457. Au Hasard Balthazar/Balthazar (1966)

Running Time: 95 minutes
Directed By: Robert Bresson
Written By: Robert Bresson
Main Cast: Anne Wiazemsky, Francois Lafarge, Phillippe Asselin, Nathalie Joyaut, Walter Green
Click here to view the trailer

So here's the deal boys & girls, I know I said that I was going to try to make August a heavy work load month as it pertains to THE BOOK, but it's proving more difficult than I thought. The thing is, is that I'm starting to lose some of my passion for this project. Now, don't get me wrong, I have EVERY intention of finishing and I promise, I will not quit. However, at this point, I'm a bit burnt out and even a hiatus isn't going to help. I even hate admitting this publicly, but loyal readers deserve some explanation as to why my posts have been fewer and farther between as of late. Also, as I've mentioned, I've recently been promoted at work and that comes with more work and a bit more stress. By the time nine or ten o'clock rolls around, I'm in no condition to tackle a film. My weekends are Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but that's also my wife's weekend and believe it or not, she enjoys spending time with me and I her. Therefore, unless I have a BOOK movie that she's particularly interested in, I have to take time away from her to watch a movie and then write a review, which takes approximately three hours, all total. I have no doubt that my passion for THE BOOK will return, but as far as me finding the time to watch and review, I think for now we'll just have to rely on my weekends and off days hope you guys are content with one, maybe two reviews per week. Now then...

BRESSON WEEK: THE FINAL CHAPTER

Oy vey. I can't say I'm sad to see Bresson Week come to an end, I can tell you that. I was a huge fan of A Man Escaped, a film which I'm sure will have a prominent spot on my next TOP 20, but other than that I was really let down by Bresson's body of work, at least that which was represented in THE BOOK. Balthazar was no exception...

It seems I've said this often with the Robert Bresson films, but plot wise, there isn't much to tell about this one. The film begins with two children begging their father to buy them a particular baby donkey. The father finally gives in and soon we learn that one of the children is Marie, who loves him very much and treats his as such. She names him Balthazar and at first, the two are inseparable. However, as time goes by, the two take separate paths and soon Balthazar finds himself being handled by a nasty young man named Gerard, who beats him and treats him badly. Later, just as Gerard and company are about to put Balthazar down because he's sicl, an accused murderer offers to take him. The murderer turns into a drifter and claims that life on the road heals Balthazar, who is showing signs of improvement. The accused man treats Balthazar fairly well until one evening when he gets drunk and beats Balthazar, sending him running. The donkey then finds himself in the hands of a circus owner, who puts Balthazar into the show as a "genius donkey", they treat him well too, but kick him out when he causes a ruckus. Meanwhile, Marie is also trying to find her place in life and actually begins a relationship with Gerard, who actually treats her in a similar way that he treated Balthazar. Throughout the film, the lives of both Balthazar and Marie run parallel as the two are examples of purity and innocence.

I'm not knocking anyone's taste, but to people really like this movie? I ask because I've read such gleaming things that have been said about it, but how much of that is just movie critics trying to earn their stripes by liking what they SHOULD like. I didn't HATE the film, by any means, but it certainly wasn't anything to get all bunched up about, that's for sure. It was a symbolic film and those are really hit & miss with me. On one hand, symbolism in filmmaking can be superb and something to really dissect and debate about, while on the other hand it can become a bit too self gratifying by the director and ultimately a bit too hoity-toity. Did you ever see that Seinfeld where Jerry is given the task of recording bootleg movies by one of Kramer's criminal friends? He gets really into it, not unlike a director in a director's chair and when he has to contract Kramer to go out and shoot one for him, he scolds him for doing it wrong: "....the bread symbolizes his soul, he's trying to buy back a piece of his soul...". That line kept coming to me as I was watching this film. The donkey stood for purity, Marie stood for innocence and everyone who had possession of Balthazar stood for humanity and how they'd treat purity and innocence when it was presented to them. Ugh...get over yourself Mr. Bresson!

Are we meant to assume that Marie is raped in this scene? I mean, that would be the ultimate stripping of her purity, yet it's never made clear, probably because it was at a time when you just couldn't outright say whether she had been or not. Great visual by the way - stripped, cowering: a totally broken spirit. 

