Bresson, Sexuality and Religion

[David Ehrenstein]

Well if you'll note, Doug it's called "The Devil Probably" not "The Devil Definitely" It's a narrative of youthful self-discovery brought low by an indifferent world -- not necessairily an evil one. "Dr. Mime" is probably the most morally suspect character in the film, if you don't count Michel the ecologist, of whom Serge Daney noted "He is an archetypical Bressonian figure, the 'best friend' full of edifying speeches, generally desired sexually by the heroine of the film" -- to which I would add and in sub rosa fashion by the hero as well. Daney notes further on "It is necessary to dispense with the question of whether Charles is an emblem of 'modern youth' as seen by the author. Bresson isn't leaning tardily on young people, because they have always been his only object of interest."

Cet obscur objet in fact.Michel's ecology lecture may seem slightly silly, but more important it's basically inadequate to the task it proposes to solve -- something Charles recognizes immediately. Hence "rational" discourse fails just as religious discourse does, leading to a sense of genuine despair that makes his death all the more logical. But he choses to die not by his own hand, but by the hand of another. Meeting in Pere Lachaise (how far from Jim Morrison's tomb one wonders) this grand finale takes on the aspect of sexual/romantic assignation -- something Chereau clearly recognized when he evoked its mise en scene in the similarly hushed/grim finale of L'Homme Blesse.

If it's so obvious how come so many people have a difficult time seeing it (how manipulative calling it "obvious", as if it's a given)?

In other words "What are you going to believe-- me or your lying eyes?"

I find the women in Bresson extremely attractive, and they all produce an aura of sexuality.

So do I. Your point?

This seems equal to the representation of men.

No it isn't. There's a world of difference between Dominique Sanda and Francois Letterrier. In my blog-post I mentioned "Lesbian hags" -- a rather complex subject in need of the sort of discussion which this culture refelxively forecloses. I reccomend Proust, and in the movies, Lis Chodolenko's exceedingly canny High Art

As I said in a previous post, I believe his films to be physical, which can be represented through sex. Putting two good looking men together in a room doesn't make them homosexual, and if you film them, it doesn't make for a homosexual film.

The last scene of A Man Escaped where Fontaine having escaped prison embraces his fellow escapee Jost is one of the most romantic in all of cinema. Ignore it at your loss.

[Andre Jurieu]

If you think my hatelist of fundamentalists/loonie muslim clerics/ultra right Hassidists and that sadist Ratzy are merely vindictive ravings look at them from my position. Every single group would happily turn me into the climactic scene of Joan at the stake and see me dead for my "sin". This is not paranoid/neurotic fantasy. This is real... If we don't see eye to eye on what I have surely clearly expressed as the unwelcome and destructive intrusion of fundamentalist religion into the secular state then we have absolutely no common ground (and at the age of 56 I find being patronised more amusing than offensive.)

Is anyone actually saying that we should be adopting the same position as fundamentalist religious nutcases? Or that these groups are anything but unwelcome and destructive elements in our society? Of all the issues within this thread, I'm fairly certain we are all in agreement on that point. I'm also hoping we understand that having faith and being a member of George Bush's base demographic of Bible-Belt NASCAR parents who watched Passion of the Christ more than once is not the same thing.

However, just because a critic takes issue with the re-interpretation of an artist's work that specifically chooses to discard the deep sense of spirituality within the artist's work does not make them akin to a religious fundamentalist faction seeking political influence to undertake radical social reforms. Though their goals may be aligned temporarily, that doesn't make their points or intensions exactly the same. Just because White argues against a secular reading and for a spiritual one does not mean he is campaigning against homosexuals and abortion or even attempting to add weight to the argument against these aspects. He seems to be simply stating that this secular reading is a mis-interpretation, not that those who hold this interpretation should be extinguished in favor of a more conservative society. Carrying his opinion to these extremes seems to be a mis-representation of White's intentions.

I honestly cannot believe I'm defending Armond White's position on anything to this degree.

[bunuelian]

. . . . I usually approach Bresson with an eye towards the human condition (whatever that means) rather than religion, but I can't really deny the fact that the presence of faith within Bresson's work is especially strong and I realized that way before I touched a book written by Schrader.

The presense of "faith" has nothing to do with the presense of God.

I can see it's time for me to bow out of this thread.

[Andre Jurieu]

The presense of "faith" has nothing to do with the presense of God.

I don't know if it has nothing to do with the presence of God, but I can somewhat see your point.

I should probably note that the second paragraph I wrote that your quote was pulled from was my feeble attempt to revert back to the greater debate about spiritual vs secular interpretations of Bresson. The first paragraph was more about the presence of God in Bresson's work. Entirely my fault for screwing around with multiple arguments without proper separation.

I can see it's time for me to bow out of this thread.

Seriously? I was actually kind of interested in an elaboration of that last point.

