MovieChat Forums > Au hasard Balthazar (1966) Discussion > A True Pseudo-Classic For The Ages !!!

A True Pseudo-Classic For The Ages !!!

posted 9 years ago by JoeKulik
1 reply | jump to latest

"Film will only become an art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper."-J Cocteau
*******************************************************************

I don't really feel that Robert Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) is a very good film at all.

The concept of a film where an ever present animal is the visual focus of various social interactions happening around it is a good one, but this film just doesn't get the job done, in my opinion.

The whole film is filled with snippets of scenarios, none of which in themselves tell a coherent story about the characters, or the issues involved. Even trying to arrange these story fragments, after the fact, as one would try to fit together the pieces of a puzzle into a coherent whole, I just can't come up with anything that can make sense of this film for me.

The only sensible constant in the film is the ever present donkey, but SO WHAT? If I want to look at a donkey for 90 minutes, then I can just go to the zoo.

Furthermore, the brutal and neglectful treatment of the donkey in this film is just despicable. I myself find no value in watching an animal get abused in the way that the donkey in this film did. I highly doubt that, in these "politically correct" times, this film could even be made today . The outcry of the "animal rights" people would be too loud. Although I myself don't subscribe to "militant political correctness" in general, in the case of this film, I would agree that the portrayal of the brutal and neglectful treatment of this innocent animal has no place this film.

Overall, I must say that, in my opinion, Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) is just another case of a true "pseudo-classic", a film whose intrinsic merits fall far short of the vaunted cinematic pedestal of film fan worship upon which it has sat for many years.

[–] thefly50 9 years ago

"The whole film is filled with snippets of scenarios, none of which in themselves tell a coherent story about the characters, or the issues involved."

"Even trying to arrange these story fragments, after the fact, as one would try to fit together the pieces of a puzzle into a coherent whole, I just can't come up with anything that can make sense of this film for me."

Yes, it is fragmented, but it's not really a detriment. For it isn't exactly about its characters or the immediate action, but about the overall cumulative impact, and the general outline of what exactly happens, not necessarily the "how", "who" and "why". This may sound strange, especially for someone who isn't impacted by it (though what you later say about the "brutal and neglectful treatment of the donkey", and the blunt, emotional way you do so, suggests that you actually did respond to it one some level, but no matter), but that's just the film for you.

Take a look at 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is also very fragmented - the four sections have little to do with each other, both in content and in form. First you have the Dawn of Man, which better resembles a nature documentary than sci-fi. Then you have some bureaucratic talk, courtesy of Heywood Floyd, a few thousand years later. Then you have the only conventionally dramatic part, aboard the Discovery. And then there are some 20 minutes of freaky lights and some strange hotel room.

I'd argue it is even less coherent than Balthazar (because in Bresson's film, almost all of the segments are variations on a few recurring themes, not to mention share the same atmosphere and tone, as opposed to being as wildly different as 2001's segments), but does it really matter? I'd say no, and I suppose so would you, since you rated it 10/10.

(If I were to go slightly deeper than I'd typically like, the episodes of Balthazar's life mirror the seven deadly sins, and thus provide a nice intellectual justification for the fragmented plot, but it doesn't really matter.)

"The only sensible constant in the film is the ever present donkey, but SO WHAT? If I want to look at a donkey for 90 minutes, then I can just go to the zoo."

This comment baffles me, as the "ever present donkey", being such a passive character, is hardly the point of the film. The donkey is essentially a blank slate on which several levels of human cruelty would be depicted. Once again, you focus too much on the "who" and not enough on the "what".

"Furthermore, the brutal and neglectful treatment of the donkey in this film is just despicable."

I can hardly believe Bresson was actually abusing the Donkey on-set, being so concerned with Catholic morals. Besides, Bresson's obssessive shooting schedule wouldn't allow such abuse without the donkey getting killed. Chances are that all the violence is simulated. So what offends you is...seeing simulated cruelty against animals? I would assume you're fine with simulated violence against humans in films, so what irks you so much about animals? This isn't political correctness, it's simply mindless hypocrisy, just like the SJW's of our age ridiculed every week by Sargon of Akkad.