Bresson, Sexuality and Religion

[Andre Jurieu]

... but I wonder whether this viewpoint dilutes "gay readings" to the point that their diffusion into every category you suggest renders the essential nature of homosexuality irrelevant to the discussion. Maybe you didn't intend films worthy of being included in those worthy of "gay readings" to include The Battle of Algiers, but that's what seems to be implied by casting so broad a net over the issue. Although gay people may identify with other causes, especially those of oppressed minorities, it's important to keep the range of discussion of gay issues within certain confines, so it doesn't lose its purpose and importance. Actually, as I'm writing this, I see that your point was probably more one of how the reader responds, rather than how a piece should be read - please let me know if this isn't right.

Yeah, I'm not making any claims as to how a work "should be read". If someone ever told me that "this film must be read this way and no other interpretation is justified" I'd probably start laughing hysterically in their face without relent. As you noted, I'm more concerned with how the viewer responds.

Quite honestly, the case that Battle of Algiers has a gay subtext appears very far-fetched considering I'm not sure an occupation by a Western nation could serve as a good metaphor for the homosexual experience. I can't really speak for the experience, but it would be odd to state that the homosexual demographic begin to take up arms against their oppressors and begin conducting acts of terrorism. Of course, if someone could make the case in a meaningful, logical manner, and somehow avoid the Top Gun Tarantino-esque, frat-boy, freudian, comic interpretation, I would have to consider it. But as you state, this type of diffusion renders the essential nature of the subtext to be meaningless. It's a question of stretching things too far, which I'm not campaigning for (which I hoped I had made clear in the second portion of my original post).

However, the scope of a subtext or an interpretation must always be determined. When we watch Dogville, we have to determine whether von Trier's sketch is aimed at America, Western Civilization, or humanity in general. The same must be done if one is watching a film about self-discovery and determines the story has some form of "gay reading". Is it logical to carry the metaphor that far? If so, there has to be some reason to do so based upon the work.

I guess I am as impervious to a Christian reading of Bresson as some people would be to a gay one.

So you're saying it's OK to only adopt one exclusive reading?

apart from my atheism (which should be irelevant anyway)

Why should it be irrelevant? If we justify our readings by using the characteristics of the artist as evidence, why are the characteristics of the reader irrelevant?

I know that my identity as a male within a minority ethnic-group colors my interpretation of a film's message. I know my skepticism of organized religion effects my perception of religious works of art.

Isn't Ehrenstein's reading influenced by the fact that he actively seeks out gay interpretations of films?

Main problem here ... is the sinister 21st Century rise of the neo Christian right, along with ultra fascist Hassidic Judaism, loonie suicide bombing Islamic clerics, who can forget Ratzy the Nazi, and all the rest of these damnable people.

So, however unwarranted and idiotic it may be to do so, couldn't a neo-christian watching Bresson use the logic that "main problem here, all those crazy flamboyant homos..."? I'm not sure how the tertiary extremism nullifies the merit of a sincere reading conducted without bigoted or prejudice intentions.

Thus I view with horror the very sinister pre-emption of Bresson as theoretical terrain by someone as loathesome as White.

Ok, but aren't White's "sinister pre-emptions of Bresson" directed at the hipster culture he loathes, which are attempting to re-interpret everything to exclude God's presence? I don't exactly agree with White's point - he tends to be a jack-ass requiring himself to be different from the consensus - but I'm not sure he's a neo-Christian either.

Even when Shcrader completely misreads Bresson through the eyes of ascetic Protetstantism (completely missing the role of sensuality, sex, the physical beauty of the mostly male, sometime female actors, etc)

How is it any more right or wrong to read Bresson through the eyes of ascetic Protestantism than it is through the eyes of an atheist homosexual? Is he missing the role of sexuality, or does he not perceive it, and why exactly is it wrong to not perceive it? Sometimes I find it hard to see the sensuality of Bresson's work, especially in something like L'Argent. It's not very overt, especially compared to Pickpocket's thieving hands.

