film    print    sound    leisure    forum
company line »

shopping guide »

contact us »

get reviewed »

get published »

expand yourself »


find it »

Teleport City search allows you to search our entire site as well as our favorite sites about cult films, obscure music, literature, and swank living.


film home | a-b | c-d | e-f | g-h | i-l | m-n | o-q | r-s | t-v | w-z

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Band of Outsiders

1964, France. Starring Anna Karina, Louisa Colpeyn, Chantal Darget, Sami Frey, Ernest Menzer, Claude Brasseur, Jean-Luc Godard. Directed by Jean-Luc Godard. Buy it from Amazon.

It's time for another Jean-luc Godard review, but where as I struggled with exactly what I should say in regards to Breathless, partially because it seems one of the most written-about films this side of Zombie Lake (which, disturbingly, seems to be one of the most reviewed movies on the internet), when it comes to Band of Outsiders, my problem is with having too much to say. So we'll start with the so-called general consensus: Band of Outsiders is Godard for people who don't much care for Godard. Where as I sometimes wonder if I like breathless simply because it's been pounded into my head that I like Breathless, or perhaps I'm mistaking admiration for Godard's daring break from convention with actual love for the film, there's no question in my mind that Band of Outsiders is a film I have quickly come to adore.

Considered by some to be one of Godard's lighter films because it is more accessible and less maverick in its approach, Band of Outsiders still offers up a fine example of the French maverick at his best, and the fact that he doesn't imitate himself should be an example of Band of Outsiders' inventiveness rather than the other way around. Missing from the film, for the most part, are Godard's signature jump cuts and unsteady camera. In their place is one of his more conventional and straight-forward narratives. But don't let the surface simplicity of the film trick you. This is still Godard, and this is still the French New Wave. There's a lot boiling under the surface even if it's not as expressly obvious as in Breathless and the director's other, better known, and more celebrated works.

Band of Outsiders tells the story of three people. Two of them, Franz (the smolderingly handsome Sami Frey) and Arthur (DeNiro-esque Claude Brasseur) are down-on-their-luck pulp entertainment nerds who fancy themselves real-life low lives. They're not, of course, and remind me of comic book nerds who think reading The Punisher or Wolverine makes them tough. The third is Odile, played by the divinely beautiful Anna Karina (the love of Godard's life, at least at the time, and his muse through the 1960s), a young woman who lives with an over-protective aunt and has told her English class mate, Franz, about a large sum of relatively unguarded money stashed in her home. Franz tells Arthur, and the two of them decide to coerce Odile into going along with a scheme to steal the money. There's just one problem: all three of them are idiots.

Well, maybe not quite idiots. Childlike and naive is probably a more suitable description. Odile is so sheltered from the real world that she still dresses like a little school girl (something that seems perfectly acceptable to the men of the 1960s, and I guess the 1970s, and the 80s, and well, all men throughout the entire history of there being grown women dressing like schoolgirls). When she brags that she knows all about tongue kissing, she demonstrates to Arthur by closing her eye and sticking her tongue out as far as she can. Arthur and Franz are no better. They still run around pretending to be gangsters by shooting at each other with their fingers. Everything they know about being tough, they learned from American gangster movies, and neither has any experience with the real world.

One look at the crime they're intending to pull off shows that it's painfully easy, and yet they botch it entirely. They meet to concoct a plan in a local cafe, but Franz and Arthur spend more time jockeying for the affections of Odile in a funny "musical chairs" bit in which each man keeps trying to trump the other in an attempt to sit next to the gamine Odile (why can I always describe women in Godard films as being "gamine." I guess he and I share a common taste). Like children, they can't focus on their purpose for even a few minutes. Ostensibly, Arthur and Franz are more interested in the money than Odile, or so they tell themselves. For Arthur, at least, it might be true, but that doesn't stop him from abandoning their plan to plan in order to flirt and engage in the film's signature scene as the trio, Odile in her schoolgirl dress and Franz's gangster fedora, dance the Madison. It's a simple scene, but you'll see it mentioned in every single review of the film. That's because it's infectiously charming, joyous, and simply a fun scene, maybe one of the best Godard ever shot. Reading a description of it will not do the scene justice, but even people who hate Godard can't help but smile and find themselves beguiled by Band of Outsiders' joyous charm during this scene.


