confused

I see what you're saying and I admit I was a bit confused as well. But Bresson himself said in an interview that he doesn't know who committed the murder. I found it helpful to see these apparent plot points as precisely the mood and texture you are talking about because it is part of the main theme of the film: the guilty unaware of their guilt and the silent innocents suffering as a result. The drunk man never seems to protest much at the accusations of the young man and in this way he parallels Balthazar. In the case of the murder I think we see the most overt embodiment of the main theme because we see Gerard, who is guilty (maybe not of the murder but of many things, especially the rape and beating of Marie), we see Gerard actually cast off his guilt and place it upon the drunk man, who in my opinion is an innocent. I hope this helps because I felt the same confusion you did about the whole murder episode. But that's what I love about films like this, I was thinking about it and struggling with it for days after seeing the film.

Yeah, I wondered why all the subplots were there too. I loved the donkey and the quieter scenes, and after my second viewing (on the Criterion DVD - the first time was in its New York theatrical re-release, after waiting about 5 year to see it; and I was disappointed) I respect the filmmaking more than ever. But it is a cold film, the human characters are fairly alienating, and it requires you to take the leap rather than drawing you in the way most great films do (even the supposedly "difficult" ones). I don't mind all of that; they are obstacles to enjoying or appreciating the film, but can be overcome. But the plotting does seem like an actual flaw. The scenes you describe are excellent; I'd also add the fantastic seduction scene between Marie and Gerard. The strongest element of the film was the way the donkey is used alternately as an observor, mirror, and victim of human cruelty, and I can definitely see how he would be taken as a Christ figure in that sense, though unlike Christ the poor beast doesn't exactly choose to suffer for mankind.

A note after reading the rest of the thread:
It's nice to see that a lot of you are in the same boat as me. I read about this film when I was a teenager and was struck with an immense desire to see it, only heightened by its extreme unavailability. I guess I created a picture of it in my head which of course it was hard for the real film to adapt to. I'm inclined to sympathize with the poster who said they liked the idea more than the execution. But at the same time, the idea belongs to the film as well, if that makes any sense, and I'm growing to appreciate how it interprets its own idea, rather than how I do. Well, I don't think I'm getting my point across but hopefully some of you see what I'm trying to say here.

Regarding the murder - my interpretation is that nobody was murdered. The whole murder scenario was dreamed up by Gerard (the young hood) to torment Arnold (the drunk). This is illustrated by Gerard placing a gun in Arnold's hands while he's in bed. Gerard framed Arnold. If you watch the movie again with this theory, all of the scenes regarding the "murder" make sense. This is not necessarily the correct interpretation, but it works for me.

I've read all the posts that have been put up in reply to the original and I must say that I've learnt quite a bit from all of them, especially so apropos the murder and the drunk. Infact, I just watched this today [after putting it off for a very long time; and that AFTER I'd watched Mouchette--a movie that I absolutely loved]. I must however confess that it was a real disappointment. Having been blown away by the minimalist style of Mouchette, I was looking forward to a similar sort of transcendental experience, something that just didn't happen to me at all during this movie. And that was not because I was unable to sympathize with the donkey, Balthazar. In fact, the first few scenes where he is brought home and christened were extremely poignant [IMO] and made me tingle with anticipation. But then...I dunno, the movie just seemed to drift along with a lot of random subplots brought into it. I mean, I never really quite understood the character of Gerard and his evolution through the film. Initially, he seemed to me to be someone who completely mistreated Balthazar [something that made him seem evil in Marie's eyes] and then someone who raped Marie [another part I didn't quite undersatnd. Did Marie give in to Gerard in order to get him to stop mistreating Balthazar? That was my first impression, but the continued relationship between the two coupled with Marie's incomprehensible [IMO] infatuation for hhim left me extremely puzzled]. The involvement of the drunk in the story and Marie's apparent transformation too left me even more puzzled. Thus, while I accept that I did not really "get" a lot of the story; stopped paying full attention somewhere halfway through; and missed all the biblical allusions [I'm not Christian], I must say that I agree with the initial poster when he says that "Bresson crams too much stuff in and then leaves things hanging". Then again, as a lot of you have said, perhaps that was Bresson's INTENTION. In which case, I must make it a point to watch it again [with undivided attention this time.] Thankfully, possesion of a Criterion DVD allows me to do just that. Yay to Criterion! :)