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 " 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.