The whole "let's make a plan" scene reminded me of when I was young and played Dungeons & Dragons. Yes, I played D&D. I bet you did, too. I was an early adopter of the game, back when the red boxed "Basic" and blue boxed "Advanced" sets were sold, and everyone played Keep on the Borderlands a thousand times. Although this was right about the time people started making alarmist made-for-TV movies about how D&D would make Tom Hanks freak out and try to jump off skyscrapers because he thought he was wearing Elfen Boots of Jumping +3, our motley band of adventurers never resembled the candle-burning, cloak-wearing youths in the after-school specials. Generally, our meetings consisted of half an hour of character modification (ie, cheating), half an hour of consuming Stouffers' French bread pepperoni pizzas, and maybe an hour of game play, tops, in which we didn't follow any rules and had characters strolling about with three of four catapults and fifty crossbows in tow. If we sustained the game for an hour, it was a record, as usually our youthful zeal prevented us from concentrating on melee with kobolds in favor of running outside to play in the woods or going out back to play TRON by throwing racquetballs at each other. We could never focus on the task at hand, and watching Odile, Franz,a nd Arthur try to devise a burglary scheme was like watching myself try and concentrate on D&D. It was just more fun to dance the Madison.

The trio finally stitch together the rudimentary basics of a plan far more complex than it needs to be. Given Odile's aunt's tendency to go out to society events, all they have to do is waltz in when they know she's gone and take the money. Anyone could do it, but Franz and Arthur are just too, well, stupid to think of it. They're too committed to playing it out like a movie, which requires masks and hostage taking and all sorts of other needless complications. In fact, one of the film's best attributes is the narrator, who in the scene after the trio of bumbling would-be criminals split up to carry out the plan, explains that Franz and Arthur waited until after dark, because that's always how it's done in bad B-movies. It doesn't occur to them, though it does to Godard, that B-movie heists almost never work. But even when things run terribly afoul, the trio doesn't seem to be able to deal with anything as real. It never seems to occur to them that this is anything but a scene from a movie. The fate of the aunt confuses me a bit. It's not much a spoiler to reveal that she's accidentally killed during the feeble burglary attempt, but later when the other occupant of the house comes home, we see a figure run to meet him at the door, wearing what looks to be the same white slip as the aunt. Which would lead one to assume that she wasn't dead at all, and Arthur and Franz just don't know how to tell if someone is actually dead. I watched the scene a couple times, even in slow-motion, but I can never tell if that is indeed the aunt who meets the other guy at the door. Thematically, either fate works, though our trio only mistakenly thinking she's dead maintains their likeability.

The narrator pops in several more times. During the Madison dancing scene, he pops in to say something to the effect of, "Now would be a good time to review how each of our heroes is feeling, but that should be pretty obvious." He also gives a nonsensical run-down of the plot half-way through "for those who came into the theater late." And finally, in the end, one of the funnier and more poignant pieces of narration explains that they will leave the characters here, when they are happy and hopeful, instead of continuing on and revealing any failure and frustration they may experience later in life, once again, because that's how good pulp novels always do it. The deadpan narrator was an integral part of old film noir, so it's a natural device for Godard to adopt, though he does so with absurdly wonderful results.

Though easier to follow and digest, Band of Outsiders shares much with Godard's previous homage to American B-movies, Breathless. Both feature characters who are looking to imitate their American idols. Where as Jean-Paul Belmondo's Michel really was a small-time hood, Franz and Arthur's "petty crook" status exists purely in the realm of fantasy. Franz is guilty of bad driving, but that's about it. Jean Seberg's Patricia in Breathless is a lost woman looking to become French just as her French boyfriend seeks to be more American, though neither of them really knows much about what that means as they've both formed their idea of what it is to be French or to be American based only on pop culture entertainment. None of the leads in Band of Outsiders are as world-weary as Michel and Patricia; they're too naïve for that. But all these characters share a common bond in that they've mistaken movies for reality. These themes are part of the reason modern directors like Quentin Tarantino are such big Godard fans.


