I first saw L'Argent in 1983 during its original theatrical release. The ad campaign at the time proudly boasted, "The only film to receive Four Stars from all three of Chicago's major movie critics!" which at the time included Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert, and Dave Kerr. With eager anticipation I trooped down to Chicago's Fine Arts theater, and there I and a full house of other viewers endured this horrible film. As the house lights went up, we slumped out of the theater in misery, our souls left barren and hollow by what is easily the worst 'serious' film ever made.
For 25 years I've regaled my friends with tales of this movie's awfulness. However, a person's outlook, insights, and perceptions can change over the course of a quarter of a century, so I was willing to give it a second screening. Sadly, I must report that L'Argent is as ghastly as ever. The arc of the film's story remains as completely pointless, arbitrary, and capricious as it was 25 years ago. To say the acting is wooden, as others have done, is an understatement. By the end of his career, Bresson was using amateur performers exclusively. I've heard that he would go through dozens of takes on each scene to "de-emotionalize" the content. Well, he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble if he had just administered Qaaludes to his little troupe at the beginning of each day's shooting. Better yet, shooting life-size photo cut-outs of the characters with a voice-over dialog track would have provided a more perfect realization of his vision.
L'Argent is essentially a blank canvas upon which viewers are required to paint whatever sort of meaning they can. If you are already a Bresson fan, I'm sure you will be thrilled by this film. On the other hand, I think Bresson is a charlatan, the emperor with no clothes, and that this movie is a barren desert.
For 25 years I've regaled my friends with tales of this movie's awfulness. However, a person's outlook, insights, and perceptions can change over the course of a quarter of a century, so I was willing to give it a second screening. Sadly, I must report that L'Argent is as ghastly as ever. The arc of the film's story remains as completely pointless, arbitrary, and capricious as it was 25 years ago. To say the acting is wooden, as others have done, is an understatement. By the end of his career, Bresson was using amateur performers exclusively. I've heard that he would go through dozens of takes on each scene to "de-emotionalize" the content. Well, he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble if he had just administered Qaaludes to his little troupe at the beginning of each day's shooting. Better yet, shooting life-size photo cut-outs of the characters with a voice-over dialog track would have provided a more perfect realization of his vision.
L'Argent is essentially a blank canvas upon which viewers are required to paint whatever sort of meaning they can. If you are already a Bresson fan, I'm sure you will be thrilled by this film. On the other hand, I think Bresson is a charlatan, the emperor with no clothes, and that this movie is a barren desert.