[Gordon]

Seeing as homosexuality is an expressing of Nature and that Nature is amoral, I myself have never appreciated the view held by those who feel that it is morally 'wrong' or a 'problem' of Society and I have therefore never really appreciated it as a 'controversial' theme in art. A story of two male lovers, however, is equally as appealing or unappealing to me as a love story regarding a man and a woman. It all depends on the quality of the film; it's intelligence and coherence as a story.

Bresson's films express universal themes and tackle universal, human problems. Every day we turn a blind eye to the suffering that surrounds us and we avoid all kinds of responsibilities. Broadly speaking, only our own suffering interests us, in addition to our desires and urges. One of the irrational urges - and irrational is what they all are and are beyond our control ("A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants," as Schopenhauer famously observed) - is the sexual urge, lustful desire and as the Will is blind, irrational and amoral, it manifests in such a way that it does not always discriminate on which gender it desires and so homosexuality, to me, is not an enigma. More to the point, in this case, it does not make a particularly interesting subject or subtext for Cinema. It could only be 'interesting' to those who find homosexuality 'controversial' or 'exotic'.

I find that sex in general is not suited to Cinema. On the one hand, as a concept, it is what it is: a fundamental aspect of human nature, only complicated by ourselves over millennia; and as a physical act, it can be very destructive to the narrative to a film. I believe it was Orson Welles who said that the reason that sex scenes should be avoided, is that it is difficult to pick up the plot again once it is over; the copulation brings the narrative flow to a halt and it a challenge to the viewer to erase the scene from his mind if it is not integrated into the narrative in a natural way. Nicolas Roeg is one of the few masters of this and has succeeded artistically in presenting love making in his films. There are others, of course, but overall, sex in Cinema has been a tricky and torrid pursuit.

What all this boils down to, is that homosexual subtexts do not interest me, per se. Whether or not a character is homosexual or that the director is or was homosexual, is of little consequence to me. The tendency of British and American films and TV shows has generally been to create homosexual characters as a type of 'quirky' personalities and I have spent considerable time roaring with laughter at intentionally funny fayre such as the Carry On... films and decidedly un-intentionally hilarious American films such as William Friedkin's, Cruising.

As I stated in my early posting, many films featuring men together in 'tough' situations, perhaps a bit sweaty and with some giving ambiguous glances, it can be easy and often trite to label those films as 'homoerotic'. The Wages of Fear could easily be mistaken for a such a film. As could Star Wars. So-called 'Women's films' are, paradoxically, rarely read as having a 'lesbianic subtext', though, unless they are set in prison. Although, it has to be said that there were very few women filmmakers in the first 30-40 years of Sound-Era Cinema and even fewer, if any, were lesbian. That's not to say that films featuring lesbian characters should exclusively be made by lesbians or heterosexual women, for that matter. In the end, it makes little difference to me.

I long for the day when so-called 'alternative-sexualities', fetishes, etc are no longer 'an issue' and we can focus on more pressing matters in politics, sociology and religion and, more to the point, concentrate on films that do not depict sex in a titillating, crass and uncinematic manner. It's rarely done right, but it is a joy to behold when films like Don't Look Now or My Own Private Idaho unfold on the screen.

Homosexuality may indeed be a subtext in some of Bresson's films, but for me, there are far weightier themes, ideas and insights in those films. If Bresson himself was homosexual, that doesn't really help me in understanding his metaphysics or personality. He was a great artist and seemed to be a very kind and intelligent human being and that's all that matters to me.

I say, "Love the gays!". Well, I don't literally say it. I don't literally mean it, either.

[Gordon]

Flixy, are you sure you are an... atheist?!

You made contrary remarks in that posting!

Don't worry: I, too am greatly moved by coda to Ordet and find it hard to reconcile. I'm not even afraid of death, quite the contrary, in fact. In point of fact, I would actaully be rather perturbed if I was resurrected in the flesh. Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in! No, I wouldn't be grateful. Incidentally - and I know that this is off-topic - but has anyone here who is an admirer of Ordet actually read Kierkegaard? Staggering stuff. And he is undoubtably, the wittiest and most humourous of philosophers. Incidentally, that is something that I have noticed with much of Bresson's films: they lack real humour, which is one of the things - alongside music - that makes life worth living.

