Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

CookieInvent There's a good chance the film will make you laugh out loud, but if it doesn't, there's an even better chance it will make you openly sob.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

sbasu-47-608737 The story of the Father, the daughter and St Balthasar...Most of us have missed the third equally saintly person, whose life too followed the same path as the other two, Marie's father, the School Teacher turned farmer.All the three main characters were pure to the point of being angelic, innocent of the worldly things, honest and hence extremely vulnerable. They retained their purity and innocence (of the soul) to the end, even though embittered. Each of the three had been directly or indirectly back-stabbed by some one they completely trusted. The father by his friend, who had given the farm to him on lease, with full powers and then suddenly turned against him. Balthasar by Marie, and Marie by Jacques, the son of the friend. In this vulnerable situation each had been exploited, both physically as well as mentally, one of them had been in fact seduced as well as sexually exploited by the exploiters, but the other two had gone through equally severe torture. The main face of the villain for all the three had been Gerard, but he was not exactly or the only devil, just a vessel for the darkness, or rather his lightning rod. No less blame goes to Jacques, whose walking off in a huff, without even bothering to say Good-bye, made Marie vulnerable to Gerard, whom she had kept afar till then or Jacques father, who relied on slanders than his friend, or even the society and the church and of course the humans in general. The people who had power - Brute power like Gerard or money like the rich miser (Arnold) - used their power, and even justified the use, to exploit them, even to the point of telling them that might is right, use of power is not corruption, it is the honest and poor who are always at wrong.In the end, all the three turn away from the world, including the solace (church) embittered. But by this church, probably the director didn't mean the Supreme, but only those who represent Him but in reality don't, i.e. the priest. Thankfully the end of the angels were not melodramatic, even the only survivor, Marie's mother, was dignified in her destroyed universe. Despite each of the three turning down and rejecting the so called solace (Church, Jacques or Freedom) when it came at last, the end is symbolic, Balthasar (and I assume his other two co-miserable) reaching the garden, with flock of pure white sheeps fawning over them.

Joseph Pezzuto "You must forgive. Everyone. Much will be forgiven you. You have suffered." One of the most revered filmmakers in the history of cinema, Robert Bresson's acclaimed Au Hasard Balthazar is a film that follows the story of a sensitive farm girl named Marie (Anne Wiazemsky) and her cherished donkey, Balthazar. This would be the sister film of Bresson's next picture Mouchette. Marie and Balthazar are eventually separated when she gets older, the tale follows both the young woman and the donkey as both contend with the hardships of the world. Although Marie and Balthazar often encounter cruelty from various people they encounter, they also discover small moments of beauty. We have seen many times in movies those seeking/finding redemption or offering some sort of sacrifice for a cause far greater than themselves. But what if these actions were performed through the titular farmyard animal lead? Does it work? Let's take a look.We first see Balthazar as a newborn as he takes his first unsteady steps. This is a slight metaphor for the rest of the film. Three children sprinkle water on its head and baptize it. Unbeknownst to the little colt, he will be owned by many of the locals and be returned to some of them more than once, some kind, others cruel. Balthazar's first owner is Marie, of whom lives with her parents; her mother (Nathalie Joyaut) and father (Philippe Asselin, the local schoolmaster). Her playmate is Jacques (Walter Green), of whom agrees will marry the girl someday. When Jacque's mother dies, his grief-stricken father leaves the district, entrusting his farm to Marie's father, in whom he has complete trust. Marie has an immediate connection with Balthazar, happily decorating his bridle with wild flowers. However she does nothing to protect the animal when a local gang of boys torment the him. The leader is Gerard (François Lafarge), the son of the local baker.As the years pass, Marie grows up and the pair become separated. We see, though, how the film traces both of their fates as they both embark on parallel sojourns, continually taking abuse of all forms from the people they come across. Balthazar has several owners, as most exploit him, some times more with brutality than love. Both even suffer at the hands of the same people. How can one not feel for the beloved beast of burden with the white-spotted face, long fuzzy ears and big black eyes? We empathize his sense of the cold when we see the snow on his fur; his sense of pain and alarm when his tail is set ablaze for refusing to move; his satisfaction and contentment when he eats; his ridicule when trained to count math equations at a circus; the worn look in his eyes and weary feeling in his legs when overworked with heavy loads by ruthless masters. We unfortunately see Gerard again when his father purchases the burro to carry bread. The boy tortures the donkey as he tries in another scene to get close to Marie. In the end, Marie's fate remains unresolved whereas the donkey's is clear. Balthazar, now older and worn, one day aimlessly wanders into an open field. A herd of sheep surround him as he lays down, braying as a final sacrament before he passess on.Bresson said that he wanted to make a different style of filmmaking using his theory of "pure cinema" after making several prison-themed films. Balthazar was inspired by Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Idiot, as each episode in Balthazar's life represents one of the seven deadly sins. The film was "made up of many lines that intersect one another", Bresson later stated, and that Balthazar was meant to be a symbol of the Christian faith. Bresson was known for casting unknown actors, which gave his films more layers of depth and humanity on a level many other filmmakers rarely capture. Wiazemsky's 2007 book Jeune Filleon tells of her experiences during filming Balthazar, regarding how she and Bresson developed a close relationship during shooting, although it was not consummated, and how she lost her virginity to a member of the film's crew. Critics and film reviewers widely praised Balthazar, including the noted filmmaker of the French New Wave and Cahiers du Cinema critic Jean- Luc Godard, of whom eventually went on to marry Wiazemsky. Imbued with religious imagery, spiritual allegories, shot with a naturalistic, minimalist aesthetic style and a study on saintliness, Balthazar contains a powerful spiritual message that is both revolutionary as it is rewarding.

