MovieChat Forums > Au hasard Balthazar (1966) Discussion > It's not a popular film because...

It's not a popular film because...

posted 18 years ago by bw92116
23 replies | jump to latest

...it's relentlessly depressing, to the point of being unrealistic. Bresson was OK with showing happy, idyllic scenes at the beginning, but then shunned them throughout the rest of the film. Most of the film is one long bummer. Bresson could have inserted 2 or 3 uplifting scenes in the middle and near the end, without compromising his "art" or his "vision" - unless that "vision" is one of utter hopelessness and despair, in which case his vision is unrealistic. There is good in people and good things can happen even amidst despair, but Bresson would not admit this in this film because it would taint the hermetically sealed "purity" of it. People simply don't recommend this film to other people because watching it is a bad experience. I would only recommend it for "film buff" types who don't mind being depressed for the rest of the day after watching it, and who think that means it's "art."

[–] Number_One_Film_Buff 18 years ago

***Spoilers***

I always thought the ending was pretty upbeat, actually. Yeah, Balthazar dying is most certainly depressing; however, the way he dies not so much. In my opinion.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rjweaver-1 18 years ago

...or the film anyone wants to see, apparently.

[–] dr_remlaw 18 years ago

It's not a popular film because...
...it's not that great a film. Certainly not as good as Bresson's own Pickpocket and A Man Escaped. What is so deep and meaningful about Au Hasard Balthazar? So he likens Jesus Christ to a donkey... big deal. Is there some statement about humans being evil or something? Not really, no, Marie's just an idiot.

Not a great film, IMO, probably around an 8/10 in my books.

The doctor has spoken.

[–] bw92116 18 years ago

I would say it has great technique in efficient, eloquent filmmaking - in 95 minutes it covers the same amount of story that an American director would take over 3 hours to cover. It's almost a textbook of concise, artful, even poetic storytelling techniques. It's the actual story itself that drags it down in quality, in my opinion.

[–] dr_remlaw 18 years ago

You got that right, Bob. I mean it's hard to say about Bresson, but could Au Hasard Balthazar be a case of style over substance??

The doctor has spoken.

[–] bw92116 18 years ago

I think it's a missed opportunity, in the story. Bresson could have added a couple of scenes which offer a counter-argument. The main point he seems to be trying to make is that the world does to us what it wants to, and the only way to deal with it is to accept it like the donkey does. He could have included a couple of scenes here and there where some of the characters (Marie, for example) make decisions which are directly responsible for themselves having better and happier lives. There could have been happiness for Marie with Jacques and with her family, and a return to the idyllic life shown at the beginning - if only for one scene! But no, apparently Bresson only wants to show the negative, hopeless despair, and not the other side of human existence. There are 2 sides to every story and Bresson was only willing to show one side.

[–] dr_remlaw 18 years ago

You're right. To me, this film is pretty much meaningless because it strives to send some sort of message that I completely don't agree with. Sit back and let it happen? I don't think so. But wait, that can't be right because although Bresson seems to venerate Balthazar, he DOES die at the end...

Just been reading an essay about it on the Criterion website, and it's laughable: the theory is that Bresson tries to show "the world in an hour and a half", to which I say: BAH!

The doctor has spoken.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bw92116 18 years ago

OK thanks

[–] nypunkeer-1 18 years ago

the characters are damned, yes, but there is a dance of the dead going on, so to speak. This film must be placed in context with what it's reacting to and it's trying to show the other side of human existence. The other side of the story, to those who request it, is the other part of filmdom that exists. Bresson's film is a counterweight. Looking at it this way, however, cheapens the film and misses out on what a tremendous thing Bresson is doing.
Bresson (much like what I believe the Structuralist Post Modern artists are doing) is breaking our thought down to the point of meaninglessness, hence the disagreement in this discussion that can't seem to be resolved. Disregarding thought as futile (tres post moderne! [insert accents where appropriate]) we are left as emotional cores, simple souls who are just reacting. Few movies, maybe none other, have achieved this state in their audience. And here, HERE, is the ultimate counterweight to the story, it's in you, it's in the relatinoship you have with the film and with life! This is how Bresson shows life in an hour and a half, don't forget that you're part of it!
The relationship between film and audience is something sorely underappreciate in todays' cinema. We, today, go to watch a movie, and if IT touches us, it does.

Anyway, this is my take on it. I've seen the movie quite a number of times and I'm still working this all out in my head. I realize that Bresson is not exactly a gung ho optimist about life, and that this is a stark film, I just tend to, based on his artisitc prowess throughout his work, give me credit enough to work subtly. There's a reason the film is so obvious, it just can't be about a donkey. That wouldn't be new wave, it wouldn't be Bresson. The New Wave, in my opinion, is the engagement of the audiences souls in the picture.

[–] theOblivionHaha 18 years ago

I completely agree with the above sentiment. This moive is a test. A test of of the individual viewer. Bresson intentionally makes the movie appear depressing so that the ultimate message of salvation (if discovered) will be more gratifying. Think of games. Games that are too easy are boring. This movie is like a game--the objective is to expereince it and still come away with a positive attitude. Its hard to do yes but ultimately gartifying once done. An exact parallel can be drawn toward life itself. Life if you look at it with a removed perspective is very depressing and ugly but if you expereince it personally and try to make the best of it you will find there are parts of it that not only justify the ugliness but become even better because of it. The thing about this movie is it asks you to take the end personally, it asks you to ask questions about God and death which some people would rather not ask. If you work at it though, there is a way out of the depression trap that it sets. And like they say the sweet isn't half as sweet without the ..... But be warned Its not light entertainment. You don't eat popcorn while watching..well, you can if you want to but no butter.

[–] bw92116 18 years ago

OK thank you. It's too bad that the style of storytelling used in this film is not more popular in Hollywood. The filmmakers in Hollywood endlessly repeat the mantra, "Show, don't tell," but they don't practice what they preach. Holllywood films talk, talk, and talk, and tell everyhthing rather than showing it. Film school students should study the techniques in this film, even if this film will never have much appeal to the general public.

[–] PriceOfAnarchy 18 years ago

"Show, don't tell" isn't as literal as it sounds though. Bergman's Persona, which is a film contemporary to this one, does so much by just having one of it's character's recite certain events (then again the composition used in having that character talk, and pretty much the cinematography through out the movie is probably the best B & W cinematography I've ever seen).

Though Bresson does do a great job of the whole "show, don't tell" stuff.

[–] rhowells2000 15 years ago

I'd like to know what justifies all the ugliness in life?

[–] bw92116 18 years ago

OK thanks.

[–] torpedoboy4 18 years ago

I can't wait to watch this film.

[–] enbilal 18 years ago

"You're right. To me, this film is pretty much meaningless because it strives to send some sort of message that I completely don't agree with. Sit back and let it happen?"

This is not true. In this film Bresson is telling a story of victimhood. Not everybody can defend himself. This film is not about letting it happen but about those who are powerless to change things. How do you expect a donkey to defend himself? The only thing he has is his instinct which he uses a couple of times and not much else. It is an animal whithout human intelligence and power. He is helpless. Doesn't mean that he, as a victim, is not worth talking about. During the war, seven years ago, a little boy was murdered in cold blood by Serbian army while he was carring food for refugees. The refugees were murdered, too. It happened just some 4 kilometers from where I live and just yesterday I've visited his family. The boy is a helpless victim. He didn't do anything to cause his death except for being good to other people. He wasn't able to defend himself from Serb snipers, how ever much he wanted to. Does it mean that he deserved to die there? He probably fought against his dying. Balthazar did so too. He walked as much as he could after he was shot, taken by the instinct of survival. So the film is about paying respect to the helpless victims. For Bresson, they are a sort of saints. I wholeheartedly agree with him.
To see a proof to the contrary, that Bresson's ideology is not of passive suffering, compare this to "Diary of a Country Priest", "A Man Escaped", or "L'Argent". In the first one, a priest does not want to give up his community under the cost of hummiliation and resentiment from the people. "A Man Escaped" is a prime example of optimist cinema where the main character never gives up and is awarded afterwards. In "L'Argent", the main character (spoiler) at the end manages to break away from his destiny of a murderer. He turns himself to the police. His humanity winns over his dark side. In "Quatre Nuits d'un Reveur", he ironically mocks a passive young man for letting a girl he deserved being stolen from him by a more capable guy.

