Another thread? Please?
1
Au hasard Balthazar
Started by
Doug C
, Dec 12 2003 11:48 AM
208 replies to this topic
#42
M. Leary
-
- Member
- 5,259 posts
Member
Posted 19 December 2003 - 01:49 PM
"The balance between an object and its filmic representation feels absolutely just in Bresson."
Wow. Here is that word again: just. This brings us right back to my favorite discussion on this board catalyzed by the quote about the superior ethics of the tracking shot.
I just finished watching Varda's Cent et Une Nuits, there is a great spot in that film where Mr. Cinema is discussing Pickpocket with someone and Varda flashes to the purse-theft sequence. I can't remember exactly what is said right there, but someone says they like Bresson because he is so "delicate." I thought that was a perfect word group for Bresson, every image in A Man Escaped rides a very delicate edge between the image and the Absolute.
I am reading a book on Picasso right now and the author is discussing a period (post-war) when Picasso began painting highly sexualized abstractions of the female form. They are barely discernable in and of themselves, but as forms they force to mind images of female and male archetypes that we are so familiar with. Paintings of Persephone or Mary Magdalene or Aphrodite, etc... all lurk immediately beneath the surface of the canvas aching to explode from Picasso's minimal representation of them all. There are times in Bresson's work that this sort of viewing seems to be helpful. One great example would be the sequence at which he finally pries loose the last board in the door of his cell in A Man Escaped. As in image, barely and minimally presented, it stands formally rather boldly and simply. But it is an image so pregnant with so many other images and themes extruding from it.
There just seems to be in Picasso (according to this author) the same sort of connection between the physicality of an object and its experience. "Meaning" occurs somewhere in that exchange rather than in its expression (Expressionism), or its impression (Romanticism).
Doug, here is my current problem with Bresson though. I watched all of his later films this year (most notably: L'Argent and The Devil, Probably). There is such a vast difference between those and his early films (excepting Les Dames. What is the deal there? I am missing a key bit of biographical information or something? Especially The Devil, Probably. I absolutely love that film but it seems to come out of nowhere.
Wow. Here is that word again: just. This brings us right back to my favorite discussion on this board catalyzed by the quote about the superior ethics of the tracking shot.
I just finished watching Varda's Cent et Une Nuits, there is a great spot in that film where Mr. Cinema is discussing Pickpocket with someone and Varda flashes to the purse-theft sequence. I can't remember exactly what is said right there, but someone says they like Bresson because he is so "delicate." I thought that was a perfect word group for Bresson, every image in A Man Escaped rides a very delicate edge between the image and the Absolute.
I am reading a book on Picasso right now and the author is discussing a period (post-war) when Picasso began painting highly sexualized abstractions of the female form. They are barely discernable in and of themselves, but as forms they force to mind images of female and male archetypes that we are so familiar with. Paintings of Persephone or Mary Magdalene or Aphrodite, etc... all lurk immediately beneath the surface of the canvas aching to explode from Picasso's minimal representation of them all. There are times in Bresson's work that this sort of viewing seems to be helpful. One great example would be the sequence at which he finally pries loose the last board in the door of his cell in A Man Escaped. As in image, barely and minimally presented, it stands formally rather boldly and simply. But it is an image so pregnant with so many other images and themes extruding from it.
There just seems to be in Picasso (according to this author) the same sort of connection between the physicality of an object and its experience. "Meaning" occurs somewhere in that exchange rather than in its expression (Expressionism), or its impression (Romanticism).
Doug, here is my current problem with Bresson though. I watched all of his later films this year (most notably: L'Argent and The Devil, Probably). There is such a vast difference between those and his early films (excepting Les Dames. What is the deal there? I am missing a key bit of biographical information or something? Especially The Devil, Probably. I absolutely love that film but it seems to come out of nowhere.
#43
Doug C
-
- Member
- 1,564 posts
Member
Posted 19 December 2003 - 02:44 PM
Ah yes, early-Bresson versus late-Bresson. 
Another criticism of Schrader's work is that he only focuses on a specific period of Bresson's career, Diary of a Country Priest, and his "prison trilogy," A Man Escaped, Pickpocket, and The Trial of Joan of Arc, all of which have fairly explicitly religious contexts (although Pickpocket is the most subdued of the bunch).
Balthazar and Mouchette (which like Diary, is also based on a novel by the Catholic writer Georges Bernanos) are transitionary works where the spiritual themes are more implicitly imbedded in the films, subtly and beautifully peeking around the edges.
His work after that (A Gentle Woman, Four Nights of a Dreamer, The Devil Probably, Lancelot du Lac, and L'Argent) is 1) in color, 2) more tragic, and 3) increasingly rigorous. I'd really recommend starting with his black-and-white period and moving forward, in order to more fully appreciate his thematic and aesthetic development.
But yeah, there are many theories as to why Bresson started to emphasize the fallenness of mankind rather than its redemption, but the fact is that he did, although I find his late films no less truthful or concerned with the mysterious inner life of his protagonists because of it.
I'll have to pull some quotes from books I've got at home later, but it's possible Bresson realized he was being pigeonholed as a "Christian artist" and therefore began to hide the clearly redemptive aspects of his films--or maybe he simply wanted to establish the need for redemption and leave it in the minds of his viewers.
He once said, "I think in the whole world things are going very badly. People are becoming more materialist and cruel . . . Cruel by laziness, by indifference, egotism, because they only think about themselves and not at all about what is happening around them, so they let everything grow ugly and stupid. They are all interested in money only. Money is becoming their God. God doesn't exist for many. Money is becoming something you must live for. You know, even your astronauts, the first one who put his foot on the moon, said that when he first saw our earth, he said it was something so miraculous, so marvelous, don't spoil it, don't touch it. More deeply I feel the rotten way they are spoiling the earth. All the countries. Silence doesn't exist anymore; you can't find it. That, for me, would make it impossible to live."
Very true, as its two titles suggest: A Man Escaped and The Wind Blows Where It Wills. They perfectly establish the dual physical and spiritual realities in the film (as well as its paradoxical embrace of predestination and free will).
I love your example of the "prying board" shot. That's so Bresson.
Another criticism of Schrader's work is that he only focuses on a specific period of Bresson's career, Diary of a Country Priest, and his "prison trilogy," A Man Escaped, Pickpocket, and The Trial of Joan of Arc, all of which have fairly explicitly religious contexts (although Pickpocket is the most subdued of the bunch).
Balthazar and Mouchette (which like Diary, is also based on a novel by the Catholic writer Georges Bernanos) are transitionary works where the spiritual themes are more implicitly imbedded in the films, subtly and beautifully peeking around the edges.
His work after that (A Gentle Woman, Four Nights of a Dreamer, The Devil Probably, Lancelot du Lac, and L'Argent) is 1) in color, 2) more tragic, and 3) increasingly rigorous. I'd really recommend starting with his black-and-white period and moving forward, in order to more fully appreciate his thematic and aesthetic development.
But yeah, there are many theories as to why Bresson started to emphasize the fallenness of mankind rather than its redemption, but the fact is that he did, although I find his late films no less truthful or concerned with the mysterious inner life of his protagonists because of it.
I'll have to pull some quotes from books I've got at home later, but it's possible Bresson realized he was being pigeonholed as a "Christian artist" and therefore began to hide the clearly redemptive aspects of his films--or maybe he simply wanted to establish the need for redemption and leave it in the minds of his viewers.
He once said, "I think in the whole world things are going very badly. People are becoming more materialist and cruel . . . Cruel by laziness, by indifference, egotism, because they only think about themselves and not at all about what is happening around them, so they let everything grow ugly and stupid. They are all interested in money only. Money is becoming their God. God doesn't exist for many. Money is becoming something you must live for. You know, even your astronauts, the first one who put his foot on the moon, said that when he first saw our earth, he said it was something so miraculous, so marvelous, don't spoil it, don't touch it. More deeply I feel the rotten way they are spoiling the earth. All the countries. Silence doesn't exist anymore; you can't find it. That, for me, would make it impossible to live."
Quote
I thought that was a perfect word group for Bresson, every image in A Man Escaped rides a very delicate edge between the image and the Absolute.
Very true, as its two titles suggest: A Man Escaped and The Wind Blows Where It Wills. They perfectly establish the dual physical and spiritual realities in the film (as well as its paradoxical embrace of predestination and free will).
I love your example of the "prying board" shot. That's so Bresson.
#44
Andrew
-
- Member
- 1,959 posts
And a good day to you, sir!
Posted 19 December 2003 - 04:45 PM
Sorry, Doug: I didn't realize that this thread was a no-tangent zone.
(M): I've placed my query on the Dobson thread.
(M): I've placed my query on the Dobson thread.
#45
Doug C
-
- Member
- 1,564 posts
Member
Posted 19 December 2003 - 05:28 PM
No problem, Andrew--I just want to keep things focused here since its a film that isn't likely to show up in other threads anytime soon.
#46
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 20 December 2003 - 04:25 AM
(M)Leary wrote:
: It is always a trans-denominational "Christian" thing to highlight and
: discuss works of art that enable us to participate in the suffering of
: others whether political or economic. So this would not be "political" in
: the Drudge/Limbaugh sense, but "political" in John Yoder's sense: The
: Politics of Jesus.
Haven't read Yoder's book, but I think I see what you mean. The problem is, when people talk about the trans-denominational aspects of "participating in the suffering of others" and then talk about "social justice", they seem to be moving from a spiritual perspective that could presumably affect one's politics in a number of ways, to a political perspective that generally gravitates towards one particular section of the political spectrum. I am not saying that this is what you are doing, and I know that many Christians like to think that "social justice" is a non-partisan concept, but then, I used to think that "family values" was non-partisan too.
One of the reasons I contrasted Tim Robbins and Ken Loach in my earlier post is that there was a scene in Loach's film where I thought a great injustice was being done to one character, but it had the socialists in the theatre cheering out loud. "Justice", like "beauty", is often in the eye of the beholder. I am all for films which elucidate social and political problems and situations -- I guess I just get nervous when the people discussing those films begin to slant the discussion in a way that takes certain extra-textual arguments for granted, especially when it seems that those extra-textual arguments are not open for discussion. (Does anyone who embraces the phrase "social justice" actually consider the meaning and practical application of that term to be open to negotiation? Could films that explore such things HELP us to negotiate such terms?)
: It may be very difficult to try to place this section of the history of film in
: the context of the debate between the Western and Eastern views of
: iconography. Aren't these discussions apples and oranges?
I did not mean to place the film discussion within the context of the history of iconography, but rather, I was mentally putting both things in a larger context reflecting differences in eastern and western artistic emphasis.
: And Bresson's materialism in terms of imagery is more Jansenist than it
: is Roman Catholic.
What IS Jansenism, BTW?
Doug C wrote:
: This concern for the immanent as well as the transcendent, the earthly
: as well as the heavenly, is what I would also call an aesthetic expression
: of a specifically Judeo-Christian conflation of the body and spirit, the
: physical world and eschatological hopes. They are equally important and
: inseparable.
Well put!
: It is always a trans-denominational "Christian" thing to highlight and
: discuss works of art that enable us to participate in the suffering of
: others whether political or economic. So this would not be "political" in
: the Drudge/Limbaugh sense, but "political" in John Yoder's sense: The
: Politics of Jesus.
Haven't read Yoder's book, but I think I see what you mean. The problem is, when people talk about the trans-denominational aspects of "participating in the suffering of others" and then talk about "social justice", they seem to be moving from a spiritual perspective that could presumably affect one's politics in a number of ways, to a political perspective that generally gravitates towards one particular section of the political spectrum. I am not saying that this is what you are doing, and I know that many Christians like to think that "social justice" is a non-partisan concept, but then, I used to think that "family values" was non-partisan too.
One of the reasons I contrasted Tim Robbins and Ken Loach in my earlier post is that there was a scene in Loach's film where I thought a great injustice was being done to one character, but it had the socialists in the theatre cheering out loud. "Justice", like "beauty", is often in the eye of the beholder. I am all for films which elucidate social and political problems and situations -- I guess I just get nervous when the people discussing those films begin to slant the discussion in a way that takes certain extra-textual arguments for granted, especially when it seems that those extra-textual arguments are not open for discussion. (Does anyone who embraces the phrase "social justice" actually consider the meaning and practical application of that term to be open to negotiation? Could films that explore such things HELP us to negotiate such terms?)
: It may be very difficult to try to place this section of the history of film in
: the context of the debate between the Western and Eastern views of
: iconography. Aren't these discussions apples and oranges?
I did not mean to place the film discussion within the context of the history of iconography, but rather, I was mentally putting both things in a larger context reflecting differences in eastern and western artistic emphasis.
: And Bresson's materialism in terms of imagery is more Jansenist than it
: is Roman Catholic.
What IS Jansenism, BTW?
Doug C wrote:
: This concern for the immanent as well as the transcendent, the earthly
: as well as the heavenly, is what I would also call an aesthetic expression
: of a specifically Judeo-Christian conflation of the body and spirit, the
: physical world and eschatological hopes. They are equally important and
: inseparable.
Well put!
#47
Doug C
-
- Member
- 1,564 posts
Member
Posted 20 December 2003 - 11:57 AM
Peter, I'll reply to your question about Jansenism because it relates directly to Bresson, but I really don't appreciate the way your posts have been so tangental to the filmmaker and his work. Since this is one of the few threads about Bresson or Au hasard Balthazar, it would be great if people didn't have to scroll through every two or three posts just to find the discussion. So again, if you want to continue beating the anti-social justice drum or whatever, could you please start a new thread and resume there?
Why do I have to keep repeating this request?
****
Jansenism was a particularly "severe" Catholic sect that, in response to the problem of evil, emphasized original sin, human depravity, hard determinism, and the necessity of grace. Jansenists were the chief theological rivals of the Jesuits during the 17th century. Pascal was one of their notable apologists; Racine was one of their most celebrated dramatists. In many ways, they were pretty similar to Calvinists--they even believed only an "elect" could attain salvation, so they stressed piety and discipline.
Having said that, Bresson never presented himself as a theologian or his work as doctrinal statements in any way. But the severity of his narrative organization, its often tragic tone based in human vice, and its fascination with innocence, corruption, and freedom lent his work a Jansenist feel and he himself acknowledged it.
There have been some very interesting essays comparing Bresson and Pascal, particularly Mirella Jona Affron's "Bresson and Pascal: Rhetorical Affinities" in James Quandt's recent tome.
Why do I have to keep repeating this request?
****
Jansenism was a particularly "severe" Catholic sect that, in response to the problem of evil, emphasized original sin, human depravity, hard determinism, and the necessity of grace. Jansenists were the chief theological rivals of the Jesuits during the 17th century. Pascal was one of their notable apologists; Racine was one of their most celebrated dramatists. In many ways, they were pretty similar to Calvinists--they even believed only an "elect" could attain salvation, so they stressed piety and discipline.
Having said that, Bresson never presented himself as a theologian or his work as doctrinal statements in any way. But the severity of his narrative organization, its often tragic tone based in human vice, and its fascination with innocence, corruption, and freedom lent his work a Jansenist feel and he himself acknowledged it.
There have been some very interesting essays comparing Bresson and Pascal, particularly Mirella Jona Affron's "Bresson and Pascal: Rhetorical Affinities" in James Quandt's recent tome.
#48
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 20 December 2003 - 05:35 PM
Doug C wrote:
: Peter, I'll reply to your question about Jansenism because it relates
: directly to Bresson, but I really don't appreciate the way your posts have
: been so tangental to the filmmaker and his work.
Oh, I'm hardly the only person who has gone tangential within a thread on this board.
: Since this is one of the few threads about Bresson or Au hasard
: Balthazar, it would be great if people didn't have to scroll through every
: two or three posts just to find the discussion.
I sympathize with your proprietary attachment to this thread -- I have felt that way about a number of threads that I have started, only to see them head off in weird tangential ways, too -- and I agree that the thread should stay centred on Bresson in general and perhaps this one film in particular. If I had seen any Bresson films recently (or In This World, for that matter), I would definitely dive right into the more film-specific parts of this discussion, but as it is, I can only comment on the more abstract themes that emerges from this discussion.
: So again, if you want to continue beating the anti-social justice drum . . .
This, of course, is a mischaracterization of my views and intentions. Please, Doug, by all means, disagree with people, but try to do so in a way that understands and respects them.
: . . . could you please start a new thread and resume there?
Well, no, since the whole point is to see how we we can explore, define, and negotiate such concepts through films like these. I assume that is why the subject was raised in this thread in the first place. Someone else kicked the ball into the field -- I'm just running with it. But I wouldn't object if we kicked the ball back off the field altogether.
: Why do I have to keep repeating this request?
You don't have to; you just choose to. I generally just let the moderators decide when a tangent has strayed too far, and when to split off or reclassify a thread.
: Jansenism was a particularly "severe" Catholic sect that, in response to
: the problem of evil, emphasized original sin, human depravity, hard
: determinism, and the necessity of grace. Jansenists were the chief
: theological rivals of the Jesuits during the 17th century. . . . In many
: ways, they were pretty similar to Calvinists--they even believed only an
: "elect" could attain salvation, so they stressed piety and discipline.
Interesting. Would it be safe to assume that there was a person named Jansen who started it all? And when did the movement get off the ground? If the movement BEGAN in the 17th century (and I don't know whether it did), might it have been INFLUENCED by Calvinism?
: Having said that, Bresson never presented himself as a theologian or his
: work as doctrinal statements in any way. But the severity of his
: narrative organization, its often tragic tone based in human vice, and its
: fascination with innocence, corruption, and freedom lent his work a
: Jansenist feel and he himself acknowledged it.
Did he actually say he was a Jansenist himself, or were the parallels between his work and Jansenism more sort of accidental?
: There have been some very interesting essays comparing Bresson and
: Pascal, particularly Mirella Jona Affron's "Bresson and Pascal: Rhetorical
: Affinities" in James Quandt's recent tome.
Thanks -- I have a copy of that book, so I might look that up.
: Peter, I'll reply to your question about Jansenism because it relates
: directly to Bresson, but I really don't appreciate the way your posts have
: been so tangental to the filmmaker and his work.
Oh, I'm hardly the only person who has gone tangential within a thread on this board.
: Since this is one of the few threads about Bresson or Au hasard
: Balthazar, it would be great if people didn't have to scroll through every
: two or three posts just to find the discussion.
I sympathize with your proprietary attachment to this thread -- I have felt that way about a number of threads that I have started, only to see them head off in weird tangential ways, too -- and I agree that the thread should stay centred on Bresson in general and perhaps this one film in particular. If I had seen any Bresson films recently (or In This World, for that matter), I would definitely dive right into the more film-specific parts of this discussion, but as it is, I can only comment on the more abstract themes that emerges from this discussion.
: So again, if you want to continue beating the anti-social justice drum . . .
This, of course, is a mischaracterization of my views and intentions. Please, Doug, by all means, disagree with people, but try to do so in a way that understands and respects them.
: . . . could you please start a new thread and resume there?
Well, no, since the whole point is to see how we we can explore, define, and negotiate such concepts through films like these. I assume that is why the subject was raised in this thread in the first place. Someone else kicked the ball into the field -- I'm just running with it. But I wouldn't object if we kicked the ball back off the field altogether.
: Why do I have to keep repeating this request?
