Michel, the main character in this movie, is so devoid of apparent emotion that you have to be very sensitive to his most subtle mannerisms - it's so pronounced that you are excited when you notice an eye movement or a blink. Michel lives alone in a garret in Paris with his books and his questions about whether certain superior people should be above the law. He seems to have answered that question in the affirmative for himself, since he decides to be a professional pickpocket. But moral questions do niggle him and he engages in philosophical discussions on the topic with an inspector who is on to him.
This is the only Bresson film I have seen and I am not encouraged to go for more. If the opening and closing of doors interests you (the camera often lingers on a closed door or dwells on the entry to a doorway), then you may like this. There is not enough about Michel to have kept my interest. He appeared to be devoted to his chosen profession, in fact addicted to it, but he was repelled by it at the same time. His behavior is paradoxical in many other ways. He claims to love his mother dearly, but refuses to see her. The final scene came as quite a surprise to this ignorant viewer, since Michel was so distant from his mother's young neighbor that I had not gotten the hint that he actually loved her, nor she him as far as that goes. My reaction to the final scene was, "Huh?"
There is some interesting camera work, but the cinematography is pedestrian, except for certain highlights like when Michel comes down the stairs and emerges from darkness into light in stages. The details of how pickpockets work are interesting and those scenes provide pretty much the only action. Is Bresson trying to show us what a movie would be like if you take away most of the qualities unique to the art form?
I would advise skipping the introduction by Paul Shrader on the Criterion Collection DVD until after you have seen the movie, since he summarizes the entire film, complete with clips including the final scene.
There are those who venerate this film and I say more power to them, but the value for me was only to expand my understanding of existential despair. However, if that was the goal, then I suppose I would have to give a higher rating.
This is the only Bresson film I have seen and I am not encouraged to go for more. If the opening and closing of doors interests you (the camera often lingers on a closed door or dwells on the entry to a doorway), then you may like this. There is not enough about Michel to have kept my interest. He appeared to be devoted to his chosen profession, in fact addicted to it, but he was repelled by it at the same time. His behavior is paradoxical in many other ways. He claims to love his mother dearly, but refuses to see her. The final scene came as quite a surprise to this ignorant viewer, since Michel was so distant from his mother's young neighbor that I had not gotten the hint that he actually loved her, nor she him as far as that goes. My reaction to the final scene was, "Huh?"
There is some interesting camera work, but the cinematography is pedestrian, except for certain highlights like when Michel comes down the stairs and emerges from darkness into light in stages. The details of how pickpockets work are interesting and those scenes provide pretty much the only action. Is Bresson trying to show us what a movie would be like if you take away most of the qualities unique to the art form?
I would advise skipping the introduction by Paul Shrader on the Criterion Collection DVD until after you have seen the movie, since he summarizes the entire film, complete with clips including the final scene.
There are those who venerate this film and I say more power to them, but the value for me was only to expand my understanding of existential despair. However, if that was the goal, then I suppose I would have to give a higher rating.