Blodpenge
The Cannes winner of 1983 was Robert
Bresson’s “L’Argent”. This was also his last movie. As Bresson is a familiar
name on the List, I knew more or less what sort of territory we are entering
here.
The focus of the movie is as the title
says, money. Money as the agent of everything that is wrong in the world. The
narrative is sort of a chain reaction, starting with a teenage boy who is
barred from the kind of allowance he wants and therefore exchange a large
counterfeit note in a camera shop. The shopkeeper wants to get rid of those fake
money he has and so lets his young assistant, Lucien (Vincent Risterucci) pay
for fuel with them. The fuel delivery man, Yvon (Christian Patey) does not
suspect a thing, is caught when he tries to pay with them in a cafe. In the
ensuing court case Lucien and the shopkeeper denies everything so Yvon gets
fired. Out of job, he gets hired for a heist, is caught and sent to prison.
Meanwhile, Lucien steals from the shopkeeper, is fired and then goes ahead robbing
the shopkeeper. The he goes to prison too. And this is just the beginning.
Seen as a conventional movie, “L’Argent” is
a pretty shitty movie. It is heavily stylized which means that all the acting
is strangely wooden, and the characters are like automatons, delivering their
lines and nothing more. All the characters are also flat and the only thing we
learn about any of them, even the principal characters, is about their
connection to the money in question. They need money and they are willing to compromise
anything to get them.
The error here is of course to watch this
as a conventional movie. “L’Argent” is an artistic project that is not here to
entertain, but to drive an artistic point. The point here is the corruptive
effect of money and by reducing the actors to robots, everything outside the
money fades away. It is a singular desire. Defence is singular, the law is
singular, violence is simply an extension of means to obtain money if other
ways are barred.
Is Bresson then successful with his art
project? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say. The jury in Cannes
obviously found it successful, though being an aging French movie icon would
have been to his advantage here. I am not personally as certain. Because
everything else fades into the background, the message here is so singular that
it is banal. Money is bad. Money corrupts. Money is the cause of everything bad
that happens.
The problem with that is that it is not a
discussion or a polemic setup. It is simply a statement. If we learned
something about the people that was corrupted or the victims there would have
been depth to the statement, but instead it is simply a litany of all the
horrible things people will do for money. It is just way too simplified. On top
of that it is oldest cliché in the world to blame money and greed and by
extension capitalism. Not that I in any way want to defend and clear finance
and greed of evil, but, come on, this is really cheap.
When Bresson tried to focus on very basic
elements in his movies from the fifties, they worked so well be because they
condensed to object to stunning clarity. With “L’Argent” he is trying to do the
same thing to our relationship with money, but to me it completely lacks the zing
of his early movies and instead it feels tired.
It is an art movie and I like the idea of
it, even appreciate it. It just does not really work for me.
I'm with you. I found this slow and frustrating, and while the complete lack of any facial expressions in the characters can work in some cases, it really doesn't work for me here.
ReplyDeleteExactly.it just did not work. The main competition in Cannes that year must have been thin.
Delete