There was really no plot to speak of, at least not one that I wanted anything to do with and when it came time for FIN, I was so ready. Again, we have the same Bresson problem presenting itself again, as we're severely lacking in the dialogue department. I'm such a fan of good dialogue, that it's an unforgivable sin with me and a hard one to overlook. Don't get me wrong, the film lingered somewhere around the average marker with the little semblance of a plot that there was and the definite emotional qualities. There's one scene where the we go from Balthazar as a baby, with Marie and being very cared for and very happy immediately to a scene where he has a bar in his mouth and being forced to pull a heavy load, being whipped by his new owner. It's a heart wrenching scene. Of course, it's only donkey, so one has to wonder if we as humans are just misinterpreting everything. I mean, aren't donkeys meant to be worked, meant to be farm hands? Perhaps all of his ruckus and snorting are just him being a donkey and we as compassionate humans interpret it as having to feel sorry for him. I mean, shouldn't Marie have been the ultimate symbol of purity since she's actually a human and we know that humans have emotions? And yet, she's more of an after thought when compared to the screen time that Balthazar gets. Or maybe I'm just a cold hearted monster and Balthazar would've rather been being brushed by Marie and playing hide & seek in a big pile of straw, who knows.

RATING: 5/10  Call it right down the middle, although I'm probably being overly generous and I'm sure that will go lower with time.

RANKING BRESSON

1. A Man Escaped
2. Pickpocket
3. L'Argent
4. Diary of a Country Priest
5. Au Hasard Balthazar

Nothing dropped below average (except Diary of a Country Priest, which I'd raise a notch since my initial 4.5/10), yet I'm still glad to be done with Robert Bresson. His films were tedious, yet meaningful and while I was able to acknowledge most of them as at least good, they were still difficult viewings. All in all, I don't think I'll particularly seek out anymore of Bresson's catalog, nor would protest if someone were to recommend another.

MOVIES WATCHED: 840
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 161

August 21, 2014  5:12pm

700. L'Argent/Money (1983)

Running Time: 83 minutes
Directed By: Robert Bresson
Written By: Robert Bresson, from the short story Faux billet by Leo Tolstoy
Main Cast: Christian Patey, Vincent Risterucci, Caroline Lang, Sylvie Van den Elsen, Michel Briguet
Click here to view the trailer

BRESSON WEEK: CHAPTER FOUR

So I watched this on Thursday morning and am FINALLY getting here to write the review. I ended up spending the rest of Thursday hanging out with my wife, watching Oz and such and then came down with a pretty nasty migraine on Friday, so was in no shape for staring at laptop screens and trying to mesh together sentences. This is definitely the longest I've ever waited in between viewing and reviewing, so bear with me if I'm sketchy with my thoughts.

The film begins with a student entering his father's study to collect his weekly allowance. He tries to get a few more dollars out of him that what he normally is given, but is promptly shot down. When he goes to bitch about the insufficient funds to his school chum, the chum slips him forged note and tells him the difference is negligible. He passes the forged note in a photo shop when purchasing a frame and we're done with them. Sticking with the photo shop crew, however, the one who accepted the note is reprimanded for taking it, but bounces back by reminding the owner that he accepted two only the week prior. The owner decides to take matters into his own hands and just pass the notes along to some other unsuspecting rube. The rube comes in the form of a plumber, Yvon (Patey) who does some work at the photo shop and is paid with the three forged notes that the shop has accepted in the past week. The plumber is none the wiser and goes along his merry way, stopping by a restaurant to grab some lunch. When he tries to pass the notes along, however, the restaurant owner spots them as forges and declines them, phoning the police in the process. Yvon is eventually released by the authorities, but is fired from his job. Now, needing money, Yvon goes to a friend for help. The friend can't give Yvon any dough, but tells him of plans to rob a bank and offers him a spot as the getaway driver with a dividend to be paid to Yvon if they're successful - he accepts. Basically it turns into a whole snowball effect from this point on and I've probably said too much already.

SPOILER ALERT!

For those of you who stuck with me past the break, let's keep going. I realize you already know the rest of the plot if you've decided to read past "SPOILER ALERT", but I want to make a point, so bear with me. So the bank robbery turns out to be unsuccessful, Yvon is caught by police and put in prison for his crimes. While in prison, his wife writes him and tells him that she's taking their child and moving on with her life and that she'll be Splitsville by the time he's released. He basically stumbles into a depression (and for good reason) until he's released. Upon his release he stalks an elderly woman, whom he notices outside the bank, stuffing many large bills into her handbag, follows her home and before he can knock her off, is taken by her kindness. She offers him something to eat and a place to stay and for a while, the two get along. It all ends up, however, with him axing her and her entire family while they sleep, going back into town (the woman lived out in the boonies), finding a police officer, confessing and being re-arrested. So my point is, I was with this movie right up until the point that he killed the woman and her family. The film was telling a pretty basic concept: look at what this one forged note did to this poor, unsuspecting man's life. He loses his job, loses his family, loses his freedom, loses everything and all because this spoiled, punk kid didn't have a few more dollars in his pocket. It all made sense and despite it's outrageous lack of dialogue, wasn't a bad little film. Then we go to the murder angle and it kind of all falls apart. Yvon having anything to do with the elderly woman, let along murdering her, is something he has control of, unlike the jailing and the loss of his family which were completely out of his control. I mean, did the guy just go so completely mad from being locked up for this amount of time that he felt the need to kill? Or am I just totally missing one of Bresson's little hidden messages, symbols or meanings? Probably the latter. Either way, it was kind of a goofy second half and it really took me out of the movie.

And what about the spectacular problem Bresson has with dialogue interaction between his characters? The characters in this film were so quiet that they barely had any personality and could barely be called characters - I'd rather call them place holders for the plot to unfold. In earlier films (the ones I watched last week) Bresson would use narration as a way to get his thoughts across, but in L'Argent, there is no narration and thus, for a lot of the movie, we're left to simply view actions as opposed to listening to interactions. I'm such a dialogue junkie when it comes to movies that I find it really hard to get into his movies with this complete lack of character exchanges. It was one thing when it was narration, because at least that's something and he wrote it really well. But in L'Argent, there's a lot of dead air and I found my mind wondering a few times. The plot was decent enough, however, that I found it relatively easy to bring my concentration back to the picture and all in all it wasn't a bad day at the movies. Had there been a lot more dialogue and a better explanation as to why Yvon took the path he did, post-jail, then this could've been a big time contender for the next TOP 20. As it is call it an unlikely contender for the Ten Worth Mentioning.

RATING: 6.5/10  I probably COULD go '7' if I was feeling a bit more generous, but '6.5' seems more proper. One Bresson picture left in THE BOOK, which I hope to tackle tomorrow night - Balthazar.

MOVIES WATCHED: 839
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 162

August 16. 2014  10:47pm

305. Un condamne a mort s'est echappe ou Le vent souffle ou il veut/A Man Escaped (1956)

Running Time: 99 minutes
Directed By: Robert Bresson
Written By: Robert Bresson, from memoir by Andre Devigny
Main Cast: Francois Leterrier, Charles Le Clainche, Roland Monod, Maurice Beerblock, Jacques Ertaud
Click here to view the trailer

BRESSON WEEK: CHAPTER THREE

Hey, what do ya' know - I was able to keep my eyes open long enough tonight to swing in and pound out the review for A Man Escaped, the third in a five film salute to Robert Bresson. Being a prison escape movie, this was a shoo in to be a hit with me and it didn't disappoint.

Not a whole lot to tell, plot wise, as the film is a minimalist fans' wet dream, as we're treated to a collection of shots featuring our main character in his cell, chipping away and plotting escape plans. The whole thing takes place in a Nazi prison camp, smack dab in the middle of WWII. We start out with prisoner Fontaine (Leterrier) being transported, via car, to the camp. He eases his hand closer and closer to the door handle and at the opportune time (or what he thinks is an opportune time) he lifts the latch and makes a run for it. He's swiftly caught and taken to the camp, where he's treated to a small, concrete cell, only a few feet by a few feet. He's called courage incarnate and immediately starts trying to come up with ways to escape his captors. He makes friends with a few fellow prisoners, some of whom he can see from his window when they walk the courtyard, others by tapping adjoining walls and communicating through those taps. Eventually, he's transported to a different cell and it's there where he sees major opportunity for escape, noticing that the door to his cell (a wooden door composed of several slats) could be easily dismantled and slipped through, probably even in a way where it could go unnoticed while he worked on it. He begins his project, stealing a spoon and turning it into a chisel by sanding it down against the concrete floor of his cell. He uses the chisel to grind away at the creases between the wooden door slats and slip them out of place. It takes months, but at least knowing he'll soon be free is incentive to keep going

SPOILER ALERT!

