User Reviews

Accessible Godard! Between the more famous "Breathless" and "Alphaville.." Godard wrote and directed this gem of French chic. The story is straight out of the tabloids, a love triangle of misfits who band together briefly but end up making a mess of things. But their moments together are oddly fascinating particularly an infectious dance sequence as all three do the Madison. It's worth watching the movie for this scene alone! The leads, including Jean-Luc Godard partner Anna Karina, are young and charming and their quick dialogue keeps things light. Yet the viewer remains detached throughout and ultimately is left with a sense of surrealism. A wonderful example of French "new wave" cinema, "Band a'part" is a delight. Voyez!

Odile has made new friends at English lessons, after making a faux pas, an indiscretion, telling them about a stash, of a great big pile of cash, it's become Arthur's and Franz's new obsession. Now they're conjuring a plan to grab the dough, it's unsecured, and in a place Odile can show, but she's having some concerns, struggling to come to terms, so she voices her unease, to let them know. Alas the plans for burglary do not run well, as barriers unknown block and repel, it's a comical affair, leads the combo to despair, the execution was quite poor, I think that's fair.

It still views well, but you need to digest it with the era in mind, alongside the other material the director produced around then, taking into account the unique style of his presentations.

I found this to be more of a film about film-making than a great piece of cinema in its own right. It started fairly slowly and was unlike anything that I'd seen before but at the same time it wasn't really going anywhere. I watched some of the extras with the DVD and I'm glad I did because it highlighted the camera work and score which is really all that I'd really picked up watching it. The dance scene was brilliant but aside from that I didn't really find much in the characters to hook me in. I understand from the extras that there was no script which I know isn't uncommon with other directors but it did play like that. There was some good interaction between the characters at times but overall the only real spark inside the film itself was the dance. More technical for me than anything else.

This is a very rich and entertaining work. The plot revolves around two men and a woman who decide to rob the employer of the woman's aunt. However, Godard uses this slender plot as an excuse to riff on a wide spectrum of subjects. The would-be criminals run around, dance, recite newspapers stories to each other and have pretend shoot-outs.

This film is a lot of fun. Watch out for the celebrated dance sequence in the cafe and the scene where the three hold a minutes silence and all the noise on the soundtrack is cut off for the duration.

Acting wise, the film is stolen by the lovely Anna Karina (who was Godard's wife at the time) as the sweet, vague woman at the centre of the trio. Godard himself does the voice-over narration relating the story.

Filmed on the cold, de-glamorised streets of urban Paris, the film has a spontaneous feel that adds a lot to the exhilarating feel of the whole work.

This film is a charming, fun and suspense filled picture from one of the world's most interesting film-makers.

Band of Outsiders, from the novel by Dolores Hitchens, is a jazzy and poetic take on the modern crime film, with more successful sequences than I could have expected. Unlike in his debut, Breathless, here the characters - two young men Arthur (Claude Brasseur) & Franz (Sami Frey) and the young woman Odile (the beautiful Anna Karina) - are quite accessible (at the least watchable) to those who aren't used to Godard's treatments of his main players.

That, along with a style including artful but elegant and, in opposition, gritty and 'cool' cinematography by Raoul Coutard and a striking, upbeat musical score by Michel Legrand, gives Jean-Luc Godard the edge in creating one of the most influential films of the new-wave. Arthur and Franz are different personalities- you can notice the differences in the little moments- but they have a shared idea as being would-be petty criminals. Franz meets Odile in a writing class, and after much talk they hatch a plan to steal all the money that Odile's father has stolen from the government and kept inside her house. The film takes its time leading up to the robbery, which is like a two punch knockout that at first is astonishing and then following it by devastating.

What makes Band of Outsiders a great film is not just the last act, but that the lead up to it, the filler, is rather extraordinary in its good grace to keep the audience entertained even as they know they're watching an art film (a good analogy is that Godard narrates much like Cocteau narrated over Blood of a Poet, except that here it's over a crime instead of a series of surrealistic events). Such moments of note are the minute of silence (like in Week End's traffic scene the audience feels much like the characters amid the duration of the scene), the subtly light-hearted feel of the classroom scene, and most notably the Madison dance.

