I usually come away with something after watching a good film. Not this film. Because maybe it wasn't a good film.
When I watch artsy stuff from filmmaker such as Kim Ki-duk, Kubrick, Kurosawa, or Almodóvar most of the time I think I have watched something sublime. Not with this film.
Why it is so highly rated is beyond me.
maybe watch it another 4 or 5 times. Bresson is not obvious as the other ones you mention (no disrespect intended, they're great as well). He's just...different. He doesn't spoonfeed the "meaning" to his audience, which can be difficult if you're Hollywood-educated. It's like you have to learn a new language before getting his films.
Saying you're not liking his films, is like saying you don't like Walt Whitman when you don't speak English.
Learn the language first.
And than, if you don't like him, you don't like him.
I first saw this several months ago, and liked it but didn't love it. However, I've found I keep thinking about it. There's something about it that is genuinely haunting.
shareThere are plenty of difficult movies I'll re-watch and re-evaluate: "Andrei Rubloyv" (which I started out thinking was great and now think may be the best film ever made), "The Last of England," "That Obscure Object of Desire" - heck, I might even give "Salo" another try. I'm also not adverse to religious subjects; one of the most moving film-going experiences I've had was seeing Carl Dreyer's "Ordet" projected without subtitles and nothing but an outline (and I don't understand Danish).
I'm not willing to watch "Au hasard Balthazar" again to see if it has an effect on me, though. I can't see anything in it but the direction of a misguided autocrat who is unable, or unwilling, to communicate whatever it is he is thinking. It is really a tedious, pretentious, incoherent mess, and dressing it up as some sort of religious allegory makes it embarrassing rather than profound. And the guy spends more time showing close-ups of feet than does Bunuel, who at least was a gleefully smutty fetishist rather than a purveyor of pseudo-intellectual angst.
Based on this film, I'll be happy to never bother with another one of Bresson's.
You don't need to watch it again... please don't do that to yourself. Its just not that good of a film.
RIP Paul Newman 1925-2008. Words can't express how much you will be missed.
Except Whitman is the polar opposite of Bresson in his enthusiasm for the world and being in it.
Bresson is just a bad filmmaker who should have stayed with theatre.
I think the reason that this is so highly rated in imdb is obvious:since the existance of imdb this movie has been only rated by certain type of people who happen to like it. (Somone even mentioned that you can't like this movie unless you speack french - c'mon what sort of argument is this? And someone else said you have to see it 4-5 times to like it... - maybe this is a sign of someone who is afraid to admit that it's just not sucha good movie afterall. ps.I speak french.)
Only thing I find good in this movie is that some pictures are really beautiful in B&W... still it doesen't make the movie much better.
I recommend Akira Kurosawa classic Dersu Uzala to anyone who wish to see a movie with not much dialogy going on, but that still has a good plot. (Yeah, I know it's a bit different genre thought.)
Ever tried cultivating a little humility, eh? Over six billion people on earth and all of us think we know what constitutes a great movie. What a nightmare! No wonder Bresson made movies as bleak as this, in a world as mad as this.
share[deleted]
I think my response to the film is covered well in the following sentiment
"This is neither an easy film, nor, in the show biz sense, an entertaining one. It makes large demands upon its audience, and in return confers exceptional rewards." - New York Times
i have to agree, i think it's the acting
so many movies, so little time
There's not really much to "get" when it comes to Balthazar if you're all ready familiar with Bresson's style. Story wise it's pretty accessible as long as you pay attention. In that regard it's no different from watching an ensemble drama.
and I don't think even detractors would argue against it being well shot. I'd go beyond that. Bresson is a masterful of visual composition. Put his films on silent and remove any subtitles, they are a marvel to behold, which is saying something because he doesn't use grandiose visuals. For the most part he'filming mundane things. Something about his style is almost hypnotic.
The biggest burrier is undoubtedly the acting. Many have called it bad acting, but that would be to suggest the actors failed to convey what they were supposed to, which isn't the case as for the most part, they don't convey anything at all. I do believe these performances are key to the power of his films: you aren't guided along by the emotions of the actor. You end up paying much more attention to what is said, and the emotional effect produced comes from your own reading and interpretation of the events, much like reading a book. Now I would not want most directors to try this style as I think it would end in disaster more often than not. It worked for Bresson because it fits so well into the aesthetic of his work.
'I don't make deals with someone pointing a gun at me.'
'A principle?'
'A Habit.'