All language subtitles for The.Road.To.Bresson.1984.1080p.BluRay.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

With his creative oeuvre,

Downloaded from
YTS.MX

he managed to elevate cinema

to the same height

Official YIFY movies site:
YTS.MX

as the related, more ancient
art forms and genres.

That is the first reason.

Bresson is extremely intolerant.

His way is the only way. He has
only contempt for everything else.

He thinks no other kind of cinema,
no other directors exist.

I felt like I learned to be
very choosy about everything.

I was already like that,
but Bresson brought it out.

THE ROAD TO BRESSON

A film by Jurriën Rood and Leo de Boer

A MAN ESCAPED

Thank you, Officers.

Please be seated.

If you don't stop,
he simply won't come back.

Did you hear me, sir?

Sorry, that's how it is.

The Cannes Film Festival.

The 81-year-old French filmmaker
Robert Bresson

is giving a press conference

upon the premiere of his latest film.

It has been a long time
since this cineast,

who hates publicity,

has appeared in public
for the eye of the camera.

Let's begin the press conference
for the film you've just seen, L'Argent.

Who has the first question?

Who is the question for?

I didn't understand either.

Check the mic.

Okay, it's on.

- We can't hear him.
- Move closer.

I said I didn't understand either.

Nor did the woman. No one did.

It's not about understanding.

It's about feeling,
which is not the same thing.

Mr. Bresson, I find your film
rather unpleasant, but interesting.

Your style is quite specific.
I'd say it frustrates viewers.

Do you agree with that description?

If so, why do you make films
that frustrate viewers?

Why make films that what?

Are frustrating for the viewer.
Frustrating.

- Frustrating.
- Oh, right.

What viewer are you talking about?

Bresson is not well known
to the general public.

But within film circles, he's seen
as one of the great masters

because of his unique style.

A style he calls
"cinematography"

to distinguish it from
common film style, cinema.

To us, as film students,

our introduction to Bresson's films
came as a shock.

They were different from everything
we'd learned at film school.

His style stands out
due to its great austerity.

THE DEVIL, PROBABLY

- Do you know where you're going?
- Yes.

- Where?
- His place.

- He's homeless.
- He has a place.

- You'll break your parents' hearts.
- I can't help it.

You love him that much?

It's you I love, Michel.

With him, it's different.
Not real love.

What, then?

I don't know.

He asked me to be here at 5:00
so here I am.

He might not even come.

Here he is.

We saw that style
in his old black-and-white movies,

but also in his most recent films,
about our generation.

We decide to investigate,

but Bresson
does not want to be filmed.

He refused for many years,
he tells us over the telephone.

THE FILMMAKER

There is very little biographical
information about Bresson.

Born in 1901, but according to him,
it was six years later.

After his studies, he worked
as a painter and fashion photographer.

In the '30s
he made his move to film.

He wrote some screenplays
and directed a short comedy,

which has never been found.

During the war, as a POW,
he gets the idea for his first feature film

which he makes in 1943.

1945.

1951.

DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST

1956.

A MAN ESCAPED

I remember watching him work.

DIRECTOR

It seemed so simple,
yet totally incomprehensible.

No one on the set seemed
to understand what he was doing.

For example,
for a very simple shot,

he might reshoot it 50 times.

No one really knew why
it had to be done 50 times.

But now that I make films,
I completely understand,

because it also happens to me.

And sometimes, the crew
looks at me like I'm crazy

because I'm looking for something,
but I don't know what.

When it happens,
"There! That's it."

That's what I was looking for,
but I couldn't explain.

I think Bresson's method
is to search continually.

When he works, I don't think
he knows exactly what he's after,

which is why he's often criticized
for going over schedule, over budget.

He's searching

and he searches alone.

And he ends up finding it,

but it's always very mysterious.

I don't think even he knows
what it will be in advance.

WITH PICKPOCKET
BRESSON HAS FOUND...

He was a big influence.

He was our role model:

He refused to make
any commercial concessions.

He made pure cinema.

