I think, I look at him 20-30 years ago, perhaps, would have been more imbued with the fate and actions of the young priest, and now I just watched, understood what the author wanted to say, even sympathized with the naive hero, but I did not feel satisfaction from watching, and not all the author’s ideas caused a response in me, some
more
I think, I look at him 20-30 years ago, perhaps, would have been more imbued with the fate and actions of the young priest, and now I just watched, understood what the author wanted to say, even sympathized with the naive hero, but I did not feel satisfaction from watching, and not all the author’s ideas caused a response in me, some simply did not believe. Perhaps, by old age, she was completely hard of heart. The young priest is sent to a remote parish, no one is particularly happy about his arrival, he is even subjected to some attacks, including from children, to whom he teaches sacred scripture. The film is essentially a monologue of the main character, played, by the way, by an unprofessional actor who just reads his text, and we look at the illustrations to it, that is, we are presented with a picture of what is happening from the point of view of not even the author, but one character, observed through the eyes of the priest and interpreted by him, except that the author agrees with him. He is, of course, a good man, but absolutely immature, life for him is something not very familiar to him, so he wanders in it quite obviously, building his own uncomplicated philosophy, burdening himself with far-fetched habits (as, for example, his “food system”, with which he may have driven himself into the grave prematurely), listening and hearing only himself. Bresson showed all this with his own skill, shot well, especially since the film is black and white, but alas, it is quite obvious to me that I should have seen it earlier. I haven’t read the book, who knows how the author of the book conveyed his thoughts?
|