criterionforum.org

Belmondo says "C'est vraiment dégueulasse" which means, word for word, "It is truly disgusting". The cop translates this as "Vous etes vraiment une dégueulasse", which means "You are truly a ___________". 'Dégueulasse' can be used as an adjective or a noun, the adjective meaning "disgusting", but the noun's a little harder to translate. It means 'a disgusting person', but what English word you might use for that could vary. Bitch and scumbag seem appropriate, though scumbag maintains the dirtiness that the original word suggests. I'm not familiar enough with the nuances and implications of French words to say how harsh the insult is, but I would hazard to guess that it's mean without being crude. Something 'dégueulasse' is something you would wrinkle your nose at, something you would avoid.

That puke translation is pretty terrible. I mean, it more or less keeps with the spirit of things, but I don't see how you would lose anything by translating it more faithfully. The "you're a real scumbag" seems the best bet to me, although having Belmondo say "It's a real scumbag" is a bit silly. That's the hazard of translating dégueulasse as a noun and an adjective.

My French-Canadian aunt with whom I watched the movie suggested that "It's/you're a real fucking mess" would be apropos

Vous êtes vraiment une dégueulasse means litterally "You're really a vulgar/dirty person".

As an adjective, dégueulasse is a familiar / vulgar slang of dirty.

A big dog shit on the sidewalk, for exemple, is dégueulasse.

As a noun, "a naughty girl" would have been, I think, the closest to the original meaning of the sentence, but, honestly, using dégueulasse as a noun is not widespread anymore in France.

I think both scumbag and bitch are too strong, but it would, in one way, keeps the original dirtyness of the word, but not in the good way, I think.

But dégueulasse is not that harsh. In fact, it can be used as affectuous, or funny (by children for exemple).

But dégueulasse is not that harsh. In fact, it can be used as affectuous, or funny (by children for exemple).

Maybe Godard meant to use it this way (Michel's last words to Patricia are an insult wrapped in the cozy idiomism of affective meaning), which would be more consistent with the rest of the movie than Belmondo telling off Seberg as the last words exchanged between the two lovers. It's not like JLG knew "Breathless" would become the influential institution it's since become. He probably didn't expect it to be seen outside of France or only in the 'arthouse' foreign circuit, hence the use of a phrase that only native French speakers (the intended audience of the movie all along) could detect and interpret it's ironic meaning (if there was meant to be any).

Thanks, all, for this. Very interesting discussion. For what it's worth, the Wikipedia entry for Breathless contains much of the same information but I hadn't checked that before posting here. According to that page, the subtitle translation used in the new print is the same as the one on the Criterion DVD (which translates Belmondo's line as "you really make me puke," or words to that effect).

In thinking more about this, it seems entirely appropriate that the film ends with this kind of confusing exchange--and, according to some versions, an inaccurate repetition of Belmondo's dying words by the police officer (in some translations, the police officer turns B's "it really is..." to "you really...")--considering Godard's career-long interest in language and translation. Translation is, of course, a huge issue in Contempt, for example, which ends with the final word ("silence") being spoken in two different languages. Even though this was his first film and he may not have had an idea about its impact, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that he was already consciously playing with the problems of translating (and even perhaps subtitling) foreign-language films. Considering that Breathless is very much about the interactions of a French man and an American woman, and about the interplay between French and American cinema, it seems very deliberate that he ends with an instance of a loss in translation.

I know Beaver seems to prefer the Studio Canal image quality, but quite a bit of detail appears to be lost with SC's higher contrast. The Criterion issue looks a lot better to my eyes.

I was thinking the same thing. The SC blacks look very artificial to me - I don't think I've ever seen a 35mm presentation of any movie with quite that level of contrast. I'm looking especially at the shot of Belmondo standing in front of the car, and then the one of Belmondo and Seberg walking side by side. The Criterion looks much more like what I'd expect to see in a cinema.

I only scrolled quickly through the caps and didn't even know which image what which release and I saw (in what I now know to be the SC) some very dark grain in light areas that looks like the result of some crazy contrast-boosting algorithm. The Criterion looks much more filmlike.

Agreed with all the above, the skies are blown out on the SC, the bitrate is almost a flat line which I believe causes noise when it's not all needed (?), the highlights on the face are detailless and the blacks are a bit too black. Doesn't match my 35mm experience with the title either.
Look, at the end of the day, both are great, as Gary says the difference is pretty unnoticeable.

SC all the way here, for me.

Looks like someone got a little aggressive with the contrast-boosting on the SC. The Criterion is "flatter," but you're seeing a much more filmic rendering of detail in highlight and shadow areas. The SC is a little too Photoshop 101 levels & curves + unsharp mask for my taste.

Yeah, I think the SC is terrible in comparison to the Criterion. The screencap with the hood of the car up was all I needed to see.

aox wrote:Yeah, I think the SC is terrible in comparison to the Criterion. The screencap with the hood of the car up was all I needed to see.

Far, Far from terrible. Going by the screencaps, I prefer it over the Criterion, but in motion they would both look very nice indeed.

tajmahal wrote:

aox wrote:Yeah, I think the SC is terrible in comparison to the Criterion. The screencap with the hood of the car up was all I needed to see.

Far, Far from terrible. Going by the screencaps, I prefer it over the Criterion, but in motion they would both look very nice indeed.

"in comparison"

The SC is completely overblown. Look at her cheeks and nose as she peers through the door. That screenshot says a lot.

aox wrote:Yeah, I think the SC is terrible in comparison to the Criterion. The screencap with the hood of the car up was all I needed to see.

Of course it isn't terrible. What's terrible are your predictions of gloom. Perhaps you see what you thought you'd see.

I prefer the Criterion version as it is more film-like than the SC.

Can't wait to see the new print next weekend. The last time I saw Breathless it was a New Yorker print and while mostly good, it needed a lot of work on it.

ShellOilJunior wrote:I prefer the Criterion version as it is more film-like than the SC.

Absolutely agree.
The SC is totally overdone on the contrast. As said, the Criterion is much more filmlike and will be (as expected, I must say) the way to go for me.
Can`t wait to see the blu-ray.

A Bout de Souffle (Breathless) by Warren Craghead



Fascinating and ambitious... every shot drawn in comic book form

I did some prep drawings that were good but took way too long and I tested some grids to finds one I liked. Once that was done it took me about a week to draw it all averaging about 6 minutes of drawing per minute of film. It took some late nights…

I tried to draw WHILE watching but most of the time I paused and drew. I decided to draw every cut (including jump cuts) but I also drew inside some cuts if the camera/people moved so much that it was like a new shot (look for little lines connecting panels). I also tried to restrain my usual tendency to pluck parts and leave others out to make fanciness.

SPOILER ALERT

I saw this for the first time recently, was an impulse buy during the B&N sale, and I haven't stopped thinking about it since.

The "dégueulasse" discussion above is really interesting. Anyone more familiar with the history of the film's distribution know why the "puke" line was used (which I'm not very fond of)?

I was wondering about that too - it's been a long time since I saw it before Criterion's reissue, but didn't he call her a bitch in the old translation?

Belmondo: C'est vraiment dégueulasse.
Seberg: Qu'est ce qu'il a dit?
Guy: Il a dit que vous êtes vraiment "une dégueulasse".
Seberg: Qu'est ce que c'est "dégueulasse"?

It's really disgusting.
What did he say?
He said "you're really a (disgusting as a noun. Scumbag?)".
What does "disgusting" mean.

BAM!