Richard Linklater revisited ‘first-time filmmaker’ mindset for ‘Nouvelle Vague’

Texas filmmaker Richard Linklater has not one, but two movies in select theaters right now. Though they’re very different, they both explore the real stories behind some iconic cultural figures of decades past.

“Blue Moon” is getting rave reviews for star Ethan Hawke’s performance as Broadway lyricist Lorenz Hart. 

And “Nouvelle Vague,” shot in Paris in black and white, is meant to be almost like found footage of the making of the French New Wave darling, “Breathless.” It was Jean-Luc Godard’s directing debut, but “Nouvelle Vague” is more than just a homage to him, it’s about the movement of French independent film in general. 

Linklater joined the Standard to talk about his directorial decisions and tapping into a beginner’s mind again. Listen to the interview above or read the transcript below. 

This transcript has been edited lightly for clarity:

Courtesy of Netflix

Texas Standard: So, I want to get this out of the way. “Breathless” is a cinema treasure, but not everybody who is going to hear this has seen the movie. Should those who are curious about seeing “Nouvelle Vague” go out and watch “Breathless” first, or should they see “Nouvelle Vague” and then watch “Breathless” after? 

Richard Linklater: That’s a real good question. And a lot of people have different opinions of that. I have people who say, “no, watch ‘Nouvelle Vague’ first, and then when you see ‘Breathless,’ it’ll kind of inform that movie.”

But I think either one works. If you’re more of a historian completist, maybe watch it just to bring that knowledge in, but it can work in reverse order, too.

I kind of like the idea of watching “Nouvelle Vague” first and not knowing so much, and then taking that to “Breathless.” But, you know, I know “Breathless” pretty well, so.

You know it really well, now. And I wonder, in the journey of making “Nouvelle Vague,” what did it help you understand about New Wave and Godard more than you knew going into it? 

I mean, my respect for that film somehow goes up even more. It’s even more mysterious to me how it worked. That film should really not work the way it’s made. There’s something really special and revolutionary going on as Godard kind of creates his own cinematic language in a way. It’s pretty amazing. 

I think it’s the charisma of [Jean-Paul] Belmondo and [Jean] Seberg actually that he conjures up this story and kind of carves out from the reality this little crime, kind of, film filtered through his very unique, cinematic, cinephile, late ’50s French existentialist consciousness. You know, it’s a wonderful mashup of that time. And I don’t know, the energy of it, there’s something really special. 

But my film’s called “Nouvelle Vague,” really, because it’s not just about that one film. It’s about the culture of that moment. In Paris, in the late ’50s, early ’60s, you have this concentration of amazing young filmmakers, and then you have their mentors, these established filmmakers, all making films at the same time. And it’s really just a portrait of a certain culture at a certain moment that kicked out so many great films, so many wonderful filmmakers. 

The French sort of invented the notion of the cinephile, so a lot of this is built around the Cahiers du Cinéma, the magazine they all wrote for. We’re watching critics become filmmakers. There were these Young Turk kinds of critics taking on the establishment, and then they started making their films.

So, it’s probably the closest film ever came to punk rock, like out with the old in with the new. So it’s pretty energetic.

» GET MORE NEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE: Sign up for Texas Standard’s weekly newsletters

Well, I wanted to bring that up. So, as we’re watching this, you focus in on Godard, and to a lesser extent, some of his closest friends and collaborators, including Truffaut. But you really take pains to introduce us to dozens and dozens of people in the New Wave, both major and minor. Why did you really want to emphasize the size of this community?

The movie is a tribute to the crew, too. The people who make movies. So, the script supervisor, the assistant cameraman, the set photographer.

You know, they all have their own lives and careers, and not to mention all the other filmmakers and writers. A film scene isn’t just the directors, it’s the people supporting the culture. It’s the critics and the writers for Cahiers du Cinéma. It’s all the filmmakers and crewpeople. 

It takes a lot to have a culture, so I wanted to see that from all angles. And there’s something — those little title cards with the people staring at the camera, that seemed like a “Nouvelle Vague” idea. I wanted the audience to feel like, even if they don’t know who that is, well, it’s somebody – they have their name up. Maybe upon a second watching, someone can freeze the film and Wikipedia some of these people, and watch their films or read their writing or something.

So, it’s open for that kind of historical research. But at the most fundamental level, it’s a simple movie. It’s just about a group of young people who come together and put on a show, so there’s nothing confusing about it. So, I think it works on multiple levels.

Yeah, it really is like that rolling over the credits, except in this like opposite way where they each get their moment. 

Yeah, before their first scene they get a little intro, you know. 

With all of those little moments and so many opportunities for faces it seemed like you could have thrown in a bunch of cameos, but you really chose instead to go with this cast of French people. I mean, was that ever a thing you thought about? Like, “oh I could throw a famous face in here.” 

Oh, no, I was really trying to create the magic spell of like, you are there. I think when you put in really famous people, if they’re not cast as perfectly, you know, it can kind of pull you out. I’m trying to deactivate the critic in your head.

So the idea is that by not having a lot of stars in it, you could say, “hey, that really is Jean-Paul Belmondo, that really is Godard and Truffaut. That guy looks a lot like Claude Chabrol.” I really did want it to feel like you were back in that time, so I was afforded that opportunity.

Well, one, I guess, semi-exception – the person who you had for your female lead, you had really cast her in your mind a decade ago? I mean was it just her look, or was it something about her that made you think”she’s my ‘Breathless’ star”? 