The Dance sequence, in which our three anti-heroes turn on the jukebox and give a dance number that immediately calls to mind as inspiration for Travolta and Thruman's number to Chuck Berry in Pulp Fiction. However, after seeing this number, I'm inclined to argue that the Madison is the better of the two. There are also little moments that are funny and/or fascinating, and they go to show there's more emotion in this triangle than would usually be found in any kind of conventional film-noir.

After now seeing four of his films (Breathless, Contempt, Week End, and Band of Outsiders), this is my favorite. A+ (on my first viewing)

Sure, it may not be as important as Breathless historically, but I think it is more successful in a lot of ways. Wheeler Winston Dixon, in his book _The Films of Jean-Luc Godard_, a rather good exploration of Godard's cinema, devotes a single paragraph to Bande a part, having written several pages each for such other Godard films as Breathless, My Life to Live, and Une femme est une femme. Basically, his consensus on Band a part is that it is a slight film that more or less is just a repitition of Breathless. He doesn't say it, but it is just as easily said that it is also a repitition of Truffaut's Shoot the Piano Player and Jules and Jim.

Why would Godard, who has just expanded into making a film, a major film, like Contempt (and will go on to make Pierrot le fou (which I haven't seen yet, though I will in the next few days) and Alphaville) go back to a cheap crime movie? I would guess that it has something to do with the conditions Godard underwent when making Contempt (harassed by producers and Jack Palance alike). And I don't know what Godard himself felt about Contempt, but I personally found it really stuffy, self-important and ultimately disappointing. After dealing with a big budget, internationally produced film (by three separate producers), I'm sure that another cheaply made crime film appealed to him.

And I have to admit that I fell into that critical trap when I began watching this film. It seemed a lot like Breathless (and Shoot the Piano Player and Jules and Jim). And although I was liking it, I was also kind of bored. That is until about a half an hour through, when there is this amazing dance scene, probably the most famous part of this film if there is any famous part at all. The three main characters, Arthur, Odile and Franz do this great dance (kind of a proto-line dance, although a lot more attractive) to a great jazz piece (the music is great throughout, like it is in all of Godard's other films; he has quite the ear for it). As they dance, the music stops (as it did in Une femme est une femme) and Godard inserts what each of the characters are thinking as they still dance around musicless. It is a great scene, as good as any of Godard's other innovations, and it completely won me over. After that, everything about the movie seemed to get better and better as it went along. Perhaps my attention was unfocused before that, but afterwards I became involved. The characters started to become three dimensional, and the story, although from a cheap dime-store novel, became compelling. And its greatness escalated steadily as the film progressed, until it ended.

Let's discuss for a moment the acting of Anna Karina, at the time Godard's wife and obsession. I don't remember Alphaville enough to recall how she was there, but, just lately, I have seen her in Une femme est une femme and Vivre sa vie. I was unsure whether she was a good actress or not. Of course, she was hypnotizing. For the sake of mankind, she has to be one of the most beautiful women who ever lived. Her eyes are just amazing. In Vivre sa vie, Godard compared her godly visage to that of Marie Falconetti of The Passion of Joan of Arc. Now that film I take seriously, never putting up with any derogatory thing said about it. And I was initially offended that Godard would be so bold as to compare his wife to Falconetti, perhaps the best actress who ever lived. But now, I'm no longer offended. Karina is a great actress. In the three films that I remember seeing her in, she has played three very different characters successfully. In Une femme est une femme, her role required a woman of strong convictions and independence with a twist of camp. She was great there. In Vivre sa vie, her role required also strong convictions and independence, but in a completely different way. Une femme est une femme was joyful in mood, for the most part, kind of sweet, really, but Vivre sa vie is a definite tragedy. Her convictions and independence end up destroying her. Now in Bande a part, Karina is a young girl who is fed up with her daily routine. She finds two guys from the wrong side of the track who seem to be offering her a better life. She soon, however, realizes that they are using her. Her trusting innocence is completely believable, and so is the nervousness that comes later. It's a very subtle performance, and Karina develops her character marvelously.