[zedz]

I haven't anything much to add to this, but I just wanted to thank those who are contributing to a thoughtful, illuminating and constructive debate. Thanks for keeping level heads when dealing with this particular handful of explosives. (I don't miss the blackened face of poetwarrior in the least!)

[gossip]And what about that Balthasar? I hear he used to "graze outside the pasture. . ." [/gossip]

[Steven H]

I've been thinking about this a lot, and even though there are many specific examples of "homosocial" aspects in Bresson's films, I can think of just as many, if not more heterosexual ("heterosocial"?) and fetishistic elements as well. I think these moments are informed by Bresson's physicality, the "tactile" quality of his films conjured by masterful use of image and sound. What, other than aggression, could be more physical between two people than sex? And what could be less "Bresson" than aggression?

The physical, and in my opinion sexual world of persons (and objects) is represented in his films on equal terms. These seem just as "physical" to me: the relationship of the two inmates in A Man Escaped, the "love triangle" in The Devil Probably, the exchange of money in L'argent, and Balthazar's treatment by human hands. I've got to say though, there are a few moments (the motorcycle ride at the end of Diary of a Country Priest for example) that do, or did when I first viewed them, strike me as particularly "gay".

[zedz]

Even if one can't imagine Bresson or Dreyer directing the Marx Brothers there is no shortage of early humor in Dreyer at least - have you seen The Parson's Widow. Not to mention his barely disguised ironic use of the hideous middlebrow faggot post WW1 "artistic" decor for the Michael sets and artwork and Dreyer's own withering comments about this level of taste.

Not quite off-topic, but this puts me in mind of an interesting critical observation I once came across. For the life of me I can't remember where I read it (it was so long ago, flixy was probably still a donkey), but here's a very rough paraphrase:

"People often link Bresson and Dreyer together as 'ascetic' directors, but they actually have more in common with their polar opposites: respectively, Bunuel and von Stroheim."

On first reading this, I dismissed it as mere stuntsmanship, but I actually find it quite a useful lens through which to consider the four directors. I'm still not sure whether or not I agree with the statement, but something about the pairing of Bresson and Bunuel, in particular, rings true.

[Steven H]

Indeed what could be les Bressonian than agression - yet it is a constant throughout Mouchette, the torment of the donkey in Balthazar and the terrifying climax of l"Argent (which I still haven't fully digested.)

I agree with the first two examples, but l'Argent's ending seems to cold to really be labeled as "aggressive" (and the first two are still relatively subtle). I'm still digesting the whole film, l'Argent is amazing.

[Michael Kerpan]

If I could only convince myself that a harsh sense of humor bubbled beneath Bathazar and Mouchette, I would find these more palatable. People go on and on about how "real" these films are -- but my sense on watching these two films most recently is that there is an awful lot of Bunuelian absurdity lurking in them -- and very little "reality". Paradoxically (or maybe not), this reading makes the films far more intriguing and appealing (to me).

[ben d banana]

I have the same "problem" with Lancelot du Lac. I have no idea how many viewings it would take for me to not find it more absurd than Monty Python & the Holy Grail. All of that dry conversation followed the lingering camera as a knight walks away, his armor creaking madly. The whole thing makes me feel that I'm either very immature or Bresson is a comic master. I'm quite certain I know how most would tip that scale.

[oldsheperd]

Supposedly Bresson was a big fan of GOLDFINGER.

[solaris72]

Well, he hated Goldfinger, but he loved the part where Bond realizes the girl he's seducing is betraying him by seeing the reflection of an assassin in her eye.

[GringoTex]

http://www.mastersofcinema.org/bresson/TheNews.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MOC chastises Ehrenstein.

[Andre Jurieu]

You know, it doesn't matter if it's White or Ehrenstein, both these pieces are painful to endure.

