MovieChat Forums > L'argent (1983) Discussion > awful

awful

posted 17 years ago by travis_b_26
22 replies | jump to latest

i've seen some other Bresson movies and liked them somehow: Mouchette, Balthazar, Jeanne d'Arc.

But this one completely breaks with all his other movies. There is no human being in it. I didn't manage to understand the young man at all. How could these bad experiences turn him into a psychopath? Of course all this will change him, but not in this way. It made no sense at all.

What's the point of the movie? That human beings have no power over themselves at all? That money can turn people into monsters? If he had no faith in humans at all, why make a movie? Why make art?

Good movies show human beings as they are, good and bad, vulnerable, but they leave a little point of hope. It is in the power of everyone to reject evil. If you look at reality, you will find out how people change their lives in prisons, they fight, some become religious etc. This young man in L'Argent was just like a dull sandbag, life hitting into him.

There are of course psychopaths in the world, but they don't make an interesting subject for art. They are boring. At least for people who want to understand. If I want to see psychopaths, I will watch Halloween, Friday 13th, Saw and so on.

Money didn't change the world from good to bad. Money is just a neutral tool, it depends on people and how they handle it. At the moment money is used to do bad things, there Bresson may be right. But it's not THE evil thing in the world.

Technically this may be a good film, but what concerns the message, this is one of the worst movies I've seen. It's like Bresson lost his soul while ageing.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cromwell5458 17 years ago

No I think you are entirely wrong. I think it is all about the impossibility of redeeming injustice except through God. Its a deeply Catholic film I think which is really about how if we attempt to change our situation we actually produce new evils, by relying on our own wills not God's will we end up with sin piling upon sin. I don't say that to advocate that view- but I think that is what Bresson is getting at.

[–] guillaumeturenne111 16 years ago

"Good movies show human beings as they are"
Wow, I finally understand what "a good movie" is suppose to be! thank you!
Seriouslly, there is more in this movie than the narrative story. The idea of a film is more than sow actors who plays like "real human". This movie is an artistic construction. The idea is not always to understand what it mean, you can only try to enjoy the poetic aspect of movies. anyway good luck and I hope it will make you think more than two seconds before writting stupid things about great pieces of art!

[–] travis_b_26 16 years ago

ok, next time I won't try to understand the characters in a movie, but I'll try to enjoy the poetic aspect of it! What are movies about if not for enjoying??? And if I manage to enjoy the movie, then I'll enjoy myself.

A movie is not just this and that, there you are right. It's a whole thing, poetic or not. But you can't just do a poetic movie or an artistic construction and that's it. If you start with this idea, then it will fail.

[–] chimboalhorno 16 years ago

It is a modern tragedy that study innocence corruption. What happens to the character has nothing to do with humanity, it is an especific example of that person in particular, not of all of us as the first person that started this board pretends.
I find this movie very schocking and brutal. One of the reasons is because it is so simple in the way is portraited but with a touch of horror that i am sure can stay in the head of many after being watched!

[–] hallenquist 16 years ago

''But you can't just do a poetic movie or an artistic construction and that's it. If you start with this idea, then it will fail.''

Why not? What about experimental films? There doesn't have to be a narrative structure for a film to have a meaning.

''There are of course psychopaths in the world, but they don't make an interesting subject for art. They are boring.''

So what, if they are boring? Does 'art' have to be loud and colorful to be enjoyable? Do not confuse art with brainwashing Hollywood-productions.

However, even if the acting in L'argent is very minimalistic, I think the characters are still pretty belivable. And even though the 'messege' of the movie is very subjective, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Personally, I think the messege has to do with injustice and the immorality that can be found in all humans, often driven by money.

[–] mac_alain 16 years ago

FWIW (on one viewing):

"Diary of a Country Priest" 10/10
"Mouchette" 9.5/10
"L'Argent" 6/10

and I have to admit that the latter left me somewhat cold.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thomas-chatwin 16 years ago

I read somewhere that the acting is deliberately played without emotion. I wonder why this is?

I think it is a film about the relation between the characters and money, and a criticism of society - money causes greed, and greed manifests itself in the desire for money.