Bande a part is not the typical Godard movie. The experimentation is much less than in his other films. Therefore, no one who writes on Godard ever needs to bring it up. If it had been made by another director, its fame may have been greater. My prediction is that a Godard enthusiast will dislike it, or at least see it as lesser. One who despises Godard may find him/herself liking this film, especially if that person likes Truffaut's films better. Myself, I appreciate Godard a lot, but do not idolize him. Some will defend him no matter what. I believe that he can make mistakes, such as Contempt and Alphaville (two films which many people idolize). I believe that, just because Bande a part repeats other films a bit, there is no real reason to ignore it, for it has a lot of greatness in it. 10/10

Style over substance. It's an interesting approach to filmmaking, but it also stops the viewer from really caring about the characters. Director Jean-Luc Godard shows his talent for visuals and there are a number of scenes in the film that really stay in your mind. The story itself is not much engaging and there are no real thrills. What you will get is, perhaps, more of a reflection upon existence.

Band of Outsiders has been described as a "Godard film for people who don't care much for Godard." As it happens, I can't stand Godard, who for me represents the worst of French Cinema. I hate most French films because they seem to just be two hours of people dully philosophizing and talking at each other. Sometimes French films are actually extremely (Wages of Fear, Hiroshima Mon Amour, Tall Blonde Man with One Black Shoe, City of the Lost Children) but I feel like most of the French movies I've seen in my life were exactly what I hate about Godard.

So, how is Band of Outsiders for someone who hates Godard? Kind of a mixed bag. There are wonderful sequences in this movie. One in which the three main characters decide to have a minute of silence, another where they dance while the narrator tells you what they're thinking. And there are other moments that involve long, boring conversations that have no interest to them.

Sometimes you get a little of both. There is a scene where a teacher endlessly reads Shakespeare, and at first it seems dull and like it's going to go on forever. But there is an interesting silent flirtation that starts up during the reading that is rather fascinating.

So this movie gives me some understanding of what Godard is trying for in his films, I think. And it makes me understand why Hal Hartley, who I love, has said Godard is a major influence (Hartley's films also have long conversations with people talking at each other, but his dialog is quirky and fascinating, which is very un-Godard.

The story involves a love triangle and planned robber featuring a dumb woman and two men, one a major creep and one a minor creep (predictably she likes the major creep better). Like most French new wave films that pay tribute to genre film making, Godard has drained most of the energy and suspense out of the crime genre in this film, so the story is never particularly compelling and the movie's slight twists are poorly done and seem like an afterthought. But there is some interest generated in the interaction between the three protagonists.

This movie is sort of Godard lite, which is why I found it pretty watchable. I would say it's worth watching, even though ultimately it's still far inferior to the handful of French films I have loved.

After seeing Breathless I didnt think Godard could do any better, I was mistaken. This film is, in my opinion, one of the greatest ever made, theres so many little touches that make this film stand out, the acted shoot out, the moments silence, the dance and my favorite, the whistle stop tour of the louvre. The films influence can be seen in the work of many directors from Quentin Tarantino to Hal Hartley. (both pay hommage to the dance sequence in their films, they are both also brilliant directors) Theres one thing that stands out for me every time in this film, Anna Karina's performance. She plays the part of Odile to perfection. A film well worth finding and once you get it your guarenteed to watch it over and over, 10 out of ten.

Jean-Luc Godard's films belong to a category of movies that are more interesting to talk about than to see. I do not want this statement to sound too pejorative, that's not the intention, especially because I love the discussions about movies. In addition, actually, 'Bande à part' is a movie that offers many reasons for being enjoyed by viewers with different preferences, even if it is loaded by innovative and sometimes eccentric cinematic features, as were all Godard's films in the 1960s.

