As much of the "best" of religion itself (yes even Christianity, though I'm agnostic at best) is not about religion itself (any more than the operating instructions for an electric drill are about the operating instructions themselves rather than the drill) but are rather about the pain and mystery of Being Alive, so is Bresson to me not an exposition of religion, or religious principle, or even religious iconography (as some Tarkovsky, for example-- see RUBLEV-- contain specific religious pictorial tableaux meant to trigger certain meditations), but rather reflections on the bleakness of the world for a heart maintaining a fidelity to a lifestyle, or an idea, that is quote-unquote salutary or substantial. Or even in simple opposition to the masses (as in the universality of the core idea DIARY-- re my post answering Dave in the Cannes thread).Langlois68 wrote: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...
David, you seem to be implying that someone with no Christian faith approaches Bresson differently from a "believer,"
Since most people's "beliefs" are mostly an afterlife insurance-policy type mechanical fulfillment of basic responsibility, or simple habit carried on out of family tradition, I think most even "Catholic" folks who view Bresson and get something out of him simply appreciate them (those more allegedly "Catholic" of his films) as works of ambiguous beauty which present a meditation on the aches & pains & injustices of being a harmless person: the characters of the GENTLE WOMAN, BALTHAZAR, THE COUNTRY PRIEST, MOUCHETTE. They're films about how the shits of the world fuck the life of decent folk who don't have a predatory bone in their body, and how those decent folks are urged towards insanity and death because of the relentless onslaught of the shits of the planet who cannot stick to their own lousy circumferences.
Disagree tremendously. Pie-in-the-sky demands for celibacy in a secluded, all-male environment is what is intertwined with male homosexuality. This manifests in the miltary, war trenches, prison, all forms of monkism eastern & western. Catholicism itself, as a doctrine, is about as divorced from homosexuality as is humanly possible-- arch-enemies, of course.Langlois68 wrote: 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.
See but calling Balthzar Jesus (rather than a saintly icon of human suffering of harmless souls who mind their own business versus the assholes of the world) nails all kinds of problems to the film. You need to maintain a special blind spot to see the idea through & make it work. How is Balthazar "the Christ"? How is his ministry and mission of redemption and salvation executed? A Christ is an active figure. A motionless donkey is a passive figure. The mere absorption of abuse, with some teasing hints of baptism by children playing, doesn't demand a reading of Balthazar as the Christ. Balthazar dies a hopeless death which is extremely painful to watch in it's loneliness, in the lack of reward and relief in a life spent in suffering. I don't see a salvation of the world or a cleansing of the sins of the world via Balthazars transit through life from birth to death. I don't see any wiping clean of the guilt of mankind. I see a film made by a director who had serious problems with humankind, and went through a phase where he wanted to show what unredeemable pieces of shit most people were.. an impulse which reached it's apex with the dismal & morose MOUCHETTE.Langlois68 wrote: 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.