[Andre Jurieu]

Yeesh. I never claimed that "faith", "spirituality", "God", and "religion" had to be tied together for this discussion. In fact, I'm actually saying this entire complaint against White's intentions should have left religion out of the discussion. I'm more than happy to limit the terms to faith and spirituality. As far as central issues go, I'm inclined to agree with Doug in saying the issue regarding White's article has more to do with critical accuracy versus interpretive freedom, and countering false political accusations.

[ellipsis7]

And is God a christian?

[GringoTex]

Oh my stars! Are my ears burning!

Sorry to have caused you all so much trouble, but Bresson is someone whose work I've studied for a considerable number of my 58 years, and means a great deal to me. I was in despair over the loss of my first boyfriend in High School when I discovered A Man Escaped, and quite frankly it saved my life.

The homoeroticism of most of Bresson's films but especially Pickpocket, A Man Escaped, Au Hasard Balthazar and Le Diable Probablement (to name the most striking) is as obvious as the nose on Antoine Monnier's face.

I see the homoeroticism in Diarry, Pickpocket, and Devil. I see the potential for it in A Man Escaped (it's a prison film, after all). I absolutely fail to see it in Balthazaar or, especially, L'Argent. Could you link to a description, or offer one here of the homoerotic elements in these films?

[Michael Kerpan]

Can't help on L'argent -- but as to Balthazar -- there is the old smuggler and the gang of toughs -- and there is a certain degree of unexplained tension there.

[Michael]

Balthazar - am I the only one who got the impression that Gerard may be a repressed homosexual?

[Andre Jurieu]

Who are WE??

Pretty sure Doug meant "we" as in "we at Masters of Cinema". I meant "we" as in anyone involved in this discussion.

And is God a christian?

Well, I know I didn't say he was. First off, God's existence is debatable, and secondly, if one exists at all, I have my doubts that any higher power decided to choose a specific religion to endorse.

but as to Balthazar -- there is the old smuggler and the gang of toughs -- and there is a certain degree of unexplained tension there.

That sounds like more a display of homophobia (from the characters) than a display of homoeroticism (by Bresson).

[David Ehrenstein]

Balthazar - am I the only one who got the impression that Gerard may be a repressed homosexual?

Nope. But one must not forget the role of Bresson's POV in all of this that such critics as Jean-Pierre Oudart ("La Suture") have explicated so eloquently. Bresson character interact with one another as they would in any other film, but but the framing and editing of Bresson makes him a third to all of this in a way that's rather unique. He's cruising his own narrative as it were.

[yoshimori]

He's cruising his own narrative as it were.

To follow this line of "reasoning" is to suggest not only homosexual tendencies, but heterosexual, pedophiliac, bestial, fetishistic, and others as well.

[nick]

To start, I have not seen Pickpocket. In fact my exposure to Bresson's films has currently been limited to only Diary of a Country Priest and Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne. However, I think that this discussion goes beyond my lack of exposure to his films. At the core, this debate seems to be on the interpretation of film in general. Interpretation of art is, as has been stated, objective. Therefore, reading any essay discussing a film is, logically speaking, going to be objective. I think its safe to assume that whenever reading a critical analysis, one has to take account of human objectivity, opinion, and error within its text. From MOC:

We respect personal readings so long as they are identified as personal readings.

Perhaps this is too presumptuous of me, but I would consider any critical analysis to be a personal reading. An essay with constant subjective headers such as, in my opinion...

[Doug Cummings]

Doug I will try to stay as civil as possible.

Thanks!

I have read the literature.

Then that puts you far ahead of the majority of North American viewers who are only now beginning to see decent prints of Bresson on DVD and are having to catch up with the last half-century of critical literature his work has inspired. This is a point White emphasizes and I think it's reasonable to suggest that the accompanying essays to such DVDs should pay at least passing reference to that history of dialogue and the director's own statements regarding his work.

However I am much more interested these days in things lke this thread and the a_f_b threads and Gary Indiana and others, including maybe a long overdue "transcendentally" based revival in which fresh ideas and insights are challenging and changing my views.

And there ain't nothin' wrong with that...

I did not believe I was positing an "either/or" position.

"I guess I am as impervious to a Christian reading of Bresson as some people would be to a gay one." Sorry, that is not both/and.

Already a number of posters have since picked up the idea of exploring the late work through perhaps a prism such as Bresson's loss of faith (??) -this is certainly my present reading of l"Argent, although I suspect there is an even more devastating stream there about the nature of humanity.

And again, I suggest you read his interview with Michel Ciment from Cannes '83, where he suggests no such thing.

Ciment: One of the characters says, "Money, a visible God." A false idol then, since what matters to you is invisible.

Bresson: Money is an abominable idol. It is everywhere. The only things that matter are invisible. Why are we here? What are life and death? Where are we going? Who is responsible for the miracle of animal and vegetable life? The two are considered very similar nowadays. I should like to include that in Genesis.

If you think my hatelist of fundamentalists/loonie muslim clerics/ultra right Hassidists and that sadist Ratzy are merely vindictive ravings look at them from my position. Every single group would happily turn me into the climactic scene of Joan at the stake and see me dead for my "sin". This is not paranoid/neurotic fantasy. This is real.