Tarantino himself is like a character out of a Godard film, someone who has constructed his ideas purely out of what he's seen in movies. But then he takes it even further by making movies based on identifying with movies. Where original writers drew from life experience, Tarantino draws from the experience of watching the experiences of others on screen. Yeah, it all goes around and around, doesn't it? Tarantino even adapts the Madison scene from Band of Outsiders for his dancing scene in Pulp Fiction, but by that point I'd lost track of where modernism meets post-modernism meets post-post-modernism, or whatever. All I know is that like Michel, like Arthur, like those guys who read The Punisher, Tarantino thinks he's tough because he makes tough guy movies. In that sense, he manages to both be similar to Godard and be a character from a Godard movie.

Now where was I? Oh yes, Band of Outsiders and Breathless, but I think I'm finished with that for now. Let's move on to the performances. No wait, maybe I'm not done with Breathless, because I'm about to mention it again. The performances in Breathless were often purposely stilted, deadpan, and remote, with characters staring blank-eyed into the camera and reciting their lines lifelessly. Godard doesn't rely on that technique for Band of Outsiders, where the acting is much less stylized and more "believable." All three leads have incredible charisma, with Arthur being the most obviously dangerous of the three, the kind of guy who sees lots of movies and fancies himself a tough guy and might one day just haul off and stab someone out of delusion. Chalk that up to the fact that he lives with overbearing, clingy relatives and an uncle who seems to be a real-life hood.

And Anna Karina - what can I say? It's obvious why the characters, and even Godard himself, can't keep their minds on crime when she's around. She's a stunning beauty, and her childlike innocence mixed with a desire to understand more of the world makes for a charming character. She's never really played for sexual appeal, though she certainly has it. She's like a girl at summer camp who is just noticing the fact that boys notice her. And not to leave the other sex out of the equation, actor Sami Frey has the dark, slightly sinister good looks of an genuine film noir matinee idol.

Not being adept at writing about music, all I have to say about the score is that it is utterly fantastic. Cool, swiging, jazzy -- simply perfect.


The script by Godard, based on a pulp novel by Dolores Hitchens, is as I said, far more straight-forward and accessible than his other work. But then, most of his scripts are pretty straight-forward; it's how he handles them that makes them seem strange. But since the direction here is less "arty," Band of Outsiders seems like a more straight-forward film. It's a good way to ease yourself into Godard. Though it doesn't boast his signature directorial flourishes, it does contain most of his important themes and reflect his love for noir B-movies and desire to both praise and poke fun at their conventions. The sign of great satire, which people seem not to remember these days, is that you poke fun at a film or type of film without seeming snide while, at the same time, being a fine example of the type of film at which you're poking fun. A satirical gangster film, then, has to also be a good gangster film. Band of Outsiders pulls this off with aplomb. It also showcases Godard's love for picking apart film making in general, though less directly than he would later do in films like Contempt. Band of Outsiders is a gangster movie, and it's a movie about gangster movies.

But you can ignore all that, because none of it is really in your face. Ultimately, what Band of Outsiders is a uniquely enjoyable, imminently delightful celebration of a film. It certainly doesn't deserve to be considered "Godard lite" or "one of his lesser films." It's every bit as clever, funny, and biting as anything the director has done, only more likeably so. It may not be Godard at his heaviest, or Godard at his best, but it's Godard at his most entertaining; Godard at his wittiest. And that's the Godard for me.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 1 Comments


Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Breathless

Release Year: 1960
Country: France
Starring: ean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Seberg, Daniel Boulanger, Jean-Pierre Melville, Henri-Jacques Huet, Van Doude, Claude Mansard, Jean-Luc Godard, Richard Balducci, Roger Hanin, Jean-Louis Richard.
Writer: Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut
Director: Jean-Luc Godard
Cinematographer: Raoul Coutard
Music: Martial Solal
Producer: Georges de Beauregard
Original Title: A bout de souffle
Availability: Buy it from Amazon


