Even the otherwise insensitive Gerard recognizes that something is clearly 'wrong' with Marie, and her ideas about sex. He wrongly and facetiously implies it to some bestial attraction between her and the donkey (but at least he recognizes her ‘weirdness,’ if only to exploit it, as any true sociopath does a weakness), but the film is rather unambiguous that the violator is likely Marie’s father. Early in the film, Marie is called outside and comes running. Her father runs behind her, not far behind, as if jealous of her solicitation and her choosing to leave him, or trying to hide something she may unwittingly reveal.
There are a number of furtively odd looks between the two. There is Marie’s constant desire to leave her home. There is the rejection of good Jacques for bad Gerard. There is her diminution of the feelings of all others. There is the father’s repeated possessiveness. There is the mother’s distance from her daughter, as if Marie is her rival. Yet, there is also the mother attempting to smooth things out between Marie and her father (albeit likely only for her benefit, not Marie’s, as she, too, is a totally selfish creature). There is Marie’s disdain for her mother, likely for never stepping in and stopping her husband’s abuse of her daughter, and always supporting her father. There is Marie’s early revulsion of human touch and sex, then her later indulgence in it, to the point of using sex as currency with males (Jacques, Gerard, the miser, members of Gerard’s gang). There is the father’s guilt over his daughter’s departure on his deathbed when we have seen no evidence of an immediate cause for such guilt, suggesting something far deeper. There is the mother’s lack of emotion when her husband dies, and her realization that the greater loss is Marie’s finally running away, likely for good.
Simply put, if only two or three of these things were present in the film, one might be able to dismiss the case for Marie’s sexual abuse by her father; but add all these points up and anyone who’s known an abused and/or incested woman will clearly see all the signs in Marie, and it’s rather unequivocal, however well masqued it was to the viewers of four decades ago. Naturally, such a key point in such a great film is missed by unthinking critics content to crib ideas off of others, or who waste time arguing over the meanings of shallow red herring religious symbols.
My incest interpretation is also far more supportable, given the available evidence in the film, than the points over whether Marie, after her attack, dies, goes insane, or merely runs away, as well as being more important to the character’s and film’s progression. Furthermore, the incest angle fits into the context of the greater theme of indifference in the film; so much so that the actions and states of the indifferent human characters is recapitulated by the stolid indifference of bad critics to the rather manifest lesser theme of Marie’s being incested. So, while the film does deal with pain and suffering, it does not do so in the vast and sweepingly generic sense that the claimants make, rather as mere subsets of the greater ideas about indifference being a literal killer in human culture. And how Marie, the analytical human, and Balthazar, the unthinking beast, deal with the indifference they receive to their downtrodden plights is the key to understanding this film at the deep and ‘hidden’ level Bresson long claimed for the film.
Article comments
1 - Jon
Oh dear. This review is awful - and I say that though I think Balthazar is a masterpiece.
Is 12 pages of waffle really necessary for a review of the film? In the time it takes to read that I probably could have watched the film again. About 4 pages of that was merely plot describing! And 6 of them were just attacking other critics! Does Mr. Schneider actively search out critics to disagree with? Numerous critics have mentioned Bresson's technique, his use of ellipsis and to what extent the religious imagery is a mask for other things - and with more acuity and less adolescent ranting than this article.
I wont come back to comment, or read any more reviews by this guy because I've seen how any argument on these pages just descend into childish sniping. Still an awful review though.
And the donkey dies/ is dying at the end. To say not is just being very petty.
2 - Robert H
This paragraph--
"As for the DVD, put out by The Criterion Collection, it comes with no English dubbed soundtrack, and only white subtitles â€" a poor combination, as I’ve oft lamented. The positive of this, though, is that there is not much dialogue in the film that needs translation, and certainly no long speeches. Unfortunately, there is not even an audio film commentary track. This is simply inexcusable in this day and age, especially for such high priced merchandise as Criterion peddles."
--calls into question the legitimacy of anything you say before or after. The fact that you say (or at least imply) that you'd prefer to see a foreign film dubbed into English, makes me wonder if you actually do love foreign films. I can't know for sure, but this makes me think you might also prefer Balthazar in color.
3 - Dan Schneider
If you'd prefer to have up to 1/3 of your visual art marred by letters, go ahead, but any foreign films that are well-dubbed (many Ingmar Bergmans and some Fellinis) are far superior to the defacement of subtitling.
But, if you prefer it, go ahead.
4 - Jacques-M Arden
Your revolt against the possibility that this film has an intentional Christian reference comes up hard against the fact that Marie's mother speaks of the donkey as a saint at the end of the film....
That brief and terribly explicit reference must irritate the hell out of you given the diatribe you launch into - by turns revolted and mocking of this Christ-like aspect to Balthazar. But the pompous apogee you come up with uses ontological and epistemolgical in the same sentence! LOL. The only response such intellectual posturing deserves comes from the saintly, Christ-like Balthazar himself:
Eeyore!
5 - Andrea
It is a sin to watch any movie dubbed. All I can say is you should feel lucky not to live in Italy, where there has been a long industry of dubbing any foreign films into Italian. The result: some two-bit actor trying to match something similiar out of a string of english words. There is no such thing as a well-dubbed movie, and I cannot understand (knowing Italian) anyone appreciating a Fellini film dubbed into english. One should have some respect not only for the director, but also for the actor, and the intonation and musicality spoken by the actor, the script-writer, and, above all, the culture that produced the film. All i can say to all those who complain about subtitles in films, start early, do it often, and it will become second-hand. Like reading. And if anyone doubts this, try watching any American classic movie, say "Taxi Driver", with someone saying the lines in Italian. Made me laugh.
