de Souffle. Pasolini went, together with his friends - a wild mix of crooks, rent boys, pickpockets, all living on the streets, most teenagers, many of them having had affairs with Pasolini.A few days later, Pasolini met with Bertolucci, and asked why he had recommended the film to him. Bertolucci answered that he thought it was an accurate depiction of todays youth and small time crooks. Pasolini laughed. "But I went with my friends, who are all gangsters. They laughed at the screen and mocked Belmondo! This isn't about gangster - it's about spoilt brats having nothing to do, boring the audience with their talk."
Upon inspection of A Bout de Souffle, two things are important to remember: one is that the film was written by fellow nouvelle vague director Francoise Truffaut, who went on to write and direct Jules et Jim. Both films share a common trait: their main protagonists are assholes. Dumb assholes, actually. Both Michel (Belmondo) and Catherine in J&J are not very nice, treat everybody around them like shit and only care for themselves. Why exactly Truffaut, who has proven with the Antoine Doinelle series as well as many other great films, seemed to deem it necessary to have unlikeable characters be his protagonists is quite baffling. When we are introduced to Michel - stealing a car, driving through the countryside, killing a policeman, spouting nonsensical banter - he's neither interesting nor charismatic in particular. Thankfully, the vibrant editing and beautiful cinematography distract from this fact. To be honest, A Bout de Souffle may be one of the most beautiful shot films of its era. Bu that doesn't distract from the non-existent plot or character development.
On the run from the police Michel drives to Paris, and in the one iconic shot of the film picks up a young girl (Jean Seberg) who sells the NY Herald Tribune. The two have met before (even if only briefly) and had an affair. Desperate to crash somewhere, Michel (after being rejected by her) breaks into her apartment and tries to convince the girl to sleep with him. What follows is one of the most bland second acts in any Godard film. The next 30 minutes comprise of the two talking about nothing of interest or meaning. While the girl tries to discuss books and music with Michel, he quickly shifts the conversation to sex. It's a weird scene for the audience to observe - here we have a girl, who name drops artists and musicians as if they were street names ("Do you like Faulkner?") and a guy who can only respond in immature jokes which reveal his lack of self-confidence ("Is that a boy you slept with?"). Both have nothing to say, and the girls interest in pop culture seems to stem from a lack of character than an actual understanding of or interest in the matter.
Indeed, Godard went on to further undermine the youth of the 60's in his future films. Both Masculin, Féminin and La Chinoise further proceed to depict the french youth as a pack of spoiled brats that spout political and ideological nonsense in the firm believe that their intellectual emptiness was actually a political manifest (in this, Godard was very close to Pasolini's opinion about the youth of the 60s, but more on that with Masculin, Feminin).
Here, however, Godard doesn't seem to criticize rather than glorify this believe system. And so, while both protagonists may look splendid lying in bed, their characterization takes a step back. We further get to know that Michel is an asshole, and that the girl has an interest in journalism (which leads to a scene which could be seen as a critique of the intellectual emptiness denounced later on in Godard's work: during an interview with a writer, the journalists fight almost physical over the literary star, shouting random questions at him, which he often negates and answers with sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek responses). But else, those two pretty puppets are empty and devoid of anything of interest. They are - as Holden Caulfield would put it - phony's. Poseurs of the highest order.
Of course this may be where the film did indeed succeed. The 1950s provided a large amount of cinematic heroes that had to stand in for a good cause or had meaningful and tragic situations to cope with. And even though most films of the 50s had the typical Hollywood Happy End, the road to happiness was rocky and littered with tears and melodrama. So protagonists who had nothing to do but sit around and talk about... well, nothing in particular, with no problematic than those they brought upon themselves, might have been a welcome breath of fresh air. But from todays point of view, the film would work a lot better if the characterization would match the vibrant and stylish photography.
In the end, the resolution comes as meaningless as it is sudden, with both the protagonists and the audience pondering why the characters decided to act the way they did. In one final moment of emotional and characteristic emptiness, Godard breaks every rule he had set up in the 70 previous minutes - maybe to end the film like one of the tragic film noir's of the 40s he adored so much (and paid homage to with many of his works). But the why of it all weighs heavy on the film, and in its closing minutes, this french version of Bonnie and Clyde feels rather like a stylisher, old-school version of Antitrust - just with Paris instead of computers.
But credit where credit is due: Jean Seberg is beautiful and at least fills the little she has to work on with a lot of grace, sex appeal and charm. The soundtrack, comprised of atmospheric jazz songs suits the film and enriches it. Paris may have never looked more appealing (or more like Chicago). And even though I am not the biggest Belmondo fan, he plays the asshole with a lot of dedication (maybe more than he would admit).
But all of these merits can't really help the emotional emptiness of A Bout de Souffle. Luckily, Godard would move on, and manage to portray entertaining and interesting characters and set up a clever and sophisticated plot.
FINAL VERDICT: 6/10 - OK with flaws, worthy a watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment