314 Pickpocket

[Andre Jurieu]

Can you explain why? Did he open your eyes to ideas and techniques you had missed before?

I have a Bresson fever, and the only cure may be ... more commentary?

Well, Quandt puts his pants on just like the rest of us - one leg at a time. Except, once his pants are on, he makes dynamite commentary tracks.

Seriously though, I think I enjoyed Quandt's commentary track mostly because he was so thorough and prepared. Most importantly he held my interest and attention, which is becoming rare with commentary tracks. Some won't enjoy the fact that Quandt is essentially creating an audio-essay, since he is quite mannered and has timed his words very accurately, but I enjoy his precision. He didn't really provide me with any new ideas and techniques that I had missed before, since he is mostly assembling his material from his own essays and other noteworthy writing pieces. However, I was impressed with his knowledge throughout and a few of his thoughts were informative. I really enjoyed his detailing of the symmetry within Bresson's construction, as he continued to provide examples throughout the film, like any good essayist. What's most appreciated is that he is so balanced and focused, often working directly with the film and certain scenes and providing an unbiased description of a number of varying interpretations. Just like any good commentary track, Quandt provides a notable amount of analysis, some production history and notes on Bresson's influences and adaptation efforts, with bits of detail regarding Bresson's technique. Many will fall back on the old "I don't need someone else to think for me" complaint, but Quandt isn't all that interested in forcing his own interpretation to become doctrine, which would probably be fatal when creating a Bresson commentary track. In fact he's not interested in providing a single interpretation, but far more interested in displaying Bresson's most acclaimed film to be a more complex work than some have deemed it to be since it achieved its lofty status.

That's what makes James Quandt the cock of the walk, baby! Before he's done his commentary track ... y'all be wearing gold-plated diapers! I'm sure there was a moment during the recording session when Quandt became frustrated at all the in-fighting between Criterion, and HVe, and Image, and was going to walk out of the studio, but Peter Becker stopped him and said "James, wait! Why don't you lay down that commentary track right now. With us. Together." It really is the only prescription for that fever.

[Godot]

So it sounds like he really explored the commentary space. I mean really explored it. Marvelous.

Many will fall back on the old "I don't need someone else to think for me" complaint...

Actually, I've never understood that gripe. Hell, that's what I'm paying my $39.95 for! If I want to do my own thinking, I can do that for free anytime.

My favorite commentary tracks have been those that gave me insight into films I had just seen and been baffled by (Stephen Prince on Straw Dogs, Bob Stam on Contempt, Gene Youngblood on L'Avventura) or "explored the space" by showing me new angles and observations and theories on a film I enjoyed and thought I "got" (Laura Mulvey on Peeping Tom, Jeck on Seven Samurai, Lees on Richard III, Sesonske on Rules, Keane on 39 Steps, Kaes on M, Kalat on the Mabuse discs). Since my previous Bresson viewings have been, to be kind, baffling, I am keen on hearing a commentary track to help me appreciate this director (Cowie's didn't help). And I'm trying to decide whether to pull the trigger and blind buy this on the DDD sale, or rent it.

[Matt]

You should definitely buy this, but not for the commentary. Sorry, but I thought it was run-of-the-mill for Criterion. Quandt is informed, and he is at his best when providing what little info he provides on the making of the film and pointing out the film's thematic and narrative repetitions (which I had always somehow missed). Much of the rest of his time is spent describing what is happening on screen (paraphrasing: "We're at the race track, but we have to work to discover that because Bresson doesn't show us any horses.")

What I thought tipped the commentary over into silliness was Quandt's insistence that the open neckline of Jeanne (which he pronounces as if it rhymed with "pan") symbolizes her openness and vulnerability, and Michel's dark suit and tie symbolizes his closedness. Okay, even if that is true (which, to me it is not and rings of the kind of facile undergraduate film criticism of noting that things resemble other things and that means something), so? It's pretty clear from the film itself that Michel is closed off and Jeanne is open and vulnerable. I don't need their clothes to symbolize that for me.

Quandt takes a few minutes to describe various possible analytical approaches to the film (including the psychosexual one that is raising hackles on this board and elsewhere), and mocks those who think that Bresson's films are sacred texts that shouldn't be explored with the same analytical tools applied to other films.

I can't think of a person other than Quandt who would have been more qualified to comment on this film (except for David Bordwell, who has a lot of interesting things to say about Pickpocket), but I'm disappointed that his commentary wasn't as good as I expected it to be.

[Andre Jurieu]

What I thought tipped the commentary over into silliness was Quandt's insistence that the open neckline of Jeanne (which he pronounces as if it rhymed with "pan") symbolizes her openness and vulnerability, and Michel's dark suit and tie symbolizes his closedness. Okay, even if that is true (which, to me it is not and rings of the kind of facile undergraduate film criticism of noting that things resemble other things and that means something), so? It's pretty clear from the film itself that Michel is closed off and Jeanne is open and vulnerable. I don't need their clothes to symbolize that for me.

Yeah, I agree that was a notable moment of contrived interpretation, but I'm willing to let it slide as a momentary lapse. I guess I'll concede that I have to put up with some rather strained readings of symbolism in order to get something else of value. I'm more troubled by the focus upon the whole "Jeanne open neckline" symbolism, but I do think there is some value in the interpretation of the suits the men wear. Of course, I don't think he should have spent so much time upon this track of thinking, and perhaps just reduced it to a casual observation considering it does feel a bit strained. Of course, I've made similar claims of symbolism in Mann's Collateral, so I shouldn't really be casting this stone.

[Andre Jurieu]

(I dont have this disc but frankly the commentary sounds awful!)

Um... so, based on our complaints that Quandt spends a bit too much time focused upon the symbolism of clothing, you've decided the commentary sounds awful? Well, I guess we disagree yet again, David.

[leo goldsmith]

but I do think there is some value in the interpretation of the suits the men wear.

One of the most significant (and, I daresay, funny) menswear moments: when Michel steps off the train after supposedly spending some months/years in London, he looks exactly the same and is still wearing that awful, ill-fitting suit.

[denti alligator]

Anyone know how old Marika Green was when this was filmed? Curious, and can't find a birth date for her.

Also, what's the piece of music that's used in the film? I believe it's the same one. Sounds like Handel or Purcell. Maybe Bach. Anyone know? (Haven't listened to the commentary yet, so if it's revealed there, sorry...)

[thethirdman]

Green mentions her age in Models of Pickpocket. I am not certain, but I think she said she was 16 at the time.

[Ives]

It's Bach...but I need to hear it again to tell which piece. My copy is currently 300 miles away.

[Panda]

Yes, Marika Green was 16 when she made "Pickpocket"

However the composer of the musical score was not Bach, but Jean-Baptiste Lully (spelled Lulli in the credits), a well known figure of the French Baroque period.

Panda

[Ives]

I am deeply ashamed.

[HerrSchreck]

The interview from Cinépanorama is hilarious, with the interviewers assuming those stylized poses and asking some of the more ludicrously phrased questions ever asked of Bresson. Not to mention Bresson's "dramatic" entrance on the minimalist set (during which he looks appropriately embarrassed). Is this the 1960s French equivalent of Inside the Actors Studio?

I agree... the opening seconds of my first viewing prompted an ".. oh no," out of me. The solemn seriousness as though Bresson was on trial & had something to be nervous about sitting down. Given his fidgety self-consciousness to begin with I was glad to see he wasn't any more squirmy than usual & didn't let those self-important dingles intimidate him.

[Oedipax]

I have to say, while I did glean some very useful information from Quandt's commentary (perhaps only because I've never read anything written specifically about Pickpocket), in general I was not a fan of the commentary either. I think my lack of enjoyment was largely due to a sense of it feeling overly prepared - as if Quandt simply read from a written essay. I understand his reasons for doing this, being that it's a 75-minute film, and there is a lot to talk about, however, it just comes off as flat and boring, academic in the worst sense of the word.

In stark contrast is Kent Jones's commentary for L'Argent, full of "mmm..."s and "uh..."s. Why would I prefer that? I think because despite the occasional pause, Jones's commentary conveys a sort of easygoing love of the film and knowledge of its literary basis without necessarily having to sound overly authoritative about it. I think it's probably a matter of personal preference - to me, the dry style of the Quandt commentary drains the life out of a film, making it feel more like a sealed-off museum piece, while Jones keeps L'Argent alive by stepping back and adopting a more naturalistic (but no less informed) tone.