duchessofpercy I don't care how 'Arty' they want to 'claim' this film is... it's not. Quite frankly, I think those whom rate it so highly are all smoking the same dope. This film is so devoid of feeling, purpose, talent and sense (from ALL sides). As for representing the 'Seven Deadly Sins'... the biggest sin this film commits, is thinking anyone cares to sit through such utter feigned 'high brow' & 'deep thought' garbage for more than a minute. If you say "it's brilliant!!!", "A masterpiece!!!" and put it on a list of "Must see movies" or "Essentials" you are claiming the Emperor's clothes are made of the finest silks and satin. Only an idiot would call this deadpan, dead-faced, dead fish dive into desperation and deprivation to be 'entertainment' let alone 'art'. It's NOT deep... it's dumb and, needlessly, cruel. To demonstrate cruelty to an innocent is moving no matter how you film it. Bresson didn't 'move' you because of his 'brilliance', he angered you in the same way animal charities 'move' you to donate, by SHOWING you photos or scenes of beaten and abused animals. That is exploiting man's natural compassion for the weaker among us, not 'artfully' drawing it from you, but manipulating it from you. If I show you a picture of an, obviously, abused animal and you 'feel' a strong sense of sorrow, anger, loneliness, compassion or even tears just by viewing it... is my photo an example of 'Profound Art' or just a photo of a harsh reality? YOU may call it 'artful'... I call it 'awful'. This movie is a 90+ minute cheap shot and sucker punch to the gut I don't appreciate. And I am not quite sure he didn't actually abuse the donkey in the process. (there is no disclaimer) If I show you a 90 minute film of someone beating an animal... will you call that brilliantly moving and 'art' because it caused an emotional reaction in you? No... it's just raw cruelty. This whole movie is raw cruelty. That, my lost friends, is not 'art'.He squelches the voice and emotion of his actors just as the voice of the donkey will never be heard. We too are kidnapped, gagged and bound... but not by intrigue... we are prisoners of our compassion for the donkey to keep watching. That is emotional blackmail not 'craft'... not compelling drama, but abuse.If you are among those trying to go with the rest of the pretentious nuts and agree to it's 'beauty', you deserve the phony friends you reap in concert. I bet you claimed your first taste of caviar, Brie or drag of a cigarette was sheer heaven too. For those whom still don't know it... Picasso was playing with people in his abstracts... to expose the pretense in those that 'claimed' to know art when they saw it, when he was shelling out crap (on purpose because he claimed, they would buy ANYTHING that had his name on it, no matter what it looked like... he was right), they shouted, "Genius!!!" (they still do). It just goes to show, that there will always be people willing to eat feces, smile and recommend it to others if some famous chef told him it was fantastic and required an "acquired taste" or a "refined palate" to appreciate it. To love and praise this film is no different. The Emperor IS naked as a J-bird, this film IS crap and that is all there is to it. Feel free to bloviate, eat it up and wax poetic among yourselves. This movie is strictly for the psychedelics crowd, the heavily sedated and the barbarous at heart.Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, so if you behold it in such high esteem... go ahead and hold it... you can keep it. Go buy a late Picasso and tell your 'friends' what he was trying to 'say' as you PRETEND to KNOW. Puff on your hookah and tell abstract poems to each other in a bookstore basement. As you feel good and lofty about yourself because you think YOU were one of the few of the elite to be able to 'get' this movie's plot and message and the director's 'purpose and methods'... know this... it is simple to 'get'... I GET it... the question is... do we care to GET it in this way? is there value in it? For vacuous movie snobs and the curiously vicious... obviously. For the rest of us... NO. NO. NO!!!The donkey knows what he is and would claim as much, given the chance, as for the jackasses who claim to know art... not so much. I feel sorry for the donkey having been forced to be a part of this pathetic excuse for a movie(or even as a mental exercise), as he was the only endearing or engaging thing this film contained and that was strictly by God's design, not Bresson's.In the end, I feel as abused by Bresson as the donkey himself.

Robin Kluger Vigfusson Aside from the actors being forced by Bresson to give self-consciously impassive performances, the whole premise of the picture is false and tortured. Bresson makes a donkey a metaphor for saintly Christian behavior and by imposing his religion on nature, Bresson, himself, is contemptible and grandiose. Animals are pure beings for the very fact that they are outside of man made dogma. They are creatures of intuition and emotion who often seem far more moral than human beings steeped in the kind of theology Bresson wants to extol, here.I know I'm in the minority, but I think, for the very reason Bresson forced his own world view onto innocent Balthazar, the movie is a failure. For me, the only moving scene was the climax where dying Balthazar seeks out a herd of sheep for comfort. These animals are as pure and unassuming as he is for the very reason that they have no religion or agenda, unlike the film's director.