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.
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.