L'argent

What Bresson does well (what Hannake in a sense has capitalized on since), is to make the action seem more violent, than it would have been - had we seen it. As with Hanneke, you have this feeling, that you have done something terrible, but you have no clue what it is. The lack of moral judgement, and because you really can't place guilt anywhere, the film becomes a monster of conflicting emotions, that burns through your skin in a biblical way. Did anyone say the book of Job?

I truly respect this film for managing to be emotionally affecting despite its committed near-total lack of superficial sentimentality (compared to this, Kubrick looks like Spielberg). The actors' movements and dialogue seem rigidly choreographed and unemotional. A couple of rather strained elisions seem a bit too deliberately provocative and break the spell somewhat. My only real complaints are that the main theme of the movie seems a bit superficial, and it isn't very fun to watch overall.

I was into it like few other Bresson's till the end bits. Again, the Dostoyevsky influence appears, and again, it comes up short.

Money itself is somehow counterfeit: in some way the only thing that exists but equally a fiction, an artifice, founded on a belief but ultimately crediting only nothingness, found nowhere yet behind everything, a ghost in the machine but also, today, the deus ex machina itself. Counteracting that excess, Bresson's style here reaches a pinnacle of austerity (yet every moment also looks beautiful), which, from a certain perspective, may make it his best attempt to control the viewer's perception.

This is the evil version of "If You Give A Mouse A Cookie." Somehow passing a counterfeit bill turns one of Bresson's robotic actors into a violent person. While money certainly can corrupt, the lack of logical progression totally derails the movie. I was also distracted by the camera staying on each scene some five seconds after all the characters had exited.

an interesting enough crime drama, that follows a forged note, and then the collapsing life of an oblivious man caught with it. however, its main thematic objective concerning the negative effects money has on human lives feels unfulfilled, and unlike the pristine cinematography of some of bresson's black and white stuff, this looks pretty boring.

Well, it started out promisingly enough... But at some point Bresson's last film grinds to a halt and never recovers.

A film about the corrupting power of money, made using Bresson's minimalist style. I can certainly appreciate what the film is trying to do and there's a lot to hold your interest, but the narrative falls flat. It's very choppy and the final act feels especially out of the blue. Yes, this film's main purpose is not to convey a story but rather ideas, which is why it's worth watching, but it's possible to do both, and the film's failure to make the story work lessens the impact of the message.

Very depressing and pessimistic lacking the transcendental qualities of his early works like "A Man..." and "Pickpocket". He underlines that in a totally reified world where money became "a God" (a line from the film) there is no human emotion or ethical act to be excepted. What we are doomed to is a violent and materialist world to suffer. No matter how strong it is narrated, I won't agree with that. If our doom is set, why bother anyways? Why did you make this film at the first hand? Decent.

Kind of went of the rails at the end in a very laughable way. I feel like if this didn't have Bresson's name on it it wouldn't be held in such regard, since there's been so many films like this that don't get the same love. Still, it's enjoyable and is a nice looking film.

Bresson certainly didn't soften with age. His late works are his most grim, depicting a cold unforgiving world that traps its characters like rats in its bleak oppressive maze. L'argent is ostensibly a critique of capitalism, where a forged note sets a chain of events in motion that leaves complete devastation in its wake. Bresson directs with astonishing technical precision; his economy of gesture is unmatched in cinema, and L'argent is a chilling confirmation of his supreme formal mastery.

Riveting--and not at all what I expected. Bresson's style is certainly spare, but not so austere as some of his earlier films. Naturally, he simply leaves out the (at least partially) redemptive second half of Tolstoy's story, so you're left with just the devastation.

Bresson doesn't go far enough with his wider critique and instead makes the second half of the movie about the individual tragedy of a character it's impossible to empathise with

Masterfully crafted, but one of the most bleak and depressing films I've seen. Decent human beings are few and far-between in Bresson's view of a society rotted to its core by greed. Even the good amongst the characters are unhappy and eventually destroyed by the corruption of those around them. The characteristic grace and minimalism of Bresson's work is as poetic and effective as always and he uses it to get straight to the heart of his message.

I used to have problems with the main character's motivations in the final act, and that's still an issue for me, but I have a deeper appreciation of the film's finer aspects. Bresson's meticulous attention to detail and physicality, the beautiful framing, the poetic simplicity, the understated acting.

Bresson's minimalism goes stale after a strong start that is unfortunately followed by dragging scenes without optimal plot development. Not convinced about the unconventional use of camera angles either. However, the total amount of screen time given to doors and other openings is noteworthy.

As Bresson's final film, this really does take his style to it's logical conclusion as his most perfectly refined, austere work. That said, it might also be his driest and most dispassionate film, which for Bresson is saying a lot.