In France,
he was the consummate auteur.

He conceived his film
from start to finish.

He was the sole master of his work.

We all deeply admired him for that.

I wouldn't say that Truffaut,
Godard, Chabrol

or even Rohmer are —

Their films are very different
from Bresson's,

as are mine,

although I'm said to be
the most influenced by Bresson.

However, he was our guiding light.

We admired him.
We all wanted to be Bresson.

1959.

1962.

THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC

At our institute in Moscow,
we studied Western cinema.

DIRECTOR

But the films I watched
weren't part of the curriculum.

I was interested in other problems.

I was interested in the pictures
I myself was able to unearth

in our archive,
in the cinema archive —

in the cinematheque.

I was utterly astounded
by Joan of Arc,

by its absolute independence
from the viewer,

by its complete incompatibility:

to such a degree that the picture appeared
before the audience not as a spectacle,

but rather as a fragment
of nature and of life.

You may watch it if you like
or not watch it.

You may accept this film as art
or not accept it.

In other words,
this independence of one's art

from the viewers' opinions
and from the critics,

this for me forever became a symbol

of a director's behavior
vis-à-vis the audience.

Bresson appeals to me
precisely because,

among the many artists
who strive for simplicity and depth,

he is alone among the very few
who've managed to achieve it in his work.

This is the most important part.

Of course, we all strive for simplicity,

any artist who is more or less
serious strives for simplicity,

and yet not many of us
succeed in achieving this simplicity.

But Bresson is one of the few
who have succeeded.

1966.

1967.

1969.

When I worked with Bresson,
there were things, I remember,

that seemed really odd.

First, the tone of voice to use.

The way he worked with the voice.

The way he worked with the person,

I think he seeks —

This is how I explain it:

When you want to lose control,

you can spin one way, then the other,
dancing like a dervish,

and after that, you're disoriented.

It's like a weight has been lifted.

Shooting with Bresson is like that.
Every day, at each moment is like that.

You really feel

that he's trying to empty your mind,

to free you from thoughts like
"Should I do this? Should I do that?

What do I have to do?"

No more questions.

That meant, for example,

that when I had
to speak to someone —

I usually look people in the eye.

But every day, systematically,

he'd tell me to look at their ear.

Always.

No matter what, I had to look
at their ear as they spoke.

It made a huge difference,
it seems so strange.

WITH BRESSON, EVERYTHING
IS WEIGHED AND CALCULATED

DOWN TO THE TINIEST DETAIL

After working with Bresson,

it's very difficult to "act,"

to express...

because you tend to "underact."

But when acting in other films,

on the contrary, actors are asked
to exaggerate emotions.

Like everything in life,

you gain something,
you lose something.

1971.

FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER

1974.

LANCELOT OF THE LAKE

1977.

THE DEVIL, PROBABLY

1983.

Bresson has made only 13 films
in a period of 40 years.

Films that won a lot of awards,
but didn't attract a big audience.

In some cases, they even led
to the bankruptcy of the producers.

Hello, is this the Majestic?

Could you give me
Mr. Bresson's room, please?

I'll call back later.
Thanks. Good-bye.

THE STYLE

Bresson doesn't like
to speak about his films.

But a few years ago,
a book was published

with notes about his style,
which he collected over the years.

NOTES ON CINEMATOGRAPHY

Rid myself of accumulated
errors and untruths.

Get to know my resources,
make sure of them.

CINEMA did not start from zero.
Everything to be called into question.

CAMERA

LANCELOT OF THE LAKE

Lancelot.

Lancelot.

In Bresson's films,
the camera doesn't show a lot.

We often see only fragments,
parts of a bigger whole.

Here we see a tournament of knights,

in just a few shots
which are repeated constantly:

A flag, the legs of a horse, a lance.

We never get to see
the arena as a whole.

We only see what's absolutely
necessary. The essence.

Apply myself to insignificant
(non-significant) images.

Accustom the public to divining the whole
of which they are given only a part.

Make people diviners.
Make them desire it.

