Au Hasard Balthazar (1966)

28 Apr 2015

thought provoking thinking

fresh perspective
did not get it
multiple good interpretations

excellent camera work

expected outcome

one director where I have to note: I wish I had a tag for anti-acting.

WTF is this? the weirdness in this one is hard to unsee.

the hell is with the relationship of this marie (does her father suffer from head injuries? calling her like goddamn fucking sheldon) and leather jacket? Is she just somehow deeply attracted to him? why? he’s not that good looking (although neither is she), and he is rude as fuck. And what is the audience suppose to think? those shit shows he put on are impossible to unsee… are you (director/screenwright) just trying to throw audience into the discomfort?

And what is the deal with that retarded old lady? is that suppose to be the leather jacket’s mother? so he steals (from you), treat you not nicely, you give him a fucking radio and motorbike as presents? And immediate reaction of finding out the possession of a gun and that he is summoned by the police, you were like “I can smuggle you out of the country” bitch please! no fucking any kind of confrontation? Even in grapes of wrath the mother Joad and Tom still had a discussion about the murder…

Not to mention the actions of the people on screen are so unbelievably rigid and unnatural (that bat swinging scene is bat shit crazy). Cringe all the way.

the cut after the implied donkey hitting scene is tres obvious

omg what kind of insult would make you give up all chance of wining a case that you think you are just?

a donkey went to a circus, ass insert a joke

oh what is this symbolism? breaking shit everywhere and no one else notice and keep dance? how deep!!!!???? sooooo impressed.

holy shit what a suprise! you can’t stand leather jacket anymore…. you so kind, i’ll give you kiss… nevermind bitch i need to eat you turd.

“i’ll share your pleasure and pain, but i hope it’s more pleasure than pain” – the world’s corniest pick-up line ever

The beginning sequence with the donkey growing up was kinda moving and interesting. too bad it just does not follow.

The overall feel of the film is that everyone portrayed here are caricatures instead of real living human beings (one-dimensional, no complexities). Now apparently i am not wrong in thinking this way, since it is suppose to demonstrate the seven deadly sins based on some book. Now kieslowski (et. al.) did a much much superior portrayal of something as bleak as categorical sins through the dekalog series IMO

From Ebert: “Bresson’s most intriguing limitation is to forbid his actors to act. He was known to shoot the same shot 10, 20, even 50 times, until all “acting” was drained from it, and the actors were simply performing the physical actions and speaking the words… It might seem that the result would be a movie filled with zombies, but quite the contrary: By simplifying performance to the action and the word without permitting inflection or style, Bresson achieves a kind of purity that makes his movies remarkably emotional. The actors portray lives without informing us how to feel about them; forced to decide for ourselves how to feel, forced to empathize, we often have stronger feelings than if the actors were feeling them for us.” All I can say is why, why, why, and disagree. I understand if for realism’s sake people use non-professional actors, so that emotions are genuine and leaked out, but why the hell would you want to reduce the organic-ness out of a movie on purpose? then why wouldn’t I just go ahead and read a book? or go watch something like La Jatee, a film filled with title cards and stills only so that I can get a full “autonomy” of my own inflections and thoughts? This is just a complete waste of time/energy/talent.
The only point to “upgrade” from traditional media to multi-media platforms is to enrich a story-teller’s power in persuation. If you don’t like that, don’t make movies.

scratch half of this. need to admit that I was just jealous/feel unfair that the prankster “tainted” what “should be” pure image of the “white womanhood.”

And with (a slight) further exploration of Bresson’s work, I see that he do indeed carry on his work in the form of pure languages. And I do indeed start to question, what really is the commonly applauded (method) acting? Is it a model of truth? or is it just a model of an idealized version of truth? (real people act unfittingly/weirdly all the time)