It probably didn't hurt that my wife and I are still truckin' away on Oz, therefore I've been all hopped up on prison fiction anyway. However I'm such a sucker for prison stuff that it never takes much anyway to win me over. Add to that the fact that I'm an even bigger sucker for escape flicks and this one was a sure fire winner right out of the gate. I have to admit though, that after watching those first two Bresson films, I was a little skeptical. Sure Pickpocket was just fine, but Diary of a Country Priest was downright dull and there was always the chance that Bresson could go extra dull for this one. I'm for minimalist filmmaking however and this was almost as minimal as it gets: unprofessional actors, more narration than actual character to character dialogue and long shots of simply the main character trying to spoon his way out of a solid concrete Nazi prison camp. Sure, it's no Le Trou, which gets even more intricate when it comes to elaborate escape plans, but it was a damn good movie and one that I'd be willing to watch over and over again.

I will say however that the whole "this story has been told exactly as it happened" thing kind of came back to bite them on the butt, don't you think? I mean, hey, I'm all for sticking to the source material, but if ever there was a time to get just a touch creative with a little dramatization, I think it would've worked wonders here and turned this '8/10' into an EASY '10/10'. The book cites suspense rivaling that of Hitchcock, yet the only time I was really edge of my seat, in a Hitchcockian state was 1) when he was filing against the door and it was making that nails on a chalkboard sound and 2) during the actual escape. Other than that, we're pretty much given enough clues to know that he's not going to get caught and it's pretty much established that if he does, he'll get shot on the spot, thus leaving us sans main character. A little injection of suspense here and there - just a touch more - could've done this movie well. I also wasn't crazy about the inclusion of the roommate. Those who read my Treasure of the Sierra Madre review will recall my disapproval when extra characters are introduced, outside of the original three and it was the same thing here, only moreso. They had us stuck in a room with Fontaine for OVER an hour and then popped some other guy on us. I took it as an intrusion between myself and the character of Fontaine and I didn't want to be intruded on. Is that crazy or does that make sense to you all?

There was also just too much time between the time Fontaine finished making all of his hooks and ropes and the actual escape. There's like a twenty minute gap where he shoots the shit with his new cell mate and internally struggles with the decision to tell him about the escape plan or kill him. I wish they could've wrapped that up a bit quicker. I found it unbelievable that this guy who took so many risks in establishing his escape plan would then decide that he didn't want to do it right away - always putting it off until the next night and then the next. Of course, if that's how it actually went down, then what can you say, but again I say a spoonful of dramatization could've only help,

Anyway I'm just picking on something that I really liked - you know the old saying, "Why do we always hurt the ones we love"? Well it also applies to movies. I'm always a bit harder on things I liked because I'm more able to see the possibilities. With films I hated, I'm blind to the possibilities because I just don't care. This is a top notch prison escape movie and one that both Bresson fans and those who are strangers to Bresson will love, I'm sure. Just remember, the film DEMANDS a patient viewer.

RATING: 8.5/10  I can't go whole hog because of the reasons I mentioned, but still damn good and an easy contender for the TOP 20. I was literally falling asleep at the desk there a few times, so if there's a lot of typos or things that don't make sense, forgive me.

MOVIES WATCHED: 837
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 164

August 8. 2014  10:44pm

238. Journal d'un cure de campagne/Diary of a Country Priest (1951)

Running Time: 115 minutes
Directed By: Robert Bresson
Written By: Robert Bresson, from novel by Georges Bernanos
Main Cast: Claude Laydu, Jean Riveyre, Adrien Borel, Rachel Berendt, Nicole Maurey
Click here to view the trailer

BRESSON WEEK: CHAPTER TWO

I made the decision today that August is going to be a boom month for the blog. I've been really slacking since my return - sure I've been promoted at work, which means a bit more stress, but honestly the work load isn't that much more than what I used to deal with when banging out twenty - thirty reviews a month. Of course, I can only do what my eyelids will allow and my primetime to bang out watching movies/writing reviews is after my wife goes to bed, which usually isn't until like 9:30 - 10:00. Since I'm in bed by midnight, that gives me about two hours a night to get crackin'. Hopefully I can start making some serious progress...Anyway, BRESSON WEEK rolls on with Diary of a Country Priest.

