MovieChat Forums > Au hasard Balthazar (1966) Discussion > Horrible Movie*spoilers*

Horrible Moviespoilers

posted 16 years ago by big_kmc
11 replies | jump to latest

It is beyond me that this movie is ranked so high. That means this movie is ranked higher than The Passion of the Christ for example and on the same level as Brazil and Mulholland Drive (just to put this in a little perspective). I can say for a fact that I was moved much more by Nestor the Long-Eared Christmas Donkey than this movie.

This movie was made as if a group of aliens decided to make a film from their poorly developed concepts of human beings. Some of these misguided concepts included the notion that a young woman, Marie, could love her donkey and yet stand by and do nothing as she watched it get beaten after she had done it's hair. Oh wait, not nothing, she later becomes romantically involved with the donkey-beater, the very same one who beats the donkey repeatedly throughout the movie and lights it's tail on fire and gets it killed.

It's as if the aliens assumed that humans don't have any virtues such as loyalty or compassion or even intelligence. Or maybe they simply didn't realize that poorly developed characters with bad haircuts and mental problems, like Marie has, is not something people could get into easily.

Another misunderstanding the aliens have about humans is the concept that on a dancefloor in a country bar in 1960s France, humans would be unfazed by bottles and mirrors being broken around them. These people just continue to dance as if nothing at all different is happening from what goes on in their village everyday. Also in this alien-directed bar scene we see Marie rejected by the antagonist and in complete acquiescence, she simply throws her arms around the boy standing next to her and slow dances. What were those people drinking?

It's clear what the alien director's favorite acting technique is - no reaction. We saw this in the bar and we see it multiple times throughout the movie including when the lady prays to God that her husband not die and two seconds later he dies. She simply crosses his arms over his dead body and goes on her merry way. I think there was a scene in the beginning where Jacques' older sister dies and his father dutifully employed the no reaction technique.

The aliens must have done their research on how to incoherently shift from scene to scene from the David Lynch Guide to Making Movies except without the brilliant purposefulness behind it. This was just bad movie making

The aliens also included the treat of having the antagonist of the movie ask the recently widowed mother of the girl with the mental problems (who in fact was recently beaten and humiliated by this same antagonist) if he could borrow the donkey. The mother then uses the no reaction technique again.

Finally after everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at the donkey including a requisite humiliating circus scene, the aliens reward our sitting through 90 minutes of this travesty with the donkey being shot randomly and passing the night, unable to sufficiently lie down b/c of the burden on it's back, in what we can only assume is pain and suffering only for it to meet it's end in a field of sheep of which the aliens are mirroring back ourselves if we are indeed still sitting through this.

I hope the aliens explained to the actor donkey that the real fear and stress it was feeling from having a smoking tail and having fire crackers go off near it and a man chasing it with a chair is only "pretend". I am sure they got that point through to the donkey really well and it enjoyed an aperitif at the end of the day with the crew as they reviewed their performances.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] timlin-4 16 years ago

I think your description is pretty accurate. Bresson takes a very intellectual view of film making, which is quite alien to conventional depictions. I too don't really "get" Bresson.

Your pity of the donkey is misplaced, however. I doubt the donkey saw the chair or the firecrackers. (And what the hell is with the 3 closeups of firecrackers?)

[–] rhowells2000 15 years ago

This is a very blinkered comment from a person who seems to have lived a very sheltered existence. You seem to predicate your hatred of this film on the misconception that this film bears little resemblance to the real world. As if a sensitive, virtuous woman would stand by and watch while the donkey she loves is subjected to cruelty? Yet you seem to have given no cognisance to the fact that she is of a very timorous predisposition and probably too afraid to question the authority of the men around her making it highly plausible that she would acquiesce in the tormenting of the donkey. Certainly my experience of life has taught me that there are many such people in the world.

