Paul Schrader on Pickpocket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fmXiRixdvk
There's also a second part. I highly recommend it for those who want to know his style better.
"The world is a big apple and we are the maggots who are rotting and eating it"
Paul Schrader is not an authority on Bresson. He is the one most responsible for the misunderstanding of this great director.
~~~~~~
How come?
I think his understanding of Bresson's cinema is mostly accurate. He's very accesible in the way he tells you(in the video)about him.
He also wrote a famous(and highly praised) book about Bresson, Ozu and Dreyer.
"The world is a big apple and we are the maggots who are rotting and eating it"
"He also wrote a famous(and highly praised) book about Bresson, Ozu and Dreyer. "
The book is the problem.
"A glance at the introductory remarks to Schrader's 1976 interview with Bresson (quoted-from earlier) shows why. After noting that Bresson had told him he couldn't recognize anything of himself in Schrader's book, our wounded author goes on to admit that:
.there was never the rapport I had hoped for. His answers were not in tune with my questions, or my questions with his answers. It felt as if each idea was fighting to assert itself through a fog of misunderstanding.
(Film Comment, Sep-Oct 1977)
But, nonetheless, adds:
Bresson cannot (or will not) understand why I respect him, and I cannot (or will not) acceptance his interpretation of his films.
(Film Comment, Sep-Oct 1977)"
Here is the whole lengthy three part article on Senses of Cinema. When printed it is around 70 pages long.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/1/bresson.html
It deals witn and explains many popular misconceptions about Bresson.
~~~~~~
it doesn't matter what Bresson thinks and neither what Schrader thinks.
Once a piece of art is made, the view of its creator should have the same value as the view of everyone else.
Making art is making something that involves people, makes them ask questions. It doesn't give you any answers. It may help you ask yourself questions of importance to you and find answers that suit you. There are as many interpretations to art as there are people in the world. There is no monopoly on interpretation by the creator.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard authoral intent is what guides interpretation. Only Bresson knows what his films mean. I will give you the oint about art and quesitons though. Movies should be about showing, not telling and asking great questions. But the answers should be (and in a great filmaker like Bresson's work, they are) found in the movie itself. However, a mark of beauty and skill is being able to weave those answers into the overall outlook of the movie rather than preaching in the forefront. Ultimately Bresson is the authority on Bresson and he thankfully, he is clear enough to show what his films mean. you just can't get too analytical with movies. Sometimes the best are simlpy clearer than the film critics, stdents and experts would like.
shareThat's not dumb at all.
The artist is typically not his own best critic. The first thing you learn about critiquing art is that the intent of the artist is entirely second to the piece itself.
[deleted]
As an artist myself, I can attest to the fact that the observations of others are often more valid than one would imagine. I may put months or years of thought and effort into a work that becomes forgotten, later on, by me. I am often surprised by the astute observations of others--often years after I created a work. The words of others might not be the same as mine--they could be even better.
As somebody who appreciates the products of creative energy, I have discovered artists who make misleading comments about their work. Sometimes it is the difference between what an artist intended to achieve and what he or she actually achieved, and sometimes it is simply the deceptive nature of advertising one wares. On other occassions, the misleading remarks can be the product of a poor chemistry between an interviewer and the subject.
While I would not dismiss everything every artist says about their work--sometimes they are the worst source of information.
One may or may not like Paul Schrader's films but his knowledge of film and the filmmaker's art puts him in a very rare league. I have seen Schrader's discussion of the pickpocket and I think it is an astute analysis of the cinematic work.
[Paul Schrader is not an authority on Bresson. He is the one most responsible for the misunderstanding of this great director.]
Amen.
[One may or may not like Paul Schrader's films but his knowledge of film and the filmmaker's art puts him in a very rare league.]
Schrader is a great writer and an interesting thinker. I don't think he has that innate gift. . .that visual, cinematic flair, that great directors have.
Last film seen: Robert Bresson's Pickpocket - Brilliant!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053168/
[deleted]
[deleted]
"save for Taxi Driver Schrader is a useless ass."
You are forgetting about Raging Bull
"New Criticism, as espoused by Cleanth Brooks, W. K. Wimsatt, T. S. Eliot, and others, argued that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argue in their essay "The Intentional Fallacy" that "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art." The author, they argue, cannot be reconstructed from a writing -- the text is the primary source of meaning, and any details of the author's desires or life are secondary. Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that even details about the work's composition or the author's intended meaning and purpose that might be found in other documents such as journals or letters are "private or idiosyncratic; not a part of the work as a linguistic fact" and are thus secondary to the trained reader’s rigorous engagement with the text itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent
[deleted]
enkibilal, why do you consider that article, written by M. C. Zenner, as fact? what makes him an authority? He's merely a journalist and not a very good one at that.
enkibilal quoted this from Schrader's book:
"Bresson cannot (or will not) understand why I respect him, and I cannot (or will not) acceptance his interpretation of his films.
(Film Comment, Sep-Oct 1977)"
Bresson refused to accept Schrader's existentialism interpretation. For Bresson the film alluded to pre-destination, in keeping with Jansenist theology. Whereas the journalist, Zenner, you put so much belief in believes Jansenism isn't at all part of the film; he clearly doesn't understand Bresson.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7798/humphreybogartthebigslecf7.jpg share
There are any number of ways in which to examine a movie with rewarding results. Schrader's views are valuable because they stimulate thought and lead him and others to rewarding lines of contemplation. Certainly no one should take his interpretations to be final and complete, but there's no reason to discount them either. Agreement of the artist isn't necessary. Sometimes what someone makes is interesting for lots of reasons that never occurred to the artist.
"Clothes are the enemy! Without clothes, there'd be no sickness. There'd be no war!"
I was wondering who you, or anyone else would recommend to read on Bresson (specifically Pickpocket). I mean, I know him pretty well, but I'm doing some work to do with him (and Sam Fuller in fact) and I'm looking for any kind of research. I've been reading Joseph Cunneen, Keith Reader, and Bazin primarily. Any other suggestions would be appreciated, I'm not stuck for references, but I like a lot of opinions.
Big love.
x