You don't have to; you just choose to. I generally just let the moderators decide when a tangent has strayed too far, and when to split off or reclassify a thread.
: Jansenism was a particularly "severe" Catholic sect that, in response to
: the problem of evil, emphasized original sin, human depravity, hard
: determinism, and the necessity of grace. Jansenists were the chief
: theological rivals of the Jesuits during the 17th century. . . . In many
: ways, they were pretty similar to Calvinists--they even believed only an
: "elect" could attain salvation, so they stressed piety and discipline.
Interesting. Would it be safe to assume that there was a person named Jansen who started it all? And when did the movement get off the ground? If the movement BEGAN in the 17th century (and I don't know whether it did), might it have been INFLUENCED by Calvinism?
: Having said that, Bresson never presented himself as a theologian or his
: work as doctrinal statements in any way. But the severity of his
: narrative organization, its often tragic tone based in human vice, and its
: fascination with innocence, corruption, and freedom lent his work a
: Jansenist feel and he himself acknowledged it.
Did he actually say he was a Jansenist himself, or were the parallels between his work and Jansenism more sort of accidental?
: There have been some very interesting essays comparing Bresson and
: Pascal, particularly Mirella Jona Affron's "Bresson and Pascal: Rhetorical
: Affinities" in James Quandt's recent tome.
Thanks -- I have a copy of that book, so I might look that up.
#49
Doug C
-
- Member
- 1,564 posts
Member
Posted 21 December 2003 - 11:47 AM
QUOTE
If I had seen any Bresson films recently (or In This World, for that matter), I would definitely dive right into the more film-specific parts of this discussion, but as it is, I can only comment on the more abstract themes that emerges from this discussion.
Oh, this is already obvious. If you had anything to contribute to the conversation about Bresson or Au hasard Balthazar, it would make your derailing of this thread much more palatable.
[further comments deleted]
Edited by Doug C, 11 July 2005 - 12:33 PM.
#50 Russell Lucas (unregistered)
Russell Lucas (unregistered)
-
- Guests
Posted 22 December 2003 - 02:10 PM
This is dispiriting. I hope you'll reconsider, Doug. This discussion board is all about the larger mission, the greater good, of bringing Christians who enjoy film art into contact with the greatest artists God has given us. Does anyone here know of anyone as gifted as Doug to teach us to appreciate Bresson's film language? I do not.
Peter, for as much concern as you've historically shown for thread determinism and thread purity, I'm not sure why you feel obliged to ignore Doug's request to start a separate thread to address the political tangents. There's certainly no great labor in starting a new thread, and if you're going to get your comments addressed they're as likely to be addressed there as here.
Mods, would you please separate out the non-Bresson posts and put them in a new thread elsewhere in much the same way that a thread was similarly bifurcated a few months ago? Thanks.
I'm not sure we've found the right way around here to talk about politics. Or maybe we have the lion's share of the time, and I just feel it more acutely on those occasions when it's clear to me that we haven't.
Peter, for as much concern as you've historically shown for thread determinism and thread purity, I'm not sure why you feel obliged to ignore Doug's request to start a separate thread to address the political tangents. There's certainly no great labor in starting a new thread, and if you're going to get your comments addressed they're as likely to be addressed there as here.
Mods, would you please separate out the non-Bresson posts and put them in a new thread elsewhere in much the same way that a thread was similarly bifurcated a few months ago? Thanks.
I'm not sure we've found the right way around here to talk about politics. Or maybe we have the lion's share of the time, and I just feel it more acutely on those occasions when it's clear to me that we haven't.
#51
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 22 December 2003 - 02:39 PM
Russell Lucas wrote
: This is dispiriting. I hope you'll reconsider, Doug.
Agreed, and agreed.
: This discussion board is all about the larger mission, the greater good, of
: bringing Christians who enjoy film art into contact with the greatest
: artists God has given us. Does anyone here know of anyone as gifted as
: Doug to teach us to appreciate Bresson's film language? I do not.
Agreed.
: Peter . . . I'm not sure why you feel obliged to ignore Doug's request to
: start a separate thread to address the political tangents.
Because he was the one who brought up politics on this thread in the first place.
Here, Doug says that Christian critics need to look beyond abstract theological themes and pay more attention to "the political-social-material aspects of what the films have to say," and he then goes on to talk about the need for "conservative" Christians to be more involved in the politics of the world. And then here, (M)Leary responds that Doug's statement "needs to be really precise if it is going to be completely true," and he mentions his review of In This World, in which be brings up the phrase "social justice"; here, he adds that "Film criticism can be a tool of social justice," which implies something even more practical and, well, utilitarian and specific than simply exploring a film's depiction of a political situation. And it is AFTER all this that I step in with my own comments, which were made out of a respectful desire for fairness and precision and whatnot. (Note, BTW, how, after I bring up a specific example of how I have tried to bring politics carefully into my Christian film reviews, Doug insinuates that I am "constraining" my reviews to avoid political concerns -- a typical example of the sort of misunderstanding that tends to come up in these sorts of discussions between us.)
Add to this the fact that topic drift is a fact of life (I have had stef's Human Stain posts going through my head the past few days), and I can't recall anyone claiming ownership of a thread on this board before, and I'm not sure why any one thread would merit special treatment. If someone doesn't want to perpetuate a tangent, then he or she should not perpetuate it, but apart from the moderators, I'm not sure it's anyone's place to split threads off.
: There's certainly no great labor in starting a new thread . . .
True.
: . . . and if you're going to get your comments addressed they're as likely
: to be addressed there as here.
No they're not, because Doug doesn't want to address my comments to begin with, and because many people read the 'Film' forum but not the 'Leftovers', etc.
: Mods, would you please separate out the non-Bresson posts and put
: them in a new thread elsewhere in much the same way that a thread was
: similarly bifurcated a few months ago? Thanks.
I sort of second this, but given how integral Doug's comments on politics were to his comments on Schrader's interpretation of Bresson, etc., I'm not sure where one would draw the line and say THIS goes in this thread while THAT goes in that thread.
At any rate, I am sorry about this. There has been some weird personal thing between Doug and me ever since we met on the OnFilm yahoogroup three-and-a-half years ago, and for some reason we've never been able to shake it off. My apologies to the board for my part in it.
: This is dispiriting. I hope you'll reconsider, Doug.
Agreed, and agreed.
: This discussion board is all about the larger mission, the greater good, of
: bringing Christians who enjoy film art into contact with the greatest
: artists God has given us. Does anyone here know of anyone as gifted as
: Doug to teach us to appreciate Bresson's film language? I do not.
