criterionforum.org

I'm looking forward to "Models of Pickpocket". Kent Jones touted this doc. as extremely informative on the L'Argent commentary.

oldsheperd wrote:I'm looking forward to "Models of Pickpocket". Kent Jones touted this doc. as extremely informative on the L'Argent commentary.

I've watched "Models of Pickpocket" on my MK2 set. Even Kent Jones can be right once - it's amazing seeing and hearing the 3 "models" some 45 years later: they do illuminate the Bresson filmmaking experience. And wait until you see what Martin Lassalle looks like....

L'Argent is probably the most profoundly Christian film I've ever seen.

Is certainly one reading, but read Kent Jones' bfi monograph for a very persuasive incisive more secular reading... Same applies to all Bresson's work...

JohnE wrote:The James Quandt essay for Balthazar is one example of successfully arguing against the film as solely Catholic. He states that Bresson himself didn't accept the Catholic allegory as the sole reading to his film.

No- he's arguing against the film as solely allegorical.

JohnE wrote:I think by emphasizing the strong Christian elements, and only those elements, in his work are limiting them as works of art.

Again, I don't understand your point. The film is a cohesive work of art. It's impossible to extricate the Christian elements from the "non-Christian" elements and talk about the film meaningfully. Maybe it would help if you gave an example of a non-Christian element in the film.

flixyflox wrote:Dare I say it (but I will..) there are also gay readings of Bresson, among others.

No shit, L'argent is handjob central. It even makes Pickpocket seem straight as an arrow, which it's not.

ben d banana wrote:

flixyflox wrote:Dare I say it (but I will..) there are also gay readings of Bresson, among others.

No shit, L'argent is handjob central. It even makes Pickpocket seem straight as an arrow, which it's not.

Hmm. Would you care to elaborate? I have only seen L'Argent once and did not notice any gay subtext or symbolism. What did Bresson have to say on homosexuality? Homosexuality is not a topic that interests me in regard to Cinema and I never consciously look for it. But I am open to new readings of films that are hard to get to grips with and Heaven knows that Bresson is a case in point!

ben d banana wrote:

flixyflox wrote:Dare I say it (but I will..) there are also gay readings of Bresson, among others.

No shit, L'argent is handjob central. It even makes Pickpocket seem straight as an arrow, which it's not.

I am also interested in these readings. Thinking Bresson's models are hot doesn't mean they think you're hot, too. We nee some specifics before continuing this line of discussion.

Uh, while dear Flixy may be of the homosexual persuasion, I myself am not and if I were to be stroking to Bresson, Anne Wiazemsky would be my model of choice. That said, I reckon a scene such as the early pumping of gas (it's been awhile, it's late and I'm too tired/lazy to check but something is surely being pumped) is thoroughly phallic/handjob, and many more follow as the film progresses. After watching Pickpocket, the gf (admittedly a fag hag, but that still doesn't make me queer) agreed, "handjob". And I would be hard pressed to deny someone a reading of male love in A Man Escaped.

C'mon, Catholic priests molest little boys, Bresson, for all his legendary asceticism, could well have had a thing for a little pole work.

Feh. Next thing you know someone will start trying to tell me there's something purplish about the frippery in late Eisenstein.

Bresson was not of a strict Cathlic Dogma. I belive he identified as Cathlolic but was his own man when it came to Religion. I don't see homosexual overtones in any of his films. How come everything has to be about sex? You can find overtones of sexuality in anything if you look hard(no pun intended) enough.

...or overtones of religion...

-Toilet Dcuk

oldsheperd wrote:How come everything has to be about sex?

Well, not everything has to be about sex, but I'm not sure why we have such an aversion to reading sexual-subtext into something. It's really no different than reading a political-subtext into a narrative. You have to admit that sex is a huge part of our existence, and thus it must display itself to some degree in the things humans do and create. I'm not saying it's apparent in everything, but it probably shows up more than we're willing to admit.

However, a "gay reading" isn't necessarily "about sex". It could very well be about being a minority, or being persecuted, or being imprisoned, or being misunderstood, or attempting self-discovery.

oldsheperd wrote:You can find overtones of sexuality in anything if you look hard(no pun intended) enough.

No doubt. Also, I find it irritating when people look for a specific subtext in everything they experience. If all you're looking for is a specific subtext, whether political, religious, or sexual, you're going to find it all the time since your predisposition warps your perspective. You also run the risk of misapplying the subtext and thus undermining your own cause.

Unfortunately, sex isn't a big part of my life(slinks off feeling bad.)

Oh, I hope this discussion continues on to the dizzy heights of the legendary (and lost) Eisenstein thread.