Without knowing the exact context, Indiana's comment that Michel "will probably find dozens of lovers in jail" is kind of disturbing, since it relies on the fact that Michel is certainly gay. Last I heard, jail isn't all that romantic a resort and if Michel is hetero, conflicted, or gay, the rampant rape and abuse aren't major selling points.

I love how White always decides to define his audience in different terms in order to prove his point. At one point they're morons, and in the next they are worthy of his respect at having been able to dismiss hipster trickery. I also love how he defines critical reaction on his own terms.

While I enjoy reading Ehrenstein's reviews, the method by which he responds to White (and actually the way he posts on a_film_by) just gets irritating. Someone has seriously got to explain to me how mentioning Eva Green's nudity during a threesome has anything to due with the debate over how Bresson's faith is displayed in his work. It's like he's playing six degrees of separation with his logic.

Also, where exactly has God failed in Bresson's work? Last I checked, God wasn't supposed to be keeping everyone content or eliminate suffering for humans that are compelled to keep making poor decisions.

[Doug Cummings]

"How interesting to see Bresson or anyone else for that matter becoming an industry for organized religion with MoC - of ALL people - now taking up the cudgels for a right wing troll with a very specific agenda."

What on earth are you talking about? As we mentioned on the site, we're certainly not defending Armond White in general, but in this case he happens to have a pretty good point about being wary of misinterpretations (which can actually exist, believe it or not) and the sort of personal agendas that Ehrenstein's juvenile rant epitomizes.

[ellipsis7]

the James Dean revivals in complete denial of his sexuality

Us Guardian readers are still reeling from, in rapid sucession, the outing of James Dean as gay by Germaine Greer, followed by the re-outing of him as straight with his revelations of his intense affair with Geraldine Page...

Prisms, oh prisms!....

[Andre Jurieu]

How interesting to see Bresson or anyone else for that matter becoming an industry for organized religion with MoC - of ALL people - now taking up the cudgels for a right wing troll with a very specific agenda.... Shame MoC.

While, I'm not sure I see why MoC classifies Ehrenstein's reply as subjective personal opinion and allows White to conquer the debate by applying the logic of consensus=fact, I'm not sure I see how MoC is aligning themselves with the right wing.

As far as I can see, White and Ehrenstein are both wading through the stuff of opinion.

Meanwhile, MoC just appears to be adding their support to an interpretation based upon faith. Just because something is about faith doesn't make it right-wing project with a specific agenda. Claiming they are synonymous seems irresponsible.

[bunuelian]

Also, where exactly has God failed in Bresson's work? Last I checked, God wasn't supposed to be keeping everyone content or eliminate suffering for humans that are compelled to keep making poor decisions.

Scenes such as Marie closing the door and letting the boys harass Balthazar, and then the empty silence of the farm as Baltazar returns there after running away from the punk, could be read as signs that there is no universally compassionate intelligence watching over the proceedings - the humans that care . If the Christian God is supposed to be infinitely compassionate and infinitely knowledgable, it's a potential reading to see that Bresson is saying that there is no such God.

It's important to keep in mind that Bresson's conception of God need not correspond even slightly to the viewers', even if both call themselves "Christians." Given the totally ambiguous character of the God concept, and Bresson's philosophical depth, it's not a good idea to make assumptions about his personal (and apparently unique) understanding of God. His calling himself an "atheist-Christian" shouldn't be discounted - it's still a big deal to call oneself an atheist, and back then it was even more so. I imagine that the viewer's background on this front will dictate how she understands that statement - an atheist will have a very different reaction to it from that of someone raised in a strict Southern Baptist town.

[Doug Cummings]

We're aligning ourselves with the historical/public record and many, many carefully-phrased comments made by Bresson regarding his concerns and intentions for many years, well into the '70s and '80s. If you want, I can quote them ad infinitum here, or you can buy a copy of, say, James Quandt's book and read them yourself, particularly Schrader's almost comically misdirected interview and Michel Ciment's conversation, both of which allow Bresson to go into surprising detail about his beliefs and aspirations.