If you've ever heard Scorsese give an in-depth interview, then you've probably heard him talk about this movie, which he's said has had a major impact on Taxi Driver. I really don't see the connection between the two films, but if this film had something to do with that masterpiece, then that pretty much automatically makes it a "must see", doesn't it? The film takes place in the country (imagine that) and picks up when a priest (Laydu) arrives at his new parish in the small village of Ambricourt. We get most of the information we need from his journal entries and learn right away that he's ill - constantly scrawling in his diary complaints of a sometimes unbearable stomach ache. He notes that the only thing he can eat that doesn't further upset his stomach is pieces of bread soaked in wine. During the days he teaches an all girl class the ins and outs of Catholicism and quizzes them on things like the Eucharist and sometimes he travels to a nearby town of Torcy to visit with another, older priest. After a while, he builds a relationship with a family, who's Countess has lost her faith in God following the death of her young son. During a rabid conversation, a back and forth, the priest finally makes the Countess see the error of her thinking and restores her faith - a victory for the priest who has had nothing but troubles and self doubt since arriving in the country. The following night, the Countess dies, sending the priest whirling back into a sort of depression.

SPOILER ALERT!

What is it with these agnostic directors who feel the need to constantly explore religion, even though they're famous for having nothing to do with religion in their personal lives? I mean, if I were an atheist and a filmmaker too, I certainly wouldn't be making films about Catholic priests and such. However, I am kind of a sucker for the faithless priest storyline (which is best told by an atheist - see Winter Light) yet that's not exactly what this is. Sure, the priest of Ambricourt has his moments of self doubt, but it's never really established as to whether he completely loses his faith or only falters - there's no clues to 100% confirm either hypothesis. I started out kind of liking this one: a priest arrives in the country to take the reigns of a new parish. We're getting tons of narration, which is superbly written (be it from the source material or an addendum from Bresson) and perfectly spoken by Laydu. I seem to recall speaking negatively recently about excessive narration (in fact, I believe it was with a Scorsese picture. Is this where he got his penchant for narration - from Bresson?), however with Bresson, he really makes the narration work better than if the actors were actually speaking. In fact, with Diary of a Country Priest I looked forward to the narration parts and after a while, began to dread the scenes that required actual acting. Not that the acting was bad, though.

I was with this one right up until about the forty minute mark and then I started to slip out from between it's grasp. I just lost touch with all of the characters and realized that the story had really gone as far as it was going to go. I mean, nothing REALLY happens, does it? We're just given this priest who spends his final days on this countryside, being the best that he can be and speaking his last words - "What does it matter - all is grace". What does that mean? Did he finally realize with his dying breath that God doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter if he exists or doesn't exist? "It doesn't matter if he exists or not, all is grace either way"? Perhaps or perhaps I'm way off - who knows. I can say, I really didn't have enough of an attachment to the movie to start making guesses as to what the final lines mean, just like I don't have enough of an attachment to Citizen Kane to make guesses as to what Rosebud means, same thing. I tried really hard with this one and I wanted to like it, I really did. Ultimately, however, I just slipped away and at a certain point, the film lost me and I can't even go so far as to call it average.

RATING: 4.5/10  Here's hoping that "A Man Escaped" is everything I want it to be and blows both this and Pickpocket out of the water. Why do I have this feeling that I'm going to get burned, though?

MOVIES WATCHED: 836
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 165

August 6, 2014  10:50pm

350. PICKPOCKET (1959)

Running Time: 75 minutes
Directed By: Robert Bresson
Written By: Robert Bresson
Main Cast: Martin LaSalle, Marika Green, Jean Pelegri, Dolly Scal, Pierre Leymarie
Click here to view the trailer

BRESSON WEEK: CHAPTER ONE

I have to say, I've been looking forward to these Robert Bresson films for a while now. I've always heard great things about Pickpocket and have even heard Martin Scorsese gush about Diary of a Country Priest. The other day, however, I was warned by Ray (frequent commenter) that these films are not so easy and to be cautious when dealing with Bresson. I'll tread lightly, in hopes that at least one of them wows me. For the record, I'll be moving in random order, instead of the usual chronological order. First up: Pickpocket.