Agreed.
: Peter . . . I'm not sure why you feel obliged to ignore Doug's request to
: start a separate thread to address the political tangents.
Because he was the one who brought up politics on this thread in the first place.
Here, Doug says that Christian critics need to look beyond abstract theological themes and pay more attention to "the political-social-material aspects of what the films have to say," and he then goes on to talk about the need for "conservative" Christians to be more involved in the politics of the world. And then here, (M)Leary responds that Doug's statement "needs to be really precise if it is going to be completely true," and he mentions his review of In This World, in which be brings up the phrase "social justice"; here, he adds that "Film criticism can be a tool of social justice," which implies something even more practical and, well, utilitarian and specific than simply exploring a film's depiction of a political situation. And it is AFTER all this that I step in with my own comments, which were made out of a respectful desire for fairness and precision and whatnot. (Note, BTW, how, after I bring up a specific example of how I have tried to bring politics carefully into my Christian film reviews, Doug insinuates that I am "constraining" my reviews to avoid political concerns -- a typical example of the sort of misunderstanding that tends to come up in these sorts of discussions between us.)
Add to this the fact that topic drift is a fact of life (I have had stef's Human Stain posts going through my head the past few days), and I can't recall anyone claiming ownership of a thread on this board before, and I'm not sure why any one thread would merit special treatment. If someone doesn't want to perpetuate a tangent, then he or she should not perpetuate it, but apart from the moderators, I'm not sure it's anyone's place to split threads off.
: There's certainly no great labor in starting a new thread . . .
True.
: . . . and if you're going to get your comments addressed they're as likely
: to be addressed there as here.
No they're not, because Doug doesn't want to address my comments to begin with, and because many people read the 'Film' forum but not the 'Leftovers', etc.
: Mods, would you please separate out the non-Bresson posts and put
: them in a new thread elsewhere in much the same way that a thread was
: similarly bifurcated a few months ago? Thanks.
I sort of second this, but given how integral Doug's comments on politics were to his comments on Schrader's interpretation of Bresson, etc., I'm not sure where one would draw the line and say THIS goes in this thread while THAT goes in that thread.
At any rate, I am sorry about this. There has been some weird personal thing between Doug and me ever since we met on the OnFilm yahoogroup three-and-a-half years ago, and for some reason we've never been able to shake it off. My apologies to the board for my part in it.
#52
Christian
-
- Moderator
- 9,741 posts
Member
Posted 23 February 2004 - 01:13 PM
I recently saw "Balthazar" but have been reluctant to discuss it here, for a few reasons. One, it was my first Bresson movie, and I have a lot to learn about the man and his films. But two, the movie didn't knock me on my butt, like I thought/hoped it might. I was hoping for an experience akin to seeing Tarkovsky's "Stalker" for the first time last year, on the big screen. The style of "Balthazar" has little in common with that of "Stalker" and Tarkovsky, and although I left the "Balthazar" screening pondering the film, I wasn't in any way overwhelmed by it pictorially or thematically.
That's a high standard, I know, but after all I'd heard about Bresson, I was expecting a lot. Which gets me to point three: I don't want Doug or other Bresson devotees to think less of me for my ambivalence toward the film. :oops: However, I see that Russell also watched the film recently, so it may be worthwhile to dredge up this thread, ignore some of the tangents, and try to re-establish some discussion about the movie. I'm doubtful I'll be much help in stimulating further reflection, but it's worth a shot.
Two weeks after I saw the movie, I don't feel like I have much to say about "Balthazar." And that's sad, because it's considered one of the greatest spiritual movies ever made. In a way, this discourages me from pursuing other Bresson films -- if I didn't feel enriched by "Balthazar," won't it all be downhill from here?
But I didn't dislike the film. In fact, I found much to admire. I just didn't feel much impact from the movie, and that really, really bugs me. I wasn't deeply affected by Balthazar's end, other than to find the shot introducing that sequence, with Balthazar surrounded by a herd of sheep, fascinating. I'm also left with some lingering images of circus animals, and of the main woman in the film. (She later married Godard, right? Was she the woman who played Mary in "Hail Mary"? I'll check IMDB....)
This somewhat alleviates my concerns about watching more of Bresson's output.
Funny, I've always heard this concern cited as Kubrick's main emphasis, although Kubrick addresses man in relation to technology as well.
Devastating for its beauty, yes, but "nearly sickening"? It's sad, but it didn't turn my stomach, nor did it make me despair. If one sees Balthazar as a Christ figure -- and some do, according to reviews I've read, and perhaps according to Bresson's intent -- it might make for an interesting point of comparison with "The Passion of the Christ." But we've already got plenty of discussion going about that movie...
Hey, maybe that's what I missed, not having any clue as to how "Freudian logic" and "Western dramaturgy" might inter-relate!
That's a high standard, I know, but after all I'd heard about Bresson, I was expecting a lot. Which gets me to point three: I don't want Doug or other Bresson devotees to think less of me for my ambivalence toward the film. :oops: However, I see that Russell also watched the film recently, so it may be worthwhile to dredge up this thread, ignore some of the tangents, and try to re-establish some discussion about the movie. I'm doubtful I'll be much help in stimulating further reflection, but it's worth a shot.
Two weeks after I saw the movie, I don't feel like I have much to say about "Balthazar." And that's sad, because it's considered one of the greatest spiritual movies ever made. In a way, this discourages me from pursuing other Bresson films -- if I didn't feel enriched by "Balthazar," won't it all be downhill from here?
But I didn't dislike the film. In fact, I found much to admire. I just didn't feel much impact from the movie, and that really, really bugs me. I wasn't deeply affected by Balthazar's end, other than to find the shot introducing that sequence, with Balthazar surrounded by a herd of sheep, fascinating. I'm also left with some lingering images of circus animals, and of the main woman in the film. (She later married Godard, right? Was she the woman who played Mary in "Hail Mary"? I'll check IMDB....)
| QUOTE |
| From the LA Weekly:
Au Hasard Balthazar To pick and choose one Bresson over another, however, is a bit like comparing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to the David; in short, it’s a fool’s task, not just because of the films’ consistency of quality, but for their remarkable thematic interrelation. |
This somewhat alleviates my concerns about watching more of Bresson's output.
| QUOTE |
|
An exponent of one of Bresson’s foremost concerns — man’s inhumanity to his fellow man |
Funny, I've always heard this concern cited as Kubrick's main emphasis, although Kubrick addresses man in relation to technology as well.
