MovieChat Forums > Pickpocket (1959) Discussion > Can someone who loves this film defend i...

Can someone who loves this film defend it?

posted 18 years ago by richardinkerry
37 replies | jump to latest

I watched this film because it was recommended by Carlos Seygada, whose film ‘Japon’ I love.
But does anyone agree that this film has not dated well, purely because the story is devoid of content. How often have we heard the deterioration of the criminal mind story. About the man who commits the perfect crime, but torn by guilt and paronoia, eventually causes his downfall himself. Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare etc.. ( By the way the real Macbeth lived and ruled Scotland for ten years and died peacefully in old age). It’s boring. It’s predictable. And it’s probably not a true reflection of human nature (see Woody Allen’s ‘Crimes and Misdemeanours’ for a good take on this theme).
And to make it worse Bresson adds in some notion of redemption through love. How could Carlos Reygada exhort such schmaltz.
We are in the new millennium, and this film can only be of academic interest, no?
Kouroustami uses non-actors but he attempts at least to reveal their character.
Reygada uses them too, but with a more voyeuristic pleasure.
Paul Schrader gave an introduction to the film. He talked about Bresson's story telling techniques. But have I not seen these thing before. So he leaves out the scene where the mother dies. Or the scene where he gets arrested. One sees this in existentialist literature all the time. Only with a more powerful results.

Can someone who loves this film defend it, please?

[–] momawafa 18 years ago

I had similar thoughts on this film. I really enjoyed Balthazar and was really excited to watch this when I rented it. But it left me a little confused and frustrated. I felt like I was missing something.

When it comes down to it, I feel like a lot of Bresson's films are like ink-blot tests. They're so devoid of true emotion or expressed feeling that they really ask the viewer to look at a blank face and apply whatever they want to it. In that regard I can see why so many people love this movie: it allows them to project almost anything they want onto that guys stoic face. I think this method can be very powerful, as I think it was better achieved in Balthazar.

Ozu's seemingly emotionless characters also provide a much richer canvas for us to bounce or feelings off of.

[–] richardinkerry 18 years ago

Yeah, I actually really believe in the use of non actors for cinema. It can really work well. I've seen godard do it alot as well. The flatness was appropraite in parts of masculine feminine because the dialogue was so powerful. An actors histrionics could really distract us from the meaning of the words.

By the way. What is this film Balthazar. It sounds really good.

[–] sr_wolfrider 18 years ago

Robert Bresson is much like Stanley Kubrick in his unflinching tone, a uniquely personal vision of the world which remains consistent whatever the nature of his subject matter. The non-professional performers remain flatly inexperience, facially and verbally and his camera avoids pictorial beauty to create an abstract timeless world through the detached, detailed observation of hands, faces, and objects. He mesmerizingly uses natural sounds rather than music to supply meaning; while the narrative is deprived of climaxes, and elliptically fragmented to give an off-kilter balance to the film.

In thus rejecting conventional realism and characterization, Bresson revealed a fascination not with human psychology but with the capacity of the soul to survive in a world of cruelty, doubt, and imprisonment.

[–] Goldmund1710 18 years ago

He's such a misunderstood director.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pugnaciousboxer-1 10 years ago

Kubrick is a horrible, overrated film director. Besides Full Metal Jacket, all of his other films are stupid.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pugnaciousboxer-1 10 years ago

I like Bresson, Tarkovsky, and Bergman a lot. I haven't watched enough Kurosawa to form an opinion of him yet though, but I did like Ikiru a lot.

I've seen most of Kubrick's films, and I don't really like him. I agree with Ebert's criticism of A Clockwork Orange, and I feel like many of his films have political propaganda.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pugnaciousboxer-1 10 years ago

You watch too much Hollywood crap.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pugnaciousboxer-1 10 years ago

Brevity is the soul of wit, but in your case, it's the soul of a simpleton.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chefjoseph 9 years ago

"Horrible" Interesting. Because Full Metal Jacket is not Kubrick's best. Kubrick was a consummate craftsman who knew more about all aspects of Filmmaking then any 5 Directors you could name. Obviously, you are one of those phony "elitists" who think that watching anything NOT American makes you a cinephile. FYI: Tarkovsky and Bergman both admired Kubrick... who also greatly admired them. Satyajit Ray once named Billy Wilder as his favorite Director. Bergman admired many of Spielberg's films, PT Anderson and Soderbergh's Traffic. Get over yourself.

