criterionforum.org

Caught this last week while on vacation, my second Bresson after "Mouchette" (which I grew to love after an initial rough viewing). ''Mouchette' with a donkey' aptly sums up this predecessor (made the year before "Mouchette") except that, unlike a real human with the ability to think and rationalize (even a beat-down-and-defeated girl like Mouchette had the will to make/reject advances and had choices), the plight of an animal whose fate and taken-for-granted presence isn't noticed or cared for by anybody except Bresson's camera (and thus us as spectators) ends up having a little more emotional impact. As in "Mouchette" though (and yes, I realize I've made five references to that movie in the first three sentences of a "Balthazar" recap) the fact the star of the movie is often relegated to secondary-status to the events/characters around him both grounds the narrative in reality (we don't notice what we miss until its missing) and the cruel hand of fate (François Lafarge's Gérard beating and picking the donkey almost at will even though its never his... God, I wanted this punk to get his so bad!) asserting itself over Balthazar's life. Although Anne Wiazemsky is technically the star of the movie (her Marie character is way too passive and self-centered though, but I guess that's the point Bresson would want to get across) Philippe Asselin delivers the most interesting performance as a rural man too proud and stubborn to do what's easy over what he perceives as morally correct. Can't say I loved "Au Hasard Balthazar" but, like "Mouchette" (reference #6), it's the type of movie that stays with you long after its watched.

For a laugh (or to cure insomnia, take your pick) check out the vintage hour-long French featurette from 1966 about the film that (a) shows all the key scenes (including the ending!) and (b) profiles talking heads that clearly look like they wish were anywhere else but where they were at that moment (i.e. Godard). They sure don't make them like this anymore.

I really loved Pickpocket but found this a bore... Anyone care to tell me what I missed? In Pickpocket I felt the emotions and the sadness yet here I got lost in all the different characters and if I come out as brainless watcher I am not but I really did not understand the critical acclaim this received

You have to feel it yourself. Maybe you've no empathy for animals? Watch it in the morning after a cup of coffee, and again each morning, until it clicks. Look deeply into Balthazar's eyes.

dda1996a wrote:I really loved Pickpocket but found this a bore... Anyone care to tell me what I missed? In Pickpocket I felt the emotions and the sadness yet here I got lost in all the different characters and if I come out as brainless watcher I am not but I really did not understand the critical acclaim this received

its just a feature length experiment with the kuleshov effect, you only get out of the film what you project onto the animal which is controlled by the editing.

I'm reluctant to compare it to the Kuleshov effect only because the experiment revolved around a very basic reaction on the part of the viewer. It's been a little while since I've seen it, but I seem to recall Balthazar really getting under my skin when he became a metaphorical stand-in for what you'd observe in the same place, and not a completely literal viewpoint of an animal.

There's a book review about Bresson on Bresson and Notes on the Cinematograph in today's New York Times. The online version is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/books ... graph.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unfortunately, in the fifth paragraph the writer claims Au Hasard Balthazar is a 1970 release, and provides a link to an essay at Criterion's site, where he could easily have found the correct year of release: 1966. The Times is getting sloppier and sloppier.

Bressonaire wrote:Unfortunately, in the fifth paragraph the writer claims Au Hasard Balthazar is a 1970 release, and provides a link to an essay at Criterion's site, where he could easily have found the correct year of release: 1966. The Times is getting sloppier and sloppier.

"The failing @nytimes can't even get the release year right for Bresson's transcendent masterpiece. Sad! The donkey deserves better."

IIRC it was distributed in 1970 in the US, by a tiny company founded by two Yale students (one of whom was Martin Rubin, who subsequently became a programmer for the Film Center in Chicago). It barely was released, and its re-release in the mid-2000s was the first time most folks in the US had an opportunity to see it.

BTW one of the folks who saw it in 1970 was Terrence Malick, who incorporated an homage to Bresson's film in his unused draft script for Dirty Harry, co-credited to John Milius.

Returned to this five years after being massively underwhelmed by it, to only be re-underwhelmed. I got a little more out of it this time (the acting is really engaging) but there's some kind of big gap between me and the movie, and nothing I've read on it have helped enlighten me. Maybe I'll try again in 2023 and experience the gush of emotion everyone else apparently does.

Do you find other Bresson enthralling?

I've only seen Diary of a Country Priest, which I was just as jubilant about.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:the acting is really engaging

. If your favorite thing about Bresson is the "acting", you may want to quit while you are ahead.

Zot! wrote:

Magic Hate Ball wrote:the acting is really engaging

. If your favorite thing about Bresson is the "acting", you may want to quit while you are ahead.

Why shouldn't I be engaged by it? It's fascinating.

Zot! wrote:

Magic Hate Ball wrote:the acting is really engaging

. If your favorite thing about Bresson is the "acting", you may want to quit while you are ahead.

Considering what lengths Bresson went to, to get naturalistic performances out of his performers and the strong views he held on acting in films, I don't see anything wrong with finding that aspect compelling.

My Bresson theory is but a distant memory, but I thought he specifically went to no lengths at all to influence his "models". Hence my snide comment.

Zot! wrote:My Bresson theory is but a distant memory, but I thought he specifically went to no lengths at all to influence his "models". Hence my snide comment.

Bresson would not give specific comments on how anyone performed in a take, and would instead ask for many takes (not to mention a *lot* of rehearsal before filming even commences). To equate that to not trying to influence the players in his films would be misguided, imo. The repetition of takes in itself is an influence (Kubrick used similar tactics). Repetition of a performance tends to drain emotion, but the emotion isn't necessarily gone (I've always seen it as internalized).

As well, to watch a Bresson film, specifically for performances from actors (or "models", whatever your semantic preference), it would be hard to believe that those performances would be the same from a different director. The consistency in the performance styles throughout Bresson films strongly point to Bresson being the universal factor.

Upgrade in May!!

My favorite of this month’s announcements

It now says that the film underwent a 4K restoration.

I've always been curious: was the final scene staged? Always had a hard time watching animal cruelty of any kind in films so the ambiguity here has always made it difficult for me to watch.

The donkey was drugged and fell asleep.

I've always felt uncomfortable with the fire scene. It's not Rublev bad, by any means, but it's sad to watch.

Some rather dark looking frames on Beaver, but I can't imagine not upgrading at some point.

whaleallright wrote:The donkey was drugged and fell asleep.

.. and never woke up again, because it got too big a dose (supposedly).