It's "one of those films," but even more so than Blow Up. You can escape film school without seeing Antonioni's anti-thriller masterpiece, but few and far between are the professors who won't sit you down and make you watch and over-analyze the film that made Jean-Luc Godard's career and stands out, even today as the defining film of the French new wave and, in a way, of the entirety of French cinema - or perhaps more directly, of the entire host of clichés commonly commented on when people lampoon French cinema. I mean, this is a Godard film based on a Truffaut plot. There wouldn't be two more famous French directors until Jean-Pierre Jeunet and, umm, well that Luc Besson guy, who actually has more in common with Godard than might at first be apparent.

I don't really have enough time here to go into a history of the French New Wave, and to be perfectly honest, I hardly have the knowledge to do so. My exposure to the movement is still limited to those rare moments I was paying attention back in college. Like anyone who took film classes in college, I had to sit through a few. At the time, I think I was too young and wild and full of crazy ideas. I thought the films were talky and pretentious and got by primarily on the reputations they made by getting a few outspoken critics to hail them as groundbreaking masterpieces. Now, as an older man who has tired of the razzle-dazzle and bright lights, I can go back and reevaluate a film like Breathless from a more relaxed and rational point of view.

One of the defining characteristics of the French New Wave, or at least those pieces of it to which I've currently exposed myself, seems to be a love-hate relationship with American cinema and culture. That could sum of France itself, but really, you get to the point in your life when jokes about the French just aren't that funny anymore. Well, maybe one or two of them are, but given the savaging France has taken for having the nerve to stand up and express opinions contrary to Bush's America, I tend to have a little more respect for them these days than I did back when I was fighting the Gerries in the Argone Forest back in 14-18 War. Besides, if nothing else the French have given us fine wine, some good chicken dishes, French women, French kissing (or is that Freedom kissing now), and French Lick, Indiana, which gave us Larry Bird. Besides, like I said a couple days ago, although we saved the French in both World Wars, they saved us during the American Revolution, so if it hadn't been for America, the French would be speaking German; and if it wasn't for France, us Americans would be speaking English. Yeah, I like that joke so much I've now trotted it out in two separate reviews. I thought for a while I actually made it up, but now I'm pretty sure I heard it somewhere else, which makes me using it twice even lamer.

So where was I? Ah yes, much of the French New Wave seems to have been built upon filtering American pulp culture through the lens of French and European intellectualism (or pseudo-intellectualism, if you are cranky about such things) as much as it is rejecting the classical aspects of a well-polished, well-made film in favor of experimental cinema-verite style, clever editing, and almost documentary-style proximity to the subjects of the film, often with handheld cameras. It all begins here in Godard's directorial debut, and many claim that all modern filmmaking begins with this movie, meaning you can look at Breathless in one of two ways: you can look at it as a film, or you can look at it as a revolution. Well, yeah, you can look at it any other number of ways, or combine those two, but they are the aspects of the film with which I'll be poking around. As a revolution, there's not much denying Breathless' impact on filmmaking. Everything changed the day people saw Breathless. Technique changed, and more importantly perhaps, content changed. It is the movie that opened the way for more radical political films. It pioneered a style of filmmaking, writing, and acting and inspired countless stylistic offshoots that took the manifesto and ran with it in wildly diverse directions. It challenged pretty much everything anyone thought they knew about how a film could be executed. In this sense, it doesn't matter how the pieces are put together in Breathless itself; it only matters what Breathless did to other films.

As is befitting for such an anti-establishment sort of movement, many of the innovations in the film were not the product of a conscious philosophy but were, in fact, simply side effects of limitations. Handheld shots were used because they could not afford to lie down tracks for proper dolly shots. The jump edits which came to define the film were a product of the film being overlong by half an hour. Rather than cutting whole scenes, Godard decided to trim bits and pieces from within each scene.

Watching a manifesto isn't usually much fun, though, and since this is a film we should be interested in whether or not it is an entertaining film, which means, was I personally entertained? I could write about whether or not you were entertained, but you know, we get onto some shaky ground there and to be frank, I lied about pretty much all the psyonics and mind reading powers I had in D&D. So all I can say is that, as a film, Breathless entertains me, but as important as I recognize it to be in the grand scheme of things, it's more of a call to arms than a movie I would sit down and watch for enjoyment.

