Bresson, Sexuality and Religion

[David Ehrenstein]

I don't do "Queer Theory" -- I'm into Queer Practice.

[tryavna]

It's actually interesting to read through their posts on our views of the articles in question. I especially enjoy the part where they assume we need them to educate us on "queer theory" - you know, a discussion we've had a number of times on a number of different versions of this forum over a number of years, with some very educated individuals involved.

Yeah, it's particularly interesting for me to read the three or four posts that relate to my off-hand comment about Herman Melville, in which I was offering the term "homosocial" as perhaps a more acceptable alternative in case people were getting hung up on semantics. Not that it was very helpful, after all, I see. But still, my point was that it's sometimes helpful to use a non-"red flag" set of terms when there's no conclusive proof of a historical figure's preferred sexuality or that their sexuality even played a significant role in their art (as in the case of Melville or even Henry James for that matter, as opposed to Whitman or Gide or Hart Crane). And of course, I'm showing my ignorance on all things Bresson here, but based on all the posts I've read, it seems like there isn't any conclusive proof about Bresson's sexuality. Hence, I presume, the past few pages of heated debate. Or have I just totally missed something?

[David Ehrenstein]

But still, my point was that it's sometimes helpful to use a non-"red flag" set of terms when there's no conclusive proof of a historical figure's preferred sexuality or that their sexuality even played a significant role in their art (as in the case of Melville or even Henry James for that matter, as opposed to Whitman or Gide or Hart Crane).

What would constitute "conclusive proof" for you? A blue cumstained dress from The GAP perchance?

The trouble with your suggestion is that the term "homosexual" wasn't invented until the close of the 19th Century. A Hungarian journalist (not a medical or psychiatric authority) coined it. His name was either Karoly Benkert or Karl Marie von Kertbeny -- depending on how he fancied presenting himself.

Marriage a children prove precious little. Yukio Mishima was married. Anthony Perkins got married and had kids -- then he got AIDS and died. "Redbun" is a gay book from stem to stern, and the one ignores the gayness in "Moby Dick" and "Benito Cereno" -- not to mention "Billy Budd" at one's own peril. Melville stalked Hawthorne -- who wasn't interested. After farting around for years Leon Edel finally fessed up about Henry James sexuality in his last rendition of the biography. The Swedish sculptor James was keeping was the inspiration for "Roderick Hudson" -- and no doubt much else.

Can we just face simple reality about all this?

Of course not.

[tryavna]

I think that your treatment of my post is a little unfair, David. It's not like I'm unwilling to accept a particular artist's sexuality if the proof is the result of rigorous biographical scholarship, such as letters, diaries, interviews with surviving lovers/friends/family members, and so forth. That's why I have absolutely no problem acknowledging the homosexuality of people like Whitman, Gide, and H. Crane or the fact that their sexuality formed a lens through which they experienced and described the world. What I've always resisted is when some critics put that process of scholarship in reverse, concluding that an author was gay because several of his books can be read that way. It's the old chestnut of putting the cart before the horse, and frankly, I'm just not convinced that it's very good or helpful scholarship. Depending on how you choose to approach them, just about any author is going to have written books that can be given "queer" readings. In "Following the Equator," Mark Twain describes the beauty of male Zulus' bodies; in "The Great Gatsby," Fitzgerald includes that puzzling "underwear" episode. The list goes on....

By the way, I totally agree with your points about the problematic invention of the word "homosexuality," but in pragmatic terms, it's a word that gets used in certain ways and carries certain meanings for everyone. And as much as I loath the fact that many people remain prejudiced, I'm afraid that the word "homosexual" is very much a red flag that can foreclose further discussion because some people will stop engaging in the discussion. That's why, when you're dealing with a figure who may or may not have been gay (insofar as there's no conclusive biographical evidence yet), it's sometimes more convenient to alter the words we use and acknowledge the ultimate uncertainty (no matter how much you yourself may be convinced). At least, this is the logic behind many scholars' use of the word "homosocial" rather than "homosexual" when talking about "readings" or "elements" of a particular book or film. The word "homosocial" tends not to foreclose the possibility for further inquiry by saying definitiely that Melville or Bresson was gay, when in fact we can only make informed, educated guesses. (And I'm including Bresson here because you didn't answer my question above, so I'm assuming that we don't have the sort of biographical evidence that can definitively answer the question.)

But there's one other problematic aspect of the whole "it's-so-obvious-you-must-be-in-denial" argument, and that's the fact that it can limit other interpretations. Now, I'm just as open to new readings as the next person. And frankly, I'm glad that we can talk openly about, say, Whitman's homosexuality because it plays such an important role in "Leaves of Grass" or, say, the language of racism that Mark Twain inadvertently falls back on even when he's trying to be progressive about race. But just as there are other things going on in "Leaves of Grass" and Twain's writings, there are other things going on in the works of Bresson, Melville, James, etc. And in some ways, the fact that some critics feel compelled to locate evidence of their sexuality in everything they produced leads me to believe that the sexuality angle is just a little exaggerated or forced. In other words, the vehemence with which some critics keep claiming that Melville was gay leads me to believe that it's not obvious after all. It's certainly a possibility that I'm willing to entertain, especially in "Redburn" and those early chapters of "Moby-Dick." But I'm not going to be convinced just because you say so, especially when so much other stuff is going on in a book like "Moby-Dick."

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough, and I hope that I haven't said anything offensive. That's not my goal, and I'm willing to confess that my knowledge of "Queer Theory," just like my knowledge of Bresson, is limited. For both those reasons, I doubt I'll repost in this specific thread again. It's just that I dislike any interpretation that forecloses other interpretations that can be supported by evidence of their own -- just like I dislike critics who take on a condescending tone. (I guess I also wanted to point out that the posts over at "a_film_by" misread my first post in this thread, which was not offering Melville's marriage as conclusive proof that he wasn't gay but rather to assert that conclusive proof about Melville's -- and I suppose Bresson's -- sexuality either way is still up in the air.)

[David Ehrenstein]

And as much as I loath the fact that many people remain prejudiced, I'm afraid that the word "homosexual" is very much a red flag that can foreclose further discussion because some people will stop engaging in the discussion.

Well that's something I simply won't tolerate.

As for your notion of "working backwards" I'd scarcely take a random reference as proof of anything. The record on James is quite solid. Melville is a more obscure figure in many ways, but read what Irving Rosenthal has to say in Sheeper (if you can score a copy) The repeated and insist references to same-sex love and passion in Melville don't suggest one is pulling something out of thin air to say he was speaking from experience. The problem is a culture loathe to deal with that experience and determined to throw as many roadblocks in the way of anyone's dealing with it.

As for Bresson, Jonathan Rosenbaum's discovery of the master's experiences a gigolo settle the matter. To quote Nathan Lane "What to you need? Flash Cards?"

In the immortal words of Cole Porter:

"I should like you all to know,
I'm a famous gigolo.
And of lavender, my nature's got just a dash in it.
As I'm slightly undersexed,
You will always find me next
To some dowager who's wealthy rather than passionate.
Go to one of those night club places
And you'll find me stretching my braces
Pushing ladies with lifted faces 'round the floor.
But I must confess to you
There are moments when I'm blue.
And I ask myself whatever I do it for.

I'm a flower that blooms in the winter,
Sinking deeper and deeper in snow.
I'm a baby who has
No mother but jazz,
I'm a gigolo.
Ev'ry morning, when labor is over,
To my sweet-scented lodgings I go,
Take the glass from the shelf
And look at myself,
I'm a gigolo.
I get stocks and bonds
From faded blondes
Ev'ry twenty-fifth of December.
Still I'm just a pet
That men forget
And only tailors remember.
Yet when I see the way all the ladies
Treat their husbands who put up the dough,
You cannot think me odd
If then I thank God
I'm a gigolo. "

[Steven H]

From Jonothan Rosenbaum's review of le Models de Pickpocket

Bresson was reticent about his background, and van der Mersch has kept such tight control over his legacy that an official biography seems unlikely. Yet I've heard from usually reliable sources a startling claim about his early life that, if true, would help to explain a few things: that he worked briefly as a gigolo.

Though impossible to prove, it seems plausible, given his good looks and some of the moral preoccupations of his work, above all his first major feature, the 1945 Les dames du Bois de Boulogne.

[Alyosha]

So, if we can't believe what Bresson says about his theism, why should we believe what Buñuel say about his atheism? Was Jean Genet really a heterosexual? Does Yes really means No? Let's get deep into relativism, but for what reason?

[Napoleon]

I think that this discussion is in danger of violently jumping the shark.

[Andre Jurieu]

I think that this discussion is in danger of violently jumping the shark.

I figured that already happened a few posts back. At least Steven tried to get us back on track.

[Doug Cummings]

As for Bresson, Jonathan Rosenbaum's discovery of the master's experiences a gigolo settle the matter. To quote Nathan Lane "What to you need? Flash Cards?"

When I asked Rosenbaum himself where this surprise revelation had come from (days after he had mentioned it in print), he said he couldn't remember, but that it didn't seem to surprise Olivier Assayas or somebody. Sorry, but the rest of us will need a bit more support for that.

Edit: Sorry David, I think my initial suggestion was a bit too strong; I've toned down my response.

[tryavna]

From Jonothan Rosenbaum's review of le Models de Pickpocket

Bresson was reticent about his background, and van der Mersch has kept such tight control over his legacy that an official biography seems unlikely. Yet I've heard from usually reliable sources a startling claim about his early life that, if true, would help to explain a few things: that he worked briefly as a gigolo.

Though impossible to prove, it seems plausible, given his good looks and some of the moral preoccupations of his work, above all his first major feature, the 1945 Les dames du Bois de Boulogne.

I'll bow to Rosenbaum's superior knowledge, though it's interesting that he talks about this assertion being "plausible" rather than definite. That's the mark of a good scholar.

Melville is a more obscure figure in many ways, but read what Irving Rosenthal has to say in Sheeper (if you can score a copy).

I haven't read Rosenthal's Sheeper, unfortunately. I'd recommend Laurie Robertson-Lorant's recent biography of Melville (from 1996, I think). In it, she takes a tack I admire. She's open to the possibility that Melville had homosexual desires and even discusses some of the homoerotic elements of his work. At the same time, however, she debunks some of the myths surrounding his relationship with Hawthorne. Melville was obviously obsessed with Hawthorne even before the two men met, but it's uncertain whether this obsession was hero-worship, homosexual desire, a "male crush" (as it's called today), or borderline psychosis. It's entirely possible that the end of their friendship was due to Melville propositioning Hawthorne, but the vast majority of their letters indicate that the friendship was fairly mundane, as Robertson-Lorant points out.

The record on James is quite solid.

Actually, the record on James isn't as solid as you would lead us to believe. No serious scholar is going to claim that we have conclusive proof that James was unquestionably gay. At most, we know he formed very intense relationships with -- and displayed considerable affection for -- other men, especially young men in his later years (including his nephew Wilky, I might add), and there are homoerotic elements in several of his fictional works. Yet there's no evidence that he ever had a sexual experience of any sort, and there are plenty of his works in which consummation is denied the central character (The American, Washington Square, Turn of the Screw (depending on how you read it), etc.). In fact, while I don't hold with the "vestal virgin" theory that Edel is accused of crafting, I personally tend to side with a growing number of critics who think he might have been rendered impotent by that "obscure hurt" he received as a fireman in New York in the early 1860s. Do I have conclusive proof? No, but it offers just as plausible a reason for why he exerting so much energy in creating ambiguity around his own persona.

The Swedish sculptor James was keeping was the inspiration for "Roderick Hudson" -- and no doubt much else.

By the way, this is a good example of how some critics can twist the facts in order to support their own argument. The sculptor you're referring to was the Norwegian-American Hendrik Andersen. James first met him in 1899, which means there's no possible way Andersen could have served as the "inspiration" for "Roderick Hudson" because that novel was published in 1875, nearly 25 years before they met. Furthermore, you mischaracterize their relationship by saying that James "was keeping" Andersen. They met a total of seven times (each totaling only a few days) over the course of 16 years. And while the language they used during their correspondence is sometimes quite passionate, part of James' fascination with Andersen was because he seemed to fit the mold of "Roderick Hudson" so well. So again, there's nothing conclusive there. James may or may not have been in love with Andersen, they may or may not have had an affair, or James may or may not simply have viewed Andersen as a sort of "ideal" artist. My point is that it's an open possibility. And although I realize that the Criterion Forum isn't a scholarly journal like "American Literary History," you display poor scholarship when you make misleading assertions about James. It's the sort of thing that causes people to reduce James to the status of a "Gay Novelist" (whatever that may mean), as if the lens of homosexuality is sufficient to explain everything he wrote. As in his relationship with Andersen, the evidence indicates something much more complicated going on in James' life and work.

Finally, I also recommend James R. Bradley's excellent "Henry James and Homo-Erotic Desire," which is the best of all the recent critical explorations of James' sexuality. What I particularly like about Bradley's approach is that, like Robertson-Lorant, he states outright in his Preface that he's merely interested in opening up discussion about what homosexual readings bring to the larger table of James criticism. He is not interested in turning James into a "Gay Novelist" and says so: "Just as in his life James resisted being labelled categorically 'a homosexual' in a way that would have neatly (and falsely) summed him up, nothing now could be more objectionable that an approach to James that had as its goal the crude summing up: 'It's all about his being queer!'" Nowhere does Bradley try to foreclose counter-arguments or, for that matter, promise to "bitch-slap" critics who disagree with him.

Anyway, I realize I broke my promise not to reenter this thread, but I couldn't resist saying a few things about Melville and especially James (about whom I know much more than Bresson). I just hope I'm not so far off-topic that the moderators delete this post. I tried to make it thoughtful, informed, and non-confrontational.

[David Ehrenstein]

When I find the blue cum-stained dress from the GAP I'll be sure to FedEx it to you, Doug.

As I have said, many times before on this forum Bresson's homoeroticism is screamingly obvious. The refusal of some in here to deal with that very simple fact is their problem, not mine. That Bresson's on-screen interests clearly reflect off-screen ones is also obvious, leading to similar stonewalling.

To quote Carol Burnett "It's your baby -- don't leave it crying in my arms."

It's the sort of thing that causes people to reduce James to the status of a "Gay Novelist" (whatever that may mean), as if the lens of homosexuality is sufficient to explain everything he wrote.

Well now we get to the heart of the matter. Gayness is regarded as a "reduction," therefore it becomes unspeakable.

It's always amusing when the fallback position of "Well he may have wanted to but he didn't actually do the deed, and he was probably impotent," kicks in. Gayness must be "proved," but chastity and impotence are accepted as a matter of course. Neat!

Thanks for clearing up time-line on Anderson. Now I'll have to go back through my James books, but I was quoting somebody of high academic standing who said he was the inspriation for "Roderick Hudson." This wasn't my invention.

[tryavna]

Well now we get to the heart of the matter. Gayness is regarded as a "reduction," therefore it becomes unspeakable.

No, once again you mischaracterize my post. I said that the saying that James can only be understood as a "Gay Novelist" is a reduction, not gayness itself. If you reread my earlier post, I said that understanding Whitman's gayness helps understand "Leaves of Grass," but he's not just a "Gay Poet."

It's always amusing when the fallback position of "Well he may have wanted to but he didn't actually do the deed, and he was probably impotent," kicks in. Gayness must be "proved," but chastity and impotence are accepted as a matter of course. Neat!

Again with the mischacterization! My fall-back position is not that gayness must be proved, but that James' gayness must be proved, not assumed. In fact, in our post-Freudian world, I think we take too much for granted about sex and sexuality anyway. If you look at the biographies of many Victorian figures, it seems pretty clear that they did not worry about sex quite as much as we do today. John Singer Sargeant, for instance, was happily celibate his entire life; George Bernard Shaw, who in his old age could be as randy as anybody, remained a virgin until nearly 30, when an older woman (whose name I forget) forced him into her bed.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that my contributions to this thread aren't being taken seriously any more (if they ever were), so I'm going to resist posting further here.

[Andre Jurieu]

Gayness is regarded as a "reduction," therefore it becomes unspeakable.

Has tryavna really said gayness is a reduction? It's fairly clear that tryavna is merely saying the scope of an artist's work should not be reduced down to one specific characteristic. Thus, it would be wrong for us to reduce Scorsese to the status of "Catholic Director" or Tarkovsky to the status of "Russian Director", because their work has much more to offer and viewing it through a myopic lens is insufficient to explaining their work.

It seemed obvious to me that tryavna did not imply that "gayness" was a lower "unspeakable" status, merely that it shouldn't be the only status.

It's always amusing when the fallback position of "Well he may have wanted to but he didn't actually do the deed, and he was probably impotent," kicks in. Gayness must be "proved," but chastity and impotence are accepted as a matter of course. Neat!

Here's what tryavna wrote:

I personally tend to side with a growing number of critics who think he might have been rendered impotent by that "obscure hurt" he received as a fireman in New York in the early 1860s. Do I have conclusive proof? No, but it offers just as plausible a reason for why he exerting so much energy in creating ambiguity around his own persona.

It seems clear he is merely saying he accepts this theory. He seems to understand that it's merely a theory and not conclusive fact that he is choosing to believe. At no time has he told us that this is a fact that we must accept, because he is allowing us the courtesy of concluding for ourselves. I assume that if tryavna wanted us to accept James' impotence as a fact, he would offer us more conclusive evidence, instead of telling us it is obvious from his interpretations of James' work and this mention of an injury while he was a fireman.

Am I supposed to include some cheesy mildly-related quote now?

Anyway, it's pretty clear that my contributions to this thread aren't being taken seriously any more (if they ever were), so I'm going to resist posting further here.

Oh, I'm sure most of us are taking your posts seriously, so please (for the love of everything that is good in the world) keep posting.

[David Ehrenstein]

I said that the saying that James can only be understood as a "Gay Novelist" is a reduction, not gayness itself.

When did I ever say such a thing? Henry James was many things but a gay novelist was not one of them. I leave it to James scholars to point out a few homoerotic shadings here and there, but same-sexuality was not his subject. The same can't be said of Melville.

As for Robert Bresson, as I've said before, it pops up here and there -- quite obviously in Pickpocket and A Man Escaped -- but can't be said to be his "subject" either. Gayness does not render every artist a Jean Genet.

[bunuelian]

David, you're misconstruing reasonable doubt as willful blindness. It would help if you would learn to discern the difference between homophobia and legitimate questions, especially since none of us knew Bresson personally. Or maybe you heard his confession at some point?

I think tryavna's point, questioning reading homoerotic elements as a sign that the author is/was gay, is perfectly valid. It's grossly irresponsible to accuse such a point of homophobia. It begins to sound rather paranoid. This is not a forum full of homophobes, and I doubt anyone is uncomfortable with the notion that Bresson was gay. Repeating that Bresson's homoeroticism is "screamingly obvious" over and over again doesn't address the questions being raised.

The main discomfort here is not with the notion of Bresson's gayness, but with differing intellectual perspectives. It goes to show that even if the world conquers homophobia, we'll still want to kill each other.

[David Ehrenstein]

I think tryavna's point, questioning reading homoerotic elements as a sign that the author is/was gay, is perfectly valid. It's grossly irresponsible to accuse such a point of homophobia. It begins to sound rather paranoid.

I just knew that "paranoia" was coming next. So what's now? A demand for "recantation" as in a Stalinist "show trial"?

[Andre Jurieu]

Yeah, I'm voting that our next forum tagline should be "We're running a Stalinist 'show trial' over here".

So is it safe to infer that even some of the people that support the validity of a homosexual subtext and secular reading in Bresson's work are now shaking their heads in disbelief at what's happened here? I know I am.

[bunuelian]

At least no one has mentioned Nazis yet.

[David Ehrenstein]

Or Ozu.

[viciousliar]

I have one last question for the forum (and I've been asking myself this for a very long time.)

Who are WE??

You will be very greatly missed, Flixy, you were my No 1. poster of the entire membership. I am SO sad....what a tremendous loss to the Forum....

[David Ehrenstein]

Whatever the complexities of Bresson's sexuality, it seems evident that he didn't--in the period when he was making movies-- identify with the social and cultural category of "homosexual.".

Well who did? Not even Cocteau, if you check the record carefully. He published his most explicitly gay novel anonymously.

And his films contain few if any of the sort of coded appeals to gayness that would have available at midcentury (and which have been catalogued by film historians), so the "queer" readings of his films seem to me necessarily tentative and non-exclusive--and more interesting for that.

Not sure what you mean by "coded appeals" in this context.

[Napoleon]

He lived well through to 99, Cocteau went in 63. I'm sure that if Bresson wanted to make a statement about his sexuality one way or another he lived through tolerant enough times to do so.

As he never made a clear statement about it, it is safe to assume that he didn't feel it was either relevant or anyone else's business. What you are attempting to do is circumnavigate Bresson's own feelings of the issue and force it to be relevant. An action that few will find agreeable.

