MovieChat Forums > Mouchette (1970) Discussion > Question about the ending...

Question about the ending...

posted 18 years ago by dr_krakpot
13 replies | jump to latest

(((((((((((((((((((((((((SPOILERS))))))))))))))))))))))))

I just saw this film and thought it was remarkable. Bresson can be defined as a director who utilizes everything that is unique to the medium of film to convey the highest level of emotion and sincerity in his work. Mouchette is no exception. He is one of the most pure filmmakers of all time. The arrangement of his images is what gives his films the power they posses, no overboard acting/preformances, no music telling its viewers how to feel, no emphisis on clever plot, and no willingness to indentify with its viewers. His films are purely mood and editing. Amazing.

I just would like to see if anybody on this board could answer a question I had about the ending. If you remember, it ends (with one of the greatest moments in cinema history...), with Mouchette rolling down a hill into a lake/river and ending her life. If you carely notice that the shot holds on the lake/river and it seems that the duration of the actual clip is cut short and run back and forth in forward motion and then in reverse to give the illusion that the shot is one long take. Was this Bresson's intention for that particular shot? Or was it that in the particular print I saw had lost some footage at the end and the people making the print decided on a technique that would patch up Bresson's original shot duration?

Either way it doesn't really matter. The film is still a masterpiece but I am just curious. I would find it hard to imagine that Bresson's intentions were to have the shots play in forward motion and reverse back and forth because I dont see him using cinematic symbolism to that degree. And since Bresson is a perfectionist I would also see him just going back and getting that same shot again if he had to resort to this particular method to cover up lost footage.

...just wanted to ask to see if anybody saw the same thing in the film and/or if you guys have an answer for me.

Thanks...

[–] themollineaux 18 years ago

I can't say I have answers, but the print I saw did the exact same thing, and distracted me quite a bit.

...Filmmaking is about compromises; perhaps Bresson was forced to cut corners with this shot, perhaps...

[–] klausfindl 18 years ago

Same thing on my Nouveaux pictures R2-DVD.
It was indeed strangely distracting. My first banal thought was: had they to stop the take here and to make it longer artificially because the actress (or who else) really let herself roll into the water and could'nt dive away without being seen...? - Well, who if not Bresson is a perfectionist? So I'm a bit confused, too...

[–] levari17 18 years ago

I saw this film tonight for the first time and noticed the ending as well...I believe you are correct, that he alternated between forward and reverse motion to make the shot longer. It's just my theory, but I can't imagine another reason, and although a perfectionist, how long could he hope that his actress could hold still and hold her breath for?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crayola24 18 years ago

The actress is never seen entering the water, it is just a splash. So it's unlikely to be anything to do with breathing. I don't have an answer but it moves forward and back on my R2 copy. Looks like they are trying to accomodate the score.

[–] kgillen 17 years ago

exactly, I dont even think it was a human that splashed into the water. It seems like a completely conceived symbolic method to me. I don't know what it was representing but surely there would be incredibly easy ways of shooting this shot without having to loop the film, if there wasn't some type of symbolic reasoning for it.

[–] looneyfarm 17 years ago

Bresson may be a perfectionist, but he definitely is not perfect.

--
Everything is a farce compared to death.

[–] oracio_r 17 years ago

Amen.

[–] TheManInOil 17 years ago

It seems entirely probable that it was done to lengthen the duration of the shot. Perhaps something happened to the footage that was taken. Maybe there was something intruding on the image that was missed when it was shot and couldnt be ignored. Either way, it seems certain it was merely a matter of duration.

"I can only express puzzlement bordering on alarm."

[–] Fear_Of_Falling 13 years ago

Also the shots of the clouds passing over the moon after the storm were in reverse. Did anyone else notice that? Or are they correct and it just looks like a mirrored image to me?

[–] exirkamalabadi 12 years ago

Perhaps it's a cinematic way of portraying the fact that time literally "freezes" for a person at the point of their death?

[–] MoviemanCin 9 years ago

Yes I saw that too and wondered if anyone else noticed and why Bresson did it. Now I have the answer to my first question but not the second, since I have no idea why he did that.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, or doesn't.

[–] omerfarukyeyin 7 years ago

I saw the movie today and the movement of the water gripped my attention as well. I think the movement of water/reflection resembles rocking a baby, as Mouchette did to her crying brother. To me, the shot symbolizes the river as a final rest place, like a mother's arms that comforts her aching child.