Godard takes the basic tenants of a classic American film noir set-up and goes batty with them. Jean-Paul Belmondo, who would skyrocket to French icon status with this film, stars as Michel, a small-time Paris nobody who idolizes Bogart and the other tough guys of American gangster cinema. He practices tough guy facial expressions in the mirror, always wears a fedora, and smokes more cigarettes in a single film than any other character in cinematic history, probably even in that dippy pander-to-unhip-hipsters dump of a film 200 Cigarettes. But try as he might, he still looks like a kid playing dress-up, and no amount of gangster posturing can cover the fact that he's basically a confused, scared loner.

The hypnotically beautiful Jean Seaberg stars as Michel's opposite, an American girl trying her best to be more French. "Gamine" would not be used again so often to describe an actress until Audrey Tautou's turn in Amelie. She's utterly astounding to look at, and her appearance here, cute beyond belief and sporting the pixie haircut, would become iconic during the decade. Her character, Patricia, is a more mystifying figure. Michel we can understand and see through. But Patricia is more difficult to decode. The two young wanderers meet one another after Michel kills a police officer during a botched car theft and must go on the run. The two spend time making love, seeing movies, chit chatting, and smoking a whole lot of cigarettes before Patricia basically begins to wonder if she loves him enough not to turn him in.

The film is less about the plot than Godard's approach to filmmaking, but even so, the film remains breezy, witty, and enjoyable even as it delves into the depths of pretension. This is thanks in part to lead actor Belmondo, who is comic in his tough guy appearance. Belmondo had been pummeled into a curious state thanks to a boxing career, and his utter lack of classic leading man good looks (itself an homage to Humphrey Bogart) allows him to carry himself with a humorous air. While Patricia remains inscrutable, Michel is just sort a hopeless loser you can't help but warm to even when he's being a bastard. He would have gotten along well with Alfie. Both Michel and Patricia, however, are characters running in sharp contrast to what people expected of movie leads at the time. They are rebellious, adrift, and precursors to the sort of violently anti-authority figures that would come in their wake.

But I won't let reputation alone put twinkling stars in my eyes. I fully admit that I'm not just a film geek, but also a film history and technique geek, and my interest in such things obviously colors my enjoyment of Breathless. If you don't share such a passion, then this movie still has the potential to offer you something to enjoy, though it's more likely you'll just find the whole affair on the irritating side of irritating. Although I have a healthy appreciation for the film, I wouldn't pretend not to understand how someone, even someone intelligent and well versed in film, could find the whole thing a ponderous, pompous mess. I still feel that anyone interested in film should see it if for no other reason than to flesh out your education and see when so much of what has been taken to outrageous extremes these days (jump cuts, unexpected editing, shaky hand-held cameras) and become annoyingly overused convention was still fresh and bold, not to mention much better done.

Plenty of movies have become events, but I find it easy to separate most of them from their sensation. Not so with Breathless, since what caused the sensation remains challenging even today. That leaves me with the feeling that Breathless isn't so much to be watched and enjoyed as it is to be watched and studied -- though I do rather enjoy it. Truth be told, I could just sit and stare at Jean Seaberg for ninety minutes and be happy. That this is one of the most influential films of all time is not a debatable point. It's a fact. Now, whether or not those innovations were put to good use in making a film you can enjoy - that's up for you to decide for yourself. Me? Yeah, I dig it, but that's the kind of guy I am. I think noir fans might get a kick out of it as well since it plays with the genre conventions so much while still remaining more or less faithful to the formula. And even if you're just amused by philosophical mind games, you can sit and think about how the French New Wave was inspired by films of the classic Hollywood era and in turn inspired the ground-breaking American films of the 1970s, which were determined to destroy the concept of the classic Hollywood film.

Whether you love it, hate it, or think it sounds like you would probably hate it, it's a film you really should get around to seeing sooner or later. After all, everything was different from there on out.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments