User reviews

I just saw this film for the first time on TCM. I was appalled to see that there is no video available, nor has Maltin written a summary. Now I regret not having taped it, and hope it will be shown again.

This film, Godard's second at feature-length, was made in 1960. It was subsequently banned by the French government and not commercially released until 1963, when the war in Algeria was over and Algeria had gained its independence. It is sometimes difficult to recall, 41 years after the fact, that the Algerian conflict was then tearing France apart and, had anyone but a WWII hearing like De Gaulle been in charge, probably would have led to civil war.

The lead character is a somewhat reluctant and half-hearted member of a right wing terrorist group, opposing Algerian independence, planning assassinations and tortures of members of left wing terrorist groups supporting Algerian independence. Godard demonstrates that there is really no difference between the two, that they are both morally bankrupt and ultimately nihilistic. Members of both groups are shown with remarkable objectivity--remarkable if you know Godard's own political leanings, which were far to the left, Maoist in fact.

Stylistically the film has a documentary, cinema verite feel. Godard used hand held cameras decades before they came into vogue. The characters seem real, so much so that, except for the beautiful Anna Karina, it is necessary to remind oneself that these are actors.

By the way, probably very few viewers, except those who may have been in France at that time, will know the significance of a scene where, several times in succession, several cars blow their horns "ta ta tum, tum tum." That was a very public code that existed in France at the time and stood for "Algerie Francaise," or. loosely, "Keep Algeria French." A very topical film.

Bruno's compromised, his treacherous position, now there's those who'll make profit, at their volition, to encourage him to shoot, will not entertain dispute, until he's satisfied their will, completed mission. Veronica proves to be, quite a distraction, causes Bruno to evaluate his fractions, as the other side entrap, chain his wrists, to the bath tap, while using torture as their primary transaction. Then a chance to land back in the ladies arms, of the mission he can't have, any more qualms, but subversion has its day, the couple go their separate ways, it's hard to think that Bruno, remained very calm.

It took a couple of rewinds and essentially a second viewing to fully appreciate this film, and even then it was hit and miss. I'm guessing that it must have been more powerful in the 1960's, not because it's message isn't still relevant today, but because it's counterculture method of filmmaking, the philosophical and practically stream of consciousness dialog, and depiction of alienation of youth in a world at war where neither side seems right would have resonated more.

One of the issues is that the long soliloquy from the main character (Michel Subor) towards the end meanders and doesn't deliver a payoff. Throughout the film he wants to talk poetry, philosophy, and politics with everyone - including the captors who torture him - but often doesn't say anything that is particularly enlightened. How much smarter is the comment of his girlfriend (Anna Karina), who much more quietly says that the French will ultimately lose the colonial war because they lack the 'ideal' they had in WWII; in other words, ultimately, they're in the wrong.

The film tells a coherent story, unlike some of Godard's later political efforts, but it has a raw and unpolished feeling about it, with bumpy shots out of cars, lots of dubbing, and aspects that aren't all that fleshed out (such as Karina's character). To some, that might be part of its appeal.

As this film deals with the Algerian War through the lens of violence in Europe between the range of people in support of the FLN (intellectuals, sympathizers, and terrorists) and French forces that seem to be lumping them all into that latter category, and because it has some a dramatically different style, it may make an interesting (though quite dark) double feature with 'The Battle of Algiers' (1966).

Godard's first explicitly political work - produced directly following the release of his debut film, the celebrated À bout de soufflé (1960), and banned almost immediately by the French government until 1963 - is a small-scale B-picture with serious intentions and a scattering of the director's typical verve and energy. In tone, it is somewhat characteristic of the approach of the early French New Wave, and of Godard's films of this period; calling to mind the aforementioned debut and his short films, Tous les garçons s'appellent Patrick (1959) and Charlotte et son Jules (1960), with the elements of cinema vérité inspired editing and cinematography techniques - capturing the action in a hurried and uncomplicated approach of hand-held cameras and unsophisticated mise-en-scene - and featuring a few early experiments with the use of sound design and music that would become more refined throughout the director's subsequent projects; leading to the year-zero effect of Week End (1967) and his exile from "mainstream" cinema until the early 1980's.

Although the film is quite clearly attempting to be a serious work - in regards to both the subject matter and the portrayal of the characters - this is still Godard at his most playful and deconstructive; tinkering with the characteristics of post-war crime cinema and the American film-noir to underline a story that is grittier and more low-key than many of his subsequent projects, such as the giddily stylised Une femme est une femme (1961) produced the following year. So, even though this particular approach and subject matter seems to point towards Godard's later, more politically minded work, such as Made in USA (1966) and La Chinoise (1967), we're still very much in the world of À bout de soufflé; with Godard simply using the political aspects of the story in the same way that he would use the science-fiction elements of Alphaville (1964) or the crime story characteristics of the much later Detective (1985); in the sense that they're mainly stylistic devises there to be exploited for the purposes of cinematic experimentation. I'm sure he meant it deep down, but at this stage in his career, Godard simply lacked the refinement of his later work, giving us a mostly straight presentation with tough guy narration, some ironic asides and an interest in moments of witty dialog and character interaction to breakdown the more conventional thriller aspects of the narrative.

At its most interesting, Le Petit Soldat (1963) draws odd parallels between the shooting of a film and the shooting of a political target; with Godard invoking his cinematographer Raoul Coutard and an anecdote about location filming - "the great hassle" - and applying it to the foibles of political assassination when outside influences intervene. In one line, it is pure Godard; playful, deconstructive, self-referential and incredibly witty; we also have that great shot in which the central character, readying himself for a hit, poses from his car window with a 44. in one hand, and a picture of Hitler held in the other to slyly mask his features. What also marks this out as an interesting work for Godard is the first appearance from Anna Karina; the Danish actress that would become Godard's first wife and muse for many of his earliest and greatest films, until Made in USA and their subsequent divorce in 1967. In Le Petit Soldat it becomes clear that Godard is in love with Karina, and his interest in her is expressed cinematically, with the black and white photography of Coutard framing her beautiful features with those big wide eyes and conspiratorial smile that is perfect for a character of this nature.

Godard and Karina would go on to make greater films together, such as Une femme est une femme, Vivre sa Vie (1962), Bande á part (1964) Alphaville and Pierrot le fou (1965) - all groundbreaking works - but there's a charm to her appearance here that makes the lengthy scenes between her character and the film's central protagonist fizz and pop with an unrehearsed magnetism and charisma that is (or was) characteristic of the early French New Wave. In the end, for all the grit and the prolonged scenes of psychological torture and botched political assassinations, Godard is really just playing here; playing with the ideas of politics and current events, like he played with the characteristics of Cocteau's Le Bel Indifférent with Charlotte et son Jules, or played with the crime film conventions in À bout de soufflé. Obviously, these characters aren't secret-agents, radicals or revolutionaries, but are simply actors playing at these roles; much like Belmondo was playing at being a gangster or Karina would go on to play the sitcom girl next door.

Ultimately, Godard's cinema is a cinema of moments; of scenes and characters that gather in our mind during the course of the process of viewing and remain there long after the film has ended. As a result, it is often argued that one can enjoy a film of Godard's, even if they found the complete experience somewhat slow or disengaging - largely as a result of the greatness of the individual scenes. Though it remains flawed in some respects, Le Petit Soldat is certainly not a bad film, and indeed, seems bursting with fresh ideas and ideologies; many of which are a lot more subtle than Godard's detractors would perhaps give him credit for. However, even then, we can recognise this as an early work in the grand scheme of things, produced by an incredibly talented young filmmaker not yet in complete command of his identity or his craft.

In the past couple of weeks, I've been on a Godard kick where I've seen "Alphaville", "My Life to Live" and "Breathless", along with "Le Petit Soldat." I don't think that it reflects all that badly on the latter movie to say that it's not really in a league with the first three, all of which are near-masterpieces at the very least.

This was Godard's first feature film made after "Breathless", and you can see him straining to give "Le Petit Soldat" a different feel - something where the stakes are a little higher, something more engaged with the political realities and real ethics of the world. One might conclude that this concrete engagement with politics isn't really Jean-Luc's cup of tea. It's telling that the best scene, Bruno's long closing monologue at the end of the film, is as involved with art and abstraction as it is with the milieu of the Algerian conflict around which the film centers itself.

The camera-work isn't as radical as some of Godard's other films, and his locations in Geneva and Zurich don't provide him with as much eye candy as his native Paris. Even more so than other early Godard films, it has the feel of a documentary. In this case, the documentary is a combination between a piece of political agitation and a seminar on individual freedom with respect to modern politics.

While the typical doomed Godardian hero spends most of his or her time in desperate circumstances, they frequently continue living in blithe ignorance of the fate that awaits them, spending their time in bed with one another or in pseudo-philosophical conversation. Bruno, the protagonist of "Le Petit Soldat", is different. The sense of desperation within him is palpable; Bruno is increasingly hemmed in by competing French and Algerian ideologies that make no sense to him, but nevertheless exercise more and more control over his freedom as the movie progresses.

The much-discussed torture scene is surprisingly long and effective. Torture, while no less in vogue now than it was in the early '60s, doesn't get much screen time these days. What Godard does so well is show the banality of the torturers, who go about their work with half-hearted second-hand assertions about what is necessary in times like these.

This film isn't even in release on video in the U.S. and it's not in Maltin's book. Yet it is among Godard's best films. Banned on it's initial release in France because of it's treatment of the Algerian war, this film has yet to receive the attention it deserves.

First of all, it is essential viewing for any fans of Godard if for no other reason because it's is his second feature film. Unlike BREATHLESS, which is partly noted as being such a seminal film due to its fearless departure in style and disregard for any convention of the "well-made" film, LE PETIT SOLDAT shows Godard working with a more straightforward verite approach. BREATHLESS' essence is irony and iconoclasm in terms of character, narrative, editing, filmmaking philosophy etc. With LE PETIT SOLDAT, however, Godard uses the gangster genre rather sincerely in order to relate a political morality tale. The film has several of Godard's characteristic visual trademarks: handheld verite immediacy, many varieties of city location shots (in this case Geneva) and many shots of Anna Karina's beautiful face. Also, it has the distinctive poetic Godard voice-overs, which in this film represent the lead character's (Bruno) interior thoughts. In short, stylistically, it is typical of Godard's greatest poetic gifts as a filmmaker, with the added advantage of a relatively conventional narrative.

In terms of the plot, I only want to say the film is about a right wing spy, when ordered to assassinate an operative assisting the Algerians, becomes involved with a beautiful woman also assisting them. I'll let you see the rest.

As I said above, Godard treats the gangster genre with respect and uses it sincerely at least in terms of narrative style. Visually, it's all Godard -- roving shots from cars, moody nighttime shots of city lights and letters, handheld close-ups, verite action, characters photographing other characters, etc. In terms of content, while we don't get the "political" Godard in BREATHLESS, in LE PETIT SOLDAT the political Godard emerges, and with great urgency and energy. This film was banned in France, so it must have seemed extraordinarily effective, politically, upon its release. But since this was only Godard's second film, there was probably not too much controversy (though I'm not sure) surrounding its censorship.

In a way, this film is Godard's "Hamlet." At issue for much of the film is whether for Bruno (the protagonist)has "to be or not to be." Should one act or not? But also, Bruno must not only decide if he should act, but for whom -- the right or the left, or simply for himself. Bruno is conscientious, but he is also a French patriot. His choice, and its process, is a compelling one. Outside this political/moral crisis is early Godard's treatment of love, acting, beauty, the image, authority and loss. There is also a torture scene in this film that is shocking, not because it is gruesome, but because of Godard's natural immediacy and presence as a director. It feels so real.

It has some weaknesses associated with Godard, mainly a somewhat simplistic and schematic approach to politics and a tendency for characters (mainly Bruno) to voice their ideas and impressions in a way that is extraneous to the rest of the film. But this is Godard, and in his hands these qualities (at least in this film) feel like strengths rather than weaknesses. There is a monologue by Bruno which is like a five minute rant. Some may find it overbearing and undramatic. I loved it.

This is among the most romantic of Godard's films. Bruno is all intensity and rebellion. In his temperament he is similar to Eddie Constantine's character in ALPHAVILLE. Enough is enough.

I've only seen about six or seven Godard films (all from the 1960's), and because I like his more directly political ones the most, this one is my favorite along with WEEKEND, though I really liked MY LIFE TO LIVE as well. I heartily recommend it, if you can find it.

This film is generally regarded as the sole clunker from the period when this great director was routinely hitting em out of the park, a span from 1959 to 1966 or, if you need it put less abstractly, from "Breathless" to "Masculine Feminine". The main problem with it is that this most soberly realistic of Godard's films is also one of his dullest and I do not think it is coincidental. Godard is at his best with tongue firmly implanted in cheek and the humor, like good Gallic coffee, copious, strong and black. Also madcap and more than a bit off center. Conversely, in this Cold War political movie I did not laugh once. And a political Godard without his trademark mordant humor, zaniness or quirkiness is like Fritz Lang or Carol Reed on a bad day. If I want serious films about the Franco/Algerian conflict then I'll watch Pontecorvo, for cryin out loud. C plus.

PS...I also think that when a Godard film is not set in Paris, as this one is, then there is a palpable sense of loss, ("Contempt" honorably excepted).

"Le Petit Soldat" was made right after "Breathless", with Raoul Coutard continuing to experiment with hand-held black-and-white cinematography; it was the first film that Jean-Luc Godard made with Anna Karina, and the film has many passages which are hymns to her beauty (the most famous being the photography session with freeze-frames, a scene which John Schlesinger copied in "Darling"). Though I love early Godard, this one is fascinating, but it's also politically murky: the very real issues of the Algerian War are treated in ways which are confusing, sometimes facetious, and often distressing. But the romantic agony at the core of the film makes it very touching. It would be Godard's most passionately tragic film until "Pierrot le Fou", and the couple played by Michel Subor and Karina remain perhaps Godard's most heartbreaking.

Le Petit Soldat (The Little Soldier) was shot in 1960 but was shelved until its release in 1963 after director Jean-Luc Godard had released his controversial groundbreaker Breathless, his unique little "musical" A Woman is a Woman, and his somber and moody Vivre Sa Vie. One wonders how Le Petit Soldat, originally intended for a 1960 release, would've fared as Godard's directorial debut or even sophomore effort, as the film makes a daring attempt at commenting on the, at the time, ongoing Algerian War along with making use of scenes involving torture and misogynistic undertones.

Le Petit Soldat also catches Godard in another one of his more pessimistic moods, providing a shakeup after the surprising happiness and playfulness A Woman is a Woman seemed to ooze. I've been perusing Godard's French New Wave films for the last month and a half, viewing now eight of his fifteen pictures and, from that, I can see that Godard apparently possesses three distinct moods. One of which is the aforementioned playfulness I remarked on that seemed apparent in A Woman is a Woman and little elsewhere. The second is an incoherent nature, where he seems to be spitballing ideas, observations, and insights, not really caring if they can mesh together into a project, often resulting in a rocky film (key examples are 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her and the aggressively unwatchable Film Socialisme, his most-recently released project). Finally, there's the mood he seems to be in quite frequently and that's the pessimistic and deeply cynical mood, often coming with a harsh lesson in politics and sociological commentary. Such examples are the great Pierrot Le Fou, the negative but immersing Weekend, and the thoughtful thematic tones provided in Contempt.

Le Petit Soldat is another candidate for the latter category, where Godard seems to be in a cranky mood, but not just any cranky mood. The kind where you wake up in the morning with something on your mind but can't quite make your mind work to say it. Godard seems to combat this notion by giving us a home-movie-quality feature film, set during the Algerian War, diving into the mind of Bruno Forestier (Michel Subor), a man working for the French Intelligence who is tasked with killing a man named Arthur Palivoda, who works for the National Liberation Front of Algeria. Personal morals and hesitation with the operation make this mission drag out longer than it should, and the mission is further extended when Bruno meets Veronica Dryer (Anna Karina), a woman who has aided the Liberation Front and whom falls in love with Bruno. He admires her unbelievable beauty and the way she makes a photograph sparkle. She admires his naivete and his ability to ask so many questions.

Godard gives us many ideas we've come to know from him up until this point. Yes, we know that he loves centering his films on the anti-hero or the character who commits despicable acts that we cannot bear to support. Yes, we know he loves lingering on shots of Anna Karina, admiring her unrealistic beauty, dirt-black hair, and her radiant, innocent, and sassy smile. And yes, we know he loves infusing his films with political commentary, subversive devices that help cinema's elasticity further stretch, and enjoys spitballing ideas at the audience, not really caring if we get them or not.

After the forty-five minute mark, however, Le Petit Soldat began to take its shape, showing scenes that commented on the use of torture tactics during the Algerian War. The scenes didn't so much show the horrors and the brutality of the waterboarding and the use of burning ones hands in order to obtain information, but rather the honesty and the small details of torture. Nowadays, something like this couldn't be done without excessive screaming, terror, some amount of bloodshed, and an apparent desire on the writer/director's behalf to make the viewer as uncomfortable as possible. Instead, Godard shows a closeup on ones face as they are sprayed with water with a cloth draping their entire face, locking out all possible air. He shows us the details of a man's hands handcuffed around a thick pipe being burned and toyed with thanks to the use of a lighter. These little details make up some of the head-turning aspects of the film that can't be ignored.

The final twenty-four minutes of the very short eighty-four Le Petit Soldat occupies largely takes place in one room with only two characters, Bruno and Veronica. Bruno paces back in forth, reciting dialog that is often hypocritical, observant, sometimes misogynist, but incredibly thought-provoking and intellectually-stimulating. Right then and there, it occurred to me why we see a Godard film after all. If we can somehow wait out some of the tedium (or a lot of the tedium, in this case), we get to the meat of the issue and we get wonderful dialog in return that gets our juices flowing.

Le Petit Soldat is much more interesting to read about, talk about, and think about than it is to endure, especially with the first forty-five minutes being so slow and often times grating. If one can look past a subpar first half, they will be greeted with a second half that is awe-inspiring and true to its director's long-held reputation.

I've watched and re-watched the beginning sections, sometimes 5 minutes or sometimes up to 30, of many of Godard's films, and then either got too tired or just wasn't sure I could get through it all at the time. Sometimes it was because the material gets difficult and even egregious to what cinema, in concept, form, execution, ideas, amounts to. And sometimes there's also some very good stuff to savor too, as Godard thumbs his nose and makes new rules to break for himself. Le Petit Soldat, really his 2nd film after Breathless but released later, happens to carry with it, as was the case with Les Carabiniers, the political intent of his later films but with a brisker, more accessible avant-garde style to match the semantics. He also still has the energy going on full-throttle, and there are even moments where the jump-cuts start to feel even more exhilarating than one might've thought in Breathless. And at 80 minutes it says what it has to and exits, but while around leaves many memorable bits in its wake, some small like when Bruno (Michel Subor) rushes back to make a 'bet' by asking Anna Karina's Veronica Dreyer to move her hair around for him. It's a slight aside that's really wonderful, playful whimsy in a film that really doesn't have time for it. Another memorable moment is when Bruno is tortured, with the water crashing down on his head underneath the black mask.

There's also some superb passages put into play, even if said multiple viewings are needed to grasp all of the method to what Godard is after in both the text and the look of the picture. As he's into extremes in style- either very fast in motion, skipping around narrative here and there like jump-rope, or deliberate and almost crude in its attention to length of shots and cutaways and reactions- there's also some extremes to deal with in the narrative too, the content. While it's not as deliriously nutty and experimental as Pierrot le Fou, with the political agenda there more open to interpretation, Le Petit Soldat is pretty serious stuff, with the Algiers topics and spy moments hot-button issues that Godard definitely cares about. What does it mean to be sort of wary of being a terrorist? Does one really commit to the allegiance or back down, and for what reason? Is it also impacted via the other side, who may be no more moral than his own? I still need to see this again some other time, if not just for the message pointers, then for the oddball tautness of the direction.

LE PETIT SOLDAT is a crime drama which has a war background. Godard's style is imbued with an uncomfortable political theme.

During the Algerian War, Bruno, an army deserter, lives in Geneva. He is caught in a dirty game between two secret service. Meanwhile, he meets and falls in love with Veronica, who is close to one of that secret services. Bruno must make a fateful decision, while both sides carry out inhuman pressures on him...

The sensitive subjects had a powerful impact on a realistic image of the film. Godard has, perhaps, made a small mistake with a frequent politicization. He moves away, in those moments, from his distinctive style. However, he has made, through the main protagonist, an intriguing moral confusion from which there is no escape.

The direction and pace are very good, while the characterization should be better. The reasons and emotions definitely missing in this story, which boils down to vague conversations about politics and love. Therefore, very serious situations get a frivolous tone in this film.

Michel Subor as Bruno Forestier is a kind of hero who is not sure of herself. Each of his decision encourages moral and intellectual issues. However, all fades and becomes part of the final deadly routine. Anna Karina as Veronica Dreyer is a girl who runs away from issues and do not wants to hear answers.

What can I say, this is Godard, master of style.

Filmed mostly in Geneva, Godard's "Le Petit Soldat" is as much a love letter to that city as his Paris-set films were to Paris. The inconsequential, free-wheeling plot hardly matters. Are we to take his hero seriously when he says he's a secret agent? Isn't spying and war just another game for Godard whose real concern is beautiful young intellectuals playing at being in love? This time his beautiful young lovers are Michel Subor and Anna Karina and they are photographed in luminous black-and-white by Raoul Coutard, (visually it's one of the most gorgeous of all his films), and yet it's not that well-known. Perhaps it was just too much like "Breathless" or just too cine-literate for its own good. Whatever the reason it's not often revived now but it is certainly well worth seeking out.

'Le Petit Soldat" is Jean-Luc Godard's second film after his exciting 'Breathless'. Banned by France, it came out a year after the end of the Algerian war and creation of Algeria in 1962. It has none of the power of Pontecorvo's 'Battle of Algiers', but it does deal with the secret war of intelligence agencies on both sides of the divide who don't refrain from torture and murder. Godard has found his muse in Anna Karina, who will appear in other films of his. And the dead pan Michel Subor as Bruno Forestier, a deserter in neutral Switzerland. Karina is a love interest but she is working for the FLN, the Algerians. The narrative is full of literary illusions, of quotes from say Cocteau 'Thomas the Impostor', and predictably the Algerians read Lenin and Mao. There is a didacticism that seeps into Godard's films, the summit being 'la Chinoise'. And the tendency to lecture can be disconcerting. Who in 2015 will recognize the significance of the way the right-wingers honked the horns of their automobiles? Al ger ie francaise. The battle cry to keep Algeria French no matter which wasn't so evident in 1958 when the story takes place. Godard's film has some resonance today when torture has come back with a vengeance.

Bruno Forrestier (Michel Subor) is a 26 year-old Frenchman working in Geneva with links to extreme-right terrorists. Set in the background of the Algerian war, he cannot return to France as he has deserted but cannot remain in Geneva, where two terrorist groups suspect him of being a double-agent and shadow him menacingly throughout the film. Common to Godard films such as A bout de soufflé and Peirrot le fou, there is a palpable sense from the beginning that Bruno is living on borrowed time, so the action takes on a certain urgency within this shadow of danger. This is contrasted by the serene filming and narration, which evokes calm and certainty. Godard uses over-narration from the beginning, creating a sense of certainty with regard to the action, although distorting the viewer's perception of time, especially when the two at one time merge together. At the same time, the intensity of danger is capitalised on by the heavy use of close-ups of the characters, who are all stylishly dressed in suits and driving American cars. A hand-held camera is also used to bring the viewer even closer to the action and, we feel, to understanding the motivations of Bruno in what remains a highly political film. The viewer is kept on his toes by the inconsistent length of sequences, ranging from very long and intense (in apartments) to very short and spontaneous (mostly with moving cars). Godard cuts mercilessly between scenes which are only tenuously linked by the storyline and, in order to create a contrast, will not explain this with the narration but with the continuation of action in the film (to which the viewer must then stay gripped). With the cars, the clothes, the editing, the hand-held camera work and the use of close-ups and over-narration, the film is a pioneer of Nouvelle vague cinema, having been made before A bout de soufflé (1960), but banned in France until 1963 due to its political commentary. Ironically, these techniques create such an intense relationship between the screen and the viewer that the presence of politics is of secondary importance to the desire to understand each character and find out whatever little you can about them. In these ways you are drawn in and remain gripped to the film.

