Au hasard Balthazar (1966)

[captainron_howdy]

Originally Posted by Purplenoon

I agree: not depressing at all. Illuminating masterpiece? Yes. Hey, it’s Bresson!

YES! this^ it is a slightly sad film, but definitely not depressing. I've been wanting to revisit this one for a while now ( It's one of Bresson's best IMO) so this release will be a no brainer day 1!

[DaveyJoe]

I would describe the film as somber and thought-provoking.

[edmoney]

As Roger Ebert once said:

"My motto: 'No good movie is depressing. All bad movies are depressing.'"

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by edmoney

As Roger Ebert once said:

"My motto: 'No good movie is depressing. All bad movies are depressing.'"

I don't agree with this.

Plenty of great movies are depressing imo.

The Human Condition: A Soldier's Prayer, by Kobayashi, is one of the greatest films ever made and I felt like jumping off a building the first time I saw it.

Same thing for Revanche.

Or The Thin Red Line.

Or Schindler's List.

...or Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.

Looking into the dark underbelly of human depravity and desolation is a depressing experience.

But it sure does make you feel alive.

[captainron_howdy]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I don't agree with this.

Plenty of great movies are depressing imo.

The Human Condition: A Soldier's Prayer, by Kobayashi, is one of the greatest films ever made and I felt like jumping off a building the first time I saw it.

Same thing for Revanche.

Or The Thin Red Line.

Or Schindler's List.

...or Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.

Looking into the dark underbelly of human depravity and desolation is a depressing experience.

But it sure does make you feel alive.

I agree with Ray, Revanche is absolutely amazing. Everything I've seen by Kobayashi is great, even if these films are depressing it doesn't make them bad at all.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I don't agree with this.

Plenty of great movies are depressing imo.

The Human Condition: A Soldier's Prayer, by Kobayashi, is one of the greatest films ever made and I felt like jumping off a building the first time I saw it.

Same thing for Revanche.

Or The Thin Red Line.

Or Schindler's List.

...or Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.

Looking into the dark underbelly of human depravity and desolation is a depressing experience.

But it sure does make you feel alive.

I think Ebert's point was more "meta" in the sense that while the content (i.e. story or theme) of a good movie may be depressing, ultimately, the viewer comes away enlightened or fulfilled from the experience through the sincerity or artistry of the film. Whereas a bad movie, even one that is light or cheery in tone, leaves the viewer feeling empty or unsatisfied or cheated ... which is depressing.

I think your last sentence captures it - a great film sure does make you feel alive. And that can't be depressing.

[giopna]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

One of my all time favs.

2K = oldish master?

L'argent was 4K and that isn't as popular as this film.

I wish there was a commentary included this time. Hope the PQ makes up for it.

It probably looks (is) the same as the restoration included on the recent Japanese release. The restoration was performed, in 4K, by Eclair in 2014. And it was funded by CNC.

For 'L'argent' the negative was scanned at 4K, and finished out in 2K (Eclair).

I think they have done a great job on all of these (of the ones I've seen), including 'Mouchette'.

'Lancelot du Lac', 'Le diable probalement', 'Procès de Jeanne d'Arc', and 'Une femme douce', have all been restored, in 4K, by Eclair, and, once again funded through the CNC.

'Pickpocket' was restored at Digimage.

And of course, 'Four Nights of a Dreamer', or 'Quatre nuits d'un rêveur', has a Japanese release based on scan of a film print (sourced from a restored negative), I believe.

Almost all of Bresson's films can now be seen in this kind of quality, and all of them have been given the proper process (methodology), with regards to restoration.

I'm just really grateful that funding can come through CNC, and allow for these films to be restored in such a way -- especially when each of these restorations, on average, cost around 80K€-100K€; sometimes even reaching close to 200K€.

I'm looking forward to seeing the restoration of Tarkovsky's, 'Offret', or 'The Sacrifice', as it was restored and funded in France, as well!

[giopna]

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...ar_blu-ray.htm

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by giopna

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...ar_blu-ray.htm

That's weird, the details in the OP (presumably from a press release) tout a 2K restoration, but the DVDbeaver review cites a 4K restoration.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

That's weird, the details in the OP (presumably from a press release) tout a 2K restoration, but the DVDbeaver review cites a 4K restoration.

Interesting, I guess Criterion initially wrote the wrong info on their product page. I've now changed it to 4K.

[malakaheso]

That makes sense. If L'argent was restored in 4K, it makes no sense for Balthazar to be 2K unless it is an older restoration.

[jlk5844]

Transfer looks great. Excited to finally check this out, but may have to wait until the sale unless there's a good price drop. I've yet to see any Bresson, very interested in exploring his filmography. I'll probably start with A Man Escaped, since it's on my DVR, but it's also one of his earlier films so that works out nicely too.

I do wish Balthazar had more extras on the Blu-ray. I'm not as much of a special features guy anymore (at least for current movies since it's almost all lazy, substance-less EPK crap), but Criterion are one of the few companies that still produce/include fantastic stuff. I love their newly recorded interviews and video essays. For what is often cited as one of the greatest films ever made, the supplements are disappointingly scant. I'm sure what's there is quality though, and maybe the film speaks for itself. I'm just glad the movie is on Blu-ray in a beautiful transfer.

[captainron_howdy]

Still an absolute masterpiece! One of the best films ever made, bluray looks stunning. Bresson4E!

[bdmckinl]

I would not by any stretch of the imagination consider myself a film connoisseur, but I’m doing my best to learn and expand my horizons over the past few years.

Having just finished Balthazar, I’m really not sure what the hell I just saw but it has left me feeling pensive, sad, and with the distinct impression that, as frustrating as I found the film to follow whilst watching, it is going to haunt me. Is that about how I’m supposed to respond, or did I miss the point?

