It is worth noting that from the beginning of this film, Bresson began to enter a stage of pessimism - especially after this Muchat, almost the opposite of the death row, pickpocket and Joan of Arc before - even the comparison of youth priests, It can also be seen that the latter still holds a glimmer of hope. As for a donkey, we can't even tell whether it's self-aware or not. The entire film pours down like mercury, and it is basically a Jansenist sermon. The question is, whether the young girls, young people and homeless people in the film are completely blind in their behavior, whether they have the least rationality; whether they can understand the needs of survival; in a word, whether people have free will in the end... Regrettably Yes, this film goes even further than Mouchette to declare the categorical determinism that "human beings are born to be depraved, and their tragic fate is inevitable". No matter how people develop and move, they will inevitably lead to self-destruction! There is no scarier movie than this.
...then, calmly talk about the presentation of the film. Undoubtedly, deterministically, the film goes one step further in Bresson's style: partial captures of donkeys - one of the most playful scenes is Baltesa's face-to-face with tigers, polar bears, and orangutans in the circus. Look, the terrified, curious, vigilant look in the tiger's eyes, which might explain why we couldn't go and shoot "Tiger Balsat." Because it is still a beast. But are the people in the villages also beasts? Are those people also governed by the laws of nature? No, there is no motive - the motives for the actions of the youth priests and pickpockets before, are gone, the spirituality that dominates the prisoners and Joan of Arc is completely gone. What remains is a void that is full of emotion but loses its reason.
Finally, there are still few master shots, and the over-suppressed pan and dolly have a negative effect on the monotonicity of the composition.
View more about
Au hasard Balthazar reviews