| QUOTE |
| — Au Hasard Balthazar affects some in ways that other Bressons don’t precisely because, in this case, that fellow man is not man at all, but rather a gentle beast: a dark-gray ass who, over the course of his life, becomes both observer and martyr to the many expressions of human cruelty. Watching Balthazar’s progression from his days as a child’s beloved pet to his final resting place — seen in what is duly regarded as one of the cinema’s most unforgettable images — is both devastating for its funereal beauty and nearly sickening for its depiction of the modern world’s unending venality. |
Devastating for its beauty, yes, but "nearly sickening"? It's sad, but it didn't turn my stomach, nor did it make me despair. If one sees Balthazar as a Christ figure -- and some do, according to reviews I've read, and perhaps according to Bresson's intent -- it might make for an interesting point of comparison with "The Passion of the Christ." But we've already got plenty of discussion going about that movie...
| QUOTE |
| The movie, weathered not one bit by the passage of time, gleams with the evidence of how much Bresson did to extract cinema from the influence of other art forms and from the Freudian logic that has become de rigueur in Western dramaturgy. |
Hey, maybe that's what I missed, not having any clue as to how "Freudian logic" and "Western dramaturgy" might inter-relate!
#53
M. Leary
-
- Member
- 5,259 posts
Member
Posted 23 February 2004 - 01:55 PM
Good catch. That is Anne Waizemsky, Godard's second significant other and political muse. Interesting history around her to be certain.
This:
"The movie, weathered not one bit by the passage of time, gleams with the evidence of how much Bresson did to extract cinema from the influence of other art forms and from the Freudian logic that has become de rigueur in Western dramaturgy."
...is a glorious sentence and you probably understand it better than you think. I wish Doug were here to parse it out for you. I think he would say something along the following lines though...
There are a lot of firsts in Bresson's work. "Firsts" in the sense that he did things with film that no one else had really done. Thus they are "firsts" in a massive modern cultural sense. Bresson probably did more to liberate film from the tyranny of theater on the one hand and painting on the other than any other director. Up until Bresson's career, film was still pretty much considered a way to simply record the other arts. Bresson showed us that film is an "art" in its own right, and quite possibly the most potent and important art form humankind ever stumbled upon. Post-Bresson, directors (embodied in the French New Wave and Neo-realist trends) were able to explore film as something sui generis, rather than seeing film as mediated by the theory that has guided other fine arts.
As far as the Freudian logic is concerned, just think of everything psycho-analysis did to modern man's conception of himself. Freud is one of the unholy three that are typically considered to be the authors of the Age of Suspicion. Not only are political systems to be mistrusted, not only is your own ability to read to be mistrusted, but your very self-perceptions are to be mistrusted because you are motivated by things you aren't really aware of.
This notion of suspicion is ultimately dehumanizing. In the works of someone like Bresson we see an explicit reaction to this. For Bresson, man is a mystery alright, but he is mysterious in the same way that the connection between the spiritual and material are a mystery. Film is uniquely capable of capturing this mystery in all of its human glory. It is not a matter of suspicion, it is a matter of certainty. Film simply bears out the human condition in every concrete circumstance and thus makes being "human" not a matter of suspicion but of thoughtful reflection.
Don't give up on Bresson. His films have a lot to say and inform probably most of the good films we watch today to some extent. I think it is possible to "appreciate" him even if you aren't immediately struck with the potency of his work.
This:
"The movie, weathered not one bit by the passage of time, gleams with the evidence of how much Bresson did to extract cinema from the influence of other art forms and from the Freudian logic that has become de rigueur in Western dramaturgy."
...is a glorious sentence and you probably understand it better than you think. I wish Doug were here to parse it out for you. I think he would say something along the following lines though...
There are a lot of firsts in Bresson's work. "Firsts" in the sense that he did things with film that no one else had really done. Thus they are "firsts" in a massive modern cultural sense. Bresson probably did more to liberate film from the tyranny of theater on the one hand and painting on the other than any other director. Up until Bresson's career, film was still pretty much considered a way to simply record the other arts. Bresson showed us that film is an "art" in its own right, and quite possibly the most potent and important art form humankind ever stumbled upon. Post-Bresson, directors (embodied in the French New Wave and Neo-realist trends) were able to explore film as something sui generis, rather than seeing film as mediated by the theory that has guided other fine arts.
As far as the Freudian logic is concerned, just think of everything psycho-analysis did to modern man's conception of himself. Freud is one of the unholy three that are typically considered to be the authors of the Age of Suspicion. Not only are political systems to be mistrusted, not only is your own ability to read to be mistrusted, but your very self-perceptions are to be mistrusted because you are motivated by things you aren't really aware of.
This notion of suspicion is ultimately dehumanizing. In the works of someone like Bresson we see an explicit reaction to this. For Bresson, man is a mystery alright, but he is mysterious in the same way that the connection between the spiritual and material are a mystery. Film is uniquely capable of capturing this mystery in all of its human glory. It is not a matter of suspicion, it is a matter of certainty. Film simply bears out the human condition in every concrete circumstance and thus makes being "human" not a matter of suspicion but of thoughtful reflection.
Don't give up on Bresson. His films have a lot to say and inform probably most of the good films we watch today to some extent. I think it is possible to "appreciate" him even if you aren't immediately struck with the potency of his work.
#54
Doug C
-
- Member
- 1,564 posts
Member
Posted 23 February 2004 - 05:33 PM
Christian, I wouldn't think any less of you if you even hated the movie.
I'm glad you gave it a chance, though, and I will say that it's not an ideal introduction to Bresson--take a look at Criterion's new Diary of a Country Priest for that. Bresson developed a whole philosphy of filmmaking that MLeary touches on, one that was based on dedramatization and distance that paradoxically intensifies his films because the viewer has to invest more in the experience. (The fact that you're still thinking about it and how it did or didn't affect you several weeks afterward is a pretty good testament to this.) If his films don't deal with superficial emotions or bludgeon the viewer over the head with filmmaking tricks and manipulation, his minimalist, peculiar style stays with the viewer longer and possibly more deeply.
Bresson's films aren't designed to make the viewer feel "enriched" and many of his films are downright tragic, but they refuse to skim over life and level a penetrating gaze at all of its pain and cruelty...and sometimes its unexpected grace (which one can more clearly recognize in his early films).
And yes, everyone has their own favorite Bresson...it's one of the reasons his films don't often appear in the top of international polls, because he didn't have one single film in his career (like Welles and Citizen Kane) that everyone agrees is his best.