Godard brings to screen a novel of the American writer Dolores Hitchens about the planning of a robbery. I did not read the book, but I guess it's a fairly free adaptation, because the action in the film takes place in France, on the streets of Paris and in a neighborhood close to the French capital. Two looters (Franz - acted by Sami Frey and Arthur - Claude Brasseur) plan to rob a villa from the suburbs, involving the young Odile (Anna Karina) whom they meet at English lessons. The planning is as unprofessional as it can be, because of the characters of the heroes, but especially because the film director does not seem to be interested in the robbery intrigue, but rather the flirting relationships between the three youngsters, who form a romantic triangle typical to the French Nouvelle Vague.

Director Jean-Luc Godard intended his presence to be visible throughout the film. The result is a very mediocre action film, a nice love story between young people which we like especially because of the the actors, and above all a Godard movie. This is so clear from the initial credits where his name is written name as 'Jean-Luc Cinema Godard', through creating scenes of anthology quoted in many other films later (it's here that Tarantino found inspiration for his famous dance scene in "Pulp Fiction") and heavy use of off-screen comments to describe the moods of the heroes, and to the extreme trick of cutting completely the soundtrack in a scene in which the heroes are keeping 'a minute of silence'. Directional indications for the three actors in the main roles must have included a minimum of emotional expression. Retained and timidity specific to their age? Maybe. But the three actors, and especially Anna Karina radiate youthfulness and expressiveness, and manage to convey emotion as though despite the directorial direction. Michel Legrand 's music is memorable, the black and white cinema (was it still cheaper than the color film?) also fits well. 55 years after its making, 'Bande à part' has chances to be enjoyed by both amateur filmmakers and a broader audience in search of emotions and entertainment, even if the art and entertainment parts do not bind perfectly one with the other.

When it comes to a film by Jean-Luc Godard, it may be better for you to go in with eyes wide, ready to go on a journey of surrealism and cerebral craziness instead of one tied to a strict plot. Bande à part is a perfect example of this as the story itself, loosely based on an American pulp novel, is very slight and acts only as a framework for the events occurring. Two classmates learning English strike up a friendship, she tells about the stolen government cash at the house where she lives, he tells his friend, and the three decide to pull a heist and get out of the city. Most of the film consists of the waiting and botched attempts at getting the job done. You can see a lot of influence for Quentin Tarantino here and just as his films rely on conversation to fill the empty space, Godard does the same. Whether it be reading the newspaper, having air gun battles with each other, formulating their plan at a diner table where they even partake in a minute of true/complete silence, these kids are your everyday normal young adults, figuring out ways to entertain each other, falling in love, and getting talked into doing bad things.

The heist aspect is never at the forefront though. What the characters do on the way to that inevitable conclusion makes the film interesting. Loudly passing notes in English class; impromptu dance moves at the diner, alternating between moments of music and others devoid of that soundtrack for only the noise they create; and running through the Louvre to break a record for fastest viewing are just a few of the eccentric things that go on. Chock full of inside jokes and nods to his industry friends and peers, Godard creates a world that, while steeped in reality, truly resides on an alternate level of consciousness. Just the fact that it is narrated throughout lends a manufactured feel. When you are told early on that if you missed the beginning you only have to know a few things, promptly recited to you, and when it ends you are sales-pitched on a sequel that does not exist, you will realize what you are seeing is not any ordinary piece of work. What boggles the mind then is that it was shot in 1964, doing things that had not been done in cinema before, yet are now so commonplace you don't even think twice.

Much like Tarantino has appropriated from this film, the characters themselves do the same thing for films they have seen. Basing the entire heist on the fact that it works in the movies and they can do it just as good comments on how cinema has begun to influence the world's youth. It is all a game to the two men, devoid of the stakes that exist right in front of their faces. Never fully fleshing out any real plan, they fly by the seat of their pants, relying on the girl's insights to be truths and as a result are very sloppy. They don't work out escape plans, what will happen if the door is locked, or care that Arthur, the brains behind the operation once Franz tells him the situation at Odile's house, has told his uncle the plan and said to be there after it is all done. Double-crosses aplenty at the end, but once again, this is "real" life and Arthur never anticipates the severity of what he is doing and how much greed can influence someone into doing whatever it takes to come out the winner.