ACTING

LANCELOT OF THE LAKE

Lancelot.

Guinevere.

You are alive and you are here.

Nothing shall ever separate us.

Everything is completed
for us here in Brittany.

I can wait no longer. Say it.

I love you.

Again, say it again.

I love you.
You must believe me.

I believe you.

What is the matter?

Give me your hand.

The one you are hiding.

Your finger is bare.

You took off my ring.

Speak. Stop scaring me.

I saw the Grail.

The Grail?

In a ruined chapel
where I took shelter one night.

A voice reproached me,
"Deceit! Treachery!"

I can still hear that voice accusing me.
- You dreamed it.

I shall be your lover no longer.

I swore to God upon my sword.

You did that?

I did.

You were bound
by a previous oath.

Free me from that oath, Guinevere.

I gave myself wholly to you,

and you took me.

In Bresson's films, there's no acting
like we're used to seeing.

Even the most emotional lines
are spoken in a flat tone,

without any facial expression.

Sometimes it looks like the characters
are speaking to themselves.

Bresson never works
with professional actors.

He believes
they belong in the theater.

He works only with newcomers.

"Models," he calls them.

He has them practice

saying their lines
without any intonation.

No actors. (No directing of actors).
No parts. (No learning of parts).

No staging. But the use
of working models, taken from life.

BEING (models)
instead of SEEMING (actors).

Radically suppress intentions
in your models.

Your camera passes through faces,

provided no mimicry (intentional
or not intentional) gets in between.

Cinematographic films made of
inner movements which are seen.

HUMAN MODELS:
Movement from the exterior to the interior.

(Actors: movement from the interior
to the exterior.)

ACTION / SUSPENSE

A MAN ESCAPED

After three weeks of effort
making as little noise as possible,

I'd managed to separate
three boards along the sides.

But they were held in the frame
at the top and the bottom

by joints which bent
the handle of my spoon.

To break apart the edge of the frame,
I'd need to find another spoon.

Only then would I have
enough leverage.

The Bible.

I'm in luck.

A miracle!

Everything has changed
since yesterday.

Quiet! No talking!

I'm in luck myself.

The frame broke,
but over a bigger area than I'd expected.

I was able to put the pieces
back in place and make them stick.

In Bresson's films, it looks as if suspense
and excitement is left out on purpose.

In this film,
we already know the outcome

because of the main title.

There's very little action
and nothing spectacular happens.

But there's a lot of repetition.

There's a rhythm of evenness.

The prisoner literally tells us
what is also visible on the screen.

And there's no music
to create suspense.

This style of leaving things out
at first seems cold and detached.

Suspense is pushed away,
emotions are withheld.

And yet suspense
and emotion are felt.

Just say the lines mechanically.

But as they are said mechanically,

BRESSON - WITHOUT A TRACE

they enter the person,

and in return,
the mechanical phrase comes to life.

It's similar to the playing style
of a great pianist,

not a virtuoso,
but a great pianist: Lipatti.

Lipatti produced emotion

by playing with great restraint
and evenness.

By restraining the emotion,

even trying to erase it,

and by playing with utmost evenness,

his performances had an emotion
no virtuoso could ever match.

It's the same.

Through restraint
and mechanical delivery,

suddenly something "clicks."

Production of emotion determined
by a resistance to emotion.

Empty the pond to get the fish.

Hotel Majestic.

Hello. Please connect me
to Robert Bresson's room.

- Robert Bresson?
- Yes.

A THEORY

The American director
and screenwriter Paul Schrader

wrote a book, when he was 26,
Transcendental Style in Film,

in which he analyses
the films of Bresson.

THE STORIES

A young priest is being consumed
by a holy suffering.

He finds peace by accepting death.

A condemned prisoner
tries to escape.

Thanks to a combination of
perseverance and luck, he succeeds.

Joan of Arc keeps on believing
that she's been sent by God.

For her, death at the stake
is her salvation.

Stories of suffering and purification.

In the end, the main characters
all reach salvation.

Accepting their fate
is their liberation.