[skuhn8]

I have to say, while I did glean some very useful information from Quandt's commentary (perhaps only because I've never read anything written specifically about Pickpocket), in general I was not a fan of the commentary either. I think my lack of enjoyment was largely due to a sense of it feeling overly prepared - as if Quandt simply read from a written essay. I understand his reasons for doing this, being that it's a 75-minute film, and there is a lot to talk about, however, it just comes off as flat and boring, academic in the worst sense of the word.

In stark contrast is Kent Jones's commentary for L'Argent, full of "mmm..."s and "uh..."s. Why would I prefer that? I think because despite the occasional pause, Jones's commentary conveys a sort of easygoing love of the film and knowledge of its literary basis without necessarily having to sound overly authoritative about it. I think it's probably a matter of personal preference - to me, the dry style of the Quandt commentary drains the life out of a film, making it feel more like a sealed-off museum piece, while Jones keeps L'Argent alive by stepping back and adopting a more naturalistic (but no less informed) tone.

Are you judging the commentary on style of delivery rather than content? Huh. I'll take content any day...and don't care if he's reading from an essay or if he sounds like a snob...or burps or farts. Just tell me something I don't know and I'm happy. I take it you weren't a big fan of the Rules of the Game commentary then: Bogdanovitch's best as he was reading Sosenko's notes.

[tavernier]

In stark contrast is Kent Jones's commentary for L'Argent, full of "mmm..."s and "uh..."s. Why would I prefer that? I think because despite the occasional pause, Jones's commentary conveys a sort of easygoing love of the film and knowledge of its literary basis without necessarily having to sound overly authoritative about it. I think it's probably a matter of personal preference - to me, the dry style of the Quandt commentary drains the life out of a film, making it feel more like a sealed-off museum piece, while Jones keeps L'Argent alive by stepping back and adopting a more naturalistic (but no less informed) tone.

I found Jones' commentary on L'Argent dull, obvious and uninformative. (I got rid of my New Yorker disc and kept the Mk2 just for that reason.) I prefer Quandt on Pickpocket by a mile.

[Oedipax]

Are you judging the commentary on style of delivery rather than content? Huh. I'll take content any day...and don't care if he's reading from an essay or if he sounds like a snob...or burps or farts.

Are you sure? I can easily imagine this position being taken to an extreme, where the delivery would become an issue. Not really a realistic scenario, but possible at least. I think if the delivery can be an asset to a commentary (which in some cases it is) then it can also be a possible detriment.

I take it you weren't a big fan of the Rules of the Game commentary then: Bogdanovitch's best as he was reading Sosenko's notes.

I haven't heard it. But the fact that he's reading from notes isn't an a priori turn-off - I assume most people who do these things prepare notes to keep themselves from running out of things to say, or forgetting to make points they wanted to. I just don't like the wall-to-wall, strictly essayistic school of commentary, most of the time. Personal preference, that's all! My sense of the Pickpocket commentary is that I'm getting 50 years of received film criticism wisdom crammed into 75 minutes, and with L'Argent I'm getting one critic's personal (incomplete) take on the film, aided at times by things taken from the writings of others.

I guess this all my way of saying: for me, a commentary is never strictly functional. Part of what I look for and enjoy in any given track is the encounter between the commentator and the film. I have to assume Pickpocket means a great deal to Quandt, but going only by his commentary track, it's not so obvious.

[malcolm1980]

I just saw this. I have but one word: WOW.

I'm glad I blindbought it.

[malcolm1980]

This is my fourth Bresson film: I also own (and seen) Au Hasard Balthazar. I've also seen The Diary of a Country Priest and Lancelot Du Lac. I wasn't crazy about Lancelot Du Lac though. Though I loved the others.

I'm dying to see A Man Escaped and L'Argent.

[ando]

I recently read a review of an earlier Bresson film, Les Anges du péché, where in one extended paragraph the critic talked about the spacial relationships between characters and objects. The article, which can be found in the book, American Movie Critics: From The Silents Til Now, starts something like... This film is about diagnals. About doorways. About walking through doorways. About windows. About opening windows. About closing windows.. And the like. Similarly, in Pickpocket, the main characacter, Michel, spends much time navigating passageways. He's in constant motion, never able to stay still for for any length of time. In fact, an escape route seems to be an absolute necessity for Michel in any association with another human being. Michel is typically the first to exit in an encounter. (It's only when he can't exit (his incarceration) that he is forced to deal with himself.) But this character trait dovetails perfectly with Bresson's cinematic use of passageways. The act of passing, in fact, is nearly brought to perfection with this film. Through Michel's activities we see money passing, crowds passing, trains passing, bodies passing (Michel's mother literally and figuratively passes away), hands passing, pinballs passing; which leads to the consideration of how time passes in Pickpocket. I don't think Bresson deals with the issue of how time passes as closely as Tarkovsky does, for instance, but Bresson does make references to time.