Our trio is very naïve and partakes in a strange love triangle made up of a mix of love, lust, necessity, and information retrieval and sharing. Each is using the other for their own means with none realizing the lies and deceit until they are in the midst of the robbery itself. By then it is too late.

For me, the true brilliance lies in the craft of the work itself. The sound editing at moments like the dancing in the diner are unlike anything, jarring you out of your comfort zone, telling you that what you see has been manufactured and manipulated rather then attempt to create a world to escape to. While watching, you never lose the grasp of the world you are actually in. This is a work of art making itself visible to you; it is not a story to be transported into. Seeing a sequence of Odile singing a song and actually looking right into the camera at we the audience shows the breaking of the fourth wall and insists blatantly that we are viewing artistry, not seeing a glimpse into the film's own world.

Credit the acting for its natural feel and gritty realism. Anna Karina is beautiful; showing at all times her shy sexuality, drawing men in without even trying. She is playing with the boys because she thinks they are playing with her. Always looking for a way out, they keep forcing her back into being an accomplice, something not quite kosher with her sensibilities, but on she treks, following every step of the way. Sami Frey, as Franz, is constantly brooding, acting as though he is in total control, unafraid of anything. Karina even mentions on a couple occasions that he scares her with his tenacity. While we see him break into smile every now and then, the others believe his façade as stoic power. As for Arthur, played by Claude Brasseur, he is the one grown up in an abusive house, always looking for the big score. Willing to do whatever it takes, his nonchalance and calm demeanor lull his friends into his trap, leading them to do the work while he reaps the benefits. That is until the conclusion when the charade becomes real and the kids realize that they have not been playing a game at all.

Seen at the Viennale 2017: Reason for screening was a sad tragedy. Hans Hurch, director of the Viennale (Vienna International Film Festival) since 10 years, died this summer. Now for the Viennale 2017 several filmmaker selected movies in praise of Mr. Hurch. Agnes Varda selected Bande a Part for screening. I think, everybody who goes to the movies must see all Godard movies at least once. And for sure the wonderful Anna Karina in Bande a Part.

For anyone interested in the history of film, this is a must-see, in the same way Birth Of A Nation or GWTW are must-sees; One can see the brilliance D.W. Griffith brought to early cinema in his epic recreation of his own Southern version of the American Civil War without admiring the sketchy politics that lie at it's roots, without rooting for the Ku Klux Klan to rescue Lillian Gish from the freed slaves. In the same way, I give Godard's film a high historical rating although I personally find the characters a drag, and their aimless lives less than fascinating.

Regardless of the brilliant avant-garde cinematic techniques that pepper the Band of Outsiders, one is also stuck with the characters, an aimless lot without a lot of talent, charm or magnetism, rootless folks who ignore others completely as long as they can run about and steal and make noise and act like unruly children. Late in life they have discovered they can be naughty--but without talent or insight or much else than self-indulgence, after a while watching them get's to be a drag. So you can run screaming through the Louvre and feel free and make noise and annoy the other patrons and guards? If you missed your adolescent years, it's a shame, but rootless behavior in and of itself doesn't create much of anything save a picture of self-indulgence.

One can appreciate the new vision of cinematography that frees the narrative from ancient strictures--but one also gets tired of a supposedly "free spirit," Arthur, setting up Odile for failure, using her body for his own instant gratification without any eye for consequences; simply put, he's a loser, and why do I want to spend two hours with him? I recognize Godard's contribution to the New Wave, but also find his characters tiresome in their attitudinal posing and aimless vapidity.

"Band Of Outsiders" covers about the same ground as "Breathless", but I think with less depth and less humor. Godard sticks more to plot here and less to his wonderful scenes of empty talk that are like good jazz riffs. People may respond more to this one than Breathless precisely for that reason- it more fits the conception of an American B-movie: The plot is conceived, designed and carried out with a few twists and turns in the process.

