User reviews

"L'Argent" is Robert Bresson's very last film and a piece of work that went through a lot of financial problems to see the light of day. It was dismissed by many producers before being finally taken in hand by the Ministry of the Arts. At that time, Jack Lang was the ministry and his daughter served as a "model" for Bresson in the film where she is Yvette, Yvon's wife.

Sourced from a short story by Léon Tolstoï, "l'Argent" is first the assessment of a downward spiral for the main hero of the film, Yvon. Because he was given a forged note, this domestic oil delivery man will be caught in a chain of unfortunate events which will see him jailed, losing his cute, little daughter and wife before turning into a murderer. Through his decay, all forms of dishonesty, cruelty, injustice will be stated with money at their core, particularly in the first half of the film. Money is used for rewarding cowardice (the photograph who rewards his employee Lucien for his false evidence), for buying people's silence (Norbert's mother who gives the photograph's wife money to compensate her) and more generally, money is a God that makes Yvon's fate take a tragic dimension and drives a cruel, unfair world.

Its depiction is a perfect opportunity for Bresson to let his sparse, cold, neutral cinematographic writing shine. The more the film goes on, the more these epithets prevail with an accumulation of close-ups of objects, audacious elliptical sequences, a tightened editing and deliberately bland models who recite their texts and don't "act" it. Bresson's minimalist approach of this tragic story and harsh society amounts to a limpid harmony that inevitably brings an unshakable emotion and it's important to note down the moment when Yvon is put up by the old lady. These sequences are like lulls in Yvon's grisly fate and it's impossible to remain indifferent to the old lady's dreary way of life or when she's offered a few hazelnuts by Yvon. There's even a glimmer of hope when she pronounces the words: "I would forgive to the rest of the world".

It's true that Bresson's highly elliptical, straightforward style will leave many viewers baffled as there is no psychology or action but if you're sensitive to his unspectacular directing, you will realize that he pushed his art to the extreme to better get the audience involved in Yvon's woes. You can watch it only once but it will forever stay in your mind.

On a strictly formalist level, Robert Bresson's swan song, "L'Argent" (1983, France;which directly translates to "Money"), can be regarded as Pure Cinema. That is to say, no emotions, no actions, no music, none of such "artificiality" that has customarily been associated with cinema. At best, the film (and for that matter, Bresson's entire filmography) can be described as a Cinema of Ideology.

What is strictly at work here is the "idea" of how money can corrupt and destroy the human spirit. Surely, this can be derived from the Biblical concept of "money being the root of all evil" (Bresson's Christian upbringing being almost always discernible in his films). But this is not to regard this essential commodity per se as the reason for all things evil. Rather, at least in the film's context, it's a particularly forged 500-franc note that set in motion a series of unpleasant and unjust events, with this quiet and unassuming gas station attendant named Yvon Targe at the (abysmal) center.

As suggested from the preceding paragraphs, what concerns Bresson here is not the characters themselves or the milieu they are in (the actuality), as let's say the Italian Neo-Realism would have it, but the idea of how an unscrupulous act can be the cause of another person's undoing. This is humanism in its abstraction. Thus, watching the implications and complications of the counterfeit 500-franc bill upon the lives of the characters--or upon the life of Yvon--is like watching statuesque figures ("15th-century Christian icons", as some would politely have it) being callously manipulated by their blind fate, perennially condemned to be dragged along by the turning of its wheels.

And it is Bresson himself who is the prime mover of this "wheel". In his hands, the "force" of this fate is of such a cold, detached, unforgivably rational quality that one can unfailingly have the feeling of not being able to bear it all. From the initial simple act of the two schoolboys having to knowingly spend the counterfeit money at a photography shop, to the final harrowing act of Yvon having to commit a terrible deed in the name of and as a vengeance against the money (in a figurative sense), one senses Bresson as having the big hand in this cause-and-effect chain of events.

If one gets such a feeling, it's because the filmmaker (already 82 at that time) intended it to be so. As "L'Argent" is a specimen of Bresson's own brand of Pure Cinema, he absolutely wants his exacting vision and conception to be seen and felt in each and every scene, unhampered and uncluttered by the "standard" cinematic manipulations of stylized dialogue, fancy emotions, accompanying soundtrack and contrived actions. In this specific cinematic world, the filmmaker is the cinematic god himself whose fuel for his performers (non-professional at that) is mainly his idea of how cinema should be.

(In reference to one of his films, a reviewer noted that it is Bresson himself who is assuming the different characters in the film. Curiously, the above-noted film elements are what define, not in a derogative way though, Bresson's introductory feature film, "The Ladies of Bois du Bologne".)

This, in effect, gives an entirely purist level to the filmic conception of what it means to be an auteur, formally introduced to movie lexicon by the French New Wave, as pioneered by Jean-Luc Godard. "Purist", in that, whereas the New Wave pioneers can still "play" upon the above-mentioned filmic artificialities, Bresson the auteur is no different from being a sculptor or a painter or even a novelist. It's his own soul that seeps through his work. The product is distinguished by the singularity of its maker's personality.

What makes this singularly cold, clinical method even more pronounced is how Bresson's characters always find themselves drawn into the vortex of some kind of moral and/or spiritual crisis. The intellectual thief in "Pickpocket", the desolate young wife in "A Gentle Woman", the abused teenage girl in "Mouchette", the self-destructive youth in "The Devil, Probably", the contemplative priest in "Diary of a Country Priest", and now the quiet simpleton-turned-morally bankrupt murderer in "L'Argent". Bresson's rigorous and steely formalist cinema should just be the perfect stage for the dark night of his characters' souls. Grace is attained not without some form of sacrifice and damnation of the soul.

It is this ideology that fills the mold of this filmmaker's astonishing pure art. Unrelentingly dark and morbid, perhaps, but a flickering light of salvation can still be seen through it all.

Robert Bresson tells the story of a handful of people who are manipulated by greed for the key component of capitalism: Money (originating in the form of a counterfeit bill, I'll also tell you it's based fairly loosely on a Tolstoy novella "The Forged Note"). A disturbing series of events change the lives of a few individuals and signifies how such a system can rot a human being to their core. Emotionally I connected with this film very strongly, at some points it made me sit up in my seat and shake my head in amazement. However, Bresson's directing style is very different from most. He'll pause and hold moments in time expecting the viewer to stay with him. He'll also decide to leave out parts of a film that most would deem very important (generally, he avoids showing too many scenes that are similar to each other) which can be confusing. But when it comes to paying attention to this film, you'll get much more than you give... I go back to this movie every now and then and find something new to love about it. Rating? easily 10/ 10.

On the DVD for the film L'Argent, it's writer/director Robert Bresson says that he dislikes his films being called "works", because he sees each films as being a sort of "striving" or attempt towards something more and more perfect with cinematography and so on, and most specifically to strive towards truth with what's up on the screen. It's an interesting position to see from the film's own creator, because the truth as presented in L'Argent is that really of repression. It's not just the characters, or particularly the actors portraying them, or the deliberate flow of shots in a scene of violence or physical altercation or something that should be run of the mill in a crime movie. It's the society itself, and even in the subtler ways the mechanics of society, of money as well, drive along people, especially when they do wrong. Like other Bresson pictures, L'Argent is interested in man's conscience and what it is to go over the line of what makes one guilty or not based on the cruel fates of such a society, only this time even more restrained and- as the word gets thrown around so often- detached.

But I would be a little hesitant to label it outright as detached. Bresson's definitely no Scorsese, let's make that clear, and one's not going to get a camera movement that jolts you in your seat. On the other hand there's a level of low-key engrossment in the material. It's not very easy to get through, to be certain, as Bresson is all about both subtleties and hitting you over the head with the message, although not seemingly so much with the latter. His story comes from a Tolstoy short, and it seems fitting for a man who's masterpiece, A Man Escaped, also dealt with the feelings of dread against a clockwork structure where any and all feeling comes in smaller doses. The protagonist, Yvon, gets handed a twist of fate with some counterfeit money, and gets put to jail after taking a deal on a job that leads to a car crash (perhaps the one and only time, ironically of course, that Bresson probably tried an action scene like this). After a stint in prison, where coming face to face with the man originally responsible for putting him in there via the counterfeit money only brings a sense of loss in lacking revenge, he goes through a murder spree.