Another misunderstanding, in what is a catalogue of myopic judgements, is that you seem perplexed, and for some reason that won't redound to your credit you also seem exasperated, by the fact that a congregation of inebriated adolescents smash up a country bar. I fail to understand this cavil, seeing as I'm quite inured to the kind of degenerate behaviour people display when steamfaced. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people get drunk and smash things up, that's what drink does to some people. Yet ironically, you presume to call Bresson an alien!

Then there's the shortcomings of your opinion that people would struggle to engage with people who have mental problems. This is a very obtuse remark. Then it gets even more obtuse, somehow. I mean, what the hell has having a bad haircut got to do with anything? Poorly developed characters? Not as poorly developed as your critique, in my opinion.

I didn't know this was rated as high as "The Passion of Christ" and "Mulholland Drive". I think you are just going to have to get used to the fact that Bresson's work is appreciated by some people, many of them erudite film-lovers, whose analyses of this director's work preponderates over your myopic, intolerant remarks, which have no basis in no truth, despite your remarkable self-assurance in trying, but oh-so miserably failing to disparage the work of a great director.

Many great theorists have extolled the work of Bresson, maybe someone so undiscerning as yourself should defer to the opinions of others, people who analyse film without covering the page in bile and scurrility, just because you are so solipsistic and suffering from not a paucity of grandiose delusions that you labour under the misapprehension that your vomiting constitutes a researched critique of a film whose meaning lies outside the limits of your understanding. Know your limits before passing these Olympian judgements on a film when far more valid opinions have come before it.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chapmanshomer 13 years ago

While I think rhowells2000's response is an intelligent one, I cannot see how the human behavior depicted in this film mirrors that of the real world. Why would they keep letting Gerard on the property? Why no reaction to death, violence or theft? And as for your point regarding 'inebriated adolescents smashing up a bar', this is not an accurate description of what takes place in the film. Sure, Gerard smashes it up, but in a manner which is controlled, methodical and purposeful. And the rest of the people in the bar act as if it's not happening, not as if it's a common occurrence to be taken in stride. So i think 'alien' is an apt word to describe this film. I felt alienated and perplexed after watching it and could not enjoy it.

[–] Zoomorph 13 years ago

This sounds like a problem on your end. You are asking for us help, but there's very little we can do for you. Enjoying these special films is not something that happens automatically, it's something that you need to want to do, to work at, and to invest yourself in before you can reap the rewards. It may be difficult and, like most everything else in life, you're pretty much on your own.

To people who only watch easily-digestible mainstream type films, I'm sure stuff like this is very alien. No melodrama, music and dialogue at a minimum. The meaning of the film is somewhat cryptic. Perhaps it's better to say that there is no explicit "meaning" to the film, it simply presents an interesting view and invites the user to discern what meaning he wants from it.

I must completely disagree with whoever claimed the characters here are unrealistic. In fact these are the raw faces of humanity that make good, complex film subjects. Perhaps you live in a superficial world and do not see people for the depth they have, or do not associate with the right people? That's all I can think of.

I for one much prefer this style of film making to in-your-face moral messages, melodrama, 2-dimensional characters or over-the-top acting that is often found in mainstream cinema. I admit I didn't fully appreciate Au hasard Balthazar and was more engaged by Bresson's earlier films, but I persisted watching and found plenty to love in it by the end. I'll probably watch it again some time, and for now will continue my through the rest of Bresson's works.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] AssetsonFire 12 years ago

*vomit*

He put his disease in me http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] armagezon 13 years ago

Your comment made me understand and appreciate the movie better.

[–] hereticba 12 years ago

very funny comments about the film. I really liked it, particularly the cinematography, but I agree that it is completely unrealistic, with people acting either as aliens or complete imbeciles

[–] spanishlatam 12 years ago

As one person pointed out before, this film is not for those people who are used to "watch easily-digestible mainstream type films". This movie is full with messages, specially the indifference many people have before animal cruelty.

[–] madali0 12 years ago

like Free Willy?