Carrying on like this will neither add nor detract from his legacy so why continue with it?


Oh, and flixy, please say that you were joking about that being your last post. What with your attitude and knowledge making you a god amongst posters.

[David Ehrenstein]

What you are attempting to do is circumnavigate Bresson's own feelings of the issue and force it to be relevant. An action that few will find agreeable.

It is my job as a critic to deal with artists and their work. Almost invariably that entails "circumnavigating" their "own feelings" to get at the truth. Truth does not need to be "forced" in order to be rendered "relevant."

[GringoTex]

As one with no "faith" who loves most of Bresson I want to ask other posters

I wanted to continue this discussion without further hijacking the Cannes thread. I'm choosing David's post to respond to because he's so perceptive, but I intend to address all the Bresson posts in the thread.

First, I think the recent controversy began by Indiana's Pickpocket liner notes and and answered by White and retorted by Ehrenstein and brought to task by Cummings, etc., etc., etc., has resulted in a mythological line drawn in the dust (ala Travis and the Alamo) separating "Christians" from "anti-Christians."

What it's boiled down to is that we're trying to apply our notions of the politics of 21st century American Christianism to the work of a clearly 20th century French filmmaker who would probably regard the likes of the 700 Club with total incomprehension.

That Bresson made films primarily concerned with questions of Christian ideology cannot be disputed. Despite the claims to the otherwise, you simply cannot read Balthazar outside of a Christian context, anymore than you can pretend Eisenstein was making films outside of a Soviet "communist" point of origin.

David, you seem to be implying that someone with no Christian faith approaches Bresson differently from a "believer," but certainly you know as much about the tenets of Christianity as any believer. You simply choose to reject it. But the knowledge is the same for everybody. I don't know of anybody who approaches Bresson's films as sacred texts (they may be out there, but would represent an extremist minority), so ultimately, we're all approaching Bresson on an equal footing. Bresson is surveying human experience within a Christian framework, and we all know what that framework is, whether we have "faith" in it or not.

I also want to address the supposed dichotomy between homosexuality and Christianity as it pertains to Bresson. The notion that the two are mutually exclusive is a recently constructed pipe dream. Cummings, a staunch defender of Bresson-as-Christian, fully welcomes gay interpretations of his work. Hell, anybody with a Catholic clue knows how many Catholic priests are gay. This is not a matter of denial or self-hatred. Homosexuality and Catholicism are entertwined. The set-up is perfect: priests can't marry.

And although I don't it's pertinent, I'll declare: I'm not a believer. My wife is Catholic as are my children. I take our priest out to dinner once a month. We drink and smoke and talk about beautiful women.

So with that overlong prologue out of the way...

what do you make of Laydu's struggle in Cure de Campagne?

Frankly, I've never understood any confusion about Cure de Campagne. Laydu is an idealist who can't reconcile the fact that he must also be a capitalist manager. He's morally superior to everyone around him and dies for it in a material world. I love it, but I've always found it Bresson's least interesting film.

do you find the death of Balthazar an "affirmation" (like the escape of Fontaine and Jost in un Condamne), or an expression of resignation to the meaninglessness of suffering?

Neither. The Man Who Escaped was a genuine hero- the one and only in a Bresson film. There was a definite good and a definite evil, and Fontaine used superhuman skill and determination to overcome the evil.

Balthazar is Jesus. Jesus posessed superhuman power, but chose to suffer evil as an animal would. Balthazar is that animal. It has nothing to do with "affirmation" or the "meaninglesness of suffering." Balthazar's suffering is very real - not meaningless - and his indefensibility leaves those who abused him with a very clear reackoning: there is no complexity in abusing a dumb animal.

Is the apparently complete ordinariness of evil in l'Argent an equivocation in spiritual thinking or a statement of lost faith? (I frankly have a lot of trouble with this movie in any case.)

I have a lot of trouble with this movie, too, which may be why it's my favorite Bresson. It's the first time Bresson allowed his sufferer to do the ultimate evil to a complete innocent. Ehernstein claims it is an embracement of atheism, but it's possible to see it as a fundamentalist embracement of the worthlessness of mankind. I think I need to see this again and again because I can't believe that Bresson believed in this worthlessness.