Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

JoeKulik I don't really feel that Robert Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) is a very good film at all.The concept of a film where an ever present animal is the visual focus of various social interactions happening around it is a good one, but this film just doesn't get the job done, in my opinion.The whole film is filled with snippets of scenarios, none of which in themselves tell a coherent story about the characters, or the issues involved. Even trying to arrange these story fragments, after the fact, as one would try to fit together the pieces of a puzzle into a coherent whole, I just can't come up with anything that can make sense of this film for me.The only sensible constant in the film is the ever present donkey, but SO WHAT? If I want to look at a donkey for 90 minutes, then I can just go to the zoo.Furthermore, the brutal and neglectful treatment of the donkey in this film is just despicable. I myself find no value in watching an animal get abused in the way that the donkey in this film did. I highly doubt that, in these "politically correct" times, this film could even be made today . The outcry of the "animal rights" people would be too loud. Although I myself don't subscribe to "militant political correctness" in general, in the case of this film, I would agree that the portrayal of the brutal and neglectful treatment of this innocent animal has no place this film.Overall, I must say that, in my opinion, Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) is just another case of a true "pseudo-classic", a film whose intrinsic merits fall far short of the vaunted cinematic pedestal of film fan worship upon which it has sat for many years.

bandw I like movies that work on more than one level and I prefer that at least one of those levels can be taken at face value. Ostensibly this movie could be a simple tale of a donkey's life from birth to death, but it cannot be viewed at that base level. Consider the scene where Jacques, one of the main characters, goes berserk in a bar where a large number of people are dancing. As Jacques hurls liquor bottles at mirrors and rakes bottles crashing to the floor, the dancers continue their subdued dancing as if nothing is going on. That scene does not make sense unless you layer an interpretation on it. My take on it was to view it as a commentary on how people tend to persist in their private little worlds while ignoring the chaos about them. Or take the scene where Balthazar, the donkey, is performing in a circus act where he performs some unbelievably complicated multiplications. As with so many scenes such as these I asked why they were in there and could not come up with good answers.Balthazur witnesses pride, greed, drunkenness, crime, violence, and abuse, but soldiers on, accepting his fate. Is that one of the messages, that we are all just subjects to the whims of fate and should accept that? Do we have no more control over our lives than a dumb donkey? Is this the wisdom that Balthazar has to offer, as suggested by his name's being the same as one of the three wise men? Is he a Christ-like figure, being baptized and ultimately crucified? To come away with anything from this you have to do it for yourself, since Bresson does not make it easy. His characters are so affect-less that my basic response to them was lassitude. This style of character development, if you can call it that, is obviously intentional and it left me with an appreciation only for its novelty. As a specific, compare Jacques in this movie with Marlon Brando in "The Wild One." Dressed like Brando with his leather jacket, tight Levi's, and motorbike Jacques should be as intimidating as Brando, but here we hardly get even Brando light. You have to deduce Jacques' character strictly from his actions, since he does not project an emotional presence. The motivations of the other characters are even more difficult to determine.Bresson does have a style, but it is one that puzzles me. He will frequently play a scene long after it is welcome. People are filmed lazily walking, the camera sometimes concentrating on feet. People take their time entering and leaving rooms, even characters that appear in only one scene. I do confess to being moved by the final scenes where Balthazar meets his end engulfed by a herd of sheep.Directing a donkey must have required some patience on Bresson's part. How many takes were needed for Balthazar's scenes? Think of the scene that has the donkey wending his way through auto traffic.I did not find the interview with Don Richie (an extra on the DVD) to be enlightening. He confesses to being a "Bressonian." I have learned from this movie that I am not a Bressonian.