Bresson is one of the most misunderstood filmmakers I can think of.

Due mostly to:

- the famously false interpretation given by Paul Shrader (that his films are fundamentally Christian, impossible with so many resolutions in suicide and so much preference for physical beauty, sensuality and even subtle eroticism),

- false discoveries of Jansenit philosophy in his films

- and false impression that his films have an austere style.

~~~ ~~~

[–] bw92116 18 years ago

I actually enjoy the fact that Bresson leaves details out, and the viewer has to realize or interpret them for his/herself. My interpretation is that there was no murder at all, and Gerard simply tried to frame Arnold to get the police's attention away from himself. This is even explicity symbolized by Gerard placing the gun into Arnold's hand.

I was raised as a Catholic just like Bresson, although I have fallen away with it. I don't see much in "Balthazar" that aligns with the doctrine of the Catholic church, and not even too much in "Diary of A Country Priest" although there is some in the long scene between the countess and the priest.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

So he likens Jesus Christ to a donkey... big deal. Is there some statement about humans being evil or something?

I don't think it's as simple as that. There's lots of comment on people's values - spiritual and moral ones that conect with how they treat each other and the donkey. I can't be more specific at the moment because I need to rewatch to take in more.

my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ish

[–] lukechong 16 years ago

> ...it's relentlessly depressing, to the point of being unrealistic.

I think Au Hasard is considered mild stuff compared to some of the great melodramas of cinema, like Sansho the Bailiff, Paris, Texas and the others. And I don't think it is relentlessly about hopelessness and despair. In fact I don't find it depressing at all, although it does treat with the theme of cruelty of humankind on each other.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

Not all of Balthazar's life was unhappy and he was attached to some of his owners. I thought the film was beautifully shot and the scenes with the donkey were amazingly naturalistic. So there's quite a lot of beauty and gentle humour to take from the film. There's a lot to ponder in terms of meaning and it will take several watches before I feel I have any ground on which to form an opinion.

my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ish

[–] AtomicReturns (1252) 7 years ago

It's not one I'd rewatch, as characters like Gerard and pretty much every major character are irredeemable and not enjoyable to follow at all. Many scenes do feel redundant, as we already get the message that Gerard and others are irritatingly unwholesome to the core. But Au Hasard Balthazar is still a film I can respect, and Bresson did try experiment more with this film, which deserves some admiration (not many films follow the life of an animal like this).

Jean-Luc Godard said this film sums up the history of our world in an hour and a half. I believe he was referring to the religious/Biblical parallels, from the Creation (innocence) to the prevalence of evil, and how quickly it corrupts and spreads if left alone. Marie was a happy & angelic child, but her father became bitter and blinded by his pride, which made him emotionally distant...which made Marie drift away....which made it easier for Gerard and other males to take advantage of her because she lacked guidance.

But, to counteract the numerous unrelenting sequences of sin, suffering and social dysfunction, we do get moments of beauty. Goodness does exist. Neither side will prevail - and as history has shown, there will always be an unceasing battle between good vs. evil in our world. If Balthazar was "a saint" as a character calls him, it would be because he is a symbol of good (amid the cruelty) that people can look up to. Hope is like that candlelight that refuses to die out. And so, Balthazar and the story of his life in the French countryside becomes a reassuring spiritual metaphor for many, regardless of where they're from or when they watch this.