criterionforum.org

Steven H wrote:I've always thought it was very interesting that we never see see her actually enter the water, it's instead only inferred.

I agree that this is significant--it's actually the third in a tradition of "disappearing deaths" in Bresson's work, following Diary of a Country Priest and The Trial of Joan of Arc.

I'm certain the looping was intended simply to lengthen the scene, which puts it in the same company as Kozintsev's beautiful shot of Ophelia beneath the waters in Hamlet; it, too, is a long shot that begins offshore and pans to her submerged body...but the water ripples are moving in reverse!

The unusual artifice is a little bothersome, but it certainly doesn't spoil the shot for me.

Doug Cummings wrote:I'm certain the looping was intended simply to lengthen the scene, which puts it in the same company as Kozintsev's beautiful shot of Ophelia beneath the waters in Hamlet; it, too, is a long shot that begins offshore and pans to her submerged body...but the water ripples are moving in reverse!

Funny. I just watched a portion of Olivier's Hamlet on TCM the other day and he loops the film in the same way in the same scene.

I was just listening to the (as usual) wonderful commentary from Tony Rayns and was amazed to hear him refer to Robert Bresson as a 'gay icon...he's in the pantheon up there with Judy Garland'...



has anyone else heard this kind of thing before about Monsieur Bresson's status? (as an icon, i must stress...)

Doug Cummings wrote:I agree that this is significant--it's actually the third in a tradition of "disappearing deaths" in Bresson's work, following Diary of a Country Priest and The Trial of Joan of Arc.

Balthazar also has a "disappearing death"- as the final shot fades out, Balthazar is still breathing. I think it's a matter of Bresson's dislike of artifice (believing it to be something film inherited from theater, and something that needed to be shed for film to stand on its own as an art form). Since the moment of actual death is something he'd have to get the actor/actress/animal to simulate, Bresson must have been unwilling to show the main characters' deaths in these movies. (Which makes the opening of Lancelot du lac something of a departure, as it opens with several killings. The men do die behind helmets, though, so we don't actually see THEM at the moment of death. There are a lot of practical special effects in the scene, but Bresson used practical FX in Balthazar as well, just less obviously.)

which became...ummm... heated.

This is a shame but not surprising...

It'd be an interesting discussion. I really don't see it at all....

Don Lope de Aguirre wrote:It'd be an interesting discussion.

Here's all seven pages of it for your enjoyment.

I don't want to criticize Rayns, but that quote sounds like he's either making fun of the idea of Bresson in a gay pantheon or making fun of Judy Garland. I'm surprised by the comment, too, considering the rucus over the Indiana essay when Pickpocket was released.

solaris72 wrote:I agree that this is Balthazar also has a "disappearing death"- as the final shot fades out, Balthazar is still breathing.

That's true, although I was referring more on his focus on "empty spaces": an iconic cross, a charred stake, a riverbank, etc. Balthazar is still in the final shot of Balthazar.

I think you're right about the artifice angle, but I also think there is something Bressonian at work in the vein of Mouchette's mother at the beginning of the film, when she asks, "What will become of them without me?" Bresson often seems to want to emphasize absence as much as death.

FWIW, Rayns' rather interesting take is that there's a certain "camp edge" at times in Bresson's works (referring to the scene when the grocer scorns the scratches on Mouchette's neck) that appeals to gay culture. ("The ghost of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? is not too far away here.") Regardless, I'm sure anybody who feels marginalized or judged or misunderstood in the world today would resonate with much of Bresson's cinema (and Mouchette in particular), gay or not. And of course, there's a huge difference between suggesting Bresson was a "gay icon" versus being gay himself.

Uh-oh. Don't tell Ehrenstein.

Matt wrote:Here's all seven pages of it for your enjoyment.

Actually, I remember reading that thread and vowing not to get involved in the cat fight!

My initial thought after watching this is that Mouchette is the inverse companion piece to Au hasard Balthazar. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the only time Bresson rushed into production on the next film as soon as the previous one was released. AHB is focused on the exterior world, the causality, the root of cruelty and evil: the donkey is a signifier for the idea of redemption but this idea is not the subject of the film. The donkey is at the end as it was at the beginning: a symbol.

The subject of Mouchette on the other hand is the slow burning and exhausting transormation by the title character to a state of redemption. This time the exterior is represented by symbols: guns, traps, liquor bottles, and the focus of all of Bresson's cinematographic efforts are on Mouchette's interior transformation. For me the dramatic arc from Mouchette's cowardice to a Christian morality worked beautifully (was it Ehrenstein who said that Laydu's priest is Bresson's one true "hero"? I think Mouchette joins him by the end).