[–] thefly50 9 years ago

Damn straight. Most of the movies I watch are not American, but I can admire a great craftsman when I see one. Kubrick, Coppola, Welles, Wilder, Wyler, Sturges, etc. all qualify as such. I personally don't hold Kubrick as my favourite director (maybe that's Bergman, maybe that's Tarkovsky, maybe Renoir), but he certainly was the best, technically.

[–] rooprect 18 years ago

the story is devoid of content. How often have we heard the deterioration of the criminal mind story. About the man who commits the perfect crime, but torn by guilt and paronoia, eventually causes his downfall himself. Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare etc.. ( By the way the real Macbeth lived and ruled Scotland for ten years and died peacefully in old age). It’s boring. It’s predictable

richardinkerry, I think you misunderstood the film. It's definitely not about "a man who commits the perfect crime, but torn by guilt and paranoia causes his downfall himself." That never happens in this film. Not even close. Instead Bresson uses the incidental theme of a criminal to tell a completely incongruous story.

You were probably misled by the dialogue in the beginning where Michel tells the police chief about his Dostoyevskian philosophies. This was just a red herring. The movie was not about that at all.

Think back to the opening preface which says in bold letters: "this is not a crime drama". So right off the bat we're told not to expect the standard rigamarole that you've described. Instead we're compelled to understand what's going on beyond the simple plot shown on screen.

I could tell you what that is, but I think you've made up your mind already about this film, so I won't waste my breath. But if you're really curious, feel free to inquire, and I'll explain in further detail.

[–] richardinkerry 17 years ago

good reply. OK. I think I´ll watch this movie again. Im sorry if I exasperated you but genuinely I wanted someone to defend this film. The subject title wasn´t a rhetorical question. So if ýou want to explain it in further detail, I´d much appreciate it.

BTW it is true, it is not a story ábout ´the perfect crime...', but it is a pretty pedestrian take on theMacbeth/C&P if that was his intention. I felt it a boring intellectual reference. Again, my mind is not made up, Im saying this for you to point out what Im missing. Which I hope, Im not too late for you to do.

Thanks again for a truly decent reply.

[–] Mat-37 17 years ago

ok I'll try.

"Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare etc..."
What's wrong with them?

"(see Woody Allen’s ‘Crimes and Misdemeanours’ for a good take on this theme)."
Agreed.

"And to make it worse Bresson adds in some notion of redemption through love."
I believe in this too. Some clichés are clchés because they're true.

"He talked about Bresson's story telling techniques. But have I not seen these thing before."
Maybe you've seen them before, in films that have been made afterwards?

"So he leaves out the scene where the mother dies. Or the scene where he gets arrested. One sees this in existentialist literature all the time."
I'd say taking litterature techniques and using them in a film is pretty interesting.

- A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.

[–] sr_wolfrider 17 years ago

The film defends itself, mate.

Last film seen: Robert Bresson's Pickpocket - Brilliant!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053168/

[–] Kinski_Paganini 17 years ago

I disliked this film, as well. I felt that Martin LaSalle, who played Michel, could not pull off the cold, unemotional qualities of the characer. It's one thing to "be" stoic and clinical, but forcing it out just makes you appear like a brooding, hot-topic-frequenting emo kid. The film is pretty much "Diet Crime and Punishment."

Vittorio de Sica had much better results with non-actors.

-Alec

[–] sr_wolfrider 17 years ago

Emo wasn't around in the late 50s. Nevertheless, I see your point. Perhaps watch the film again in a couple months. Sometimes a viewer's preconceptions can destroy a great film.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BwlBoy 16 years ago

Having seen A Man Escaped, Mouchette and Au Hasard Balthazar I had formed the opinion that Bresson was a genius. Pickpocket slightly tarnishes that view though still not a bad film.

[–] wokaemporter 15 years ago

True, but equally sometimes a viewer's openness to life and art could elevate an otherwise mediocre film.