Good times, good times. I suppose now is as good a time as any to bring this up:

Specifically this paragraph:

Such facile Freudianism belittles Pickpocket, particularly when Indiana misreads Bresson's sensuality. He rejects what Schrader called its "redemptive ending," where Michel, imprisoned by his restless anomie, finally accepts Jeanne's love. Indiana fantasizes that Michel "will probably find dozens of lovers in jail." This is laughably literal-minded—not just lowbrow, but gutterbrow. It disregards Bresson's erotic appreciation and critique—the admittedly conservative yet undeniable connection of rock n' roll–era sex with mechanized depersonalization (especially in Balthazar and Mouchette). Yet Bresson never denies the sensuous, stealthy, erotic exchange of Michel's pickpocketing routines. These montages fragment intimacy. A network of illicit practices, they are marvels of cinematic legerdemain: no less an irony for sober-minded Bresson than ecstatic Christianity.

ben d banana wrote:... I reckon a scene such as the early pumping of gas (it's been awhile, it's late and I'm too tired/lazy to check but something is surely being pumped) is thoroughly phallic/handjob...

By that reasoning, every shot of gas being pumped in movies and TV would be homoerotic as there is nothing sensual in the shots. A facile observation, I feel.

... and many more follow as the film progresses.

Such as?

And I would be hard pressed to deny someone a reading of male love in A Man Escaped.

I wouldn't deny such a reading either. As long as it was logical and held water.

C'mon, Catholic priests molest little boys, Bresson, for all his legendary asceticism, could well have had a thing for a little pole work.

Give me strength. What a weak, pointless connection.

All too often, I have seen people give 'homosexual' or 'homoerotic' readings of films, merely to undermine the seriousness of the film's message(s). Platonic or 'Brotherly' love between men is, all too often, these days, misread as homosexualism. I respect people of any sexual persuasion, primarily as people, but I also support their right to live as they please. Paedophilia is another matter: it is wrong and I condemn it, but should be viewed as a psychological illness. It is not a joking matter; it ruins lives.

The depth of Bresson's films should be taken very seriously. Their themes and the experiences of their characters directly relate to human life at its most fundamental level and Bresson asks tough questions of his audience. His films, to me personally, are philosophical challenges and have altered my view of life in a profound way. Cinematically, they stand alone and always move me greatly.

Incidentally, I have heard Bresson refer to himself as an "Atheist-Christian". This, obviously, sounds paradoxical, but I think that he was perhaps meaning Agnostic-Christian, which I can empathise with. I personally do not feel that one needs to believe blindly in God to successfully follow the teachings of Christ. I would need to fully believe in myself before I accepted the existence in any higher Being.

Read into what ye will with Bresson's films, but do not be so foolish (or afraid?) as to overlook the most important aspects of them.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:

ben d banana wrote:... I reckon a scene such as the early pumping of gas (it's been awhile, it's late and I'm too tired/lazy to check but something is surely being pumped) is thoroughly phallic/handjob...

By that reasoning, every shot of gas being pumped in movies and TV would be homoerotic as there is nothing sensual in the shots. A facile observation, I feel.

There was no reasoning given, there was a shot pointed out. A shot very early in the film that stands out as a blatant stroke shot and a prelude of what is to follow. I recall no such eroticism in Two-Lane Blacktop or Cannonball Run, but I'll go back and check those if you'd like as well.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:

ben d banana wrote:... and many more follow as the film progresses.

Such as?

I'll get my notebook out next time. For fuck's sake, anyone can watch the movie. It's not like I'm crazy for homosexualism or a hairy palmed pervert. I love Showgirls but it's like an ice-cold shower.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:

ben d banana wrote:And I would be hard pressed to deny someone a reading of male love in A Man Escaped.

I wouldn't deny such a reading either. As long as it was logical and held water.

That's awful white of you. Again, it's not what I was looking for, but I could see hints and wasn't surprised by such a reading at all.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:

ben d banana wrote:C'mon, Catholic priests molest little boys, Bresson, for all his legendary asceticism, could well have had a thing for a little pole work.

Give me strength. What a weak, pointless connection.

It's called a joke.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:All too often, I have seen people give 'homosexual' or 'homoerotic' readings of films, merely to undermine the seriousness of the film's message(s). Platonic or 'Brotherly' love between men is, all too often, these days, misread as homosexualism. I respect people of any sexual persuasion, primarily as people, but I also support their right to live as they please.

Again, your whiteness is to be commended. Is their something not serious about homosexuality? Is the fact that you don't see something since it doesn't relate to your life a mis-reading?

Gordon McMurphy wrote:Paedophilia is another matter: it is wrong and I condemn it, but should be viewed as a psychological illness. It is not a joking matter; it ruins lives.

I don't know what your history of male "sexual assault" is but I know mine so please save your holier than thou bullshit for someone who'll be impressed by it.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:The depth of Bresson's films should be taken very seriously. Their themes and the experiences of their characters directly relate to human life at its most fundamental level and Bresson asks tough questions of his audience. His films, to me personally, are philosophical challenges and have altered my view of life in a profound way. Cinematically, they stand alone and always move me greatly.

That's why when I saw Pickpocket recently I was one of the few not laughing like it was camp, and I can assure you it was a very small art theater at maybe a quarter capacity so it wasn't like I was at the multiplex.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:Read into what ye will with Bresson's films, but do not be so foolish (or afraid?) as to overlook the most important aspects of them.