Bresson hated the way most movies reduce characters into easily identifiable pyschological profiles the audience can instantly categorize--he said mystery existed in life and should therefore exist in art, and emphasized "flat" line readings, nonprofessional actors, downward glances (we're so attuned to reading eyes), and kept psychological motivations as hidden as possible. He loved the mystery of persons and strove to represent them in all their complexity.
Bresson's films are highly emotional, but they are predicated on a very unique aesthetic. I'd watch a few more, maybe read some good essays, and then rewatch them again--I can almost guarrantee you will find yourself more deeply involved and moved on account of allowing them time to sink in.
I'm glad you gave it a chance, though, and I will say that it's not an ideal introduction to Bresson--take a look at Criterion's new Diary of a Country Priest for that. Bresson developed a whole philosphy of filmmaking that MLeary touches on, one that was based on dedramatization and distance that paradoxically intensifies his films because the viewer has to invest more in the experience. (The fact that you're still thinking about it and how it did or didn't affect you several weeks afterward is a pretty good testament to this.) If his films don't deal with superficial emotions or bludgeon the viewer over the head with filmmaking tricks and manipulation, his minimalist, peculiar style stays with the viewer longer and possibly more deeply.
Bresson's films aren't designed to make the viewer feel "enriched" and many of his films are downright tragic, but they refuse to skim over life and level a penetrating gaze at all of its pain and cruelty...and sometimes its unexpected grace (which one can more clearly recognize in his early films).
And yes, everyone has their own favorite Bresson...it's one of the reasons his films don't often appear in the top of international polls, because he didn't have one single film in his career (like Welles and Citizen Kane) that everyone agrees is his best.
| QUOTE |
| The movie, weathered not one bit by the passage of time, gleams with the evidence of how much Bresson did to extract cinema from the influence of other art forms and from the Freudian logic that has become de rigueur in Western dramaturgy. |
Bresson hated the way most movies reduce characters into easily identifiable pyschological profiles the audience can instantly categorize--he said mystery existed in life and should therefore exist in art, and emphasized "flat" line readings, nonprofessional actors, downward glances (we're so attuned to reading eyes), and kept psychological motivations as hidden as possible. He loved the mystery of persons and strove to represent them in all their complexity.
Bresson's films are highly emotional, but they are predicated on a very unique aesthetic. I'd watch a few more, maybe read some good essays, and then rewatch them again--I can almost guarrantee you will find yourself more deeply involved and moved on account of allowing them time to sink in.
#55
Doug C
-
- Member
- 1,564 posts
Member
Posted 23 February 2004 - 05:39 PM
"Post-Bresson, directors (embodied in the French New Wave and Neo-realist trends)"
Great comments, MLeary, but just a quick clarification, the influence actually went the other way for the neorealists--Bresson was deeply inspired by their (and Robert Flaherty's) work in the late-'40s.
Great comments, MLeary, but just a quick clarification, the influence actually went the other way for the neorealists--Bresson was deeply inspired by their (and Robert Flaherty's) work in the late-'40s.
#56
M. Leary
-
- Member
- 5,259 posts
Member
Posted 23 February 2004 - 07:26 PM
Certainly in the Italian sense that is true. I suppose I was thinking of realist trends that extend even into the contemporary, maybe exemplified by Schrader's verbatim allusion to Pickpocket at the end of American Gigolo. It is amazing where Bresson continues to pop up.
#57
Doug C
-
- Member
- 1,564 posts
Member
Posted 23 February 2004 - 07:36 PM
Oh, well that's true. It's always odd to think that we call a movement "neo" anything that's 60 years old. 
Schrader has been ripping off Bresson for years.
Schrader has been ripping off Bresson for years.
#58
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 24 February 2004 - 03:21 AM
Doug C wrote:
: Bresson developed a whole philosphy of filmmaking that MLeary touches
: on, one that was based on dedramatization and distance that
: paradoxically intensifies his films because the viewer has to invest more
: in the experience. (The fact that you're still thinking about it and how it
: did or didn't affect you several weeks afterward is a pretty good
: testament to this.)
Hmmm, well, far be it from me to speak for Christian, but my impression was that the main reason he was still thinking about the film weeks after he saw it had nothing much to do with the film itself, but with his, how to put it, sense of responsibility to the film community which esteems this film so highly -- not his experience with THE FILM, but his experience with US, as it were.
Still, gotta start SOMEwhere, I guess.
: Bresson developed a whole philosphy of filmmaking that MLeary touches
: on, one that was based on dedramatization and distance that
: paradoxically intensifies his films because the viewer has to invest more
: in the experience. (The fact that you're still thinking about it and how it
: did or didn't affect you several weeks afterward is a pretty good
: testament to this.)
Hmmm, well, far be it from me to speak for Christian, but my impression was that the main reason he was still thinking about the film weeks after he saw it had nothing much to do with the film itself, but with his, how to put it, sense of responsibility to the film community which esteems this film so highly -- not his experience with THE FILM, but his experience with US, as it were.
Still, gotta start SOMEwhere, I guess.
#59
Christian
-
- Moderator
- 9,741 posts
Member
Posted 24 February 2004 - 07:44 AM
| QUOTE |
|
Hmmm, well, far be it from me to speak for Christian, but my impression was that the main reason he was still thinking about the film weeks after he saw it had nothing much to do with the film itself, but with his, how to put it, sense of responsibility to the film community which esteems this film so highly -- not his experience with THE FILM, but his experience with US, as it were. Still, gotta start SOMEwhere, I guess. :) |
Hah! I think you've given more thought to my response than I have, Peter.
And you've hit on something. Yeah, I've been reluctant to share my ambivalence about the film, but that's due in part to my lack of resolution about the film's meaning, context, etc. So it's both the film, and the film community's reaction, that has me still thinking about "Balthazar."
I should add that I learned over the 1990s not to shoot my mouth off too quickly about well regarded films that didn't bowl me over on first viewing. No doubt everyone has their own unique experiences in this area, but the example that comes to mind for me is Robert Redford's "Quiz Show." It did zip for me on first viewing. After reading several great reviews of the film after my first viewing, I watched it again and was floored by the film. (Especially those moments with Scofield, which Dan references in the thread about great movie acting.) But that doesn't always happen. I didn't like "Fargo" much at all when I saw it -- a huge disappointment for me, because the Coens were my favorite filmmakers at the time, and "Fargo" had been acclaimed as their best film. I waited a couple of months then watched it again during its second run. It got worse. Maybe the third time will be a charm?