For me, the most interesting part of the film is the part from the beginning to the point when Yvon's gets caught with four fake notes in the cafe. This includes the following action. The father of one of the young guys refuses to give him extra allowance, the boy passes off a fake note in the shop with the encouragement of his friend, the shop keepers pass the note and four other fake ones to Yvon, and finally Yvon gets busted in the cafe and taken to court. I think the film asks, why is Yvon the victim of this string of unjust actions? Why does the buck stop with him?

It is shocking when Yvon murders the family at the end of the movie. It represents his total rejection from society. What about the young guys who set off the chain of events by passing off the fake note at the beginning. They are totally unaffected by the consequences of their action. This is equally shocking. The power they hold over Yvon is shocking.

You ask,

"What's the point of the movie? That human beings have no power over themselves at all? That money can turn people into monsters? If he had no faith in humans at all, why make a movie? Why make art?".

These are interesting questions, but I wonder, what about the cellmate Yvon shares with when he returns to prison after his failed suicide attempt? If by having "faith in humans", you mean having belief in accepted moral principles, like believing in honesty, just retribution and the positive value of friendship, then I think this guy demonstrates some humanity, don't you?

[–] PoppyTransfusion 9 years ago

I think it is a film about the relation between the characters and money, and a criticism of society - money causes greed, and greed manifests itself in the desire for money.

For me, the most interesting part of the film is the part from the beginning to the point when Yvon's gets caught with four fake notes in the cafe. This includes the following action. The father of one of the young guys refuses to give him extra allowance, the boy passes off a fake note in the shop with the encouragement of his friend, the shop keepers pass the note and four other fake ones to Yvon, and finally Yvon gets busted in the cafe and taken to court. I think the film asks, why is Yvon the victim of this string of unjust actions? Why does the buck stop with him?

It is shocking when Yvon murders the family at the end of the movie. It represents his total rejection from society. What about the young guys who set off the chain of events by passing off the fake note at the beginning. They are totally unaffected by the consequences of their action. This is equally shocking. The power they hold over Yvon is shocking.

You ask,

"What's the point of the movie? That human beings have no power over themselves at all? That money can turn people into monsters? If he had no faith in humans at all, why make a movie? Why make art?".

These are interesting questions, but I wonder, what about the cellmate Yvon shares with when he returns to prison after his failed suicide attempt? If by having "faith in humans", you mean having belief in accepted moral principles, like believing in honesty, just retribution and the positive value of friendship, then I think this guy demonstrates some humanity, don't you?

Excellent post.

A bird sings and the mountain's silence deepens.

[–] miguedroimdb 16 years ago

"Good movies show human beings as they are,"

lol

let me guess:

- american
- republican
- and afraid of his own sexuality

ask me how did i guessed?

[–] TheSario 15 years ago

lol

let me guess:

- american
- republican
- and afraid of his own sexuality

ask me how did i guessed?

Because it is so much better to hurl out straw men and trite, blanket insults than to engage oneself in an actual debate, truly the hallmarks of progressive thought! Congrats! http://www.gamecyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/youre-winner.jpg

[–] william_pnsn 12 years ago

I was kind of baffled by L'Argent. The only other Bresson film I've seen is Diary of a Country Priest, and while I found it to be incredibly bleak and dreary, I admired it's examination of faith in crisis and it's disciplined style.

L'Argent was so detached and void of emotion that I had a hard time staying completely interested in what was going on. The acting was uniformly stilted and flat, and even the movements felt like pantomimed stage direction. I know Bresson is famous for using non-actors, but I think it detracts from the film here.

I also had a hard time following the action, but that's mainly due to not being prepared for the way Bresson constructed the scenes. He left out a lot of the connecting shots, so I had to think about what I just saw and decode exactly what happened. He sort of pieces together scenes in seemingly disconnected ways.

SPOILER WARNING
For example, when the main character gets out of prison and stays in the hotel and kills the owners, we're shown him washing away blood and stealing money, and we only learn later through dialogue that he's killed them and did it with a perfectly clear head.

I think this is a fascinating approach, and watching it again from a purely formal standpoint might be interesting, but the characters were simply so flat and lifeless that I don't know if I want to give it another go.

[–] peterrichard30 16 years ago

Like a lot of directors his inspiration was drying up towards the end. This bad film was preceeded by The Devil Probably [not that great] and Lancelot du Lac (which is also not one of his very best]. The worst of these three by far though is L'argent, it just seems a parody of his style.