In Bresson's later films,
there seems to be a slight change.

A young girl sees no prospect
in her cold-hearted life

and chooses death.

A man tries to find out if he's
responsible for his wife's suicide.

In a world where his love is forbidden,
and without humanity,

death is the only path left for Lancelot.

A young student
sees no reason to live

and has himself shot.

The tone is more gloomy.

The films almost always end
with death, or suicide.

THE DEVIL, PROBABLY

Where are we going?

Wherever. Here or there.

I expected profound thoughts
at such a moment.

Shall I tell you what —

THE QUESTION

Good evening, Mr. Bresson.

This is Jurriën Rood, from Holland.

I'm sorry to call so late,

but I wondered if you had time
to meet us tomorrow

like we'd agreed in Paris.

I saw the film this morning,

but for our meeting —

To ask two or three questions,
as we agreed —

Only one, then.

Now arriving,
the Monty Python team.

While to the right of the red carpet,

the festival reveals its charms.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have the honor to award

the Grand prix du Cinéma de création

to Robert Bresson for L'Argent!

Mr. Bresson,

your films give us the feeling
that they have a moral,

a rather bleak,
pessimistic moral.

We even get the feeling
that in your recent films,

the moral has become even bleaker.

Yet we feel there is
almost a contradiction

between this pessimism
and the beauty of your films.

First of all, you confuse the word
"pessimism" with the word "lucidity."

Lucidity isn't necessarily pessimistic.

Yes.

Also, "moral" has a larger sense.

I don't perceive a moral
as being bleak.

Do you think Greek tragedies
were pessimistic?

So it's lucidity?

I see myself as more lucid
than pessimistic.

I don't know what will happen.

I simply take note.

And it's hard for me to treat
subjects outside our era.

I have no choice
but to work with this era.

I feel the world
is under threat.

And it's better to be lucid,
which isn't necessarily pessimistic.

You don't think you're pessimistic?

In art, seeking beauty

as well as a certain lucidity

isn't mutually exclusive, not at all.

I see no contradiction.

But beauty, in "cinematography"
must be new.

If "cinematography" becomes an art,

every art has its beauty,

we must use those two
fantastic machines,

the camera and the sound recorder,

and most of all,
the assemblage of their results

to write something on the screen.

It has to be new,
as brand-new as these machines.

These new machines must be used
to make something new.

The "new" can be beautiful
if we have a certain idea of beauty

for things in general,
for people and objects.

Have you changed
in the course of your —

I hope I've evolved.

In fact, I think my last film
was new for me.

I tried to make everything
concentrated, quick and new

and at the same time,
have great freedom and spontaneity.

That's what I felt,
so that's what I did.

If it isn't good, too bad.

If it is, bravo.

That's the way I worked.

Unfortunately,
there's a whole audience for cinema,

or "ciné" as the French say,

which is nothing more
than filmed theater.

They want to see the whole person,

not just their hands or face,

or elbows or legs.

When I cross an avenue,
I see legs walking,

so without hesitation,
I show legs walking

for that's how I see a Paris street.

They don't see the beauty

in having a character's legs arrive
among all these other legs,

and suddenly he sits down
and we see his whole body.

Because they don't see that,
or rather, feel it.

They expect narration to explain it,
but there is none.

The explanation is the image
combined with the sound.

- Will the audience understand —
- No, they won't.

If all they ever see is filmed theater,
they won't understand.

They want an actor's performance,
his way of speaking,

his vocal inflections
as he recites his lines.

That's all they want.

If there's no acting, no known actors,
they just see a void.

I completely understand them.

Cinema must evolve,
it can't permanently remain as it is.

Cinema could be huge.
It must evolve.

That's my final word.

- May I simply ask —
- No.

Your advice to young filmmakers?
It's my final question.

I'll finish with a great phrase
from Stendhal

which you surely know:

"It is the other arts
which taught me the art of writing."

...and for Andrey Tarkovskiy
for Nostalgia.

Quiet please.

Quite a group, isn't it?

Thank you very much.