Now that's only one side of the equation, of course; intentions aren't the same thing as interpretations, and both are crucial to any critical reading. All great art is open to a myriad variety of interpretations and I applaud a diversity of lenses. I'm very much interested in, say, a gay reading of Bresson's films.

To maintain the position that Bresson was working from a religious (yet critical and human) point of view is decidedly not to say that anyone with different worldviews cannot understand or interpret or find other meanings in his work--that would be preposterous; Bresson didn't make films only for like-minded viewers. But to suggest that Bresson himself was nihilist, gay, reflective of the beliefs of George W. Bush, or athiest is contradicted (or completely unsupported) by his own statements on the matter, which are increasingly ignored. To suggest that Christianity is not a valid lens anymore because of Bush's disgusting invasion of Iraq or because of "the sinister 21st Century rise of the neo Christian right, along with ultra fascist Hassidic Judaism, loonie suicide bombing Islamic clerics, who can forget Ratzy the Nazi, and all the rest of these damnable people" is a reactionary position predicated on extremes, to say the least.

MoC is hardly promoting an anti-gay stance. There are, in fact, several well-known Bresson authorities who are gay who do not feel the need to cast Bresson as a repressed poster child for their sexual persuasion. And I can safely say this is the first time we've ever been accused of supporting a right-wing agenda--I can forward the bevy of angry emails we received regarding our anti-Bush editorial position last November...

[GringoTex]

Scenes such as Marie closing the door and letting the boys harass Balthazar, and then the empty silence of the farm as Baltazar returns there after running away from the punk, could be read as signs that there is no universally compassionate intelligence watching over the proceedings - the humans that care.

That one's easy: "Father, why have you forsaken me?"

The ending of Balthazar places it squarely in the realm of "God exists" films.

[Doug Cummings]

"But here we go again. Saints and sinners and bloody religion."

That's funny, I thought we were talking about critical accuracy versus interpretive freedom. (Not to mention, countering false political accusations.)

[Andre Jurieu]

Scenes such as Marie closing the door and ... could be read as signs that there is no universally compassionate intelligence watching over the proceedings - the humans that care . If the Christian God is supposed to be infinitely compassionate and infinitely knowledgable, it's a potential reading to see that Bresson is saying that there is no such God.

Ok, I understand that, and sometimes while watching Bresson I question the presence of God, just as I have done while playing baseball, watching the Eagles lose to the Cowboys, or surfing the net at work. However, as I believe Langlois implied, if Balthazar is the Christ figure within Bresson's film, then we can't expect God to watch over him and protect him from harm, considering He allowed his son to endure great acts of mistreatment at the hands of others.

Look, I go through my daily life without much influence from religion, I've never taken the Bible very seriously since it's not even part of my supposed religion, and I usually approach Bresson with an eye towards the human condition (whatever that means) rather than religion, but I can't really deny the fact that the presence of faith within Bresson's work is especially strong and I realized that way before I touched a book written by Schrader.

It's important to keep in mind that Bresson's conception of God need not correspond even slightly to the viewers', even if both call themselves "Christians." Given the totally ambiguous character of the God concept, and Bresson's philosophical depth, ...
I imagine that the viewer's background on this front will dictate how she understands that statement - an atheist will have a very different reaction to it from that of someone raised in a strict Southern Baptist town.

Completely agree.

Of course you know what I mean.

I sure hope Doug does, because I sure don't.

Why is Ehrenstein's position(s)... so offensive/juvenile to you

I can't speak for Doug, but it's not Ehrenstein's position that I find juvenile, it's his style. "Is the Pope German?" among a few others, while perhaps worthy of a rim-shot, don't really match White's structured argument.

(I think I can answer that question.)

Please do.

...and bloody religion.

Well, for Bresson personal views, aren't we speaking about faith?

[Doug Cummings]

flixyflox, I want to encourage your engagement of Bresson--certainly any formal observations you want to make regarding his late films--but if you or Ehrenstein expect any more of a response out of me than a laugh, you're going to have to turn down the ad hominems, pigeonholing, and vindictive rhetoric. Maybe even adopt a both/and argument rather than insisting on an either/or.