Oh. And the donkey was by far the best actor.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by bdmckinl

I would not by any stretch of the imagination consider myself a film connoisseur, but I’m doing my best to learn and expand my horizons over the past few years.

Having just finished Balthazar, I’m really not sure what the hell I just saw but it has left me feeling pensive, sad, and with the distinct impression that, as frustrating as I found the film to follow whilst watching, it is going to haunt me. Is that about how I’m supposed to respond, or did I miss the point?

Oh. And the donkey was by far the best actor.

Not sure if there's exactly a specific response you're supposed to have, although there have been some interpretations including the donkey as a Christ-like martyr figure as well as Jean-Luc Godard's famous quote "this film is really the world in an hour and a half." But your reaction is a totally valid and natural one to have. And I for one applaud you trying to expand your horizons and appreciate you sharing your response to it.

Au hasard Balthazar is not the easiest film to watch and might not be the ideal entry point into "art films," but it's certainly a great film. The director Robert Bresson was a real innovator and intentionally had his actors (or what he called "models") drain the emotion out of their performances, and often, they weren't professional actors or even actors at all. So not surprising that you found the donkey to be the best actor.

[Mose Harper]

Bought this on DVD and was eager to see what all the Bresson acclaim was for.

The movie a bit of a chore to get through, TBH. Sold it off quite quickly afterwards.

Funny thing though, it's stayed with me all these years and has sort of simmered in my consciousness ever since.

Very interested to see it again at some point, and I did take the opportunity of the current sale to pick it up.

[bdmckinl]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Not sure if there's exactly a specific response you're supposed to have, although there have been some interpretations including the donkey as a Christ-like martyr figure as well as Jean-Luc Godard's famous quote "this film is really the world in an hour and a half." But your reaction is a totally valid and natural one to have. And I for one applaud you trying to expand your horizons and appreciate you sharing your response to it.

Thank you kindly for the validation sir! After posting I read the essay enclosed with the Criterion blu which pointed out many of the parallels to Christ. A little bit of creepy life-imitating-art trivia though: 65-year old Bresson proposed to the 18-year old Anne Wiazemsky multiple times during the production, and the 36-year old Godard succeeded in marrying said 18-year old Anne Wiazemsky which paints his gushing over the film in a different light <shudder>.

Originally Posted by edmoney

The director Robert Bresson was a real innovator and intentionally had his actors (or what he called "models") drain the emotion out of their performances, and often, they weren't professional actors or even actors at all.

Any idea why he did this? At first blush I'd have to say that the detached performances only succeeded in repeatedly removing me emotionally from the film. Was this the intent (i.e. did Bresson fear that audiences would avoid such horrific subject matter if there were not a significant degree of dispassion to its examination)?

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by bdmckinl

Any idea why he did this? At first blush I'd have to say that the detached performances only succeeded in repeatedly removing me emotionally from the film. Was this the intent (i.e. did Bresson fear that audiences would avoid such horrific subject matter if there were not a significant degree of dispassion to its examination)?

I think I read the rationale for this some time ago, but I can't remember what it was exactly. It might have had something to do with wanting to divert the viewer's attention away from the performance aspect of what the actors were doing so that the viewer would notice other aspects of the film. I think he felt that certain emotional truths that otherwise would come through get obscured by the artifice of acting. And I guess Bresson has something of a point, as counter-intuitive as it may seem. When I see an acting performance by, say, Marlon Brando or Robert De Niro, it sits front and center and dominates the scene ... especially if the performance is very emotional or kinetic or showy. I guess Bresson wanted to get away from that.

In all honesty, I can't personally say that I love the flat acting (or non-acting) in Bresson's films for what it is on the surface. I, too, sometimes find myself feeling detached or restless when watching it. But I also trust that it's contributing to the overall effect that the film has, and it's a very unique effect. Despite the difficulty of his films, afterwards I feel I just watched something great (at least for his best films). Bresson was a true original, and his films have an unmistakable quality that belongs to him. And that's probably why you had that profound feeling after the movie was over despite feeling frustrated at times while watching it.

If you decide to give another Bresson film a shot, might I recommend A Man Escaped. I think that's the best starting point for his films. It's one of his best (along with Balthazar) and still has the familiar Bresson signature all over it, but I think it might be more accessible as it has more of a suspense structure to it. It's about a French resistance fighter breaking out from a German prison camp during World War II.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by bdmckinl

Any idea why he did this? At first blush I'd have to say that the detached performances only succeeded in repeatedly removing me emotionally from the film. Was this the intent (i.e. did Bresson fear that audiences would avoid such horrific subject matter if there were not a significant degree of dispassion to its examination)?

If you want to gain some insight into why he insisted on directing actors that way, you should read Notes on the Cinematograph. It's short.

I find Bresson relatively easy to watch, but that's only because I'm used to his style. It takes a while to really appreciate what he is doing. On the plus side, his films are generally short, so it doesn't take that much time to become acquainted with him.

I'd say stick with him.

[bdmckinl]

Originally Posted by edmoney

I think I read the rationale for this some time ago, but I can't remember what it was exactly. It might have had something to do with wanting to divert the viewer's attention away from the performance aspect of what the actors were doing so that the viewer would notice other aspects of the film.

If you decide to give another Bresson film a shot, might I recommend A Man Escaped.

You're a gentleman and a scholar - thank you for the generous, insightful response and for the recommendation as well. Fascinating - so in a way it is perhaps the complete opposite of what I hypothesized (i.e. rather than protect viewers from their response to something horrific, he wants them to experience said response as purely and unvarnished as possible, uninfluenced or diluted by what the performer feels/wishes to project upon them). This definitely changes how I think about the film in retrospect.