Robert Bresson and the Cult of the Auteur aka Yes, most of Bresson's "Models" Went on to Acting Careers.
“Anne Wiazemsky (Marie) 42 roles”
With that name alone, we can end this thread.
(and I say it before I see an Ehrenstein arguing about this reciting one of his “fables”)
I’m not a Bresson fan, but surely it doesn’t matter how many roles the actors had, just how many roles they had before they starred in the Bresson film? I mean, if working with Bresson means they can go off and get a career then that’s great, the point fans try to make is that they were “non-actors” when Bresson was working with them?
When the movies aren’t as good as say a Kurosawa, people have to invent reasons as to why they praise a director to high heaven.
“When the movies aren’t as good as say a Kurosawa”
A: Kurosawa is NOT a God.
B: I may not agree with Bresson’s philosophy all the time but that quote above is pseudo-intellectuality of the highest order.
To Cecil: certainly (from where I see it) actors / actresses are depending their future careers on a major threshold and starring in a Bresson film is more than just participating in a film but the real argument here is whether Bresson himself intended them later on to become popularized facades of his work or just…..well, “models” of one use.
The lie sounds better.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that donkey in a ton of films.
What I had heard and taken as truth is that the “models” didn’t have none to little acting experience, not that they weren’t actors necessarily
I see your point, good Cecil Will. But the initial point of contention was over my statement “the overwhelming majority of Bresson’s “models” or “non-actors” or whatever he called them went onto have extensive careers”. There’s no denying that when Bresson chose to work with these people that almost none of them had any credited acting roles. My point is that some people also deny that most of these people went on to have acting careers.
Who are these people who deny that they went on to have acting careers and why do they matter?
If the new found models all went on to be actors of the highest order that might mean Bresson was a great talent spotter, as well as having a reputation and influence. Otherwise i’m not sure whether it means much in terms of the quality of his films- would it make him a greater director if all the models were purely Bresson’s and had nothing more to do with film whatsover? He clearly preferred non-stars (though David Ehrenstein surprised me by who he wanted for Lancelot film), but i don’t see that necessarily as cause for promoting his status; what matters is whether this preference makes for better films. The idea may sound beneficial and laudable, but I’m not wholly convinced by the results. Sometimes i find the (non) performances distracting.
Who they are isn’t probably important. And this particular issue isn’t that important in itself either. But I do think it’s characteristic of some “cults” that form around certain filmmakers, and that is the issue at large I’m concerned with—that unquestioning a priori acceptance.
Who they are isn’t probably important.
Who is me, and I’m the only reason this thread exists.
Of the hundreds of models Bresson cast, Blue K found exactly seven who acted in more than 10 films. The vast majority of these films were made after Bresson cast them. Many of them were “tribute” castings to Bresson.
Blue K claimed the vast majority of Bresson’s models had extensive acting careers. Blue K proved himself incorrect.
It’s one thing to go against the grain of critical consensus.. It’s another thing entirely to do so without making shit up.
Dude, I’m not counting extras. I’m talking about the ones who played lead roles, Vast majority of extras don’t have any credited roles. I’m not sitting around counting every single person who’s been in a Bresson film, duh. If you’re going to do that, the majority of everyone who’s had any role in any film don’t go on to have 10 credited roles in IMDB. Nice try.
You do understand that people who have small roles in a given film aren’t likely to get other acting roles, right? I made myself very clear that I was dealing with the major characters from each of his films. Is this so difficult for you to understand? I didn’t make any shit up. Those are the facts. Those are the leads from his films. You know your Bresson. Are you telling me these aren’t the leads from his films? No, the guy who appeared in a crowd scene in Pickpocket probably didn’t have any too many more roles. is that the best you can do? Please.
I haven’t yet figured out myself what relevance counting the acting performances has anyway. As Kenji mentioned the only thing it tells us is that Bresson had an eye for gifted talents, but obviously few subsequent directors made use of them as “models”, and most rather wanted them to “act”, which worked out either succesfully or not. As I’ve mentioned on a previous thread, you can even find important neorealist non-actors who lateron starred as actors in films, but that doesn’t change anything about the fact that they were non-actors when they first appeared in a film. I don’t think that this thread has proven us anything.
Dude, I’m not counting extras.
So you picked 20 Bresson roles, of which seven actors had ten or more roles.
Where is your overwhelming majority?
But you’re missing the point entirely. Bresson wanted models who were not pre-trained actors. And he found them. The overwhelming majority of your seven’s roles came after Bresson cast them.
The vast majority of these films were made after Bresson cast them.
Uh, duh, dude. Thanks for putting “after” in bold.
This is what I originally said.
the overwhelming majority of Bresson’s “models” or “non-actors” or whatever he called them went onto have extensive careers.
English is my second language, so maybe I’m not getting something here. But do you understand the meaning of “went onto have extensive careers.” That means, after appearing in Bressons’ films, not before. DUH. JJ, I’m giving you some friendly advice. You are not capable of thinking on your own. Just stick to regurgitating received film school wisdom. I’m not going to have a debate with someone who has basic reading comprehension problems.
If we had a thread to counteract every stupid thing Jerry said we’d have a lot more threads.
He starts with inexperienced actors and after the experience they have developed enough to go on to a career.
I suspect the experience of trying to become “empty” for Bresson required quite a bit of craft.
So you picked 20 Bresson roles, of which seven actors had ten or more roles.
Where is your overwhelming majority?
