In the interest of keeping most of my thoughts for the upcoming assignment, I'm going to keep my talking about the movie Breathless here brief, but I couldn't resist talking about it a little bit.
Breathless perplexed me a bit. Maybe it's the plot that didn't seem like it was going anywhere (and in some ways never really did), maybe it's the characters that were similarly aimless, vain, and amoral to varying degrees, and maybe it's the fact that it's so rough around the edges in some ways and yet so refined in others.
I don't think I'll be able to say I fully appreciated the movie without watching it at least one more time, which I definitely intend to try to do. I say try, because the movie was a bit of an infuriating watch. And honestly, it's not even really the rampant sexism for me. I got used to that pretty quickly, once you know a guy is a scumbag you stop expecting him not to keep being such a piece of shit. If anything, it's trying to keep track of what the hell Michel is up to. I think his antics distracted me and sometimes seemed to affect the pacing of the film, although I wonder if the pacing would be better or worse if you pulled those more confusing, "I'm gonna go get my money from _______" scenes out.
In an attempt to grasp the film more clearly, I decided to look up some reviews of the film, and the first one that came up was by Roger Ebert himself. It was a four star review full of praise, and seeing why he liked the film so much definitely assisted in my retroactive enjoyment of it, and should hopefully help me enjoy it more on a second viewing. The most interesting part of his review to me is that he actually seemingly makes the claim that Seberg's character is more morally evil than Michel, which I think most of our class would find pretty absurd. The argument goes that she was "less deluded" than Michel which would make her more responsible, and while I'm not necessarily inclined to agree (this is the kind of take that only a white man who lived through the early '60s could make), I do think it's an interesting analysis nonetheless.
Overall, I think the movie is very straightforward and attempts (and succeeds) at being genuine and unafraid to be whatever it is trying to be. It feels like it could be the window into the life of a real scumbag Parisian from the early 1960s. If there's one theme I think encapsulates the film the most, it's youth.