[–] crisotto 16 years ago

>I disliked this film, as well. I felt that Martin LaSalle, who played Michel, could not pull off the cold, unemotional qualities of the characer. It's one thing to "be" stoic and clinical, but forcing it out just makes you appear like a brooding, hot-topic-frequenting emo kid.

Um... the literal last thing on Earth that Michel is is either "cold" or "clinical" what he actually *is* is a brooding emo kid. Well spotted.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ewp672 16 years ago

I thought LaSalle pulled it off perfectly. I was actually amazed at how indifferent he seemed to the idea of capture. It reminded me of "The Stranger" in that way. Although Michel definitely had more emotions.

This was my second time watching the film. The first, I was disappointed, but this time, I was amazed.

[–] kidoe113 16 years ago

The idea was to strip the actors of all emotion so that they would be objects in which to progress the moral "point" of the story. Bresson didn't want audiences to react to the emotional states of his characters, nor did he want to associate the style of the story with an already existing paradigm(i.e. film noir, crime drama etc). That is why he didn't present the character's emotions - he wanted something deeper than just emotional states of people - he wanted something transcendent. For Bresson, this was a move towards a more pure, simple way of story telling that lacked the vanities of many modern films but attained a higher moral power.
His style is admittedly an acquired taste - but if you're in tune with his aesthetic and "philosophy" of cinema, then it is amazing and unlike anyother.

[–] arian_8769 16 years ago

Can someone who loves this film defend it?
I can defend it more than i like it. Its not my favorite. Not even my favorite Bresson. Its a great movie. Devoid of content? What does that mean?
I think this movie is to cinema, what Stranger(Albert Camus) is to literature!

[–] NylonN 16 years ago

The movie is definitely heavily influenced by The Stranger and The Fall, and Genet's Our Lady of the Flowers.

[–] zxtrueb 16 years ago

kidoe113 - You hit the nail right on the head! Nicely put...

[–] marcolopolis25 16 years ago

Richard you just don't understand what Bressons' motive is. And you just don't understand his style. Maybe now 2 years later you do.

[–] hotfriend1 16 years ago

I have to admit that Pickpocket is the first film by Bresson that I've seen. I've read The Stranger and it did occur to me during the viewing that there were similarities.

But there is a difference between "understanding" what Bresson is doing (or trying to do) and being impressed by it. Like a magician who is trying to pull off a sleight of hand, I can understand what the director's objective is here. That does not mean that if I feel he has not succeeded, that his film is a quart low on even intellectual impact (Bresson said he wanted viewers to react intellectually before responding emotionally) that I (or those who feel as I do) have somehow missed the point.

To quote Paul Schrader:

"An unmitigated masterpiece," he raved, although he also admitted, "Bresson deprives the viewer of every superficial pleasure . . . there is a good chance that Pickpocket will bore the hell out of you."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheManInOil 16 years ago

The plot is not really what the film is about. And it is a film, not literature (so saying it's not unique because similar techniques have been employed in a different medium is really pushing it). The film in some ways is about its techniques - it's contrived sure and of academic interest - but not ONLY so.

It really isn't about the criminal causing his own downfall out of guilt or paranoia - if that happens in Pickpocket I'm not aware of it. It's about an isolated man trying desperately to connect with the world around him despite finding it an alien and hostile place. He isn't redeemed through love so much as he is simply finally able to acknowledge and embrace love by trading his internal self-imposed prison for an external one. These themes are universal and enduring.

Just repeating over and over that other people have done similar things better isn't an argument and not really something that can be addressed. I don't think there's anything to defend. If you can't find anything of value in this film, then it's your loss. I don't think anyone needs to defend it and prove to you that it has worth when it clearly does to its fans.

"Clothes are the enemy! Without clothes, there'd be no sickness. There'd be no war!"

[–] sarahllsjones 15 years ago

This movie touches you at so many levels that it leaves you simply hooked. I loved this film. By the way, Marika Green is one beautiful woman, just stunning.
P.S. As TheManInOil said there is no point in defending the film, if you didn't like it you didn't like it, period.

[–] owlstretcher 12 years ago

First viewing will leave you coming away astounded by the train station scene, and a little confused/unsure about the rest. I've only seen it once.