this movie sucked
Nothing happens. Plus, how was the donkey a saint? All it did was act like a donkey.
shareActually a lot happens in this film, but not all of it is shown on-screen. I guess whether the donkey is a saint depends on how you define a saint. One of the characters calls the donkey a saint late in the film. This film isn't really about what happens in it or the plot or subplots. In the TV interview included on the Criterion DVD, Bresson states that this film is about our anxieties and desires, when confonted by a creature who is noble and happens to be a donkey. And that it's also about the parallel lives of Marie and the donkey. I see the film as a catalog of our sins and weaknesses.
shareWhat kind of a film is a film that isn't about the plot or the subplots?
A film without some kind of solid storyline, at some level, is just a BAD film, at least for me.
A film with a weak storyline is like a ham sandwich without the ham. Whaddya Got? Just some bread with mayonnaise smeared on it.
The storyline is the MEAT of a film for me.
Pseudo-intellectual pronouncements that a film can be "good" without a strong storyline is just ABSTRACT BABBLE that somehow tries to justify the "classic" status of a film that is, in reality, just CRAP.
"A film without some kind of solid storyline, at some level, is just a BAD film, at least for me."
...Said the guy who rated Film Socialisme, Black Moon and 2001: A Space Odyssey 10/10, all films with much less plot than Au Hasard Balthazar (the former I love, the others I can't stand). But regardless of the hypocrisy that would imply, I think you completely misunderstand the potential of film and art in general.
You see, any work of art can arbitrarily be divided into "content" and "form". For some odd, inexplicable reason, and in complete contradiction to artistic movements such as realism and (especially) formalism, not to mention the development of the arts in general, the form should be service of the content, and otherwise the work isn't worth watching. I could never understand this assumption. A film in which the content serves the form, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, can be just as great as a regular narrative film, if not better than one.
That said, I don't see how Balthazar has no plot, or even a bad story for that matter. It is quite fragmented, yes, but that doesn't mean it shuns the content completely. It just takes a different approach to narrative than you may be familiar with (Bresson remains an anomaly in the cinema, after all), or you may just have difficulty responding to it. It's completely legitimate, since nothing, especially something as unique and unfamiliar as a Bresson film, is for everyone. For me, it is one of the absolute best films of all time, but its resonance is limited, I suppose.
(I'll attempt to address your specific criticisms of the film in more detail on your post about it.)
At least make it mustard, please? Ham and mayonnaise makes no sense to my taste buds. Maybe horse radish (pun intended)!
I missed the point didn't I?
Personally, I loved this movie. I don't think a film needs plot. Plot is a framework on which other themes and ideas can be attached. If those ideas are strong enough the plot can become irrelevant. Koyaanisqatsi for example has no plot but is filled with themes and philosophical ideas. Most SitComs have no real plot. They survive on strong characterisation. When you describe the "plot" of a SitCom you are generally describing the first episode where the premise is setup to enable the characters to shine.
"Never eat yellow snow"
Just because you think a movie needs plot doesn't mean a damn thing. In fact I prefer movies that aren't so narrative heavy. Some of us just like seeing life and history for what it is, no theatrics, melodrama or plot. I'm not saying plot is bad, but it is definitely not necessary. To think film should limit itself because some dude on the internet think plots is all-important is completely asinine.
You just didn't like it, doesn't mean it's bad or heavy plot focus is necessary in cinema.