Not quite a masterpiece in terms of world cinema, Jean-Luc Godard's La Petit Soldat, is still, to this day considered by most, to be one of the directors most singular films. Although the narrative is best described as simplistic, Godard's nouvelle vague approach to filming, and his clever deconstruction of film-noir conventions helps give this seemingly one-dimensional thriller a much-needed depth, bringing with it an added multitude of codes and connotations ripe for discussion. It's not a hard task to come away from La Petit Soldat, knowing immediately if you buy into Godard's school of film-making, because most of the familiar Godard-ian motifs are used. The grainy black and white photography, the cinema verite, hand-held camera, the brooding narration, the anti-hero, Anna Karina… All this information can be gathered from watching THIS film alone, excluding Godard's more well know works, such as Bànde a Part or À bout de soufflé. However it is the nihilistic torture of the main character (Michel Subor), which takes place mid-way through the film that really makes the film what it is. Godard's documentary approach to the scene, gives a sense of real terror, detailing the action in the same way he details the beauty of Karina in the apartment scenes. Another revelation, (perhaps used in other Godard films, I'm not too familiar with) is the way actors occasionally look into camera, as though Godard is letting us (the audience) in on the plot, or more importantly the joke. As stated earlier, this is not a spiralling multi-faceted conspiracy piece, more a modern distillation of film-noir, within the confines of the French New Wave… In full an excellent film.

Shot in 1960, but banned until 1963 due to its frank treatment of French torture of Algerian separatists, Jean-Luc Godard's LE PETIT SOLDAT is a political thriller mixed with a love story. Bruno (Michel Subor) is a French agent in Geneva, fighting a secret war against Arab spies supporting the Algerian cause. Tired of his superiors' demands that he assassinate another agent to prove his loyalty, he dreams of escaping to Brazil with the lovely Danish young lady Veronica (Anna Karina). Will they make it or not? I am assuming that anyone who is considering this film has already seen Godard's first film Breathless. Love it or hate it, it's a 20th-century classic and something any film buff should see. Godard's second film here initially seems to follow the same plot, where a man playing a deadly game of cat and mouse flirts with a woman who is oblivious to the danger he's in, and there are some gratuitous jump cuts too. However, LE PETIT SOLDAT has some twists and turns in its action and is no retread of its predecessor. Furthermore, the editing is tighter and the mise-en-scène more powerful; already one feels that Goddard has matured to the level of his following films of the 1960s.

To audiences half a century later, when the Algerian War is slowly forgotten even by the French, this may not seem a very in-your-face political commentary. However, Godard does include a few bitter references to World War II, suggesting that the same forces who righteously held out against Hitler only fifteen years before are now the aggressors against their colonial territory. While this is a less-talked-about Godard film, for me at least it has proved more thought-provoking than BREATHLESS, raising moral questions that remain relevant in Europe today, and featuring some shocking plot developments.

Karina's role in this film is a very interesting one. The young Danish beauty spoke only rudimentary French, so Godard gave her a minimum of lines. For the most part, she is a mere Barbie doll, a symbol of Bruno's infatuation. As if underline that Karina is serving only as a delight for the eye, Godard has Bruno photograph her for several minutes while she stands in various poses. As Godard's subsequent films revealed, Karina wasn't just looks, she had considerable talent as an actress, but her part here does not allow that to come through.

