110 reviews
The film's ending is one of the most memorable in cinema, and achieves an eerie grace, consistent with its almost unique tone - allusively Biblical and allegorical, yet resistant to specific meanings and interpretations. The plot is a narrative of human cruelty and escalating despair, but always with enough mystery in the motivation to ward off easy condemnations; and perhaps even to indicate divine guidance. Throughout, Wiazemsky seizes on the donkey as a symbol of transcendence(her mother calls it a saint in the end); it's formally christened at the beginning and undergoes something approaching a formal funeral, all of which gives its life the contours of a spiritual journey of discovery. The narrative encompasses both revelations (the interlude in the fair; new tortures like the mean old man who starves and beats him) and retrenchment; both life's austerity, its roots in servitude, and its enormous potential dignity. Never was a donkey filmed so evocatively - but as always with Bresson, the simplicity is thrilling too - there's no false artistry here; no dubious anthropomorphism. A necessary film, and I'm amazed that I'm the first one to be commenting on it here.
This is a very important film. It makes you look into yourself and examine your own worth.
The world is not a fair place to live in. It has its own social structures and with each their is a certain perception of worth. Robert Bresson displays these perceptions from the bottom up.
Much like Vittorio DeSica's Umberto D, this film intertwines the relationship between man and beast. But who is the beast? It's society.
With images shot in crisp black and white Robert Bresson reveals the sordidness of the human soul, how cruel, selfish, pathetic, and unjust it can be. Au Hasard Balthazar is not an easy film to watch, but its honesty and approach towards society's injustices make it a must see.
The world is not a fair place to live in. It has its own social structures and with each their is a certain perception of worth. Robert Bresson displays these perceptions from the bottom up.
Much like Vittorio DeSica's Umberto D, this film intertwines the relationship between man and beast. But who is the beast? It's society.
With images shot in crisp black and white Robert Bresson reveals the sordidness of the human soul, how cruel, selfish, pathetic, and unjust it can be. Au Hasard Balthazar is not an easy film to watch, but its honesty and approach towards society's injustices make it a must see.
- peter_lawrence
- Feb 5, 2008
- Permalink
During the nineteenth century ,the comtesse de Segur wrote a novel for the children called "memoirs of a donkey" .A very pious writer,she chose the donkey as a symbol of humility...as Robert Bresson did I suppose.The very first pictures of the movie,with the children,"christening" the donkey ,might be a nod to the writer whom the young Bresson,like all his generation must have read when he was a young boy."Au hasard Balthazar " is an updated version of "les memoires d'un ane" ,but a very austere story:although Bresson's work enjoys a very high rating on the site,I must say that it's not for all tastes.I cannot imagine,say, a "matrix" fan getting enthusiastic about it.
Bresson's actors are non -professionals -with the exception of Anne Wiazemski,but it was her debut;then she became the par excellence intellectual actress,for the likes of Godard,Tanner and Garrel,all directors that easily make me yawn my head off-,but do not expect a "natural "performance.I hope the non-French speaking who wrote a comment saw the movie in French with English subtitles.Dubbed in another language ,Bresson's works lose a lot of their originality.Because the actors speak in a distant voice,in a neutral style as if they were reciting Descartes's "the Discourse on Method".They never show any emotion,even through their darkest hour (not even after the heroine's rape).
Bresson films his human characters as if they were Martians ,and his sympathy for the donkey is the only pity he has to give us.This beast of burden seems to carry on its back all the sins of the world,and his route is a calvary.A woman says "this donkey is a saint" .
Bresson showed us the Beast in Man and the Man in Beast.
Bresson's actors are non -professionals -with the exception of Anne Wiazemski,but it was her debut;then she became the par excellence intellectual actress,for the likes of Godard,Tanner and Garrel,all directors that easily make me yawn my head off-,but do not expect a "natural "performance.I hope the non-French speaking who wrote a comment saw the movie in French with English subtitles.Dubbed in another language ,Bresson's works lose a lot of their originality.Because the actors speak in a distant voice,in a neutral style as if they were reciting Descartes's "the Discourse on Method".They never show any emotion,even through their darkest hour (not even after the heroine's rape).
Bresson films his human characters as if they were Martians ,and his sympathy for the donkey is the only pity he has to give us.This beast of burden seems to carry on its back all the sins of the world,and his route is a calvary.A woman says "this donkey is a saint" .
Bresson showed us the Beast in Man and the Man in Beast.
- dbdumonteil
- Sep 13, 2004
- Permalink
The star of Au hasard Balthazar is a donkey, a trained animal that has been led, goaded, into what passes, in an animal sense, for a performance. Of course there is nothing new about this - animals have been stars since Rescued By Rover - yet there is something unique about the performance of the donkey in Au hasard Balthazar, something that strikes one sort of funny if one gets to thinking about it. It has to do with the approach of Robert Bresson, a director whose way of working with actors was, shall we say, unusual. An auteurist in the purest sense, Bresson believed, zealously it seems, that the director should be the sole creative force behind a film, the one person responsible for the movie's tone, its meaning. The problem with most movies, if you look at things in a Bressonian way, is that stubborn habit of actors to sometimes change the meaning, the texture of a scene by how they play it - that irksome tendency of actors to take the creative reins themselves, and slip things into scenes that aren't meant to be there. Bresson's solution to this problem? Rehearse your actors to death, make them do take-after-take until the words no longer mean anything to them, until they have lost the ability to be spontaneous anymore, to do anything but what their director tells them to - in short, break them like animals. The people in Bresson's films perform their actions with the same hollow, mechanical absence-of-will one perceives in a circus elephant rolling a ball, and this is exactly as Bresson wants it, for it allows him to carry out his cinematic plans without fear of their being subverted by an actor who has some contradictory notion in their head of what a scene is supposed to be about, who their character is. The human actors in Au hasard Balthazar, stripped of their emotional tools, their tricks, occupy exactly the same plane as the donkey Balthazar, who is, as they are, a trained animal, an element in a composition.