This movie is the most self-referential of Godard's B-ish movies in that Godard is a director who lives in a world of the junk crime movies he grew up with making a movie about characters who live their lives like a bad crime movie. When Anna Karina jokes that Stolz probably made his loot from cheating on his taxes, then repeats it again in the final scene- this time as stated fact, it shows you how deeply these characters are entrenched in the fiction of it all, how the wisecracking becomes a way of living. What was disappointing to me is that there was less of the memorable nonsense that makes Godard's films unique- although there is some. Godard's overwrought, sickly poetic narration is obviously a gag, as is Arthur's hilariously overacted death scene; the minute of silence at the soda shop where Godard cuts the soundtrack completely is great, and the synchronized (well, almost) dancing is just precious, and I loved it. But it's the almostness of Godard's films that makes it special; if it were too perfect, it would be mechanized and dull. Instead of dancing, it would be choreography, an applied science.

Band Of Outsiders is definitely worth seeing if you like Godard's way of filmmaking; to me, it falls a little short of greatness, but it does have its moments. Beware of croc-Odiles! 3*** out of 4

Two crooks with a fondness for old Hollywood B-movies convince a languages student to help them commit a robbery.

Godard described it as "Alice in Wonderland meets Franz Kafka". That may be suggesting it is a bit stranger than it is. Heck, after watching "Alphaville" this comes across as about as normal as it gets.

Although it is not obvious, the dance scene here influenced the dance scene with Uma Thurman and John Travolta in Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction". Tarantino loved this film so much, in fact, he named his production company after it. (Although a big fan of B-movies and Hong Kong, Tarantino has his finer tastes, too.) Pauline Kael described Bande à part as "a reverie of a gangster movie" and "perhaps Godard's most delicately charming film". A nice compliment. Others have said it is his most accessible. I liked it, but would not call it my favorite.

The French 'Nouvelle Vogue' is an area of cinema that I haven't seen much of, but what I have seen is good; and this film is very good! Jean-Luc Godard, creator of the quintessential New Wave film, 'Breathless' directs and once again shows that if a film has style and energy, plot and characters can take a backseat without too many problems. Band of Outsiders is muddled and doesn't seem to know exactly what it wants to do; but it doesn't matter, because the life that Godard injects into it more than makes up for it's lack of direction and even though many of the scenes have nothing to do with the actual plot; the film manages to work, and work very well. The plot is amazingly simple, and it follows a group of three friends that decide to steal some money from the female group member's landlord. In fact, this plot is so simple that it's really hard to even consider this film a 'crime film'. The crime at the centre of the plot is so petty that it feels wrong to put this in the same genre section as films such as 'Rififi' and 'The Asphalt Jungle'; but then again, that's Godard's intention with this film.

Band of Outsiders continually mocks convention, and scenes such as the impromptu dance in a cafeteria (Pulp Fiction, anyone?) show that Godard just wants to break convention, even if it comes at the expense of the plot. Despite being a well-renowned classic; this film is also very hard to like. At about the half hour point, I was convinced that I didn't like this film; but once Godard really let's the plot run away with itself, the film really opens up and just one cafeteria dance scene turned this film from a dead loss into a brilliantly vivacious piece for yours truly. Godard doesn't spend much time building or developing his characters; but they really don't need any development. The characters are what they are, and the brilliance in that respect comes from the way that Godard allows them to freely express themselves, without having the barriers of the plot to confine them. Really, this film shouldn't work. It forsakes all the proved elements that do make films work, yet it's chiselled out it's own niche. Godard is either a madman or a genius, but irrespective of that; echoes of this film can be seen throughout cinema, and therefore it's impossible to rank Band of Outsiders as anything but one of the most important films ever made.

I won't pretend to be a scholar of French New Wave. I've seen a few movies (including BREATHLESS, 400 BLOWS and a few more). And now Godard's BAND OF OUTSIDERS. Of the New Wave I've seen, Godard's films are often the liveliest and most "carefree." At their best, they have an undeniable energy that feels real, like something really happening while a camera happened to be running. Sometimes, you are VERY aware that a film is being made but in a way that delights you with the craftsmanship. And sometimes, you just don't quite know what's going on, because the elements of what we think of as traditional narrative and storytelling are less interesting to Godard.