Funny, since you seem so upset by the possibility of a homosexual reading, one which I certainly do not think is the be all and end all of his cinema, but is legitimate nonetheless.

Is this inflammatory enough, Matt?

And just because it should be noted, thank you Andre, once again the voice of reason.

Andre Jurieu wrote:However, a "gay reading" isn't necessarily "about sex". It could very well be about being a minority, or being persecuted, or being imprisoned, or being misunderstood, or attempting self-discovery.

This is probably risking too much of a tangent in this thread (if it already hasn't already gone so far into ad hominem sparring) 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.

A lot of this discussion seems to be focused on the Freudian implications of various scenes. I'd like to hear more about the potential "gay readings" (a term which needs better definition!) of Bresson, but I think a note of skepticism is worthwhile about the Freudian readings of his films - was he interested in Freudian symbolism? Did he consciously incorporate such symbolism into his films? If he didn't, it becomes more and more a stretch to suggest that an exacting artist would "accidentally" incorporate phallic symbols into his films solely in response to his own Freudian impulses.

Perhaps "homosocial" is the more appropriate term?

the dancing kid wrote:Perhaps "homosocial" is the more appropriate term?

Without meaning to intrude too much (since I'm not very familiar with Bresson's films or with "Queer Theory" more broadly), this has become the preferred term among literary critics and scholars in recent years -- especially when the sexuality of the author in question is uncertain. So, for instance, we know for a fact that Walt Whitman was gay, so "homosexual" readings of his poetry are well within bounds. On the other hand, nobody has ever been certain about Herman Melville (he was married, but may very well have propositioned Hawthorne as well), so critics frequently talk about the "homosocial" element in Melville's fiction.

Not sure if that adds anything valuable to the discussion here, but it might be useful if people are getting hung up on semantics.

ben d banana wrote:It surely doesn't hurt.

That's a great - and long-in-coming - slap in Armond's face.

Flixy, I do hope that my typically base language was not offensive to you. The comment I made re: me straight/you gay was merely to point out that I don't believe sexual preference plays any part in noting that Bresson's work, even on the most surface visual level, begs for a homosexual reading, or to pull from the link I posted,

David Ehrenstein wrote:Empty halls, bare walls, downcast eyes and close-ups of hands grasping door-knobs are otherworldly

My apologies.

flixyflox wrote:As for coming out the Bressons speak for themselves. While I understand your point about dealing with homosexual guilt this is simply exultantly not the case with Un Condamne. The men walk off to "freedom' in every possible way - sexual, emotional, physical and spiritual (if you will).

I was referring to Bresson himself and his lack of an explicit statement of intent, resulting in a few of us seeing something that apparently is unbelievable, its mere suggestion appalling, to others. And you do admit to being initially skeptical of Ehrenstein's reading.

flixyflox wrote:Just as Sarris among others nobly defended Sternberg's early Dietrich movies with the riposte that there is nothing trivial in the subject of the emotions between a man and a woman (indeed nothing is more human nor more powerful) there is similarly nothing trivial about the same deep emotions between a man and a man. I have been married without any legal sanction or privilege whatsoever to the same man for over 21 years and I can assure you when/if he dies, my life is also substantively over.

There's nary a doubt in my mind.

flixyflox wrote:As for this goddamned renewal of "Christian" and theist readings - of course they have been around for years but - again, as I once found myself arguing in defence of Bunuel's clear and unambiguous atheism - Where god is an issue in Bresson, it is his/her absence which is the theme, and of course l"Argent - with its portrayal of completely ordinary everyday Nietzschean evil is his devastating final word on the subject.

L'Argent is the most purely Christian of Bresson's films, and I can only chalk it up to a pecularly modern ignorance of religion that this obvious fact is not recognized. A man allows fate to carry him to the depths of degradation before flinging himself via free will at the mercy of a higher power at the end. This is Christianity in a nutshell.

There appears to be a bizarre split between religious readings and gay readings of Bresson, when in fact, Bresson made queer Christian films. Any reading that tries to service an interpreataion that denies these two elements their mutual company limits the work of art.

Langlois68 wrote:There appears to be a bizarre split between religious readings and gay readings of Bresson, when in fact, Bresson made queer Christian films. Any reading that tries to service an interpreataion that denies these two elements their mutual company limits the work of art.

I must agree, although as part of the peculiarly ignorant (I just never bought it), I have to think in terms of faith and transcendence without religious limitations/definitions, as I see religion in terms of control rather than faith. The fact that religion and homosexuality don't exactly go hand in hand, what with most/all religions' war on homosexuality (to put it in contemporary terms) leading to the personal/societal guilt/shame/persecution/entrapment/solitude which is expressed in Bresson's films, certainly has much to do with the either/or readings. Of course, Christians were also persecuted (and still are if you believe the Christian Right... I can't wait for Justice Sunday III), feel guilt, etc. In the end, there is only faith in yourself or what you believe, and there is no reason for the viewer to share Bresson's specific views in order for his films to reach them.

Am I completely retarded to also think of Scorsese's repeatedly filmed spiritual/secular battle?