tomgillespie2002 At the start of Robert Bresson's profoundly touching drama, the children who had been at the purchase of the young titular donkey, Balthazar, baptise the animal, which in essence renders him with a soul, and one which will encounter the cruelties and beauty of humanity. In this early life, the children, particularly Marie and Jacques (later playing as teenagers by Anne Wiazemsky - who later married Jean-Luc Godard - and Walter Green respectively), play with him lovingly, jostling in the hay. With monetary issues, Balthazar is taken into adult life, abused by masters who use his prowess to pull carts, whipping him regularly. He escapes, and goes back to that place of beauty, where the children had so adored him. Of course, they are grown, and Marie (the only one who actually lives at the farm) takes him back in, however, the farm is struggling, and this relationship is soon split.As Balthazar is then moved from owner to owner, he is used to deliver bread, to again pull carts. He is saved at one point by a drunk, Arnold (Jean-Claude Guilbert), who is accused of murder - although this infraction is never elaborated on, and he is only accused several times by local teen-thug and thief, Gerard (Francois Lafarge). Balthazar also briefly becomes a star in a circus, making mathematical calculations using his hoof. Aside from the various moments of violence inflicted upon the poor animal, he is witness to the violence that the people he comes in contact with have over each other. Marie, ignoring the protestations of her fathers wishes to stay away from Gerard, she ignores him and continues a sexual relationship with the petty criminal, which inevitably leads to heartache.Beautifully shot in black and white, the French rural countryside becomes a majestic, and yet horrific backdrop for the sins of humanity, and the innocence of an animal that is forced to do the bidding of the people. Bresson often frames Balthzar at the centre of the image, his large eyes portraying utter pathos - and we, the audience adore him. The final moments of the film are some of the most simple, yet moving moments in cinema history. Gerard, using the now old and work-tired Balthazar, steal him to carry contraband over the border. Fleeing the area due to gun fire from the border patrol, Balthazar escapes into a field where sheep are grazing. Having been shot he walks slowly and joins the flock, sitting, his eyes displaying something that resembles happiness - or at least a relief to be with other animals. The end, however, is also incredibly heartbreaking.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

gatotsu911 I recently watched this movie for a film course, and scrolling the user reviews on IMDb out of curiosity I came upon Flavia's review, "Unjustified Criticism", from back in 2010, and laughed my ass (get it?) off on the spot. Congratulations, sir or madam - you are the very image of the snobby, elitist pseudo-intellectual cinephile! Yes, of COURSE the only reasons some "primitive" commoner might dislike "Au Hasard Belthazar" is because they would rather be watching "The Matrix" or because it gives them boo-boo feelings in their hearts. Of COURSE. You even made sure to point a finger at "society", that vague, eternal enemy of the masturbatory would-be intelligentsia. Good on you, mate!!Well, having seen the film knowing of its adoration among critics and intellectuals, and been subsequently underwhelmed by it, allow me to share my own assessment, in hopes that Flavia may find my criticisms more "justified" than the plebeians who came before me.I could hardly call "Au Hasard Belthazar" a "bad" film. It more or less succeeds at being what it wants to be - a bleak, muted, melodramatic little parable of fatalism and misanthropy. I admit I don't entirely get the accusations that the film is incoherent or obtuse (at least in its meaning; its plot is another story, as I will address below) - as art films go, this one is ridiculously straightforward. Its core message, simplified and paraphrased by way of popular idiom: "Life's a bitch, and then you die." Not rocket science, and certainly not Kant.I possibly (probably) lack the formal background in film technique at present to properly explain what is so remarkable about its cinematography, editing, etc. - none of it particularly stood out to me, one way or the other - but with so many gray-haired film critics in agreement over its aesthetic genius, I guess I'll just take their word for it until further notice.But just because the film is "good" from a strictly artistic standpoint doesn't mean I have to like it. And I sure as heck didn't. I didn't HATE it, or even really think that poorly of it overall (in the pantheon of pretentious art films, there are countless far more obnoxious specimens more deserving of my distaste) but there are an awful lot of things about it I didn't like. I didn't like its deliberately obtuse, choppy and incomplete "plot" "structure". I "got" it, but I didn't like it. I can't believe there was no way of communicating the theme of Belthazar's ignorance ("innocence") of the greater world around him without all but taunting the viewer. I didn't like the dour, mechanical manner in which it goes about its business, with only a single scene (the circus) suggesting anything resembling a sense of humor or liveliness, and that being gone as quickly and abruptly as it arrives. I didn't like the stilted, disaffectedly gloomy acting and dialogue, presenting human beings as mere two-dimensional figures in a cosmic diorama rather than independent entities with believable thoughts, feelings and behaviors operating within a web of existence larger than themselves (the essence of great tragedy, in my opinion). I didn't like the way it grasped at images of suffering and abuse for easy pathos - the final scene was powerful, yes, but even as I felt saddened by it I also felt manipulated. And I didn't like the way it contrived the worst possible outcome for every situation, just as a heavy-handed means of proving its point about how life is suffering and human nature is deeply corrupt (did you know Bresson was a hardcore Catholic?).Anyone in touch with the real world outside of the hermetic sphere occupied by artists and intellectuals shouldn't have much difficulty guessing why the average viewer probably won't care much for "Au Hasard Belthasar". It's dour, it's muted, it's impossible to follow on any level beneath that of pure allegory, it doesn't have much insight to impart to any world-wise person that they don't already know, and yeah, it's not very entertaining. Some may appreciate the message or the craftsmanship, and I can respect that. But to claim that disliking "Au Hasard Belthazar" could only be a result of some deep-seated deficiency on the part of the viewer is pure self-servicing nonsense.