BAND OF OUTSIDERS touches all these areas. We are introduced, somewhat abruptly, to Arthur & Franz, two young men with little money and big ambitions. And little in the way of scruples. They are both taken with the innocent young Odile (Anna Karina), whom they attend an English Class with. They like her, but they also like the fact that she lives in a home where one of the men there keeps a huge pile of cash in his closet. So they both woo her because they are interested in her, and woo her to get her to help them steal the money. She knows that's their goal, but is nervous about helping. It isn't always easy to tell how anyone really feels about anything. There's actually a narrator there to explain some of this to us, but he never really quite does. The two men are fairly stoic, and its hard to read them. They are clowns. They are romantics. They are men of their era who also like old Hollywood movies. Odile is innocent, but that doesn't mean she isn't interested in and tempted by these guys. She's ready to break out of her shell more than a little.

The "heist" in the movie is almost incidental to watching these 3 interact. At times, their relationship is quite amusing, and at times, there is an undercurrent of danger. Odile fancies Arthur, ultimately, because she thinks he's the most genuine. But to us, he feels the most sinister. Capable of violence. And at it's best, the three have some really amazingly fun scenes together. Best of all was a long sequence set in a cafe, which, after lots of amusing things regarding who will sit where at their table, the 3 launch into a dance (The Madison). That scene, one long, long take, is amazing. Nothing happens, really, except they dance...but it's amazing to watch. Karina comes into her own...she glows in this scene, and for me, at that moment, she became a truly interesting actor.

It's a goofy movie in many ways, and speeds along briskly, but mostly to nowhere. The heist takes the tone of the film in new directions, and I'm not sure how Godard wanted things to come across. It seems remarkably callous. There are times throughout the film where we simply don't have a clue what's going on in the minds of the characters. They engage in conversations that come out of nowhere and we're given no context. Yes, it's all very "new wavey", but we need a little more to be willing to take the journey with you 100%.

It's a fun movie, and feels very evocative of its time and of a particular generation in that time. The young and disaffected with no real prospects. I'm very glad I saw it.

It is a way to show what a B movie is. Superficial characters with little expectations in life. But, you don't forget it soon. Ana Karina is the star, and plays well the short mind girl that believe everything. The plot is treated superficial and if you expect a policier you will be disappointed.

Jean-Luc Godard, who chattered before the arrival of the color widescreen, talked about the trembling lights in the cold fog and Shakespeare in the translation class, a minute of silence and a nine-minute record, and a third-rate story ending in the cold-blooded narration. The seemingly unconnected pieces are combined in the final emotional outburst, no less than any traditional type of story. The irritating carelessness is the cover of the conspirators, and the shy persistence has finally gained happiness. It may be a kind of gentleness that Godard can't cover under his cold appearance.

Jean-Luc Godard's film Bande à part was shown in the U.S. with the title Band of Outsiders (1964).

French New Wave directors always said they took their inspiration from U.S. gangster movies. That was supposed to be charming. However, Bande à part is, indeed, a gangster movie, and the film didn't appeal to me. (If you want a Hollywood grade-B gangster film see a Hollywood grade-B gangster film. Don't look for it from a great French director.)

Jean-Luc Godard knew excellent actors when he saw them. The movie has three actors in starring roles--Anna Karina as Odile, Sami Frey as Franz, and Claude Brasseur as Arthur. Frey and Brasseur were relative unknowns in 1964, but they became major stars after this movie.

Anna Karina was Godard's muse (and wife). She was the icon of the French New Wave. Besides Godard, she made movies under the direction of Rivette, Visconti, and Fassbinder. This was her first important movie. (Godard was already well know for his 1960 film Breathless.)

Despite the acting abilities of the Karina, Brasseur, and Frey, the movie never came together for me. Karina convinced Godard to let her play the role of the young woman as a dreamy, naive adolescent. The look didn't become her, and, for me, that brought the whole movie down.