The first scenes are an idyll: the foal Balthazar, new-stripped from his mother's teat, becomes the favorite pet of a group of kids spending the summer together on a farm. This is a time for frolicking, for amorously carving names into benches - but alas the childish harmony is doomed soon to end. Bresson conveys the fleetingness of youth, cutting quickly through a series of tableaux depicting carelessness and joy slightly darkened by the presence of a sickly young girl; then without warning we're presented with the realities of grown-up existence, embodied most cruelly by the image of poor Balthazar, now grown, harnessed to a salt-wagon (salt having ironically been his favorite treat during his care-free younger days). It's here that Bresson gives us an indication as to the donkey's more-than-animal nature: Balthazar, having been mistreated, rebels against his owner, tips the wagon and, about to be set upon by a mob of men with pitch-forks, flees. Some instinct - or is it conscious will? - leads Balthazar back to the farm, which has been taken over by a former schoolteacher whose daughter, Marie, once one of Balthazar's playmates, still resides, her existence a lonely one. This would seem the beginning of a new happiness for Balthazar, but the donkey's fate is alas still clouded with gloom. Marie becomes the object of the juvenile delinquent Gerard's amorous attentions; for obscure reasons the jaded miscreant is resentful of Balthazar, and avails himself of every opportunity to torture the poor beast.
Tenderness and cruelty live side-by-side in Au hasard Balthazar, and seem equally the product of an almost mindless instinct. Nowhere is this embodied more purely than in the character of Gerard (Francois Lafarge), the angry sadist who becomes Balthazar's chief tormentor. Gerard is capable of being gentle, as demonstrated by his wooing of the poor farm-girl Marie (the Pre-Raphaelite beauty Anne Wiazemsky), but he's equally capable of unfeeling viciousness, as when he ties a piece of newspaper to Balthazar's tail and sets it alight. Is Gerard a good person or a bad one? Does he hate Balthazar, does he love Marie? These questions seem of little concern to Bresson, who views human affairs in terms of irresistible internal forces. Bresson, in a mysterious, vaguely irreverent way, blurs the line between human and animal, brings human behavior into the animal world while elevating Balthazar to the quasi-human. There's an awareness to Balthazar that's more than you would expect from your average quadruped, and it's through this hint of sentience that one begins seeing the saintly qualities in Balthazar, the patient endurance of hardship, the radiance of spirit.
It's an amazingly delicate piece of work by Bresson, an audacious idea carried out with the utmost discretion and skill. Perhaps only Bresson among all filmmakers could've made this idea work, because only he had mastered the art of rendering existence nearly abstract while at the same time achieving powerful emotional effects. If the film were merely symbolist it would be irrelevant - Balthazar can of course be seen as a symbol for a lot of things, but it doesn't seem right to reduce him to some emblem of suffering, some Christ-like trope. Balthazar is above all a character, a protagonist in a drama, but of course in Bresson there is never any sense of conventional drama, of easy emotion. As a storyteller Bresson was efficient but patient - his scenes never go on longer than they need to, yet you wouldn't call the pacing urgent. There's something about Bresson's cutting that keeps the story flowing briskly while never engendering a sense of hurry. He moves from one character to another, one situation to another, with an unfussy ease that shames most conventional directors with their dependence on transitions, devices and segues. The film's very pace helps convey Balthazar's saintly nature, his perseverance. It's a work at once touching, bold, enigmatic and stirringly human.
The first scenes are an idyll: the foal Balthazar, new-stripped from his mother's teat, becomes the favorite pet of a group of kids spending the summer together on a farm. This is a time for frolicking, for amorously carving names into benches - but alas the childish harmony is doomed soon to end. Bresson conveys the fleetingness of youth, cutting quickly through a series of tableaux depicting carelessness and joy slightly darkened by the presence of a sickly young girl; then without warning we're presented with the realities of grown-up existence, embodied most cruelly by the image of poor Balthazar, now grown, harnessed to a salt-wagon (salt having ironically been his favorite treat during his care-free younger days). It's here that Bresson gives us an indication as to the donkey's more-than-animal nature: Balthazar, having been mistreated, rebels against his owner, tips the wagon and, about to be set upon by a mob of men with pitch-forks, flees. Some instinct - or is it conscious will? - leads Balthazar back to the farm, which has been taken over by a former schoolteacher whose daughter, Marie, once one of Balthazar's playmates, still resides, her existence a lonely one. This would seem the beginning of a new happiness for Balthazar, but the donkey's fate is alas still clouded with gloom. Marie becomes the object of the juvenile delinquent Gerard's amorous attentions; for obscure reasons the jaded miscreant is resentful of Balthazar, and avails himself of every opportunity to torture the poor beast.
Tenderness and cruelty live side-by-side in Au hasard Balthazar, and seem equally the product of an almost mindless instinct. Nowhere is this embodied more purely than in the character of Gerard (Francois Lafarge), the angry sadist who becomes Balthazar's chief tormentor. Gerard is capable of being gentle, as demonstrated by his wooing of the poor farm-girl Marie (the Pre-Raphaelite beauty Anne Wiazemsky), but he's equally capable of unfeeling viciousness, as when he ties a piece of newspaper to Balthazar's tail and sets it alight. Is Gerard a good person or a bad one? Does he hate Balthazar, does he love Marie? These questions seem of little concern to Bresson, who views human affairs in terms of irresistible internal forces. Bresson, in a mysterious, vaguely irreverent way, blurs the line between human and animal, brings human behavior into the animal world while elevating Balthazar to the quasi-human. There's an awareness to Balthazar that's more than you would expect from your average quadruped, and it's through this hint of sentience that one begins seeing the saintly qualities in Balthazar, the patient endurance of hardship, the radiance of spirit.
It's an amazingly delicate piece of work by Bresson, an audacious idea carried out with the utmost discretion and skill. Perhaps only Bresson among all filmmakers could've made this idea work, because only he had mastered the art of rendering existence nearly abstract while at the same time achieving powerful emotional effects. If the film were merely symbolist it would be irrelevant - Balthazar can of course be seen as a symbol for a lot of things, but it doesn't seem right to reduce him to some emblem of suffering, some Christ-like trope. Balthazar is above all a character, a protagonist in a drama, but of course in Bresson there is never any sense of conventional drama, of easy emotion. As a storyteller Bresson was efficient but patient - his scenes never go on longer than they need to, yet you wouldn't call the pacing urgent. There's something about Bresson's cutting that keeps the story flowing briskly while never engendering a sense of hurry. He moves from one character to another, one situation to another, with an unfussy ease that shames most conventional directors with their dependence on transitions, devices and segues. The film's very pace helps convey Balthazar's saintly nature, his perseverance. It's a work at once touching, bold, enigmatic and stirringly human.
- aliasanythingyouwant
- Aug 15, 2005
- Permalink
A truly unique work in cinema. It is simply amazing that a story that is, on the surface, mostly about the life of a donkey can cause you to ponder the mysteries and ironies of life and fate. Bresson created here a model of how to say more with less. The final scene of this film is illustrative of this in its extraordinary ability to deeply move the viewer with only a bare minimum of directorial touch.
The plot lines of Au Hasard Balthazar at times seem forced, sometimes confusing the viewer, and often leaving the characters' motivations unexplained. This matters little, however, because they all follow the same theme that one's actions, explainable or not, are often just a reaction to the environment within which we are placed. The human characters and the donkey are one. Just as Balthazar must succumb to the whims of his owners, so are we humans often just surviving, and submitting to, the actions of those who control us. The film is in many ways a rumination about the free will actually afforded us in life. A key scene is between Marie and the miserly farmer (winemaker?), where the latter expounds upon his philosophy. Money and self-confidence are the keys for him because they allow a certain autonomy that lets him do as he pleases. Money, or the lack thereof, is depicted in several instances as often replacing true morality or spirituality in the characters' lives.
Another scene that mesmerizes (there are several) is when Balthazar is pulling the circus-animal feeding cart through the cage area. The soundless shots of the donkey making eye contact with the other animals is brilliantly done (again with little camera flourish). They seem to be communicating silently with only their gazes, which say "here we are, this is our fate". Extremely affecting, and staggering in its simplicity.
This is a film to be watched again and then again, and then again. In one of the DVD extra features, film scholar Donald Ritchie states that he has seen Balthazar many times, yet he still cries during the ending. I believe this and understand it. Credos to Criterion for resurrecting this classic, and for again doing such a fine production job.
The plot lines of Au Hasard Balthazar at times seem forced, sometimes confusing the viewer, and often leaving the characters' motivations unexplained. This matters little, however, because they all follow the same theme that one's actions, explainable or not, are often just a reaction to the environment within which we are placed. The human characters and the donkey are one. Just as Balthazar must succumb to the whims of his owners, so are we humans often just surviving, and submitting to, the actions of those who control us. The film is in many ways a rumination about the free will actually afforded us in life. A key scene is between Marie and the miserly farmer (winemaker?), where the latter expounds upon his philosophy. Money and self-confidence are the keys for him because they allow a certain autonomy that lets him do as he pleases. Money, or the lack thereof, is depicted in several instances as often replacing true morality or spirituality in the characters' lives.
Another scene that mesmerizes (there are several) is when Balthazar is pulling the circus-animal feeding cart through the cage area. The soundless shots of the donkey making eye contact with the other animals is brilliantly done (again with little camera flourish). They seem to be communicating silently with only their gazes, which say "here we are, this is our fate". Extremely affecting, and staggering in its simplicity.
This is a film to be watched again and then again, and then again. In one of the DVD extra features, film scholar Donald Ritchie states that he has seen Balthazar many times, yet he still cries during the ending. I believe this and understand it. Credos to Criterion for resurrecting this classic, and for again doing such a fine production job.
- ksie_15241
- Aug 21, 2005
- Permalink
For all its formal brilliance, this is one of the least watchable films in the world, despite its enchanted opening and fairy tale elements. Seen through the eyes of a much-abused donkey, we are treated to a litany of corruption, legal (a man is accused of fraud), social (provincial France has never seemed so pinched, arid, spiritually void, with its inhabitants leading lives, in Joyce's words, of 'quiet desperation'), criminal (a gang of violent teenage smugglers), and personal (the leader of said gang rapes, with his cronies, his girlfriend, then locks her up naked), as well as a murder and suicide. What makes this possibly bearable is the limpidity and formal beauty of Bresson's style, and admirers refer to his pinpointing spiritual grace in human suffering, but I wouldn't count on it.
- alice liddell
- Mar 28, 2000
- Permalink
Bresson's finest work is the result of completely giving up, even the chance at freedom -- because freedom, as the donkey and the girl might have known, is an illusion of joyousness. We see a movie about suffering, of giving in to suffering because to fight it would make you as wrong as the people who are perpetrating the suffering.
Au Hasard, Balthazar is an inspiring reassurance of the existence of God by the lack of even the slightest miracle or good fortune. What is not seen, the saving grace, is made more real and believable in its absence. (This is what the real essence of the Catholic church once was {when it accurately recreated Christ's gift}and what illuminates Robert Bresson's personal spiritual path in the otherwise deeply perverted church of today).
The story, that of a donkey's life, is, on the surface, absurd. But what Bresson can bring to it through the patient austerity of his camera work, the martyr like surrender of his characters (including the donkey Balthazar), is as transcendent and enlightening as a private epiphany. What is amazing is that he is able to project so much depth into an audience so unsuspecting.
Finally, and perhaps what makes this film and all of Bresson's work so illuminating is that he had an unrelentingly objective film sensibility quite like that of Luis Bunuel. And because Bunuel was clearly an atheist, the fact that Bresson would be as naked as Bunuel and still move us is the proof that there was something to his faith.
Au Hasard, Balthazar is an inspiring reassurance of the existence of God by the lack of even the slightest miracle or good fortune. What is not seen, the saving grace, is made more real and believable in its absence. (This is what the real essence of the Catholic church once was {when it accurately recreated Christ's gift}and what illuminates Robert Bresson's personal spiritual path in the otherwise deeply perverted church of today).
The story, that of a donkey's life, is, on the surface, absurd. But what Bresson can bring to it through the patient austerity of his camera work, the martyr like surrender of his characters (including the donkey Balthazar), is as transcendent and enlightening as a private epiphany. What is amazing is that he is able to project so much depth into an audience so unsuspecting.
Finally, and perhaps what makes this film and all of Bresson's work so illuminating is that he had an unrelentingly objective film sensibility quite like that of Luis Bunuel. And because Bunuel was clearly an atheist, the fact that Bresson would be as naked as Bunuel and still move us is the proof that there was something to his faith.
- Norwegianheretic
- Dec 16, 2003
- Permalink
I recently watched this movie for a film course, and scrolling the user reviews on IMDb out of curiosity I came upon Flavia's review, "Unjustified Criticism", from back in 2010, and laughed my ass (get it?) off on the spot. Congratulations, sir or madam - you are the very image of the snobby, elitist pseudo-intellectual cinephile! Yes, of COURSE the only reasons some "primitive" commoner might dislike "Au Hasard Belthazar" is because they would rather be watching "The Matrix" or because it gives them boo-boo feelings in their hearts. Of COURSE. You even made sure to point a finger at "society", that vague, eternal enemy of the masturbatory would-be intelligentsia. Good on you, mate!!
Well, having seen the film knowing of its adoration among critics and intellectuals, and been subsequently underwhelmed by it, allow me to share my own assessment, in hopes that Flavia may find my criticisms more "justified" than the plebeians who came before me.
I could hardly call "Au Hasard Belthazar" a "bad" film. It more or less succeeds at being what it wants to be - a bleak, muted, melodramatic little parable of fatalism and misanthropy. I admit I don't entirely get the accusations that the film is incoherent or obtuse (at least in its meaning; its plot is another story, as I will address below) - as art films go, this one is ridiculously straightforward. Its core message, simplified and paraphrased by way of popular idiom: "Life's a bitch, and then you die." Not rocket science, and certainly not Kant.
I possibly (probably) lack the formal background in film technique at present to properly explain what is so remarkable about its cinematography, editing, etc. - none of it particularly stood out to me, one way or the other - but with so many gray-haired film critics in agreement over its aesthetic genius, I guess I'll just take their word for it until further notice.
But just because the film is "good" from a strictly artistic standpoint doesn't mean I have to like it. And I sure as heck didn't. I didn't HATE it, or even really think that poorly of it overall (in the pantheon of pretentious art films, there are countless far more obnoxious specimens more deserving of my distaste) but there are an awful lot of things about it I didn't like. I didn't like its deliberately obtuse, choppy and incomplete "plot" "structure". I "got" it, but I didn't like it. I can't believe there was no way of communicating the theme of Belthazar's ignorance ("innocence") of the greater world around him without all but taunting the viewer. I didn't like the dour, mechanical manner in which it goes about its business, with only a single scene (the circus) suggesting anything resembling a sense of humor or liveliness, and that being gone as quickly and abruptly as it arrives. I didn't like the stilted, disaffectedly gloomy acting and dialogue, presenting human beings as mere two-dimensional figures in a cosmic diorama rather than independent entities with believable thoughts, feelings and behaviors operating within a web of existence larger than themselves (the essence of great tragedy, in my opinion). I didn't like the way it grasped at images of suffering and abuse for easy pathos - the final scene was powerful, yes, but even as I felt saddened by it I also felt manipulated. And I didn't like the way it contrived the worst possible outcome for every situation, just as a heavy-handed means of proving its point about how life is suffering and human nature is deeply corrupt (did you know Bresson was a hardcore Catholic?).
Anyone in touch with the real world outside of the hermetic sphere occupied by artists and intellectuals shouldn't have much difficulty guessing why the average viewer probably won't care much for "Au Hasard Belthasar". It's dour, it's muted, it's impossible to follow on any level beneath that of pure allegory, it doesn't have much insight to impart to any world-wise person that they don't already know, and yeah, it's not very entertaining. Some may appreciate the message or the craftsmanship, and I can respect that. But to claim that disliking "Au Hasard Belthazar" could only be a result of some deep-seated deficiency on the part of the viewer is pure self-servicing nonsense.
Well, having seen the film knowing of its adoration among critics and intellectuals, and been subsequently underwhelmed by it, allow me to share my own assessment, in hopes that Flavia may find my criticisms more "justified" than the plebeians who came before me.
I could hardly call "Au Hasard Belthazar" a "bad" film. It more or less succeeds at being what it wants to be - a bleak, muted, melodramatic little parable of fatalism and misanthropy. I admit I don't entirely get the accusations that the film is incoherent or obtuse (at least in its meaning; its plot is another story, as I will address below) - as art films go, this one is ridiculously straightforward. Its core message, simplified and paraphrased by way of popular idiom: "Life's a bitch, and then you die." Not rocket science, and certainly not Kant.
I possibly (probably) lack the formal background in film technique at present to properly explain what is so remarkable about its cinematography, editing, etc. - none of it particularly stood out to me, one way or the other - but with so many gray-haired film critics in agreement over its aesthetic genius, I guess I'll just take their word for it until further notice.
But just because the film is "good" from a strictly artistic standpoint doesn't mean I have to like it. And I sure as heck didn't. I didn't HATE it, or even really think that poorly of it overall (in the pantheon of pretentious art films, there are countless far more obnoxious specimens more deserving of my distaste) but there are an awful lot of things about it I didn't like. I didn't like its deliberately obtuse, choppy and incomplete "plot" "structure". I "got" it, but I didn't like it. I can't believe there was no way of communicating the theme of Belthazar's ignorance ("innocence") of the greater world around him without all but taunting the viewer. I didn't like the dour, mechanical manner in which it goes about its business, with only a single scene (the circus) suggesting anything resembling a sense of humor or liveliness, and that being gone as quickly and abruptly as it arrives. I didn't like the stilted, disaffectedly gloomy acting and dialogue, presenting human beings as mere two-dimensional figures in a cosmic diorama rather than independent entities with believable thoughts, feelings and behaviors operating within a web of existence larger than themselves (the essence of great tragedy, in my opinion). I didn't like the way it grasped at images of suffering and abuse for easy pathos - the final scene was powerful, yes, but even as I felt saddened by it I also felt manipulated. And I didn't like the way it contrived the worst possible outcome for every situation, just as a heavy-handed means of proving its point about how life is suffering and human nature is deeply corrupt (did you know Bresson was a hardcore Catholic?).
Anyone in touch with the real world outside of the hermetic sphere occupied by artists and intellectuals shouldn't have much difficulty guessing why the average viewer probably won't care much for "Au Hasard Belthasar". It's dour, it's muted, it's impossible to follow on any level beneath that of pure allegory, it doesn't have much insight to impart to any world-wise person that they don't already know, and yeah, it's not very entertaining. Some may appreciate the message or the craftsmanship, and I can respect that. But to claim that disliking "Au Hasard Belthazar" could only be a result of some deep-seated deficiency on the part of the viewer is pure self-servicing nonsense.
- gatotsu911
- Apr 3, 2012
- Permalink
"Everyone who sees this film will be absolutely astonished," Jean-Luc Godard once said, "because this film is really the world in an hour and a half." Robert Bresson's 1966 masterpiece defies any conventional analysis, telling a story of sin and redemption by following Balthazar, a donkey, as he passes through the hands of a number of masters, including a peasant girl, a satanic delinquent, and a saintly fool. Perhaps the greatest and most revolutionary of Bresson's films, Balthazar is a difficult but transcendentally rewarding experience, and the director is better able than in his previous work to put his philosophy of cinema into practice, that is is to say, the filming and meditation of that which is concealed. This is a gorgeous Criterion DVD with and excellent digital transfer, and it includes some fine supplemental material such as a French television program which includes commentary from such notables as Godard, Malle, and Bresson himself, speaking about the film. Never to be missed.
Perhaps one of the only films with a live animal in the lead role, this Bresson film is profound art. Excellent acting, masterful direction, decent (new) translation ... French is a little more descriptive and poetic, as usual. The camera follows the winding life span of a donkey in rural France. Used for noble and ignoble, legal and illegal purposes at times, the donkey changes hands repeatedly, at times abused and other times shown loving care and attention. Akin to the style and tone of pre-War French Poetic Relism, despair grows as the setting opens with hopeful simplicity and deteriorates as dreams fade, hearts harden and people die. In the end, the donkey who has witnessed much becomes not only a pawn but a victim. Le pauvre. Funny I didn't see a notice at the end of the film: "No animals were harmed in the making of this film." Anyway, well worth watching more than once.
- FilmLabRat
- Dec 4, 2003
- Permalink
Born into a world of despair, pain and fear, with a back to carry allsorts on and two eyes to fill with tears, abused and often put upon, never knowing where things might have gone, but conforming to the stick and whip, while no one hears your prayers.
Poor old Balthazar doesn't know which way to turn, on occasions folks are kind and free, at other times they let him burn, but why are they so changeable, what makes these people tick, is it natural that their spirit is to hurt, with pain inflict.
The hazards of being a young woman growing up in rural France and the challenges of a donkey with the same backdrop, both brilliantly performed by the donkey and Anne Wiazemsky, who leave you under no illusion of the suffering they have to endure.
Poor old Balthazar doesn't know which way to turn, on occasions folks are kind and free, at other times they let him burn, but why are they so changeable, what makes these people tick, is it natural that their spirit is to hurt, with pain inflict.
The hazards of being a young woman growing up in rural France and the challenges of a donkey with the same backdrop, both brilliantly performed by the donkey and Anne Wiazemsky, who leave you under no illusion of the suffering they have to endure.
Au Hasard Balthazar will generally elicit reviews from two types of people: those who consider it an incomprehensible piece of art-house crap, and those who marvel at the genius of Bresson.
I, however, fall somewhere in the middle. I'm aware that Bresson's movie is filled with symbolism and layered with subtext, but his approach turns me off. Bresson's mantra is this: no acting under any circumstances. Step 1 is to hire non-actors. Step 2 is to direct them not to emote. Step 3 is to keep reshooting the scene until the actors give up emoting. It was common for him to do 30 takes of even the simplest scenes. He doesn't do this to be cruel, but because he sincerely believes the truth of the material cannot be revealed until the people saying the lines stop thinking about the fact that they are saying lines. A kind of brute force method of ensuring that no one on his set is attempting to craft a performance. He definitely gets what he's after, but whether or not it's worth seeing is questionable.
As a movie viewer raised in the spoon-fed post-Spielberg Hollywood era, I find it tough to get through Bresson. I disliked Balthazar, but not because I think it's crap. Bresson made his film inaccessible so it would be hard to understand, but because it's so pretentious I didn't WANT to understand it.
I, however, fall somewhere in the middle. I'm aware that Bresson's movie is filled with symbolism and layered with subtext, but his approach turns me off. Bresson's mantra is this: no acting under any circumstances. Step 1 is to hire non-actors. Step 2 is to direct them not to emote. Step 3 is to keep reshooting the scene until the actors give up emoting. It was common for him to do 30 takes of even the simplest scenes. He doesn't do this to be cruel, but because he sincerely believes the truth of the material cannot be revealed until the people saying the lines stop thinking about the fact that they are saying lines. A kind of brute force method of ensuring that no one on his set is attempting to craft a performance. He definitely gets what he's after, but whether or not it's worth seeing is questionable.
As a movie viewer raised in the spoon-fed post-Spielberg Hollywood era, I find it tough to get through Bresson. I disliked Balthazar, but not because I think it's crap. Bresson made his film inaccessible so it would be hard to understand, but because it's so pretentious I didn't WANT to understand it.
- jeremyglick
- Nov 11, 2007
- Permalink
It took me years to track down a video copy of this rare film. It was definitely worth searching for. It's my favorite of Bresson's films. A very intense and dark drama about the quality of human and animal life on the face of the earth. This film will definitely bring you to your knees.
Its restraint is its strength- beautiful monotone images, silences, gestures all laced with a a simple piano sonata that underscores the mood of the film perfectly. Trancendental and sometimes joyful, the film (in typical Bressonian style) eventually gives way to an unbearably sad vision of 'life'. As always, this film's style and content are a product of Bressons Catholic beliefs (As a hardy atheist- Bressons films are about as trancendental as my life gets...) But thats enough about style.
The content matches the style in its ingenuity and simplicity. Godard called this film 'life in 90 minutes' and it does seem to be complete in the sense that this is not 'about' anything specific- but the journey of life- which applies to us all without exception. It is this simplicity of focus on life that makes 'Balthazar' stand out as a work of cinematic art, and enables me to label it above all other films that I have seen as: my favourite. As a subjective (this must be noted) and highly moving interpretation and meditation on life, Bresson's vision is essential to anyone with a pulse.
The content matches the style in its ingenuity and simplicity. Godard called this film 'life in 90 minutes' and it does seem to be complete in the sense that this is not 'about' anything specific- but the journey of life- which applies to us all without exception. It is this simplicity of focus on life that makes 'Balthazar' stand out as a work of cinematic art, and enables me to label it above all other films that I have seen as: my favourite. As a subjective (this must be noted) and highly moving interpretation and meditation on life, Bresson's vision is essential to anyone with a pulse.
this is the most beautiful movie i ever seen in my life.
A perfect sinthesis of elegance, technique, simplicity. The use of the theme of a sonata of schubert for piano is also a way to suggest the lonelyness of our souls on the earth, the simple and melancholy melody its the perfect expression of the donky balthazar. I could say many things about the donky in the Bible, but if you are a believer this movie is also an experience for your soul..its a way to think about the meaning of life..after you see such a movie, your attitude toward cinema changes..and there is a beauty in each single photo, an elegant, essential beauty: the girl naked, the donky on a street...the silent and unsignificant life of a donky and its desperation and sufference, its wisdom and patience, its perfect sanctity.
A perfect sinthesis of elegance, technique, simplicity. The use of the theme of a sonata of schubert for piano is also a way to suggest the lonelyness of our souls on the earth, the simple and melancholy melody its the perfect expression of the donky balthazar. I could say many things about the donky in the Bible, but if you are a believer this movie is also an experience for your soul..its a way to think about the meaning of life..after you see such a movie, your attitude toward cinema changes..and there is a beauty in each single photo, an elegant, essential beauty: the girl naked, the donky on a street...the silent and unsignificant life of a donky and its desperation and sufference, its wisdom and patience, its perfect sanctity.
- cristina71
- May 6, 2002
- Permalink
Maybe I'm not as completely overwhelmed with the work of the immensely revered director Robert Bresson as others are, and I almost wish I was more so. I do know from the other films I have seen of his- Pickpocket and A Man Escaped- that he is one of the superior craftsmen of his time in France, a veritable storyteller with a very precise, original craftsmanship and way about telling his stories that shows compromise is nowhere in sight. However I don't think, try as I might (and I do love other films that do evoke religious connotations and metaphors like with Dreyer and Rossellini's films, which perhaps aren't as heavy-handed), to soak into all of the allegory of it all.
When it comes down to it, Au hasard Balthazar is a kind of fable, and it is successful even as some of the Christian connections are lost on me. It is strongest at being a dramatic look at two lives where drama doesn't need to be put to highest heights or given a shot of adrenaline. There's almost something very worn down about the characters- as well as the donkey Balthazar- that is the best part of what Bresson does try to draw parallels to. His direction might be un-easy to get along with, but it is rewarding in a cathartic way too.
Much has been written about Balthazar being a kind of saintly figure, or Jesus, who suffers all of his life and then at the end dies a sorrowful death for, perhaps, everyone else's sins. But if that side of reading into it isn't really suiting, and you're looking for just a really well-told story (which is really all a fable can do), the donkey's- and Marie's (Anne Wiazemesky) story does take on a neo-realist side to it too. It's the everyday things that count in this world, and act as burdens that don't give people the kind of life and enjoyment they could have.
While Bresson maybe doesn't have his great strengths in much of the dialog, his direction of the actors, which involved multiple takes to the point of (as with the donkey) beating the life out of it, is quite unique. Like with Pickpocket, you can tell something is so suppressed with them, even with the careless young man who Marie falls in love with- and later leaves- and the unfortunate drunk who 'takes care of Balthazar for a while, that it's no wonder nothing happy ever really comes to any of them. Also, the body language is so distinct and powerful that it really makes the uncomplicated nature of the photography and editing work that much more so. Turn the sound off and it might not even make a difference (what with lack of music)
Two of my favorite scenes might likely be two of the best scenes I've ever seen from the few Bresson films I've seen. One is when Balthazar has a brief stint in a circus, and it's interesting to see how the simplistic nature of the story reaches, for once, an almost ironically amusing point in this scene. For a moment you're pulled into that illusion of a Disney movie- where an animal is meant to be more like us, but then once reality comes back in it wipes that all away. The other scene is during a dance in a bar, where everyone's bopping away to a jazz song, and the young man mentioned before, throws bottles and causes a ruckus, but no one seems to stop dancing at all.
Are they too, who should be having a good time, that numbed by their lives to not be shook up by the disturbances around them? It is a film that really does get you thinking once it ends, about how small-town society treats things in very set ways that make some like Marie want to just get out. There's an undercurrent in the story of money being an integral- and hurtful- part of the world, where pride and suffering gets mixed up in it too. But most striking when watching the film are the scenes with the donkey, who punctuates the un-wavering methods of those around him (who very rarely are actually kind and happy around him, aside from the kids early on). These scenes display Bresson utilizing his storytelling and skills with poignancy that, if you can identify with the innocent(s) of the story, is kind of mind-blowing.
Even if the film is possibly imperfect, it nevertheless left me feeling I had seen something special. Few filmmakers can get away today with putting together a tragic story and pulling parallels between a worker animal and a misguided young woman and how others out there try to live every day. It's a brave movie more often than not that might hit (and has hit) other viewers both young and old alike. Grade: A
When it comes down to it, Au hasard Balthazar is a kind of fable, and it is successful even as some of the Christian connections are lost on me. It is strongest at being a dramatic look at two lives where drama doesn't need to be put to highest heights or given a shot of adrenaline. There's almost something very worn down about the characters- as well as the donkey Balthazar- that is the best part of what Bresson does try to draw parallels to. His direction might be un-easy to get along with, but it is rewarding in a cathartic way too.
Much has been written about Balthazar being a kind of saintly figure, or Jesus, who suffers all of his life and then at the end dies a sorrowful death for, perhaps, everyone else's sins. But if that side of reading into it isn't really suiting, and you're looking for just a really well-told story (which is really all a fable can do), the donkey's- and Marie's (Anne Wiazemesky) story does take on a neo-realist side to it too. It's the everyday things that count in this world, and act as burdens that don't give people the kind of life and enjoyment they could have.
While Bresson maybe doesn't have his great strengths in much of the dialog, his direction of the actors, which involved multiple takes to the point of (as with the donkey) beating the life out of it, is quite unique. Like with Pickpocket, you can tell something is so suppressed with them, even with the careless young man who Marie falls in love with- and later leaves- and the unfortunate drunk who 'takes care of Balthazar for a while, that it's no wonder nothing happy ever really comes to any of them. Also, the body language is so distinct and powerful that it really makes the uncomplicated nature of the photography and editing work that much more so. Turn the sound off and it might not even make a difference (what with lack of music)
Two of my favorite scenes might likely be two of the best scenes I've ever seen from the few Bresson films I've seen. One is when Balthazar has a brief stint in a circus, and it's interesting to see how the simplistic nature of the story reaches, for once, an almost ironically amusing point in this scene. For a moment you're pulled into that illusion of a Disney movie- where an animal is meant to be more like us, but then once reality comes back in it wipes that all away. The other scene is during a dance in a bar, where everyone's bopping away to a jazz song, and the young man mentioned before, throws bottles and causes a ruckus, but no one seems to stop dancing at all.
Are they too, who should be having a good time, that numbed by their lives to not be shook up by the disturbances around them? It is a film that really does get you thinking once it ends, about how small-town society treats things in very set ways that make some like Marie want to just get out. There's an undercurrent in the story of money being an integral- and hurtful- part of the world, where pride and suffering gets mixed up in it too. But most striking when watching the film are the scenes with the donkey, who punctuates the un-wavering methods of those around him (who very rarely are actually kind and happy around him, aside from the kids early on). These scenes display Bresson utilizing his storytelling and skills with poignancy that, if you can identify with the innocent(s) of the story, is kind of mind-blowing.
Even if the film is possibly imperfect, it nevertheless left me feeling I had seen something special. Few filmmakers can get away today with putting together a tragic story and pulling parallels between a worker animal and a misguided young woman and how others out there try to live every day. It's a brave movie more often than not that might hit (and has hit) other viewers both young and old alike. Grade: A
- Quinoa1984
- Aug 6, 2006
- Permalink
- Cosmoeticadotcom
- Oct 17, 2008
- Permalink
Once again, a French film comfort me in a position I held for many years: the greatest accomplishment of the New Wave was to inspire New Hollywood: movies with the right amount of realism but with a priority given to the story.
I actually agree with one of IMDb reviewers who said that "Au Hasard, Balthazar" for all its spiritual allegories and hidden messages, commits a major sin within its uneven pacing. Having listened to Bresson's interviews, I found some deep contradictions between his attempt at cinematic purity and the way the sequences flow or maybe their randomness actually fits the "au hasard" in the title. Still, what did Robert Bresson want to show with? Life itself? Is life bleak, cruel and dismal? Wouldn't the beautiful Pyrenees countryside leave a little room for happiness?
The story actually starts on a happy note. Jacques and his sister buy a baby donkey and baptize him with the name "Balthazar". Marie, Jacques's sweetheart from the neighboring farm, join them in their games with the new mascot. But tragedy raises its ugly head: one of the sisters dies, Jacques' family leave the farm, and Balthazar's state of grace ends when he starts working for local farmers who give him the harsh treatment we might have feared. There starts the misfortunes of a poor donkey, from one hand carrying a stick or a leash to a more understanding soul.
At some point he goes back to Marie (Anne Wiazemsky) who became a bitter, insecure and pessimistic girl despite her breathtaking beauty. She develops an instant liking to Gérard (François Lafarge); a detestable gang leader who spills oil in the road to make car crash, who steals money and cruelly treats Balthazar during his bakery daily deliveries. It is hinted that it's because he's jealous of Marie's love for the animal, but Gérard never strikes as someone capable of such feelings.
Odlly enough, when the adult Jacques (Walter Green) comes back and proposes to Marie, she rebukes him, preferring the bad boy. Meanwhile, his father (Philippe Asselin) is having legal troubles and refuse to follow the procedures out of a misguided pride. The film is basically a tale of unhappy people, making bad and irrational choices, following a certain twisted vision of reality.... And a poor donkey kept as a hostage of these fateful decisions. The real protagonists are human and Balthazar is only accessory to their action, never a catalyst, often an undergoer.
This is a rather uncompromising portrait of human cruelty, apparently meant as a religious allegory from a hardcore Christian. The Passion of the Donkey? Maybe. I wish the acting could go in line with these ideas, for I can't envision any pathos delivered with this flatlining tonality. Bresson drew a line between cinema and theatricality... that made his film neither cinematic or theatrical and too unconventional for its own good.
There was so much potential with the segment involving the convict Arnold (Jean-Claude Guilbert)... but so many loose ends undermine a reasonable comprehension. The span of time is imprecise and what seems to be crucial plot points are left unclear through a tedious editing that seems as random as the story it involves. At some point Arnold is a confident tough guy but then seems totally dominated by the young punk, then a subplot involving a new fortune is treated as briefly as the circus episode. And in a very strange scene, Gérard crashes the bottles in a bar and everyone keeps dancing as if nothing happened, certainly the most Nouvelle-Vaguesque moment of the whole film.
I was fascinated by the interpretation of Roger Ebert who dedicated one of his best-written reviews to that film, making Balthazar the allegory of our own condition. It's true there's something of us in that donkey, a pinball syndrome that always keeps under the control or influence of a higher instance... it is also true that the film is capable of true depth and confront us to characters whose nihilism seems like the only answer to a life whose randm cruelty can only call for defensive reclusion.
One of Balthazar's last owners, the miller (Pierre Klossowski) tells Marie that her father's pride made him even more suspicious for the 'good villagers' while many other cynical men could reach happiness because they had the nerve to embrace their corruption. In a universe where Gérard can get away with his actions, the miller speaks the gospel.
Indeed, there's no place for goodness in the word, and that's magnificently captured in that final shot , that consecrates the martyrdom of Balthazar, a Saint according to Marie's mother (Nathalie Joyaut); laying among the sheep, in a moment of pure communion with nature... perhaps the most beautiful moment of the film because there was no humans and no acting to be analyzed... Analyzing indeed, "Au Hasard Balthazar" confronts me to a Cornelian dilemma: should I embrace Robert Bresson's Spartan directorial minimalism, or dismiss it as another overvalued artifact of the French Nouvelle Vague?
As much as I was deeply moved by the harrowing journey of Balthazar, I can't pretend these moments I was puzzled by Bresson's approach to acting didn't exist. By multiplying the takes until he could squeeze out the cinematic juice from the actors' deliveries, Bresson made his "Balthazar" a rather disorienting experience; and let me warn those who expect documentary-like naturalism: you're candidates for disappointment.
The actors' performances are the antithesis of method acting. Bresson's idea, as I gathered from his interviews, was to deprive the scenes from any potential 'cinematic' momentum until they could generate a semblance of cohesion when put together. This is why the lasting effect of "Au Hasard Balthazar" is more agreeable than the overall experience. I didn't enjoy the film much until it ended and gave me a feeling of closure... but to say that I'm in a hurry to watch it again would be a lie.
I actually agree with one of IMDb reviewers who said that "Au Hasard, Balthazar" for all its spiritual allegories and hidden messages, commits a major sin within its uneven pacing. Having listened to Bresson's interviews, I found some deep contradictions between his attempt at cinematic purity and the way the sequences flow or maybe their randomness actually fits the "au hasard" in the title. Still, what did Robert Bresson want to show with? Life itself? Is life bleak, cruel and dismal? Wouldn't the beautiful Pyrenees countryside leave a little room for happiness?
The story actually starts on a happy note. Jacques and his sister buy a baby donkey and baptize him with the name "Balthazar". Marie, Jacques's sweetheart from the neighboring farm, join them in their games with the new mascot. But tragedy raises its ugly head: one of the sisters dies, Jacques' family leave the farm, and Balthazar's state of grace ends when he starts working for local farmers who give him the harsh treatment we might have feared. There starts the misfortunes of a poor donkey, from one hand carrying a stick or a leash to a more understanding soul.
At some point he goes back to Marie (Anne Wiazemsky) who became a bitter, insecure and pessimistic girl despite her breathtaking beauty. She develops an instant liking to Gérard (François Lafarge); a detestable gang leader who spills oil in the road to make car crash, who steals money and cruelly treats Balthazar during his bakery daily deliveries. It is hinted that it's because he's jealous of Marie's love for the animal, but Gérard never strikes as someone capable of such feelings.
