Taking as his jumping off point the American musical-comedies of the 1950's, Godard then totally subverts them, following his debut masterpiece "Breathless" with something even more radical. "Une Femme est une Femme" is, on the one hand, Godard's most accessible film while being, at the same time, totally unconventional, even perversely so. It's like a home-movie in Cinemascope and colour and his use of colour and widescreen is up there with Minnelli and Sirk even as his script and his actors veer off into places his mentors would never have considered.Anna Karina stars as the young stripper who wants to have a baby, either by Jean-Claude Brialy or Jean-Paul Belmondo, (she isn't too fussy), and she looks gorgeous. The camera loves her even if what she is doing up there on the screen might not quite approximate to 'acting' any more than what Godard is giving us could be called a typical film. This is the kind of movie that cemented his reputation and as many people hate it as love it. However, unlike many of his later films, (the out-and-out political ones), the last thing you could call this is boring.

Two or three very good jokes (the scene in which Belmondo is accosted by a creditor and they end up hurling insults at each other as they cross the road in different directions, and the sequence in which so many people bludge a light off Belmondo's cigarette, he ends up with an unsmokable stub) and a very promising opening give little indication of the seemingly endless dreariness to come when Jean-Claude Brialy cycles on to the scene and the characters settle down to a boring array of routine recriminations in the one dreary set. It looks like the producer was unable to afford only two indoor sets. Admittedly, the director has tried to circumvent the shortage with a bit of location work, but this is neither skillfully chosen nor cleverly employed. Worse still, the obviously hand-held camera wobbles to an incredible degree. No doubt, a lot of this was done deliberately in order to disguise the ineptness of the direction and the lack of francs in the producer's pocket. But there was really no need for this display of deliberate ineptitude. The rest of the movie in itself provides evidence enough. And to make matters worse, Anna Karina acts like a wet rag, nothing like the delightfully animated personality she unveiled in "She'll Have To Go".

After just viewing about a dozen films by Francois Truffaut as well as Breathless and A Woman Is A Woman, the first two feature films by Jean-Luc Goddard, I must conclude that the French "New Wave" is one of the biggest intellectual frauds ever perpetrated on the public. the film viewing public or otherwise.This intellectual fraud undoubtedly started at Les cahiers du cinema, the French cinema publication, where both Truffaut, Goddard, and other self styled "intellectuals" worked as film "critics" during the 1950's. Truffaut, Goddard, and the other critics kept demeaning contemporary French films and, of course, since they were the all knowing, all important, universally recognized "experts" on French cinema, the film viewing public gradually too began to believe that contemporary French cinema was just "crap".But What To Do? What To Do? I mean if the contemporary French cinema of the day was really "crap" as these all knowing, "intellectual" film critics at Les cahiers du cinema said it was, where do we go from here? This obvious question was the call to Truffaut, Goddard, & other self styled "intellectuals" of cinema to "put your money where your mouth is". So Truffaut & Goddard & some other self styled, self important film critics decided to take the plunge into film making, although, in reality, none of them had very much real filmmaking experience. But not to worry, Right? Because they're smart intellectuals types & if you can criticize other filmmakers, then that means that you certainly know how to make a better film than those guys, Right? And they even coined a new word for these self important, narcissistic, "intellectual" film critics who tried their amateur hand at filmmaking. That new word was "New Wave".And the gullible movie going public really ate it up. WOW!!! I mean these really smart film critics are going to show us how to REALLY make a movie, Right? Even though they really didn't have much filmmaking experience, Right? The result was that the amateurish qualities of the early New Wave films were even lionized as "breakthroughs" in filmmaking. For instance, Goddard in Breathless is hailed a "genius' for innovating a new editing style that had a lot of jagged breaks & jumped around the scene a lot. However, Norman Cousins in The Story Of Film reveals that this cinematic "breakthrough" was Goddard's amateurish use of short film stock that was intended for still photo cameras & not for motion picture cameras. Hence, Cousins informs us, every "innovative" editing break in Breathless is a point where the cameraman had to reload the camera with yet another inappropriately short roll of film. But since the gullible movie going public, & apparently other gullible film critics were convinced of the "genius" of these narcissistic film critics cum filmmakers they interpreted every such amateurish quality of these truly inexperienced filmmakers as "marks of genius".Once this snowballing of gullibility achieved momentum, it proceeded in time through the decades where most people even today still think that the amateurish qualities of early New Wave films are "marks of genius" and "innovation", even to the point where other filmmakers imported these amateurish qualities into their own productions although, thankfully, often in a more refined and considered manner.All in all, the rave about New Wave films over the decades is proof positive of the gullibility of the average person for any person that is put in front of them as an "expert" of some sort, be it a "cinema critic" or some "scientist" warning them about the drinking quality of their tap water. Because Truffaut, Goddard, and other French film critics of the 1950's were recognized by the gullible average person, which includes, apparently other film critics, as "experts", their inexperienced, even amateurish efforts at filmmaking themselves had the "expert effect" carried over from "expert film critic" to "expert filmmaker". So we must conclude that the monumental fraud perpetrated on the public by New Wave filmmakers is not really the fault of these decidedly amateurish filmmakers, but is really the fault of the average person to unreflectively believe whatever the newest "expert" is about to tell them.This is why I view the reviews of any self styled "film critic" merely with amusement, because NOBODY is going to convince me which films I should enjoy and which films I should not enjoy. I am a free thinking, independent person who knows what he likes and what he doesn't like and I will never let any narcissistic "film critic" rob me of my own opinion about a film, as they have robbed the movie going public of their true opinion about the amateurish New Wave cinema.

Problem: your family sit staring into their laps. Solution: Jean-Luc Godard. If this was the first movie I'd ever seen, it would be love at first sight. Sure its a simple tale of girl meets boy meets American musical meets Jean-Luc Godard, but watching this movie reminded me how fun Godard can me. His playfulness is really his best quality I think. The last few I've seen including Le Mepris have been too sour for my taste. A Woman is a Woman is fresh and fun. Godard pulls all kinds of tricks that I won't spoil; I think the other great value in him is that he surprises you. In 2015, Godard is perhaps the best man for our living rooms, in fact, because he will make people look up from their iDevices. Without spoiling anything, he has a penchant for disruptiveness that simply does not allow him to be a background noise, no matter how hard you try and ignore him. Particularly in this movie. Highly recommended. 5/5