Doug wrote:
| QUOTE |
| I'm glad you gave it a chance, though, and I will say that it's not an ideal introduction to Bresson--take a look at Criterion's new Diary of a Country Priest for that. |
Yeah, I was thinking that I would go that film next. Nice that it's readily available, unlike most other Bresson.
| QUOTE |
|
his minimalist, peculiar style stays with the viewer longer and possibly more deeply. |
Can you go a bit further with this, Doug? I'm thinking of Bergman, Dreyer, and to some extent Tarkovsky, whose output has been described, at least during certain parts of each of their careers, as austere. I'm thinking that "minimalist" might overlap with "austere," or even be synonomous with the term.
Whatever the case, I've responded strongly all those filmmakers, and I did so on first viewing. Why, exactly, would I expect something different from Bresson? That's a difficult question, so let me put it differently, more subjectively. How did you respond to the above filmmakers in contrast to Bresson? Do you find more similarities, or dissimilarities among their work and that of Bresson? They're often lumped together as "spiritual" filmmakers.
#60
Doug C
-
- Member
- 1,564 posts
Member
Posted 24 February 2004 - 12:09 PM
"Yeah, I was thinking that I would go that film next. Nice that it's readily available, unlike most other Bresson."
Just skip Peter Cowie's commentary and read Joe Cunneen's book instead as an introduction. For more advanced study, the hefty book James Quandt edited has set a new English standard.
"Can you go a bit further with this, Doug? I'm thinking of Bergman, Dreyer, and to some extent Tarkovsky, whose output has been described, at least during certain parts of each of their careers, as austere. I'm thinking that "minimalist" might overlap with "austere," or even be synonomous with the term."
I'm not sure I would equate the two. I think the word "austere" is overused in all those cases, it's almost shorthand for "spiritual" nowadays and doesn't really get at the heart of what makes these filmmakers unique.
I really don't have the time to go into this in depth, but trust me, it's a theme that runs all through the writing on Bresson. It's also the method Jesus used in his parables--one of presenting ordinary, everyday elements in a strange or unorthodox manner that sometimes initially confused people, but stayed with them. When we read poetry, its mystery is what make it profound because we have to make sense of it through extended contemplation and personal searching. I've always loved C.H. Dodd's classic definition of a parable: "A metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, which arrests the hearer by its vividness or strangeness and leaves the mind in sufficient doubt of its precise application to tease it into active thought." Bresson's use of personal mystery, elliptical narration (with "key" scenes missing or depicting the effect before the cause), emphasis on offscreen sound and the unseen, and his many "distancing techniques" are all methods that create this sort of experience in the viewer. As Susan Sontag wrote in the '60s:
"Some art aims directly at rousing feelings; some art appeals to the feelings through the route of intelligence. There is art that involves, that creates empathy. There is art that detaches, that provokes reflection. Great reflective art i snot frigid. It can exalt the spectator, it can prsent images that appall, it can make him weep. But its emotional power is mediated. The pull toward emotional involvement is counterbalanced by elements in the work that promote distance, disinterestedness, impartiality. Emotional involvement is always, to a greater o rlesser degree, postponed...In the film, the master of the reflective mode is Robert Bresson."
"How did you respond to the above filmmakers in contrast to Bresson? Do you find more similarities, or dissimilarities among their work and that of Bresson? They're often lumped together as "spiritual" filmmakers."
All of them I initially found odd and boring, but also unique and aesthetically ambitious, passionate about telling a story their own way in their own terms. So I went back to them, read some essays, talked to fellow cinephiles all over the world, watched them some more, thought about them some more, and eventually...they began to open up for me, blossoming into deeply moving meditations on the universal human spirit. (Although personally, I still wouldn't rank Bergman as highly as the other three you mention.) It was a process and I grew a lot in it, my understanding, tastes, and thematic/aestehtic concerns evolved along the way. I consider that development a real gift that was given to me and there's simply no turning back now. I literally look at movies differently than I did ten years ago...and I hope to repeat that claim in another ten years.
Just skip Peter Cowie's commentary and read Joe Cunneen's book instead as an introduction. For more advanced study, the hefty book James Quandt edited has set a new English standard.
"Can you go a bit further with this, Doug? I'm thinking of Bergman, Dreyer, and to some extent Tarkovsky, whose output has been described, at least during certain parts of each of their careers, as austere. I'm thinking that "minimalist" might overlap with "austere," or even be synonomous with the term."
I'm not sure I would equate the two. I think the word "austere" is overused in all those cases, it's almost shorthand for "spiritual" nowadays and doesn't really get at the heart of what makes these filmmakers unique.
I really don't have the time to go into this in depth, but trust me, it's a theme that runs all through the writing on Bresson. It's also the method Jesus used in his parables--one of presenting ordinary, everyday elements in a strange or unorthodox manner that sometimes initially confused people, but stayed with them. When we read poetry, its mystery is what make it profound because we have to make sense of it through extended contemplation and personal searching. I've always loved C.H. Dodd's classic definition of a parable: "A metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, which arrests the hearer by its vividness or strangeness and leaves the mind in sufficient doubt of its precise application to tease it into active thought." Bresson's use of personal mystery, elliptical narration (with "key" scenes missing or depicting the effect before the cause), emphasis on offscreen sound and the unseen, and his many "distancing techniques" are all methods that create this sort of experience in the viewer. As Susan Sontag wrote in the '60s:
"Some art aims directly at rousing feelings; some art appeals to the feelings through the route of intelligence. There is art that involves, that creates empathy. There is art that detaches, that provokes reflection. Great reflective art i snot frigid. It can exalt the spectator, it can prsent images that appall, it can make him weep. But its emotional power is mediated. The pull toward emotional involvement is counterbalanced by elements in the work that promote distance, disinterestedness, impartiality. Emotional involvement is always, to a greater o rlesser degree, postponed...In the film, the master of the reflective mode is Robert Bresson."
"How did you respond to the above filmmakers in contrast to Bresson? Do you find more similarities, or dissimilarities among their work and that of Bresson? They're often lumped together as "spiritual" filmmakers."
All of them I initially found odd and boring, but also unique and aesthetically ambitious, passionate about telling a story their own way in their own terms. So I went back to them, read some essays, talked to fellow cinephiles all over the world, watched them some more, thought about them some more, and eventually...they began to open up for me, blossoming into deeply moving meditations on the universal human spirit. (Although personally, I still wouldn't rank Bergman as highly as the other three you mention.) It was a process and I grew a lot in it, my understanding, tastes, and thematic/aestehtic concerns evolved along the way. I consider that development a real gift that was given to me and there's simply no turning back now. I literally look at movies differently than I did ten years ago...and I hope to repeat that claim in another ten years.