What is there to say about a film that shows such disdain toward its protagonist, heaping upon her shame and indignity that fails to cease? There is no relief for the viewer, just as there is no relief for Mouchette. I understand Bresson’s modus operandi with regard to film, stripping away all that is unnecessary, be it sound or emotion: just the basest elements for Bresson - no chance for the viewer to catch his or her breath. There is a seemingly brief moment of relief for the viewer and Mouchette. But even this scene rings false. Given a spare coin by a stranger, Mouchette decides to use it on a ride in a bumper car. She smiles, seemingly happy. However, a young man wastes no time in knocking her around. Is he flirting with her or cruelly teasing her? Despite this, the scene appeared to be the kindest moment in the film. Mouchette cracks a smiles, even has a laugh. I thought about the scene some more and it became evident to me that even this scene is filled with an indignity. Mouchette’s head and neck would thrash furiously with each hit. The smiles came off as insincere with each continual violent hit. How is the viewer supposed to feel for her when even Bresson seems to hold her in disdain?

Bresson reserves his greatest opportunity to shame Mouchette until the end of the film. She attempts suicide . . . and fails. Not once, but twice. Is she such a pathetic figure that she cannot even kill herself? The film felt like mere exploitation, punishing Mouchette simply for the sake of punishment, lacking the insightfulness shared by Diary of a Country Priest and Pickpocket.

Dr. Geek wrote:Bresson reserves his greatest opportunity to shame Mouchette until the end of the film. She attempts suicide . . . and fails. Not once, but twice. Is she such a pathetic figure that she cannot even kill herself? The film felt like mere exploitation, punishing Mouchette simply for the sake of punishment, lacking the insightfulness shared by Diary of a Country Priest and Pickpocket.

That's a very valid criticism, and certainly one that applies to a lot of Bresson's later films (the exploitation charge, I mean).

I often think the same thing about Fassbinder films. Neither he nor Bresson strike me as inhumane or insensitive directors. They are not torturing their characters out of any sadistic pleasure or deep-seated social depravity. It seems, instead, like there is an abysmal pessimism that can often strike a hysterical and desperate pitch. What saves them from exploiting their characters is the sympathetic/empathetic source of their pessimism (see A Gentle Woman for a slightly, err, more gentle approach to Mouchette). Bresson sees his characters buffeted and abused without reason in a world of empty signifiers and hazy, ineffectual idealism. Much like Mouchette in her bumper car, we're expected to both pay for and somehow find happiness and enjoyment in the necessary abuse, exploitation, and cruelty we experience.

Bresson's deadpan style can seem detached and therefore possibly as cruel as some of the characters he depicts, but I think there's a sadder, more empathetic voice down there that not only saves the films, but often makes them sublime.

All the same, I _like_ Mouchette (the character). And her "suicide attempts" may have been part game playing -- or nerve testing. I don't recall her being distraught about "failure" at this point (or am I forgetting something).

I firmly believe if Bresson hadn't made this film, it'd be in a virtually impregnable position in a Worst French Films of the 1960's (if not all time) list. Gracious me. Bresson's technique reminds me of that drug Michael Jackson was fooling around with and died from: doctors were aghast to learn the stuff was being goofed with outside of hospital settings since the difference between a perfected heavenly state and instant death is like 1 / 1000th of a speck. Balthazaar Pickpocket Gentle Woman are perfection... a touch overboard in Mouchette and >flump<.

HerrSchreck wrote:I firmly believe if Bresson hadn't made this film, it'd be in a virtually impregnable position in a Worst French Films of the 1960's (if not all time) list. Gracious me. Bresson's technique reminds me of that drug Michael Jackson was fooling around with and died from: doctors were aghast to learn the stuff was being goofed with outside of hospital settings since the difference between a perfected heavenly state and instant death is like 1 / 1000th of a speck. Balthazaar Pickpocket Gentle Woman are perfection... a touch overboard in Mouchette and >flump<.

It is a bit funny that Mouchette has such an enormous reputation (that is, as being one of Bresson's best). Every Bresson fan I know, myself included, thinks of it at worst as a plain bad film, at best as a troubled one. A Gentle Woman is a far more graceful treatment in a similar territory, definitely. But lately I find myself more interested in Bresson's flawed films (this, Lancelot, Devil, Probably) than his best films, if for no other reason than that a troubled film is sometimes more food for thought than a perfectly executed film, and because they present some kind of exception to an iron-clad rule in Bresson's short, nigh invincible and uniform body of work.

Not being a Bresson film.

Perhaps this explains why I prefer Mouchette to AHB.

;~}

I am a Bresson fan and I also love the film. The hypothesis needs reworking

domino harvey wrote:I am a Bresson fan and I also love the film. The hypothesis needs reworking

Damn. Last time I rely on vague and arbitrary anecdotal information to build a consensus.

I am a Bresson fan too and I liked this film (though, I didn't love it). Pickpocket is my favorite. Can't wait for the Blu!

Wow, good call, only though it is probably a year or two away from even joining the other Blu-Rays in the collection.

And I guess everyone is happy with their DVD edition(s) of Une Femme Douce...

I think of Mouchette as the worst of Bresson's best films.

My theory about the ending is that Bresson noticed during editing that for a few moments the rippling perfectly synchronized with the Monteverdi, and he liked the effect so much he looped it.