I think and feel that this is Godard's masterpiece. I watched it in memory of Anna Karina, but it was Michel Subor who made me realise that he was the best of Godard's actors. I only wish he could have been in leading roles in many of his other films and wondered what he would have been like in ' Breathless '. Perhaps heresy for some, but Belmondo comes no way near his presence or his delivery of dialogue. As for the film it is France's shame that it was banned for three years. As for the content and the expert filming very few films of the ' New Wave ' come near this ( I think it is even questionable it should be put into any category at all ). It stands alone and the first half of the eighty or so minutes leads seamlessly into the horror of torture of the second. Subor shows clearly in his performance how civilization should and could rest on the best that it has created, and what genius there is in the scene with Karina when she dances to Haydn, and how Subor tells her that Bach is for the morning, Mozart for the evening and Beethoven for midnight. Said with quiet passion it showed just in this one scene the love of art in Godard's work, and I can think of no other young actor of the time who could have delivered these lines so superbly. And then again in the cold neutrality of Switzerland he points out Benjamin Constant to his companions and how it was there that he met Madame du Stael. Godard showed in just those few brief moments that there was something equal if not superior in creative work to all ideologies. Then in the second half the descent into the hell of political torture, and this long sequence is unsurpassed in Cinema in showing with precise, cold images the depths that men will sink in the name of their political beliefs. Pasolini in ' Salo ' was a scream of horror; this was the reality of real torture and France should not have hidden its truth away. The revealing scene that holds the balance of art and violence in this film is when Subor questions which is the most true; the inner or the outer self as he looks into a mirror. For me the answer is that art is representative of the inner and violence the consequence of the outer as human flesh, frail that it is battles against other human flesh that is doing exactly the same thing, and all for ideologies it rarely understands. A great, great film simply made and a master class for any film director.

This is a fine movie with a few rough spots. If this had been my first Godard film, I might have fallen in love with it. As it is, I think the innovative technique & social commentary of Godard are better revealed in other films, like Breathless & Les Carabiniers. Bruno's long soliloquy at the end seemed so disjointed, but not in a passionate, naturalistic stream-of-consciousness way, but rather as if every brief (and often parenthetical) comment on the film thus far were compiled.



-JMc

I have mixed feelings about Le Petit Soldat, it can be brilliant at times but at times also rather dull. In it we see hints of Godard's stylistic experimentation and artistic development, there is lots of excellent handheld work and the action is never held up by the pace of the camera. At the same time though the audio design is horrible, though in all fairness we are talking about the early 60s here. The deep cynicism of the story and the rather uncaring and disconnected attitudes of the characters can be grating a bit. The problem is, none of the characters seem to have real conviction, and neither does the director. Moreover, the voiceover can get a little overused, annoying, and almost self interested. Admittedly there are deeply interesting philosophical insights, but then there's also a lot of self satisfied drivel. But then there are moments of sheer brilliance, mostly in scenes of dialogue between Veronica (Anna Karina) and Bruno (Michel Subor), and most pronouncedly Bruno's extended monologue towards the end which simply blew me away, which all comes together to make this a very hard movie to judge.

It's set in 1960 in Geneva, Switzerland, and follows a French journalist who leaves France to escape military service in Algiers. In Geneva, he is caught between French foreign intelligence operatives and activists for the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN).

Bruno Forestier (Michel Subor) is a photojournalist who flees to Geneva. He soon encounters Jacques (Henri-Jacques Huet) and Paul (Paul Beauvais), members of French Intelligence. They want him to assassinate a pro-Algerian broadcaster. In the process of this struggle, he falls in love with a pro-Algerian woman, Veronica Dreyer (Anna Karina). Eventually, he is kidnapped and tortured by two FLN agents (Paul Beauvais and László Szabó) but manages to escape. We finally learn what happens to both Bruno and Veronica.

This is a very introspective 1960s movie. It's Godard's second film, though it was not released until 1963 because of its torture scenes and anti-French policy tone. The editing is choppy, some of which is Godard's style, and some is bad editing. It's a courageous perspective on a hot political issue of the day but feels very dated in the present. Both Subor and Karina are striking in their roles. However, the acting sometimes seems stiff, probably also partly because of Godard's filming style.

People who worship Godard, in my experience, are usually not French speakers and I think they imagine the dialogs in his films are more successful than they actually are. This film doesn't really flow well but the subject of state sponsored terrorism is interesting and original. However, without Anna Karina, who is simply luminous here at the age of 20, I wouldn't have been able to watch this film all the way through.