But a murder spree, of course, as Bresson would only do, where omitted details are all apart of the mis-en-scene and in adding an emphasis on the aftermath more-so than the actual grisly details of what goes on in the moment. There's even a moment towards the end of something out of Sling Blade, only here not so much out of the simplicity of the mind from knowing right or wrong but from the simplicity of being numbed by the experience: the lack of a conscience. Yvon is the kind of criminal that never gets shown in movies, and rightfully so. He doesn't fit into a comfortable mold, and it will be a little sluggish for some viewers, even in an 81 minute running time, to see the usual Bresson tactics going on; likely many, many takes to wear down the already non-professional actors, and this time stuck in a near-rigid control of Bresson's in an emphasis of camera over performance. As one critic pointed out, it's more like 15th century icons than usual 'actors'. And, truth be told, it's not quite as fascinating as A Man Escaped or Pickpocket because of Bresson making it tougher to get into the detachment of the main character (the lack of narration may be attributable to this, or the simple fact that perhaps Tolstoy is a hard literary nut to crack).

But as his final film, it's a good "attempt" that does progress ideas about the truth behind criminal acts, and the society that tries, convicts and houses them (there's an great little moment showing how the prisoners have to pick up their suitcases before going into the prison), and how 'normal' citizens also have a kind of repression that comes out in spurts, like with the old married couple who take in Yvon late in the film (the shot of the slap is significant, tying into Bresson's visual scheme of such acts being too easy to show on film). It's an intellectual stimulator, at the least, even as it does resist anything extremely favorable as an emotional effort. It's slightly cold and assuredly dense, but worthwhile for a certain kind of movie-goer.

Robert Bresson's last film is based on a short story by great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy.L'Argent is not at all a direct adaptation of Tolstoy's work of literary production "Faux Billet".It is a film for which Bresson infused some of his own ideas in order to create a different narrative.It was made in 1983 thanks to personal intervention by French minister of culture Jack Lang whose daughter Caroline played an important role in it. L'argent is a Christian story of redemption about an innocent man who is doomed due to the carelessness of reckless people.We see that due to class difference and power struggle Yvon is condemned to hell.L'argent throws light on misfortunes associated with money.It depicts that many people from good backgrounds are involved in wrong doing.In L'Argent, we primarily see a simplicity of actions,gestures,sound and images. Bresson achieved this effect by creating a film in which events happen in quick succession.It is expected that the audience will remain focused in order to appreciate its sequence of events.One would be surprised to note that even violent acts are shown in a cold,detached manner.L'argent is recommended as a good film which is a good example of perfect collaboration between a filmmaker and a writer.

I just wanted to make a quick comment regarding the comment of suekendall about l'argent. L'argent is one of Bresson's biggest masterpieces. A merge of minimalism and strong observation. And as for the actors in l'argent, they are not wooden, they are real. Bresson made frequent use of non-performers to give his film a certain authenticity. I think he succeeded in every aspect. It is a ground breaking film which taught the viewer that it does require very little to create a story. Bresson works demands the viewer's imagination. Moreover, for everyone who has a keen interest in cinematography, this film is a must. Bresson truly succeeded in making the most economic and sensible use of the camera.

For everyone who does not like the film, there will be other films to enjoy...but for everyone who is willing to enter Bresson's world, this film is a true eye opener about film, art and humanity.

In the modern jungle of the society presented in Robert Bresson's last film "L'Argent" (The Money) the survival of the fittest gets translated as the survival of the smartest person and the material for that is the money in all of his forms. The one who has the money controls everything, everyone, has the chance to buy and sell everything but men are mortal and they end losing up his/her soul just to have the main thing to survive among the living: money.

In his criticism about modern society, Bresson follows several characters involved with counterfeit money made by some bourgeoisie teenagers whose parents don't give all the money they want; and this same money will cause problems to a lot of people including the good guy Yvon Targe (Christian Patey), a simple man, living a regular life with his family until the day he almost gets arrested for trying to spend this money given by him during a business trade. Yvon escaped from being sentenced, but the damage was done. He lost his job, finds another one not so good by helping a friend in a bank robbery but this time he'll go to jail and will lose everything he knew of his previous life. The destiny has some surprises for him and for us while seeing how things will be developed with him and the other characters.