I've watched most of Bresson's films, and I sort of understand the style he developed after his first few films, I may even see the purpose of it, but I really don't know if it has much force. By the time I saw L'Argent I had lost all patience with Bresson. Because it's his last, it invites - an extremely unfavorable - comparison to his absolutely ingenious early stuff.

Bresson's final film shows him at the height of his powers--the emphasis on the physicality of his subjects, the way hands draw us into characters, and sound bringing a sense of real dimension to the piece. Here we see a world in despair as people mindlessly cause pain through money or feel the effects of money, giving it a godlike (or maybe, devil-like) status. And yet, the world continues despite the actions of the protagonist, its beauty never less than vibrant, a silent counter to the pain.

I never managed to understand why they are acting like they’re in an educational video. I had to bail on it

Bresson's so called "search for truth" ends up in pretension and awkwardness. It has great material to play with, messed up by petty artistic meanderings.

Bresson's usual muted and understated style works best with his final film, accentuating the banality of a man's life turned to shit from just about all external factors and the passivity from an indifferent society that can't see the connection between money and how it can corrupt any passerby.

I have literally no idea how to feel about this one. One thing is for certain: it definitely does not end up where I expected it to. Holy shit.

My favorite of Bresson's films.

?mgelemlerle dolu

"L'argent" never really thrills and works only symbolically.

audiovisual 90 acting 50 overall feeling 87 avg 76

# 222

Perfect chaos.

Are the actors allergic to acting?

I'm not really buying this guys descent into criminality, sorry Bresson. Better luck next time, oh right...

What the fuck, do French prisons really give inmates free valium? Rethinking my life right now

201

An accomplished film that seems to make a bit of a thing out of how the style reflects and corresponds to its main thematic concern of the apathy and deadness of culture-as-economy (I could make a sly little dig at Bresson here, if I so desired). Still, this coherency may be adequate to make a good art film, but I can't imagine it having any sort of real efficacy.

Not very entertaining - Besson employs wooden actors for technique

95.00

izlediÄŸim en boktan film.

It's such a beautifully sad, life-sucks-because-money-is-our-ruin achievement in every way you look at it. A simple story of capitalism just ruining everyone's lives -- from the innocent man who becomes a criminal to the people who crosses his path --, a highly accomplished, yet straightforward, dry, raw, but also poetic work of pure sound and vision. Last shots might be most striking career closure of all time -- bursts of violence, turning himself to the cops, crowd looking at an empty room.

Given that Bresson was influenced by Le Silence de la Mer, it shouldn't be surprising that this so strongly resembles Melville, but it's nonetheless a kick in the head to see Bresson in color. The ending is...strange, but up to that point it's a very solid tale of the corrupting influence of crime, and of how minor actions can ultimately have devastating consequences. And the modernity gives it an immediacy atypical for his work.

Nice visuals and okay storytelling. Movies with minimal audio sometimes bother me, which was the case here. It just feels like it's missing a key dimension of the medium.

Bresson's last movie, he was 82 at the time of its release. Also, it's first of his movies I have seen. I found this film very interesting. It's based on Tolstoy's short story, so even without familiarity with director, I expected psychological, perhaps moralistic movie. The darkness of the film surprised me, probably in a good way.

Money is a fictitious commodity etc.

There's so much I like about this, love in fact but there's still sometimes I feel it's emotionally devoid almost like a Godard picture... I don't know, it's been some time since my last Bresson film and this is the first of his "other" work that I'm seeing but I didn't really feel that way watching Mouchette for example.

A film that starts with a distinct structure: Follow a counterfeit bill as it circulates and progressively becomes more vicious in its consequences. Right as you buy into that and the transitory rhythm of this film, Bresson does a COMPLETE 180 and decides to latch on to one single subject for an entire half of the runtime. Its truly a jarring shift in pace that I'm not sure many directors have ever been willing to take. Its a tough, manipulating watch.

Austere and stylized vision is not exactly to my taste.

I suspect if I watched this a second time, I would declare it a masterpiece. I'm still trying to reckon with the film. This is clearly a HUGE influence on Michael Haneke.

210

Solid but seems to lack something. The economy it's made with and the logic that leads from one shot to another is staggering, but it's almost too much at times. It almost feels like Bresson has a list of scenes leading to the quickest and most efficient way he can get his point across and checks them off. This almost gives it more of a documentary feel at times than a fictional film, and a lot of the performances seem a bit wooden at times. Well worth watching, though.

#228

dude you ever think about how, like... money isnt even real

Ok, Bresson ended up completely cynical about the world. And it shows. But I feel this movie had really little to offer in spite of all the recurring themes: hands, doors, letters, etc... I also didn't like the overly mechanical dialogues (like in Mouchette) compared to most of his other films.