Umm, who says TEN roles is the magic number that constitutes an acting career? YOU? I guess by that definition, Falconetti didn’t have an acting career, and neither did James Dean. Hahahaha.
Umm, I picked 20 leading Bresson role, not 20 random roles. I take it you’ve seen all these films, and so have I. Are you telling me that these aren’t the lead roles? Stop obfuscating, thank you.
And 18 of them went on to act after the Bresson appearance. Credited roles, that is. 18/20 = overwhelming majority in my math, Thanks.
I’m with Kenji, all that really matters is whether or not his “models” made for better films than if he had used proper actors. I don’t think it did, really. The only “models” that I don’t find distracting are (big surprise) the ones that went on to have longer acting careers (Diary, Escaped, Pickpocket). So if there’s anything to be learned here, it’s that you need a modicum of talent to act well (WHAAAAAAAT!!?).
I actually agree that Kenji’s point is the more important one, but that’s not the point of this thread. :P
Well in any case, I think what JJ is trying to say is that Bresson sought out untrained actors, so whether or not they went on to have acting careers (after) is something of a moot point. He did however have to cast them, so they were vetted…
What’s really bullshit is that the donkey was inexpert. Here in its brilliant acting carreer in georgian cinema (1955):
I don’t think that this thread has proven us anything.
It’s proven my point. What you’re saying is that the number of roles doesn’t matter. it may not matter in a larger sense, but that is the actual point of the thread. Now you may say that point itself is trivial, and that could be a valid conclusion. That’s essentially what Kenji and you and some others are saying, and I can see why you guys would think that this point isn’t important. But there is a point to the thread and it has been proven. Whether you think it’s an unimportant point is another matter.
Windmills, Blue. Windmills.
Micro-point: JJ is a _______ who, even in face of hard cold numbers, goes on with his absurd claims.
Macro-point: Sometimes those who come from film school theoretical textbook criticism build shrines to certain directors and then ascribe (even if unwittingly) apocryphal stories to enhance the reputations of these directors. They also utilize Procrustes logic (the character in Greek mythology who’d either stretch or chop off the legs of his victims to fit the length of his torture bed) to enhance the reputations of these directors. Legitimate questions of whether or not Bresson’s “modeling” technique actually works or not are brushed aside with theoretical mumbojumbo about how he distills the essence of the characters by taking away the artifice. Never mind that in minds of non-academic cinephiles, the most compelling characters in Bresson’s films come mostly from his middle period when he worked with people like Martin LeSalle and Claude Laydu and Anne Wiazemsky and Isabelle Weingarten who were all gifted actors. There is, at least in my opinion, a certain element of elitism in the academic wing of cinephilia which insists that this “modeling” works no matter what.
‘There is, at least in my opinion, a certain element of elitism in the academic wing of cinephilia which insists that this “modeling” works no matter what.’
What if they think it works no matter what because that’s their opinion? Is that elitist, to hold their own opinion?
Blue K, Custodian of the Cinema
My point in posting this is to encourage people to think on their own rather than just to accept received wisdom as the truth. For example, despite verifiable evidence to the contrary, some people still insist that most of Robert Bresson’s so-called “models” did not go on to have acting careers. My aim in debunking this school film myth is that some filmmakers have become so deified that whatever the myths surrounding them that enhance their artistic reputation are received as the gospel truth.
Here’s an exchange between me and another member from another thread.
ME: It’s like the whole nonsense with his “models.” Like I’ve stated before in a thread—and proven with numbers—the overwhelming majority of Bresson’s “models” or “non-actors” or whatever he called them went onto have extensive careers.
THE OTHER GUY: We’ve been through this before and, no, that is not true.
Bresson made 14 films in his career. He started the whole “models” business from his fourth film on. So let’s just concern ourselves with his last 11 films, and let’s look at the people who played the lead roles in them. bear in mind that I have always listed the main lead role first.
Diary of a Country Priest 1951
Claude Laydu (The priest) 20 roles
Jean Riveyre (Count) 5 roles
A Man Escaped 1956
Francois Leterrier (Fontaine) 2 roles
Charles le Clainche (Jost) only role
Pickpocket 1959
Martin LaSalle (Michel) 79 roles
Marika Green (Jeanne) 43 roles
The Trial of Joan of Arc 1962
Florence Delay (Joan) 4 roles
Au Hasard Balthazar 1966
Anne Wiazemsky (Marie) 42 roles
The Ass (Balthazar) unknown :D
Mouchette 1967
Natine Nortier (Mouchette) only role
Une Femme Douce 1969
Dominique Sanda (Elle) 54 roles
Four Nights of a Dreamer 1971
Isabelle Weingarten (Marthe) 26 roles
Guillaume des Forets (Jacques) 2 roles—a prior film role before this Bresson film
Lancelot du Lac 1974
Luc Simon (Lancelot) 2 roles
Laura Duke Condomias (Guinevere) 6 roles
Humbert Balsan (Gawain) 27 roles
The Devil Probably 1977
Antoine Monnier (Charles) Only Role
Tina Irissari (Alberte) Only Role
Henry de Maublanc (Michel) 3 roles
L’argent 1983
Christian Patey (Yvon) 3 roles
If you look at the top main lead roles, every adult actor went onto have at least one other credited role. The two exceptions are The Devil Probably and Mouchette—in which the leads were played by children.
And also bear in mind that the IMDB often misses information, but almost never adds information. How is it that even with this kind of overwhelming factual info some people insist on the otherwise?