The environment and the circumstances of situations changes the man into a different thing; Yvon was a good man before all that happened; after that it's all downhill from him, including more robbery and even some murders. Here's a story about life, the awful pursuit of profit over the weakest, the dumbest (after all, Yvon received the money from the guy at the shop without looking if it was real or not), and how almost innocent pranks turned out to be the deadliest, the most striking events. Interesting also the fact about the wealthy kids who make counterfeit money, ask more money to their parents. One of them has a great taste for suits, steal money from his former boss and then return some part of the money, claiming that he's generous, he'll donate some for the poor. The sense of irony in this moment is incredible.

Well directed, well acted and with a good screenplay, "L'Argent" on one hand makes valuable statements about the power of money with a positive simplicity, based on a work from Tolstoy (now, here's a man who really gave away all of his money to preach love among people). On the other hand, the most technical aspect of the film, the narrative makes two films in one that it gets dreary, confusing, and almost without any connection with what we were seeing. I'm talking about the last half-hour that didn't match so great as it could be, but at least Bresson proved his point by the violent reaction of the main character. I believe this conclusion was the reason behind the negative reaction from Cannes audience when Bresson won the award of Best Director, in a tied along with Andrei Tarkovsky with his outstanding "Nostalgia". While Tarkovsky was praised and applauded, Bresson got some boos from the crowd, and Tarkovsky being a great admirer of Bresson complimented, embarrassed the other director (I saw the video with this moment somewhere). It's a very realistic ending but most people simply don't agree with what was showed in this change of moral behavior from such a sweet character.

Bresson and his last film tells many great things about the necessary evil money is and its disadvantages. 9/10

The plot simple and realistic: corruption to money. Usual from the Italian neo-realism movement. The worst was that acting was just not there. People were colorless and emotionless. They were living tragedies and none of them screamed, or cried(except one scene) or laughed at all. They were non humans! It was like reading a newspaper, a dry and with not soul at all journalistic article. I'm sure that Tolstoy's novel was not like this. The story reminded me movies of the Italian neo-realism movement, yet this one was not to be compared with some masterpieces of De Sica, Visconti etc...

"L'Argent" (French, 1983): When I saw Bresson's 1974 film "Lancelot du Lac" in 1977, I was amazed. What a stripped down, abstract, minimalist film! How empty, unemotional, and full of dread can one film be? Well, he met this challenge nine years later with his own (and last film) "L'Argent". Imagine screen writing a very interesting, linear story (taken from Tolstoy's short story "The Forged Note"), creating many characters who occasionally cross one another's paths, but then using static, nearly frozen camera work; stiff, nearly frozen "actors" (non-actors, "deliverers of the few lines"); and no major action to depict the events of your story. The result is almost like a "recreation of actual events". If you're looking for an intelligent story, here it is. If you're looking for entertainment, powerful acting, fascinating interaction, dizzying camera work, Dolby sound or a single special effect, go elsewhere.

Robert Bresson is to cinema what Tàpies or Picasso would be to painting. It is indeed his last work which contains a concentrated knowledge of Art from an artist with 83 years of experience. I would recommend to anyone interested on his career and his cinema to read his notes entitled "Notes sur le cinématographe". In order to be introduced to his language I do also highly recommend to see his earlier works Pickpocket (1959), and "Un condamné a mort c'est échapé" "a condemned to death has scaped(1956). Robert Bresson does not use actors but "models". He gave this nomenclature to what we usually understand by actors due to the fact that he considered usual actors to always overact. Consequently he would picked up people without experience on acting by choosing them by their tone of voice and their austere facial expression. Very concerned to bring cinema to its highest pureness he combines and works with "characters", sound, photography and scenery with a minimalist style. L'argent is certainly a masterpiece. It's essentially cinema.

The plot is relatively simple. It all starts with a large counterfeit bill which affects the lives of several people. It finally finds its way to a poor man who pumps fuel oil. He is arrested at a restaurant, trying to pass the bills (which he thinks are OK). We now have a domino effect. He gets no sentence but loses his job and his stubbornness overtakes him. He ends up driving a getaway car. This is a sad tale which leads to violence. The film uses quick cuts between events, including a finishing sequence. Bresson wanted us to look at the man and not be distracted by the violent deeds. Once one gets used to the technique, it makes more sense. One silly problem for me was that the young French men looked so much alike. Many had the same hair style. Many had the same bodily features.

