Band of Outsiders (1964)

This film gets 2 big thumbs up by Quentin Tarantino who even named his company after it (A band Apart). BUT: Quentin Tarantino knows every possible film on earth and even names "Manos the Hands of Fate" (currently the worst film on IMDb with 7,676 votes) as one of his Top Ten films. THEN AGAIN: The Good, The bad and the ugly is on that same list too, which left me wondering, and eventually watching...

Bande à part. Despite only lasting about 97 minutes, this film is much too long. The main problem with the film is that it is slow (like a tortoise) and that every once in a while there is this annoying, useless, artsy voice-over. Actually the only thing that kept me going, was that this film seemed to have one decent moment every 10 minutes or so, with the rest being dull and uninteresting. I guess it's true what they say: hope never dies. With this film and me though, it eventually did and I thought my effort is Guiness Book of Record material. 48 minutes and 26 seconds!!! Going once, going twice...

3,44 out of 10 (with a 3 given upon voting)

Fmovies: Apart from perhaps being a satire of gangster movies, the point of this film eludes me. Two guys and a young woman plan a robbery at the Paris house where the young woman lives with her aunt. The young woman is naive and constantly scared. The two young men are seemingly rather ordinary. I didn't find any of these people interesting. We never learn much about them or what motivates them. Yet, given that this is a "New Wave" film I doubt that characterization was all that important to the film's director.

The plot starts out okay, but then meanders, and then becomes increasingly silly and unbelievable. Maybe that was intentional. Midway through, the three main characters suddenly, and for no reason, burst into a dance called the "Madison", the steps to which are nothing if not annoyingly repetitive. This bouncy little interlude goes on for some time, yet it has absolutely nothing to do with the story. Again, maybe that's the point.

Other gimmicks are inserted gratuitously, evidently to shock 1964 viewers into the realization, consistent with New Wave doctrine, that the film is not a product of the dreaded classical Hollywood narrative style of film-making.

But the worst element of this film is the sound. Background, ambient noise is amplified; why, I don't know, except, again, as some counterpoint to standard Hollywood films. Yet, the noise in "Band Of Outsiders" is so distracting, even grating, it takes away from what little value the visuals and narrative may have.

B&W cinematography is unremarkable. Lighting is low-contrast. Visuals trend toward grayish, pallid tones. Production design, in keeping with low-budget film-making, is plain, even cheap looking.

As a daring and iconoclastic attempt in 1964 to provide an alternative to stodgy, old-style Hollywood film-making, Godard's "Band Of Outsiders" probably does have some historical value. But what was visionary then seems campy and trite now.

I must admit I have a bit of a problem with Jean Luc Godard. As he is a major influence on many film makers I love, I'm always curious to watch his movies to see where thay learned their chops. But I usually find Godard's movies a chore to get through and generally disappointing overall. Even his most famous and influential movie 'Breathless' took me a few viewings before I "got" it, and recently rewatching it for the first time on DVD I found it to be a lot less entertaining than I'd remembered. 'Band Of Outsiders' is for many Godard buffs even better than 'Breathless', but I really cannot share their enthusiasm. While in many ways the two movies are similar in approach and subject matter, the major difference for me is that 'Band Of Outsiders' lacks the infectious energy of 'Breathless'. Making a movie about characters who are bored with life there is a great risk that the movie will be boring to watch, and this is too often the case with this film. There are a few inspired sequences I can't deny that, especially the influential dancing scene, the minute of silence, and the race around the Louvre, but these are few and far between. The other main difference is in the actors themselves. Anna Karina is by far the best thing about this movie, but Claude Brasseur and Sami Frey lack the charisma and presence of Jean-Paul Belmondo, and drag the movie to a standstill every time they have a "bit". I'm sorry I just couldn't get into their characters or care for their fate, in the way I could about Belmondo and Seberg in Godard's earlier movie. So there you have it, a movie that buffs will probably want to check out for historical reasons, but apart from that there isn't much reason to sit through it. And yeah, I know it gets a big thumbs up from Quentin Tarantino, but so does 'Days Of Thunder'!

Band of Outsiders fmovies. Jean Luc Goddard's Band of Outsiders was originally made as an assault on what popular French film should be. The film includes intrusive narration that gives pointless digressions, long scenes of silence, and characters addressing the camera. ( whether or not the quality of the performances were intentional, is still debatable. ) It is obvious that Goddard's intentions were not to create a very original film, but more of an attack at unoriginal film. Regardless, the film is seen as one of Goddard's best works. I don't believe a film should be regarded as "good" simply because it is a reaction towards the fundamentals of storytelling. The film is not at all refreshing to someone who is searching for a legitimate narrative, only to those who appreciate the assault on traditional film making.

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