The title pretty much outlines the plot synopsis as the movie is basically just about a street thief who gets his jollies slipping his sticky fingers into the suit coat pockets' of unsuspecting strangers. Our title pickpocket is Michel (LaSalle), whom we first meet at a race track, his story being told via narration as he writes his memoirs. At the track, Michel slowly and sneakily slides his fingers into the purse of unsuspecting, seemingly upper class woman and rids her of a bundle of cash. He's almost immediately caught, but with no eyewitnesses and no proof, he's released. We follow him to his meager room - a small, barely livable space with only a small hook and eye latch to keep the door from swinging open. We also follow him as he visits his mother, but decides not to actually enter her apartment for reasons unknown to us at the time. Instead he meets with a neighbor and caretaker of his ailing mother, Jeanne (Green), who wants him to visit her but he refuses. Meanwhile, Michel meets up with a more skilled pickpocket who teaches him even more tricks, while the two share time at a local bar - a place where Michel will learn most of his tricks. The two begin to work together, pulling off more intricate, two man jobs and even adding a third man later to up the ante and pull off even cleverly crafted heists. All the while, Michel has a little on again/off again relationship with the chief inspector of police, who suspects Michel of foul play, but can't prove him of any wrongdoing. The two are cordial, even though they realize that they are each other's enemy.

SPOILER ALERT!

I'll start by talking about the scenes depicting the actual pickpocketing, which even THE BOOK notes are unlike any thievery scene ever filmed. It's truly amazing how intricate these scenes are and how Bresson was able to capture such excitement in these scenes. Is it true that the second pickpocket Michel meets at the bar was actually a magician or something, who also served as an advisor on the film, showing the filmmakers how to actually do these jobs? It seems that they'd have to have SOMEBODY on set to show them just how to make this stuff look genuine. What I didn't like about the movie is how we're never allowed to get very close to the character of Michel, the main character no less. We're given a man who seems conflicted from the start, yet we're always in the dark about exactly what troubles him. It's as if we're simply being told a story, not given a change to study the characters. I supposed you could say that the Michel character is ripe for examination, yet I say he's almost an enigma. He steals to what end? Not necessarily because he needs the money, but more for the thrill - like why a heroine addict shoots up; perhaps he's addicted to it. Perhaps he needs to feel important, like he has a purpose. Perhaps his connection to the chief inspector is one that he values more than he realizes. Maybe in his mind, as long as he's at large he's wanted by the police and maybe that feeling of being wanted by SOMEONE drives him to continue his pickpocketing. That could even explain why the film ends with him in prison, embracing Jeanne - because now he's wanted by her and no longer needs to be a theif, to be at large. Now he can be addicted to Jeanne, now his life has another purpose, yet it's too late for him, as he's no incarcerated with no hope of having a proper life with Jeanne. Okay, maybe I'm totally off base about this character being stale and maybe he IS ripe for studying.

I wasn't crazy about the movie or anything and found that when we weren't seeing the scenes depicting the pickpocketing, I was bored. I was fascinated by the sleight of hand, by the suspense of watching Michel face to face with some unsuspecting rube who was about to lose his dough. It was all so great that when we had to jump back and see Michel interacting with Jacques or Jeanne or even the scene where he visits his mother, I found myself not really caring about any of that. I wish there could've been a little more done to make those scenes more exciting and prevalent to the overall story. I found myself just watching a movie about a thief and neglecting the story about the man who was the thief and maybe that's my own fault. I would say that it was a better than average outing and really close to being something special, but falling short by just a little bit. Perhaps another day and another viewing would do this picture better, but for now call it a mild thumbs up.

RATING: 6.5/10  Just a little bit more and I could've nudged it into that upper echelon of ratings, which is a '7' or higher. Close but no cigar, but not a bad start for Bresson.

MOVIES WATCHED: 835
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 166

August 6, 2014  1:35am