I've been starting to watch some of the classic films of the French New Wave, including Godard's Breathless and Band of Outsiders, along with Melville's Le Cercle Rouge. My fave was Breathless, and I suggest that anyone who watches it really appreciates the dialogue between the two main characters. In Band of Outsiders, you see a highly stylized enjoyable film, that I would see again and again, and continue to enjoy the dance scene. In Le Cercle Rouge, I felt like the characters were lame and the plot was a bit boring, and not much of it was stylized, and the only character worth watching was the one who escaped off the train. Anyway, the film I would recommend is Breathless. It's really terrific.

I disagree with you about Breathless. I thought that movie was just plain awful. It was too long for my taste and the dialog was crap. That scene in the bedroom that lasted for like 20 minutes just did it for me. It all seemed to me like the guy was just trying to get down the woman's pants. I was done from that point on. I didn't like the choppy editing(which was done intentionally) either. I'll admit that I am not a fan of Godard or that genre. But have you seen Alphaville? That's another Goddard film that even I admit isn't bad. I think it came a couple years after Breathless.

Sorry man, I studied that era in my film history class and it just did nothing for me.

Fair enough. But I still think that people should see the movie to see if they like the French New Wave or not. By watching that film, you watch the quintessential New Wave film. If you don't like that, you won't like any of the French New Wave. If you didn't like the bedroom scene because he just wanted to get in her pants...what would you be trying to do if you were naked in a beautiful girl's bed...can you say afternoon delight?

I didn't like the bedroom scene because it was long and went nowhere. And after 15,000 "No's" from the girl he should have gotten the hint. It kind of reminded me of me

Still check out Alphaville when you get a chance. I think you'll dig it.

Check out 400 Blows if you want a better story. I'd take Truffaut over Godard any day.

Also, have you noticed how a lot of French movies are tragic?

Blech. French new wave. 400 Blows. So overhyped!

*ducking and running*

...Overhyped? And yes, Truffaut is generally better than Godard. Less pretentious, more substantative.

I tend to think the nouvelle vague is more important in terms of its effects on other cinemas, not as its own 'thing'. Sure, there were some great films, but the 'spinoffs' abroad were even more compelling - Suzuki's violent gangster trips, Polish attempts to integrate 'new wave' techniques with fundamentally incompatible socialist realism. These are more raw and vital than what French cinema eventually became - Godard's dated political 'statements' later on, etc.

Hows about anything before new wave? Jean Renoir, Rene Clair, Henri-Georges Clouzot? Thems is classics right there.

I'm not really a fan of the FNW either, glad to hear its not a requirement to enjoy it if you want to be a filmmaker... thats sure how it was presented to me, at least.

I'd agree that 400 Blows is way better than the classic Goddard films, what I've seen of them, at least.

Gotta give the FNW credit for all it influenced later, though- Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, etc.

Overhyped in the sense that they are viewed, not as stepping stones in film history, but as the ULTIMATE in cinema, the pinnacle of creativity and sources of infinite study and pretentiousness. They were revolutionary in their age, to be sure, but they're really quite absurd when used as the keystone of film discussions, which is how they often end up. They may have contributed immensely to the way we make films a long time ago, but their influence is basically zero in current filmmaking, where creative original and unique movie making happens all the time, instead of every 20 years.

ETA = I'm not down on this thread, which isn't the sort of discussion I'm complaining about, just throwing my 2¢ in.

quote:

but their influence is basically zero in current filmmaking, where creative original and unique movie making happens all the time, instead of every 20 years.

Do you really believe this? Hollywood is narratively identical today to 50 years ago. We are not in a 'new golden age' of cinema

Indie filmmaking is at its most creative ever. The fresh, unique movies that are consistently coming out the ever growing indie market are our future! Seriously, I think we're seeing changes and "mutations" in the filmmaking status quo of at least equal magnitude to the french new wave EVERY YEAR in the indie market.

See, back when French new wave, or Italian neo-realist, or any of the other "movements" happened, they were HUGE changes in the film world. Now, changes of that kind happen all the time. It's not even surprising when we see a new kind of story, or a new twist, or a new way of handling a scene anymore. We're used to change, and this is why the impact of all the old film movements is significantly less important to us now than it was then.

They don't all hold up that well in a modern screening but judged against what they were up against at the time, they really redefined cinema in many ways. They helped take movies out of the soundstage and into the real world.

Personally everyone has a phase where they "discover" the new wave stuff, but I say watch it and appreciate the history, but move on because there's a ton of modern cinema that has alot more to say.

Very well put. I agree completely.

quote:

Indie filmmaking is at its most creative ever.

I think it's at its nadir, actually. The current state of (any) American cinema is dismal, except when Malick or Gallo has a film on the way...

It's hilarious that people are so dismissive of films that are more than five or ten years old.

Modern cinema has 'a lot more to say'? Really?

I agree with you Evan. Today's independent and studio cinema is just pitiful. The films of yesteryear are so much more substantial and well done. The few directors around that still make decent films such as Malick rarely appear with a new film. We usually have to wait around 3 to 5 years to see something worth our money. Just look at Malick: Days in Heaven - 1978 his next movie? The Thin Red Line - 1998. Today's independent cinema is just awful because people so badly believe that they're the next Kevin Smith or QT. Try being original. That might help independent films. Anyway, lets hear what everyone has to say about the French New Wave. By the way, almost everyone, Breathless and Godard kick ass no matter what you say. At least he was original and creative.

The reason the films of yesteryear seem so much more promising is because it so easy to forget that we're only remembering the GOOD ones. Seriously... think about how many good movies come out nowadays. Not that many. A few every so often. Now think about how many good movies came out in ye olden days. A few every so often. It's just that we're not forced to experience the crap in between like we are when we live in the present.

I never understand it when people dismiss films that weren't made in the last few years either. There's tons of good cinema going back a long time.

What I do not agree with is the notion that independent film is at its low point. On the contrary, independent film is leaping ahead, fueled by increasingly available technology, and decreasing prices in both digital and film production costs.

My point is simply that the medium hasn't changed, humans haven't changed, and human issues have not changed substantatively since 20, 50, or 100 years ago. There's no new ability that humans have acquired (flight? x-ray vision? ) which renders cinematic history or traditional cinematic models worthless.

I've yet to see any concrete example of a truly impressive work that was actuated by this new technology. Hollywood flicks shot on video don't count, and neither do studio 'indies'...

Furthermore, if the current state of film is not lower than in the past, if it's actually similar, why are there no working directors as staggeringly talented as Kurosawa? Kieslowski? Tarkovsky?

Oh yeah. They all passed on, and replacements have not arrived.

(one last thing. film stock itself is more expensive than ever. true, digital workflow makes editing somewhat cheaper and more convenient. I'd like to teleport back to 1976, shoot a couple thousand feet of 16mm, then skip to 2009 when I can get a cheap 4k scan and work in uncompressed 4k).

My points about current accessibility of technology were just a tiny part of my argument.

I can't argue with you on the fact that replacements for Kurosawa and friends haven't arrived yet, because our opinions of great directors are very different

Wow... I thought everyone loved Kurosawa...

What are your favorite directors? If there were films being made now that were worth watching (other than my well-worn collections of Gallo and Malick films, plus Batman Begins) I'd be happy to hear about them.