Of course, when considering the modus operandi of the pickpocket, timing would seem to be everything, but time here is a given: something intergral but unspoken about the pickpocket's craft. What I'm considering (or attempting to consider) is the classic relationship between space and time in Pickpocket. I must admit that I have never read Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and I can't imagine that he'd consider space and time in same way that those who lived in the mid to late twentieth century would consider it, much less in the way the relationship is considered through the medium of film. But it seems that this relationship lies at the very heart of the film and is much more intruiging than Michel's moral dilemma (where I suspect Dostoevsky's novel is strongest). Frankly, I've never been persuaded of Michel's sudden spiritual revelation at the end of Pickpocket. I've always read it as a kind of plea for redemption (with the forgiving Jeanne as a compassionate Mother Mary figure), certainly, but not the revelation that so many reviewers seem to think that Michel has acheived. Any metaphysical considerations for me are contained within the film's inner dialectic; the parts of which it is literally made and their relationships and not, necessarily, in an allegorical reading.

It's one of the reasons why I feel A Man Escaped is a more successful film. There the narrative development is very strict. And like Pickpocket it can be read as an allegory but the narrative isn't dependent on such a reading.

[Mr Sausage]

Discussion of Dostoevsky and others has been moved here

[ando]

One of the film's major attractions (and this has something to do with the time and space relationship I alluded to) is Paris, 1959. The manner in which Michel navigates his way through the city is presented with such virtuosity that it's easy to miss some of what Bresson is up to in terms of establishing and maintaining the film's rhythm. For instance, there's one shot simply of Michel approaching the glass doorway of the pub where he will meet Kassagi, his accomplice, that lasts all of five seconds. We fade in on Michel crossing the street, stepping up onto the curb, open the glass door (look down - he's constantly glancing downwards, look up) and enter the doorway. Now, there's no narrative point to this shot: no information is contained within it that would provide us with more imformation about Michel, Paris or the cafe' he's about to enter. But the fact that the shot is sandwiched between the complex sequence where Michel and Kassagi adroitly rob an unsuspecting patron of a local bank and their subsequent meet-up gives the entire sequence of shots a rhythm and pace that adds to the realism of the event. (In fact, Michel looks slightly fatigued as he enters the cafe'.) I almost think that Bresson is composing as much as he is directing here. Now I realize that all editors and their directors compose a film to some extent in order to maintain a film's pace, but to film and edit with this level of sensitivity and sustained focus (because the whole film is on this level) requires an extreme level of intensity. Of course, Bresson relents and we get periods of much longer held shots. We even get rests. But not for long. Though the film is two dimensional it moves like a living organism which, in this case, is Michel himself.

It's no wonder that Bresson (in the special features portion of the DVD) spoke of how he wanted audiences to feel first and engage the intellect only as secondary process. Compassion for Michel's experience could not be acheived through a kind of third party narrative. We have to actually experience his life moment to moment through our eyes and ears. The film is quite sensual in this regard - how could it not be with such an approach? But I'm beginning to doubt if Bresson is making any larger point about the way time and space is related or unrelated with regard to contemporary society (despite Paris) or film itself. The subject here seems to be more important than the object. In other words, the subjective experience of Michel trumps any objective or metaphysical truth about the nature of modern life, the way we observe and/or interact with one another or the way film captures any of this.

Yet who was it that said every poet is a philosopher? Bresson was certainly a poet, yet I'm beginning to feel that in Pickpocket his process is merely a means to an end... And that by the time he gets to A Man Escaped the means is the end.

[cysiam]

The Austin Cinematheque is showing a 35mm print of this tonight at 7:30.

[domino harvey]

Blu-ray upgrade in July

[criterion10]

Criterion will also be re-issuing the DVD with updated cover logo. It also seems as though the DVD will be sourced from the new 2K restoration used for the Blu-Ray.

[ando]

Looking forward to the re-issue.