Flixyflox...I'm hardly defending these groups or suggesting that your fears are unfounded. Far from it. Fundamentalists are a scourge to all thinking, healthy people everywhere. But to paint an entire philosophy or interpretive lens with such villains is a gross error. If you're going to mention Nazis and Neocons you might also mention MLK or Mother Theresa or Desmond Tutu, for starters.

If we don't see eye to eye on what I have surely clearly expressed as the unwelcome and destructive intrusion of fundamentalist religion into the secular state then we have absolutely no common ground (and at the age of 56 I find being patronised more amusing than offensive.)

Oh my god, this is either a blatant attempt to vilify me or an astoundingly misconstrued reading of anything I've ever written. Down with the fundamentalists; up with the artists and thinkers who articulate the compassion, mystery, complexity, and humanity of genuine religious thinking. There aren't many of them. I see nothing wrong with celebrating the few that get it right.

And yes, my "we" was referring to MoC. I was content to stay out of this thread until shame was declared on our heads.

[GringoTex]

Perhaps this is too presumptuous of me, but I would consider any critical analysis to be a personal reading.

Not exactly. There is a whole school of subversive readings of texts which openly advocates the ignoring of both the author's intent and traditional critical indicators. Neither Ehrenstein or White is arguing from this vantage point- they both claim their readings are obvious and well-supported by traditional textual analysis.

[Andre Jurieu]

... but I would consider any critical analysis to be a personal reading.

Not exactly. There is a whole school of subversive readings of texts which openly advocates the ignoring of both the author's intent and traditional critical indicators

Um... I'm a bit confused. So if you are ignoring the author's intentions and the critical indicators, how is that not a personal reading of the text? It's still your own view of what the text means, right?

[GringoTex]

Um... I'm a bit confused. So if you are ignoring the author's intentions and the critical indicators, how is that not a personal reading of the text? It's still your own view of what the text means, right?

I was unclear- I meant that because there are now critical approaches that openly defy "objective" analysis (using one's own personal experience as a critical indicator), it is now ok to distinguish between "personal" and "non-personal" readings.

[David Ehrenstein]

Speaking of "the author's intention' is highly presumptuous. If art were a matter of "intentions" Bresson could forego making films altogether and give us a one page -- or even one paragraph -- essay. Films take on a life of their own, often spinning well beyond the presumed control of their creator(s).

Or to put it another way when I'm writing about Bresson I'm not making stuff up! Yes, his films affect me personally on an emotional level. But emotion doesn' trump intellect, and Bresson at his best is a sublime mixture of both. And getting at that mixture means look at and listenting to what Bresson actually put up on the screen.

[godardslave]

Critics tend to claim they are not subjective but in some way (a bit like magic, never really explained) their reading is more "objective" than a "normal" persons reading.

Critics are human beings just like everyone else however, and hence however much they wish to maintain otherwise, view a piece of art subjectively, through their own conscious experience of the art. And all human consciousness is subjective.

What this argument is really about, therefore, is whether any art, and by logical extension any reading of said art can be truly "objective" (in a scientific sense), and the answer is NO.

The essential quality of all art is its very subjectivity, each person will interpret the art in a different way. Otherwise we could indeed just have a 1 page summary of what the artist intended.

To sum up:
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

EDIT: i used some inflammatory phrases which were not neccesary to my point and i have deleted these.

[nick]

There is a whole school of subversive readings of texts which openly advocates the ignoring of both the author's intent and traditional critical indicators. Neither Ehrenstein or White is arguing from this vantage point- they both claim their readings are obvious and well-supported by traditional textual analysis.

I was unclear- I meant that because there are now critical approaches that openly defy "objective" analysis (using one's own personal experience as a critical indicator), it is now ok to distinguish between "personal" and "non-personal" readings.

To clarify what I was saying initially; I did not mean to imply that the writers failed to support their statements in any way. I, however, am not familiar with this idea of "personal" versus "non-personal" readings. I understand the “personalâ€

[GringoTex]

I, however, am not familiar with this idea of "personal" versus "non-personal" readings. I understand the “personalâ€

[David Ehrenstein]

"Personal" = "Anything I disagree with."

[GringoTex]

"Personal" = "Anything I disagree with."

"Personal" = "The method by which readers from traditionally marginalized backgrounds co-opt the text as a form of self-empowerment and expression."

In Reception Studies, agreeing or disagreeing with the interpretation isn't the point.

[David Ehrenstein]

"Personal" = "The method by which readers from traditionally marginalized backgrounds co-opt the text as a form of self-empowerment and expression."

"OK Ehrenstien, that's enough. Know your place! Get back to the margins where you belong!"

[GringoTex]

"OK Ehrenstien, that's enough. Know your place! Get back to the margins where you belong!"

My point in bringing up reception studies and personal readings was to emphasize that this NOT what you were doing- that you WERE using traditional critical tools to argue for a gay/atheist reading of Bresson- that your reading was NOT marginalized.

But I'm obviously not communicating well as you're the third person in this thread today not to understand me, so I think I'll just take the rest of the day off.