The donkey is then sold on the open market to the town’s miserly merchant (Pierre Klossowski), a loner who loves pelf and loathes humans. The man whips Balthazar relentlessly to turn a well drill. Marie then shows up at night, in a rainstorm, after she has apparently been dumped by Gerard. Now, with no real reason but her warped sexuality, she determines to seduce the old man, after taking food from him. One thinks, at first, she is there for Balthazar, but she seems now too far gone. She barely notices her old animal, much less displays any emotion for it. She seduces the old man, and leaves, after he refuses to help her learn how to ‘run away.’ When he calls her parents, she is long gone, but the miser returns Balthazar to them, stating that it will please Marie.
Not long after, the self-loathing Marie is proposed to by Jacques, who has not been seen since he was rejected by her, early in the film, after offering to help her father with the debt he owed to his father. Marie scorns him, stating that she cares nothing of their names he carved on a bench, their childhood love of Balthazar, and that she lacks all emotion and empathy. To the astute observer, this fact of her personality was revealed by the film long before Marie’s self-realization. After scorning the better man, Jacques, she determines to ‘have it out’ with the lesser man, Gerard, once and for all. Ellipsis, and she is later found stripped and beaten, and possibly raped, shivering inside a locked room of a farmhouse.
After Jacques and her father break a window to retrieve her, there is another ellipsis. Bresson is taking out all the tricks in his cinematic bag now. Marie’s mother comes down the stairs to tell all that she is ‘gone.’ Many critics have assumed this means that she has either died from the beating, or has gone insane. But, noting the reaction of the mother, the father, and Jacques, this is clearly not so — there is no death-level grief. Jacques resignedly walks away. The mother withdraws into herself, and the father is taken ill, possibly with grief, but one also suspects guilt, from the looks on his face, to the incoherencies that he mumbles. It is here where the relationship between father and daughter is finally and manifestly bared as something twisted, in the least, and possibly deeply sick, in the extreme.
By contrast, the ‘beating’ left little scarring on Marie, whom we briefly see naked before being recovered by Jacques and her father, and there is no evidence of impending insanity. Marie is clearly not ‘normal,’ but insane? No. So, this means that her ‘running away’ is the likeliest option, and the only one consonant with the reactions of the other characters in the film. Again, she mentions this action as a desideratum throughout the film. Clearly, after several times trying to run away, Marie has now found her impetus, as even her once childish ties to Balthazar are gone from her soul. She even iterates this severance with the donkey when she chides Jacques for still pursuing her, and idealizing their connection as children. The film then ends with Marie’s father’s death; Gerard, and one of his gang, stealing Balthazar for the smuggling effort; and the aforementioned seeming death scene of the donkey, as a Franz Schubert piano piece plays. In a nice touch, the dark donkey is surrounded by the flock of white, which acts as almost a halo about its form.
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.