Introduction to the French New Wave 

haha thanks!

That's awesome. What did you think??

Thanks for asking. I also watched Jim and Jules last night. I'd seen them all before, but I have a much clearer understanding of where the filmmakers are coming from now. Do you think it would be fair to say unlike German Expressionism or Italian Neorealism which seemed to evolve within their own respective countries, French New Wave was more a culmination of multiple movements from multiple countries, hence a little harder to define? Especially Godard, he was so experimental and ballsy, it's hard to say he had a specific style exactly or is that wrong? Maybe experimental was his style? As I've learned from your videos about Bazin, Truffaut and Godard were serious students of cinema even before touching a camera. BTW how much does that show you the value of studying film theory if you want to be a filmmaker. In comparison, I watched Marty last week as well. Although it's from 6 years earlier than say Breathless, it feels so much older. Watching the jump cuts in Breathless felt so current and timely. While Marty although great and a totally different style of filmmaking, oddly seemed much more than six years behind Breathless. It has a produced facade that felt like what you might guess a movie from the 50s would be. I also know Marty was innovative in its own way but it still doesn’t have the gritty realism of movies outside the Hollywood system of its day. I'm not saying 400 Blows or Breathless are not movies of their time but they’re much more relatable to me if that makes sense. @filmandmediastudieschannel

@@mikeageorgeis Re: the question of French New Wave being a "culmination of multiple movements from multiple countries," I'd still say that the French New Wave was definitely a French movement. What I mentioned in the video about the "age of new waves" and other "new wave" cinemas across the globe was mostly to indicate that the term "new wave" is generally used to describe major periods of cinematic innovation--or even more simply, aesthetic novelty--in particular countries. Each new wave has its own reason for existing in the time and place that it does, even if many of them emerge in the late 50s and 60s alongside France (WWII is a big reason; portable cameras and sound recording is a big reason; etc). But the American New Wave--which we really just tend to call New Hollywood--doesn't emerge in the 50s but the late 1960s and blossoms in the 70s. The US really needed to wait for the fall of its own studio system, the Hays Code, etc, among other factors. As for Godard, I tend to think of him definitely as having his own style--more distinct than simply being experimental--even if his style will shift. Early Godard is different from post-68 Godard is different from late Godard. But I do think those periods have a pretty distinct feel. My main reason for saying that it's hard to say that the French New Wave overall has a 'style' is because I find that, for example, Resnais, Godard, Varda, Truffaut, Rivette, Chabrol, Demy from 1958-1961 feel pretty different from each other. When I was learning about this stuff as an undergrad and had really only seen Breathless my assumption was that most French New Waves looked and felt like that, that they had that kind of pacing, editing, mood, etc., but when I watched the others I was struck by how different they felt. I actually still haven't seen Marty, though I'm somewhat familiar with its significance. I agree that 400 Blows and Breathless feel very fresh and beyond their time. If you're interested in checking out some American stuff that feels pretty neorealist, and pretty New Wave, long before the 70s, check out The Little Fugitive (1953): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ikbkSvWcdTQ.html Truffaut himself said this film was a major inspiration for the French New Wave, and it's easy to see.

​@@filmandmediastudieschannel Thank you. Yeah, I feel like I was maybe a little reductive about Godard, his work just has such an unconscious, dream-like quality, I was having a hard time defining what that is. I was thinking, "if I was to make something in the style of Godard what are the rules?", and with so much freedom from convention I didn't know where to start. Even the jump cuts he only chose to do in the edit. I guess he's very open to the muse as it were. The man was brilliant so I'm not taking anything away from him, I'm just saying he seemed to have an unknown, magical quality that I just couldn't nail down. I'll definitely check out The Little Fugitive. Makes sense, so with new tech and also the ability to study films outside of France, from Hollywood and elsewhere, allowed for a varying degree of styles within the French New Wave movement.

I hate Breathless (1960) with a furious passion but I feel the exact opposite for The 400 Blows (1959) that film is everything Breathless wished it was.

glad to hear it!

thanks!

I love to hear it - thanks!

That's a great question. The film crews were indeed very small for the most part, especially when compared to traditional studio filmmaking, but they did have cinematographers. Raoul Cotard, for instance, was the cinematographer on nearly everything Godard made up until Weekend (1968). I think it's generally safe to think of the cinematographic choices in films to be the result of collaborations between director and cinematographer, but it's often the case that the pervasive influence of auteurism can make people wrongly assume that, say, Hitchcock or Scorsese are the ones literally moving the camera or wholly designing an elaborate cinematographic choice.