We were working together on “Everybody Wants Some!!,” and I just thought Zoey was wonderful. I remember looking at her and I said, “you know, Zoey, your face, if you take away everything – just your eyes, your cheekbones, your nose…” I was like, “you could be Jean Seberg. I’m working on this movie someday, and we’re going to do it about the making of ‘Breathless,’ and you’re going to play Seberg.”

So, I said that, and I don’t want to be one of those full-of-hot-air people who makes a bunch of promises. I mean, I really did believe that. I’m just glad it came true, so I’m not one of those totally full-of-crap people.

But yeah, and Zoey had aged about six months in those 10 years. She looked great, so. 

I was gonna say, lucky for that. 

Still playing college kids, you know. So yeah, she’s totally believable, and she worked so hard. I was so proud of her. It’s a real star turn for her, but it was perfectly analogous to the movie.

Jean Seberg’s the only person in “Breathless” who had a name. She was kind of an international star in a way, but she had been really traumatized in her two Hollywood films she had done with Otto Preminger. So, she was trying to reinvent herself in Paris, and she finds herself in this film.

So, it’s really a young woman’s journey in that way you kind of feel for her, but she’s very strong and it was fun to kind of play with that. Like I told all the cast, “you’re not an icon, you’re just a young person trying to grab your opportunity.” Let’s take everybody off their historic pedestals, and just be in the moment in 1959 making this movie. 

Yeah, well, exactly. I mean, we’re watching this, and we know “Breathless” goes on to be an enormous success, and Godard is a name we know today. That was no guarantee, and you really lean into how maybe not guaranteed that was, right? 

The movie – there’s a revolution going on, but maybe only one person knows it. I think that’s what history must look like when something amazing is happening. Sometimes it’s either off-putting or just strange. You can’t totally register it at the time. Jackson Pollock dumping paint on a canvas on the floor and, you know, certain music that you’ve heard, like, what is that? You know, a Picasso cubist painting? Like, what is that? 

So, I think even Godard’s methodology is like “is this a movie?” Can you do that? I kind of like the rule-breakers, and the people who are pushing boundaries like that. You just go back to what it must have felt like in the time. 

We’re all humans. These aren’t extraordinary. They’re great ideas, but the human scale of things is pretty normal. So, I wanted to kind of keep it in that.

I hate historical films where everyone in it is so aware of how their of historical importance. It’s like, no, they’re not. You know, Lincoln went from the Gettysburg Address, he probably had to eat lunch real quick, and then go on somewhere else. There was life going on all around it. 

Did it take you back to being a first-time filmmaker and what that’s like to not really know if things are gonna work, and feeling like you’re throwing things at the wall? 

Yes, in the best way. I mean, I’m still very much attached to that or aware of that first time. And when I say “first time,” I had made probably 20 shorts and one feature, but my first experience working with a lot of other people, money, and having a crew dependent on me and looking at me… I’m talking about “Slacker,” which I shot in the summer of ’89 with an unconventional script. 

It was kind of hard to describe the film, and I could tell everybody was kind of wondering, I mean, they’re a board, but they’re also kind of like, “does this guy know what he’s doing? What’s this going to be?”

If you lose the step, someone will try to fill in that gap. The leadership is precarious, and the confidence and the crew has to be earned. It’s volatile. As confident and as excited as you are to make it, you still don’t have the confidence, you haven’t earned it. So, it’s an insecure feeling.

All these years later, I was able to go back to beginner’s mind. I’m 28, 29 years old making my first film, but I’m actually sitting on a bedrock of decades of experience and confidence of “I think I know how to pull off this movie.”

So, it was pretty exhilarating. It was fun to be back in that beginner’s mind. It was like a sweet spot that you hit in life. It’s like, okay, it’s just fun. It’s just fine. The anxiety of youth is gone, and it’s replaced with a little bit of experience. But if you’re still curious and excited about what you’re doing, it’s the best of all worlds. 

Well, I guess, speaking of that, kind of looking back and appreciating how far you’ve come, so much of this film is, like you said, about this community of filmmakers. You’ve really built a community of filmmakers in Austin with the Austin Film Society, which is now celebrating 40 years. And I wonder if you are looking back? Are you sort of appreciating or thinking about the similarities? 

Oh, you know, I’m so proud of the Film Society. Out here in L.A., we’re part of this American-French Film Festival, and all these French people I’m meeting, they speak of the Film Society in such reverent tones. We’re really famous in France.

When they think of American film and film culture, it’s amazing. They jump to Austin as the indie success – that we support our filmmakers, that we show films around the world. We’ve cultivated that we do show films from around the world, and that we have those relationships, but I’m amazed at how famous we are as an organization.

So, I couldn’t be more proud. I mean, we’ve got such great people. It’s really become something that’s amazing and bigger than any of us could have imagined. 

Well, you have not one, but two films out right now. And I’d love to give just a little nod to “Blue Moon” because we love to claim Ethan Hawke as an Austinite, even though I think he spent like two days of his life in an Austin hospital. 

He was born to UT students, you know. That makes you an Austinite. 

There you go. But how excited are you to sort of see the buzz around, especially, the acting and a lot of love for that? 

Oh, yeah. Well, I think rightly so people recognize it as Ethan’s had this extraordinary career, but you kind of take him for granted. He was a good-looking young guy. You know, they remember that.

But it’s like, oh, that guy’s put in the decades now. And this work is pretty transformative. He really had to go to some place that few actors are even asked to go to, and he did it.

So yeah, it’s cool that people were kind of appreciating that effort. It was fun to see my friend work so hard and give so much of himself – and by losing himself, like an actor might have to do, by truly becoming someone else.

If you found the reporting above valuable, please consider making a donation to support it here. Your gift helps pay for everything you find on texasstandard.org and KUT.org. Thanks for donating today.