Odlly enough, when the adult Jacques (Walter Green) comes back and proposes to Marie, she rebukes him, preferring the bad boy. Meanwhile, his father (Philippe Asselin) is having legal troubles and refuse to follow the procedures out of a misguided pride. The film is basically a tale of unhappy people, making bad and irrational choices, following a certain twisted vision of reality.... And a poor donkey kept as a hostage of these fateful decisions. The real protagonists are human and Balthazar is only accessory to their action, never a catalyst, often an undergoer.
This is a rather uncompromising portrait of human cruelty, apparently meant as a religious allegory from a hardcore Christian. The Passion of the Donkey? Maybe. I wish the acting could go in line with these ideas, for I can't envision any pathos delivered with this flatlining tonality. Bresson drew a line between cinema and theatricality... that made his film neither cinematic or theatrical and too unconventional for its own good.
There was so much potential with the segment involving the convict Arnold (Jean-Claude Guilbert)... but so many loose ends undermine a reasonable comprehension. The span of time is imprecise and what seems to be crucial plot points are left unclear through a tedious editing that seems as random as the story it involves. At some point Arnold is a confident tough guy but then seems totally dominated by the young punk, then a subplot involving a new fortune is treated as briefly as the circus episode. And in a very strange scene, Gérard crashes the bottles in a bar and everyone keeps dancing as if nothing happened, certainly the most Nouvelle-Vaguesque moment of the whole film.
I was fascinated by the interpretation of Roger Ebert who dedicated one of his best-written reviews to that film, making Balthazar the allegory of our own condition. It's true there's something of us in that donkey, a pinball syndrome that always keeps under the control or influence of a higher instance... it is also true that the film is capable of true depth and confront us to characters whose nihilism seems like the only answer to a life whose randm cruelty can only call for defensive reclusion.
One of Balthazar's last owners, the miller (Pierre Klossowski) tells Marie that her father's pride made him even more suspicious for the 'good villagers' while many other cynical men could reach happiness because they had the nerve to embrace their corruption. In a universe where Gérard can get away with his actions, the miller speaks the gospel.
Indeed, there's no place for goodness in the word, and that's magnificently captured in that final shot , that consecrates the martyrdom of Balthazar, a Saint according to Marie's mother (Nathalie Joyaut); laying among the sheep, in a moment of pure communion with nature... perhaps the most beautiful moment of the film because there was no humans and no acting to be analyzed... Analyzing indeed, "Au Hasard Balthazar" confronts me to a Cornelian dilemma: should I embrace Robert Bresson's Spartan directorial minimalism, or dismiss it as another overvalued artifact of the French Nouvelle Vague?
As much as I was deeply moved by the harrowing journey of Balthazar, I can't pretend these moments I was puzzled by Bresson's approach to acting didn't exist. By multiplying the takes until he could squeeze out the cinematic juice from the actors' deliveries, Bresson made his "Balthazar" a rather disorienting experience; and let me warn those who expect documentary-like naturalism: you're candidates for disappointment.
The actors' performances are the antithesis of method acting. Bresson's idea, as I gathered from his interviews, was to deprive the scenes from any potential 'cinematic' momentum until they could generate a semblance of cohesion when put together. This is why the lasting effect of "Au Hasard Balthazar" is more agreeable than the overall experience. I didn't enjoy the film much until it ended and gave me a feeling of closure... but to say that I'm in a hurry to watch it again would be a lie.
- ElMaruecan82
- Apr 24, 2022
- Permalink
- writers_reign
- Jun 25, 2005
- Permalink
Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) :
Brief Review -
French cinema uses a mistreated donkey to show the reality and cruelty of human world, wow.. Au Hasard Balthazar is known as one of finest work of Robert Bresson although in first viewing you don't get it. Even i had to pause and re-watch some scenes and then read about it on internet to understand deep meaning of it. Now when i am done reading and re-watching i can say it confidently that, yes Au Hasard Balthazar is indeed one of the finest work of Bresson. The story of a mistreated donkey and the people around him. It involves all shades of characters like shameless, motiveless, arrogant, useless, greedy, inhuman etc. which make you feel disgusting that are we really watching a tale of saintliness or a crime film. Jokes a part, the main motive is to show the cruel face of human world and it comes from a Donkey's point of view. How he is mistreated and abused by humans and how do human abuse and slaughter each others. The film has very negative factors when it comes to pivotal roles as we see Marie being happy in abusive relationship and almost living like a who** leaving a kind hearted guy for it. On the other side continue roasters from male characters make it look very disturbing and negative film until you realise the fact that it has to be seen from Donkey's eyes who is enduring this since long time. Needless to say that the film is very realistic and compassionate so the pace is slow. Though, it worth the wait if you really understand subtle pointers and artistic filmmaking. Robert Besson could have made it little aggressive because it deals with abusive and vulgar topics too but he kept it in his own style trying to make it different from other filmmakers. Well, his overall efforts have paid off. Au Hasard Balthazar is made for classes and no matter how slowly but it reaches the destination.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest
French cinema uses a mistreated donkey to show the reality and cruelty of human world, wow.. Au Hasard Balthazar is known as one of finest work of Robert Bresson although in first viewing you don't get it. Even i had to pause and re-watch some scenes and then read about it on internet to understand deep meaning of it. Now when i am done reading and re-watching i can say it confidently that, yes Au Hasard Balthazar is indeed one of the finest work of Bresson. The story of a mistreated donkey and the people around him. It involves all shades of characters like shameless, motiveless, arrogant, useless, greedy, inhuman etc. which make you feel disgusting that are we really watching a tale of saintliness or a crime film. Jokes a part, the main motive is to show the cruel face of human world and it comes from a Donkey's point of view. How he is mistreated and abused by humans and how do human abuse and slaughter each others. The film has very negative factors when it comes to pivotal roles as we see Marie being happy in abusive relationship and almost living like a who** leaving a kind hearted guy for it. On the other side continue roasters from male characters make it look very disturbing and negative film until you realise the fact that it has to be seen from Donkey's eyes who is enduring this since long time. Needless to say that the film is very realistic and compassionate so the pace is slow. Though, it worth the wait if you really understand subtle pointers and artistic filmmaking. Robert Besson could have made it little aggressive because it deals with abusive and vulgar topics too but he kept it in his own style trying to make it different from other filmmakers. Well, his overall efforts have paid off. Au Hasard Balthazar is made for classes and no matter how slowly but it reaches the destination.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest
- SAMTHEBESTEST
- Nov 12, 2020
- Permalink
- tomgillespie2002
- Sep 9, 2012
- Permalink
- planktonrules
- Aug 2, 2006
- Permalink
- FairlyAnonymous
- Sep 24, 2018
- Permalink