Band of Outsiders reminds me of Truffaut's Jules and Jim (1962), except that Franz and Arthur weren't really good friends the way Jules and Jim were. Also, Karina was an icon, but she wasn't Jeanne Moreau.

There is one scene of pure genius however. That's the Madison dance routine. I had never heard of the Madison, but apparently it was somewhat popular in the late 1950's and into the 1960's. It's a line dance with very specific, almost formal steps.

In the movie, Brasseur, Frey, and Karina have a dance sequence when they perform the Madison. In the plot, it's supposed to be spontaneous, but of course they had rehearsed it for weeks. Karina is wearing a men's fedora, and she looks adorable. (Brasseur and Karina were good dancers. Frey was not, so mostly he is looking down at his feet. Godard comments on this in a voiceover.)

I could say it's worth seeing the movie just to see this four-minute dance scene. However, if you just want to see the dance, it's on YouTube.

Band of outsiders has a strong IMDb rating of 7.7, and it has cinematic historical importance. I didn't think it was quite that good, and rated it 7.

First, I should admit that "Bande a part" (called "Band of Outsiders" in English) is the first Jean-Luc Godard movie that I've seen, so I can't compare it with his other movies. But I certainly liked it. One of the many installments in the New Wave (in fact, Nouvelle Vague appears on a cinema marquee), it portrays small-time crooks Arthur and Franz - both fans of B-movies about gangsters - enlisting young foreign language student Odile to help them pull off a crime.

My interpretation is that the movie has many aspects. Clearly, we get to see early '60s Paris. But also, Godard likes to imitate some of the tricks used in film noir B-movies - as well as with the storytelling - without getting silly. In some ways, it seems that the movie has a plot similar to Stanley Kubrick's "The Killing" (also about a heist), but they set things up so as to prevent it from being an outright rehash.

A scene that people frequently like to discuss when talking about this movie is the dance scene; I certainly liked what they did with the sound there, as well as during the moment of silence. However, one scene that I would like to discuss is the English class where they read "Romeo & Juliet". As the teacher reads about the suicides, and about the characters being star-crossed lovers, it makes one ponder whether or not this reflects on unfolding events in the movie (but I'll let you find out for yourself what happens).

Anyway, I'm now eager to see Godard's other movies. Is he France's greatest director? That's debatable, but you can't deny that this movie is a great one.

Two Paris low-lifers (Franz and Arthur) meet a pretty girl (Odile) in an English class. Right there I was alerted to the fact that this movie was not to be taken for its realism--these two guys would never have been studying English. They both fall for Odile. When she reveals that there is a lodger in her villa who has a cash bundle, the two guys become intent on getting the money and enlist Odile as an accomplice. That is the story, but in a movie like this the story appears to be incidental to the presentation.

And the presentation did not engage me. Odile is appealing enough in her innocence, but Franz and Arthur are losers. In an extraordinary feat Godard has managed to make Paris look dismal. This movie may as well have been filmed in Detroit. Clouds predominate and the film quality is slightly grainy giving the impression of looking through a light fog, even indoors.

It's hard to know how to take this. Maybe that was one of the goals, but the mixed genres did not jell into a whole for me. The jaunty score encouraged me to take this as a joke, but other scenes, like a murder, worked at cross-purpose to that. There were some humorous parts, like having Franz and Arthur wear Odile's black stockings completely over their faces during a crime scene. With no eye holes, they could not have seen much. Scenes like that, and having the three run through the Louve to set a speed record, had me thinking that this could be an absurdest comedy.

There is an interview with Godard (looking ominously like Dr. Strangelove) on the DVD extras where he discusses some of the tenets of the French New Wave cinema. The main thread I got out of that interview was Godard's desire to overthrow the accepted techniques and clichés of the past. But there is usually some wisdom in established techniques and clichés do not achieve their status without there having been some truth in them. Given Godard's outlook he can always deflect any criticism by accusing the critic of being too trapped by the past.

I have recently come up with a yardstick to help me in assessing my reaction to a movie, and that is how frequently I look at the time. Toward the end of this relatively short movie I was checking the clock about every five minutes.