1
On the video of the American meet-and-greet in 1983, I saw Bresson’s deity for the first time. It was an extremely rare opportunity. He acted like an old wizard, he was full of wise thinking, and at the same time he was particularly unfriendly. He can't tolerate the so-called boring questions raised by young people.
According to him, many of the things in it have made great progress from the book on film he wrote a few years ago. In other words, many of the things he said in it are his recent ideas, especially the opposition to drama. Aspects of habituation. This is the same as reading Dong Qichang's essays and the epilogues of Dong Qichang's works in his later years. The more radical his thoughts become in his later years, the master actively seeks changes.
One person asked why he always likes to use Russian classical novels. So the previous film used Tostoyevsky's White Nights, while this film used Leo Tolstoy's works. He said that he found some truth in those things. This is something that modern writers don't have, and he found that the things that old writers said in the past are still applicable.
Not only is he not very friendly to the audience, he is also not very friendly to color movies. Lancelot was a failure, everyone did not understand, he thought he was the shame of color film. So he also played a lot of tempers while working here. Many directors of photography said that it is not easy to work with Bresson, because he only told them, for example, in this film, he didn’t want to use green as the main color. What he wants must be created by himself according to his intentions, there is nothing to learn from.
2
I saw this movie when I was 20 years old. At that time, I felt very suffocated and I didn’t like it, but it’s important to know it. Especially for the experiment of sound editing, to find a balance between the immersive sound and the non-realistic sound, so that the film is manifested as a comprehensive art.
Someone despaired of his social criticality, saying that at first the two kids couldn’t ask for money from their families, so they used counterfeit money, and the counterfeit money was used in the photo shop, and the owner of the photo shop circulated him again. In the end, the hapless Ivan paid the bill. He ate three counterfeit coins, and then had nowhere to avenge him. He was excluded from the prison again, and his wife left him, so he finally became very depressed. These are all cause and effect.
All of this extends to the fact that after he was released from prison, he killed the family of the "Modern Hotel". It was because he saw them withdraw a lot of money at the door of the bank. The starting point was also for money. Just like everyone did at the beginning , Money inspires people's sins.
But why do I personally say that the previous is all cause and effect, because we see that there is no hope at all. Every evil result is caused by an evil cause. Going back to money is like Bresson criticizing and making movies for money.
But at the end of the movie, according to him, it was to show an uncertainty different from the original Russian work. He only allowed the protagonist to surrender here at the last minute. This is not the law of causality. This is the decision he himself made, and this begins to produce goodness.
This is actually back to the foundation of Song Confucianism, that is, everything comes from the heart. If you want to be good, do it.
Nothing can be faked, and some people have deceived themselves for a lifetime. I don't want to use professional actors, and I don't want to use their fakes.
Lucien, who is doing miscellaneous work in the photo studio, is also a teaching material. He is very fluent in lying without reddening or beating, but he just killed one person. But in the end, because of the theft, including the destruction of the ATM, he also showed repentance when he arrived in prison.
The mother of the kid who committed evil in the beginning also had a heart of repentance, and went to the photo studio to pay back the money.
3
Bresson’s films are not based on social criticism, but want to expose some truth. And these ideas are related to his Catholic Jansenism beliefs, and he agrees with Pascal. This kind of sect that later caused ceremonial disputes in China and caused China and foreign countries to stop trading, in fact, agrees with Augustine's theory of grace that is to be saved in the end, not by itself or by the gift of God. This can explain the uncertainty presented in the movie at the end. It did not give us any promise, nor did it say that this person will be redeemed in the end, and there must be a good result. He didn't say anything.
In this regard, if you take this movie and his early movies, such as Donkey, such as Mochette, he actually appeared to be equally desperate, because there is nothing in reality that can give us hope. It's just that the film is more stylized in terms of sound and color film processing.
He doesn't even use religious music that gives people a sense of hope, except for Bach's Fantasia played by the male host in modern restaurants, but this is a few shots that show that this person is getting degenerate and drinking heavily. The smashing of the cup also reflects his last tragedy.
In fact, Bresson is an artist who has a very strong pursuit of modern art like Picasso. The sense of innovation is very strong. facing the future.
For example, why do we see people’s “amputation” in the film, and their movements, one person opens the door, closes the door, sees the depth of field and sees the people inside, and then a group of hollows remain People, and then from this place to another place. It is to break the stereotype of drama. Re-manufacturing the hinge of causality.
View more about L'Argent reviews