Trond and I have already received pro-Bush hate mail for even suggesting that Bresson's idea of Christianity and George W. Bush's idea of Christianity might be divergent. I guess you can't please everyone.

[David Ehrenstein]

Oh my stars! Are my ears burning!

Sorry to have caused you all so much trouble, but Bresson is someone whose work I've studied for a considerable number of my 58 years, and means a great deal to me. I was in despair over the loss of my first boyfriend in High School when I discovered A Man Escaped, and quite frankly it saved my life.

The homoeroticism of most of Bresson's films but especially Pickpocket, A Man Escaped, Au Hasard Balthazar and Le Diable Probablement (to name the most striking) is as obvious as the nose on Antoine Monnier's face. His dealings with this text and sub-text is complex and multi-faced. Sometimes its way out front, other times it's in the background or pops up briefly then vanishes (like the bike ride in Diary of a Country Priest ) As for Bresson's Christianity it's an even more complex affair with many varied aspects. Far too many scholars see Bresson's Christianity as static. But the man who made Les Anges du Peche has next to nothing in common with the man who made L'Argent. Brsson begins as a "Man of faith" but over the years doubt creeps in and eventually overwhelms him resulting in faith's keenly expressed loss.

I was looking through Cukor's papers for my book "Open Secret: Gay Hollywood 1928-1998" when I happened upon a file labelled "Correspondance with Robert Bresson." Well you could have knocked me over with a feather. The revelation that Bresson, late in his career, was not only interested in using professional actors but two of the biggest stars in Hollywood casts his entire oeuvre in a new light.

He didn't discover Dominque Sanda for nothing!

[Doug Cummings]

Thanks for your reply. For the record, I respect and even agree with you in large part. And I think a queer reading of Bresson's work is certainly legitimate and sounds like it was a genuine and important part of your life. And I agree that too many reviewers apply rote religious labels that are quickly becoming watered-down and meaningless.

But I would still caution against any blanket theological labels placed on his late period--theist or atheist. His b&w period certainly emphasized redemption more than his late period films, but that doesn't make the color films athiest. He gave his second to last film an explicitly theistic title, afterall: The Devil, Probably. And he continued to discuss his complex, difficult-to-categorize faith all the way up through his press conferences for L'Argent and his ongoing dreams of filming Genesis.

I've said it before but I guess it bears repeating: I'm no fan of Armond White, but I agree with him that there's a danger in completely dismissing Bresson's Christianity simply because that term has unsavory sociopolitical connotations, especially at the moment. If anything Bresson's artistry should put to shame the facile religious imagery and rhetoric spun by folks like Gibson and Rove; it shouldn't be drowned out by them. Bresson was no spokesman for the church, but to claim that he was an athiest or that "God failed" or that he lost his faith is presumptious and apparently inaccurate.

[Steven H]

The homoeroticism of most of Bresson's films but especially Pickpocket, A Man Escaped, Au Hasard Balthazar and Le Diable Probablement (to name the most striking) is as obvious as the nose on Antoine Monnier's face.

If it's so obvious how come so many people have a difficult time seeing it (how manipulative calling it "obvious", as if it's a given)? I find the women in Bresson extremely attractive, and they all produce an aura of sexuality. This seems equal to the representation of men. As I said in a previous post, I believe his films to be physical, which can be represented through sex. Putting two good looking men together in a room doesn't make them homosexual, and if you film them, it doesn't make for a homosexual film. Of the many possible, one kneejerk reaction to that sentence would be, "so all gay films should show men screwing" which misses my point. I don't think Bresson meant for his films to be homoerotic, but I doubt it would really bother him if they were read that way. My evidence is my viewing (subjective, of course) all of his films and seeing their hightened sexual reality, making the relationships between characters, animals, and objects, physical through audio visual means, while the evidence for the "gay" reading are a handful of possible sub-textual readings. I definitely don't think of this as a black and white issue, but I don't know how you could call such a thing "obvious".