6 - Dan Schneider
Try following physical action when a third of the screen is covered, and then having to rewatch a second time because some key plot point is missed.
Leone and Bergman, among others, showed that good dubbing is far superior to even good subtitling. Also, look at Criterion's white unbordered font against white in black and white film: wholly unreadable. No one looks at lips, but everyone looks at words onscreen, which detracts. Good dubbing is inarguably superior. Bad dubbing is not, but it's still better than almost all good subtitling.
7 - Andrea
Find me a very respected and long-standing critic in a well-respected and long-standing newspaper or movie show that hates "subtitles" in foreign movies.
8 - Dan Schneider
So your point is that most critics are stupid? 70% of people believe a creature in the sky created all and knows all. Millions believe aliens rape humans as they sleep. You'll have to do better than that as a rebuttal.
9 - Dan Schneider
BTW- that's known as the appeal to authority fallacy.
10 - Philip Armstrong
Man, what is up with these comments? So hostile and willfully ignoring the content of the review. I'm perplexed!
Dan, thanks for this article. I'm fresh off a viewing of Balthazar and reading criticism in search of insight has been as frustrating as you describe here. So many reviews are just so at odds at what is actually on-screen. Especially the interpretation of Balthazar as a Christ figure. Comparing Balthazar's life to the Stations of the Cross and his death as the crucifix, talk about assigning authorial intent! (Who is redeemed by his dying exactly?) Your review approached the movie honestly, though I don't quite agree with your interpretation of incest. I don't see the same evidence you do, and while there's something "off" and detached about Marie's character, finding the cause for it seems as futile as searching for the cause of Gerard's sadism or the details of Marie's father's financial troubles or the relationship between Jacques and Marie's families or any other details Bresson has left absent.
Something you wrote was the key that led me to my interpretation. You wrote about the selfishness of the humans and how Balthazar is the only likable character. This, I think, is approaching what this film is about. ...Or at least, why this film is so spiritually profound. Why is Balthazar so likable? I don't think it's because he suffers and endures (so do the humans after all), but because he is the only selfless character in the film. Through his labor Balthazar gives to people who only use that labor for their own ends. And importantly, he doesn't do this out of some sort of grand sacrifice or selfless nature or any other human trait, but because this is his lot in life. His role is to be a beast of burden, to be used.
Is Bresson saying this is what sainthood is? (Interestingly, the character who calls Balthazar a saint is one who's had almost no interaction with him.) Why we fell so sad when Balthazar dies (yes, I realize he doesn't die on the screen, but like the earlier ellipses it can be assumed to be a foregone conclusion) is because here is the death of a character who possesses a genuine desirable trait without a word of thanks or indeed any gesture of gratitude. The only grace he finds is that of a death in nature, surrounded by nature, and without the intervention of humanity.
(Consider the opening shot. In the brief moments he drinks from his mom is Balthazar truly in a natural state. Then that hand comes in from the top of the frame and claims him. In fact the very first line is a request to own him. Just about every review states that Balthazar has an idyllic youth, but that's not quite right, is it? It seems to me that the scenes of the children pulling him in the hay are just as possessive of him as an object as the rest of the film. Only in the first seconds of the opening shot and his death among the sheep is Balthazar free from human influence. But I digress.)
I think this is why people are so quick to assign a Christ status to Balthazar. He fulfills the same role that Christ does, that of the "ideal" person. The archetype we should strive to be. We recognize his selflessness as a desirable trait, something to be celebrated. We see that the humans don't have it and don't want to be like them. We're saddened when this vessel of goodness is taken from the world.
This might be what Bresson is trying to say. Here is the world, filled with mystery and chaos and cruelty and yes kindness too but also selfishness and un-mourned death. And in this world, by simply being, and just at vulnerable to the whims of fate as everyone else, a donkey achieves grace. The world is a worse place without him.
And if him, why not us.
11 - Dan Schneider
Some excellent points, Philip. Balthazar, in many ways reminds me of Kaspar Hauser, from the Werner Herzog film, yet, it's interesting that critics don't assail Kaspar w Christ-like connotations- likely because he's a retard. Although, is it less or more offensive to compare an ass to the Lord?
As for the incest, I doubt Bresson intended it, but I think there's more there than you're seeing. The girl's attraction to this beast (nonsexual) and the looks in her eyes suggest more under the surface. But, if it had been stated the film would not have been as good. Great art allows for some flex room for individuals to imbue. Bad art is wholly open.
Bad criticism, though, tends to try and box everything in- politics, sex, religion. Sometimes the donkey is an ass and the cigar not a penis.
As for all the hostility: like many threads online, arguing over pointless things, when one has a popular website, as I do, it attracts its share of trolls and the like. You can find many such threads on BC and elsewhere where these things play out. Someone starts off w hostility and then you address their point(s), they ignore you, reply to the B you replied to their A with,, with a digression to Q, then rail that you say they missed the point.
Some of the above folks are trolls that go from site to site- I can tell from their writing styles. Others are just not too bright, and some are other BC editors who simply dislike that someone points out things they missed. They then flame, and because they have other friends who edit comments, the thread then gets Swiss cheesed with deletions and distortions.
There's an old saying: people will forgive you if you're wrong, but never if you're right.
I disagree w some of what you state, but you actually have a grounding that's defensible, even if I claim it wrong. Note how these, and most, trolls do not even attempt a reasonable debate.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful comment. It's rare, here on BC or elsewhere.