Talk:Au Hasard Balthazar

Untitled

Such a brilliant film and it only has one line.... — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-27 20:40

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved. —Centrx→talk • 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Balthazar (film) → Au hasard Balthazar … Rationale: commonly used title, found on virtually all video releases in English-speaking countries … Please share your opinion at Talk:Balthazar (film). — Girolamo Savonarola 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. The proper title should be used. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support the proper title should be used. and brackets ( ) are supose to be used when there is a disambiguation page and that is not the case here. Made a mistake there but I still vote keep. --Edgelord 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I haven't seen just Balthazar used... gren グレン 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Did the Donkey Balthazar Undergo Real Torture In The Making of The Film?

Reviewers and commenters rave about the spiritual, mystical aspect of this movie, and call it Bresson's masterpiece, a miracle of compassion. Yet the donkey throughout the movie undergoes repeated beatings and other extreme verbal and physical abuse, including one scene where he's lit on fire. Bresson's compassion seems to have expressed itself strangely, if this extremely cruel mistreatment of the animal actually happened during filming--as it seems to have. I'm astonished that no reviewers or commenters have addressed this matter. If Bresson's intent was to show the long-drawn-out Crucifixion of a gentle beast, and if these scenes weren't faked, he himself was chief among the sinners pounding in the nails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younggoldchip (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how recently you've seen the film, but most scenes of 'abuse' were quite obviously simulated... almost to the point that it was detrimental to the film. First, it should be clarified to anyone uninitiated that the film's depiction of animal abuse is quite mild and, although sympathetic, is hardly anything to turn your stomach. Frankly, I found the manipulation of human Maria to be the truly depressing aspect of the film. Balthazar is whipped and beaten, but always in the context of being a beast of burden. Most scenes where the animal is struck occur off-camera or with a closeup of what appears to be a fake rear-end. The animal is worked hard and treated cruelly, but hardly tortured for torture's sake. Other examples of the abuse include him being worked for long hours and developing sores from a bad harness. A few scenes show owners chasing him as if to beat him, but he gets away unscathed. It's actually a bit admirable that a foreign art film hoping to depict the harsh reality of life went to such length to spare actually hurting the animal. Rather than having you reeling from animal abuse, more often than not a modern viewer will likely find the simulations unconvincing and not distracting from the story. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This user's opinion about whether or not there was real torture of an animal seems to depend on how much they value a real animal's suffering over a fictional human's suffering. "Hardly torture for torture's sake", no, torture for film's sake is still torture though. It is hard to trust this answer, and I would agree with the person who said that if you saw a donkey running with his tail lit on fire, that it happened. And also that it was cruel, that it was not justifiable by "not worse than what farmers do", and I think it is a very interesting point that Bresson is lauded for his compassion of all things when he performed such tricks on a living innocent. --Rednoises (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No, this user's opinion was based on what was and was not simulated, as was said before any help reimagining what I wrote. I was answering the question of whether or not the animal was tortured, and my answer is that there's really no evidence of anything more extreme than it being worked as a farm animal. You seem to take for granted that it was tortured and that I'm therefore making excuses for that, which isn't the case and leads me to believe you haven't seen the film or just can't tell the difference. Scoundr3l (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I wish it were true that Bresson "went to such lengths to spare actually hurting the animal." I've never found notes or accounts of the making of the film which would clear this up. Balthazar is often beaten onscreen, and it does not appear to be faked. The scene where he flees through the dark after being lit on fire seems genuine. He is worked and driven past exhaustion. If, as you suggest, he did not actually undergo every single humiliation, torment, and torture which is shown, still, he underwent more than enough. It would be interesting to know if he survived the film and spent his last years in a peaceful pasture. My point stands. Bresson's film deplores the cruelty in the world, suffering of the innocent. Maria's and Balthazar's fates are not mutually exclusive. They are both tragedies. Younggoldchip (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You may have to be more specific then, because Bresson can hardly be expected to provide proof he didn't do something if he didn't do it. Like, what scenes in particular are you concerned aren't simulated? You keep mentioning him being lit on fire, but first of all it was broad daylight so I'm not sure you're remembering the film as clearly as you think you are. And at no point is a donkey shown on fire, it cuts between shots of someone lighting a piece of paper on a immobile rump and a real donkey's face, then shows a real donkey casually trotting away with something smoking on his tail. That's a lot of effort to fake it if they were ultimately just going to do it for real. Just from a filmmaking standpoint, actually lighting a donkey on fire is about the worst possible way to get the shot, there'd be no way to predict how to track it, you could start a fire and/or injure your "star". I think you're overdramatizing it or misremembering. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems like common sense. Why go through the trouble of abusing an animal to make a movie about animal abuse and then not film it? Anything you saw happen, really happened. Anything that happened off camera or in an extreme close-up of fur was fake. With only that to go off of, the animal wasn't treated any worse than a typical farm animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.236.131 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You think that even if Baltasar was really tortured, he wasn't treated any worse than a typical farm animal? How ludicrous. I've seen many farms and country communities in my life. Farmers treat their animals well because they're valuable. They need them to be in good condition. They don't whip them, beat them with fists, light their tails on fire or do anything else counterproductive to their usefulness. The movie does not mirror reality. By the way, another comment claims the donkey is never shown on fire, but ambling away with "something smoking." I wonder what movie that guy saw.The scene takes place at night, and Baltasar is shown running in terror followed by a comet of flame. According to the film critic Nathan Cox, a newspaper was lit and actually applied to his tail. Younggoldchip (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)