Luckily for me, I not only knew this but it was the very reason I was interested in seeking his work. I tend to like that kind of film making and was excited to see another of those masters' work.
The beginning of the film is jarring because you aren't really sure who the main character of the film is going to be. Just as you feel like you know that the film is going to be about a well off boy who commits a crime because his parents won't give him spending money the film leaves off on his story entirely, instead following the counterfeit bill he and his friend pass of at a photography store.
Then you settle in as you assume the film is to follow the clerk who took the bill and her boss who is upset about it. Surely they are about to call the police and the remainder of the film will be the fallout from that, but again. No.
The film ends up being about two characters who become consumed by crime, first the crimes of others, then their own. These characters are innocent bystanders and who are so tangentially related to the inciting crime that the viewer begins wondering why the film keeps focusing on them when the actual criminals fade into the background completely.
Then, their own crimes begin and the film becomes a study in the criminal heart that tastes just a whiff of evil and wants more. Will these violent desires have violent ends or will they be turned from and redemption be embraced? Well that is the question of the film. I'm certainly not going to tell you here.
The cinematography in this film is more than a character in the film. Many times that old hackneyed phrase is a simple was of saying that you notice the camera work. Certainly this is the case in "L'argent" but rather than being a character or narrator, the camera is only passively interested in the film's events.
There are times where the camera isn't showing either party in a conversation or where the principle action is not shown. Why?
I can't say for sure, it is art after all, but for me it exuded this sense that the characters were caught up in events and a societal machine that was indifferent to them. By the end of the film you are starving for connection and creates a greater value when it becomes personal for one relationship that is encountered. In that sense, the camera work is not a character singular as much as a representation of culture or characters plural.
I was kind of disappointed in the acting in this movie. I'm sure it was intentional but the sort of matter of fact unmotivated acting in this film left me wondering what people were feeling much of the time. This does seem to be a feature of certain foreign films in general and I' not exactly sure why. You do get used to it but it does leave the film on the dry side.
To top off this detached film is a wonderfully literary piece. Granted, Bresson based this work on a Tolstoy story so that helps, but if you are the sort of person who loves a good classic crime story (we're talking "Crime and Punishment" here not pulp) then this film might just be your cup of tea.
The beginning of the film is jarring because you aren't really sure who the main character of the film is going to be. Just as you feel like you know that the film is going to be about a well off boy who commits a crime because his parents won't give him spending money the film leaves off on his story entirely, instead following the counterfeit bill he and his friend pass of at a photography store.
Then you settle in as you assume the film is to follow the clerk who took the bill and her boss who is upset about it. Surely they are about to call the police and the remainder of the film will be the fallout from that, but again. No.
The film ends up being about two characters who become consumed by crime, first the crimes of others, then their own. These characters are innocent bystanders and who are so tangentially related to the inciting crime that the viewer begins wondering why the film keeps focusing on them when the actual criminals fade into the background completely.
Then, their own crimes begin and the film becomes a study in the criminal heart that tastes just a whiff of evil and wants more. Will these violent desires have violent ends or will they be turned from and redemption be embraced? Well that is the question of the film. I'm certainly not going to tell you here.
The cinematography in this film is more than a character in the film. Many times that old hackneyed phrase is a simple was of saying that you notice the camera work. Certainly this is the case in "L'argent" but rather than being a character or narrator, the camera is only passively interested in the film's events.
There are times where the camera isn't showing either party in a conversation or where the principle action is not shown. Why?
I can't say for sure, it is art after all, but for me it exuded this sense that the characters were caught up in events and a societal machine that was indifferent to them. By the end of the film you are starving for connection and creates a greater value when it becomes personal for one relationship that is encountered. In that sense, the camera work is not a character singular as much as a representation of culture or characters plural.
I was kind of disappointed in the acting in this movie. I'm sure it was intentional but the sort of matter of fact unmotivated acting in this film left me wondering what people were feeling much of the time. This does seem to be a feature of certain foreign films in general and I' not exactly sure why. You do get used to it but it does leave the film on the dry side.
To top off this detached film is a wonderfully literary piece. Granted, Bresson based this work on a Tolstoy story so that helps, but if you are the sort of person who loves a good classic crime story (we're talking "Crime and Punishment" here not pulp) then this film might just be your cup of tea.