A forged 500-franc note is cynically passed from person to person and shop to shop, until it falls into the hands of a genuine innocent who doesn't see it for what it is - which will have devastating consequences on his life, causing him to turn to crime.

Bresson first began work on the film's script in 1977. It is based on Leo Tolstoy's "The Forged Coupon". Bresson later said that it was the film "with which I am most satisfied- or at least it is the one where I found the most surprises when it was complete- things I had not expected." While this is not Bresson's best film, it is still a great film fro ma man who has made many great films. That it also happens to be his final film is wonderful, because he ended on a high note. Far too many directors seem to wane as their careers progress, but Bresson shows he was not one of them -- three decades on, the film is both entertaining and powerful.

Bresson's last film is one of his best. He leaves no room for anything extra. There are no more dissolves, no more music (just his brilliant soundtrack). He moves through so many many facets of society so quickly, efficiently and daringly. Today's filmmakers should learn a lesson with their 2 hour films which never get to the point.

You will never forget the car chase scene, where he as usual builds so much through the soundtrack. And the dog, roaming from room to room in a pinnacle scene is revolutionary.

Money corrupts, then and now, and his attack on french society was maybe another reason he was never given funding for his films.

Bresson's ability to show humanity, surprise, horror and complexity reminds of his hero Doestovesky and in this case Tolstoy.

The ending, the final scene and shot, pierces your soul.

My Rating : 8/10

The minimalist tone of Bresson's cinematographic works is a language and art on it's own that deals in feelings rather than concrete intellectual black and white understanding - it moves, breathes, changes and gets under the viewer's skin and hopefully their emotions and sensibilities. One can see some influence of De Sica's 'Bicycle Thieves' herein though the treatment of the material is typical Bresson. One can also see L'Argent's influence on Krzysztof Kieslowski's works specifically 'A Short Film About Killing'. So the language and purpose of cinema has been effectively passed down the pantheon of the auteurs in some mysterious form - an art form which is the embodiment of the mystery of the human spirit and it's powerful interiority.

Luckily for me, I not only knew this but it was the very reason I was interested in seeking his work. I tend to like that kind of film making and was excited to see another of those masters' work.

The beginning of the film is jarring because you aren't really sure who the main character of the film is going to be. Just as you feel like you know that the film is going to be about a well off boy who commits a crime because his parents won't give him spending money the film leaves off on his story entirely, instead following the counterfeit bill he and his friend pass of at a photography store.

Then you settle in as you assume the film is to follow the clerk who took the bill and her boss who is upset about it. Surely they are about to call the police and the remainder of the film will be the fallout from that, but again. No.

The film ends up being about two characters who become consumed by crime, first the crimes of others, then their own. These characters are innocent bystanders and who are so tangentially related to the inciting crime that the viewer begins wondering why the film keeps focusing on them when the actual criminals fade into the background completely.

Then, their own crimes begin and the film becomes a study in the criminal heart that tastes just a whiff of evil and wants more. Will these violent desires have violent ends or will they be turned from and redemption be embraced? Well that is the question of the film. I'm certainly not going to tell you here.

The cinematography in this film is more than a character in the film. Many times that old hackneyed phrase is a simple was of saying that you notice the camera work. Certainly this is the case in "L'argent" but rather than being a character or narrator, the camera is only passively interested in the film's events.

There are times where the camera isn't showing either party in a conversation or where the principle action is not shown. Why?

I can't say for sure, it is art after all, but for me it exuded this sense that the characters were caught up in events and a societal machine that was indifferent to them. By the end of the film you are starving for connection and creates a greater value when it becomes personal for one relationship that is encountered. In that sense, the camera work is not a character singular as much as a representation of culture or characters plural.

I was kind of disappointed in the acting in this movie. I'm sure it was intentional but the sort of matter of fact unmotivated acting in this film left me wondering what people were feeling much of the time. This does seem to be a feature of certain foreign films in general and I' not exactly sure why. You do get used to it but it does leave the film on the dry side.

To top off this detached film is a wonderfully literary piece. Granted, Bresson based this work on a Tolstoy story so that helps, but if you are the sort of person who loves a good classic crime story (we're talking "Crime and Punishment" here not pulp) then this film might just be your cup of tea.

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.