"PIckpocket" by Bresson + Bresson's Style + Creepy Clowns

Happy Late Night, my Darling,

As always, I hope you had a nice day and that projects are coming along well. Tonight at CSUN we saw Bresson's "Pickpocket", in which he refines his "essentialist" style down to the barest essentials. The professor has shown us some documentary stuff before the films, including interviews with Bresson, and he talks about something very interesting : that much of observed life appears mechanical, such as when you are walking down the street in the city and you see a crowd of people on the opposite sidewalk. "What you see", he says (meaning what you observe), is not multiple human beings with lives and emotions, but instead you just see arms and legs in motion". He says that, when humans are observing on automatic pilot, as we do much of every day when our minds are running an interior dialogue and we are paying attention to that, what we see is just sections of things : arms and legs swinging as people walk down a street, or a section of a car (front end and wheels, perhaps). Or if we are standing in a crowd, as does the main character in "Pickpocket", we see things from a closer perspective, just backs and shoulders, suitcoats, and because the Pickpocket is at work, we see the swift smooth movement of his dexterous hands and fingers.

Bresson shoots his shots like no other director. He shows you what you really see in life - things in sections - and then he edits it together, as I said last week, so that each shot fits into - and turns into - the next shot, like the gears in a Swiss watch.

Now, that is just the mechanics of his style. What he does with his deliberately chosen non-professional actors is another story, because he takes all the emotional cues out of them. He goes for semi-blank faces and downcast eyes, which would seem to make for a monotone emotionless film.

But what you get is exactly the opposite, because he substitutes the cinematic form (use of camera, editing and sound) for theatrics. There is no conventional emotive acting. There is very little exposition (explanation of plot points in dialogue by actors). What there is, is motion......what the human eye sees in every day reality. And there is his incredible, unique and almost unparalleled, editing.

Finally, there is the deep spiritual component of Bresson's films, which is what results when you add all the other mechanical parts and the devalued acting together.

That is what I mean when I call him an "Essentialist". He strips out everything you see in conventional movies, all the dramatic acting and camera tricks, all the spectacular lighting and (most of) the music, which in conventional films is placed to direct your emotions. Music in films tells you "how to feel" in any given scene, which is why you cry or feel elated in parts of many movies. Bresson strips away all of that and just gives you cinematic form and repetition. He only gives you the "essentials" - of what you would observe, as a human, in real life. That is how he tells his story.

For the record, and as you know, I love conventional movies, from Hollywood and anywhere else. So long as they are well made and don't have Sandler, Schwarzanegger, DeVito or Van Damme (or a few others).

I love movies, and I love regular conventional movies......

But for some reason, Robert Bresson is one of my top two or three directors. Him, Lynch, and Ozu. Tarkovsky.

But Bresson is all by himself when it comes to style. There is simply no one like him and I can't recommend his movies highly enough. They take some getting used to - you have to "do a little work" as a viewer because he doesn't give you the conventions you are used to, but it is so worth it.

And that's the end of my Hooray For Bresson speech for this week!

I saw your post a little while ago, from Versus Me, about the Creepy Clown sighting at a local record store. Now girl, that is classic and way too cool because it is straight out of SK and "It", which I am in the process of finishing as I close in on the final 70 pages (been reading since June!).

There seems to be a lot of Clowns around these days. They are being seen all over America. They carry balloons and they are not friendly and funny like Bozo or Chuckles, but instead downright scary.

Terrifying even. Like Pennywise. :)

Stephen King himself just posted about this phenomenon on Facebook. He was actually defending Clowns, who he says are "mostly" funny and nice to children. As a kid, I loved Bozo, and even Hobo Kelly, the successor to Ronald McDonald......

But I think King was just being facetious. He loves Scary Clowns.

After all, he invented the scariest one himself. And Pennywise may be the most fun of them all.......

......if only because he isn't real. I mean - he isn't........right? (man I hope not).

That's all I know for tonight, SB!

I Love You and will see you in the morning.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)