User Reviews (83)

Add a Review

  • This slow burn film from Robert Bresson is not going to be to everyone's taste, and I'm not sure it was to mine. It's a film I admired more than enjoyed.

    It tells the story of a man who's addicted to theft, or maybe more accurately addicted to the rush of getting away with theft, or maybe more accurately addicted to the rush of possibly being caught thieving. It's not a long movie but it may try your patience, as it's very slow and very quiet. The main character is a bit of a blank slate, and he remains so. We never learn much about him, and I personally didn't feel especially invested in what happened to him. It was only in reading about the film after seeing it that I found out the ending is considered to be remarkable among film scholars, but I didn't react to it much myself.

    The best scenes in the movie are those that show the elaborate rituals that exist among pickpocket teams, and the pretty amazing feats they pull off. They're like magicians who use sleight of hand for nefarious purposes.

    Grade: B+
  • Probably the most influential of Robert Bresson's trio of masterpieces from the Fifties (the other two being *A Man Escaped* and, of course, *Diary of a Country Priest*). *Pickpocket* sowed its seeds of influence in the minds of any number of film artists -- Jean-Pierre Melville most notably (who despised Bresson, apparently), whose *Le Samourai* was a mighty struggle against this film . . . and, most completely, writer-director Paul Schrader, who, you'll recall, wrote the *Taxi Driver* screenplay, which was another story about a loner on the outside of societal norms. And it goes without saying that Schrader's *American Gigolo*, which he also directed, is a virtual rewrite of *Pickpocket*, right down to the egregiously plagiarized finale.

    The subject of Bresson's film is not nearly as sexy a conception as Schrader's gigolo, though the milieu is equally as sleazy. Instead of preening Richard Gere, we get acting novice Martin LaSalle as the Pickpocket, who wears one suit through the entire film. (Schrader obviously thought he was being clever by giving Gere a large closet stuffed with designer suits). LaSalle lives in a crumbly walk-up flat in Paris, where his books gather dust and the baseboards hide his humble stash of francs and the occasional wristwatch. He has few friends and is too ashamed to visit his dying mother (I won't spoil the reason why). The only pleasure he derives is from his compulsive work as a pickpocket, and it is in these scenes that Bresson stuns us with his martinet control of both narrative pacing and camera placement. The director lovingly shows us the subtle skills of the street thief: the creeping hands, the split-second scams (such as lifting a wallet from a man's suit breast-pocket while standing next to him and pretending to read a newspaper), the choreographed celerity of movement when the thief works with his partners in crime. There's one sequence that follows LaSalle and his two accomplices from a train station all the way to the train, in which they lift about 15 wallets and the occasional purse. The camera-work and editing here is nothing less than sheer mastery -- a ballet of thievery. And let it also be said that Bresson is no slouch when it comes to suspense. It's an intimate and sweaty suspense: will LaSalle's fingers, as they slowly reach into a purse, be noticed?

    As might be expected from a French director of the period, there's also plenty of philosophizing to be found here, and in this case, the philosophy is actually pretty interesting. The movie takes as its intellectual parents the ubermensch riff by Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment". LaSalle asks the cop who's on his trail if society's "supermen", even if they choose to be thieves, should not only be let alone, but even respected as an overall benefit to society. (Thus sprach Kenneth Lay!) Obviously, we can mull that over ourselves, but in the meantime, Bresson is not particularly impressed with the "decent" elements of society. The cop is a pompous blow-hard who can offer LaSalle no alternative to his criminality. Bresson is more or less saying that modern society is contemptible: your acceptance of that thesis, and the importance you place on the occasional 100 francs getting lifted from an overfed bourgeois, will ultimately determine your acceptance of this film.

    But perhaps its style will bog you down. As per usual, Bresson breaks virtually every rule of the movies. The use of non-actors in the main roles engenders both assets and liabilities: while the avoidance of the typical actors' nonsense is a definite asset, the liabilities occur when Bresson asks his "interpreters" to finally, well, act. There are a few scenes here where the incompetence of LaSalle (he eventually became a fine actor, but he was virtually plucked off the street by Bresson in 1958) will make you cringe, especially when LaSalle is supposed to be angry with someone. There IS something to be said for professionals -- even professional actors. And if none of this puts you off, perhaps Bresson's perverse narrative style -- including scenes in which a character writes down on a piece of paper the following narrative action, to be followed by the character READING what he has just written down, and climaxed by the character DOING just what he wrote and said he was going to do -- will make you scratch your head and mutter something about the arty pretensions of French directors.

    And your comments would certainly be justified in Bresson's later productions. But in *Pickpocket*, I feel, the narrative precision, lack of bloat (the movie is 75 minutes long), and broader philosophical questions coalesce into a stringent masterpiece that must finally win your respect. Besides: you gotta love a movie about a pickpocket who never bothers to lock, or even close, his own front door. See? Bresson can even be funny.

    8 stars out of 10.
  • In Paris, the lonely and anguished pickpocket Michel (Martin La Salle) lives in a dirty little room and spends his time stealing wallets and purses in public spaces. His only friends are Jacques (Pierre Leymarie), who tries to help him to find a job, and his mother's next door neighbor Jeanne (Marika Green). After the death of his mother, Michel teams-up with two smalltime thieves despite the permanent surveillance of the local police inspector (Jean Pélégri). Later he travels overseas to get rid of the observation of the police, but two years later he returns to Paris and finds Jeanne alone, with her son with Jacques after a brief love affair. Michel decides to help her and find an honest job; but in a horse race, he is tempted by his addiction with tragic consequences.

    This is the first time that I have watched"Pickpocket" and I expected much more from this famous movie. The development of the lead character Michel is confused and it is clear that he is a troubled, lonely and anguished unemployed young man, but it is never clear the motives why he is addicted in stealing since he shows no ambition or dream or love. The beauty of Marika Green is impressive and she seems to love Michel since the very beginning but again her feelings are never clear. Indeed the actors and actress express no sentiments and the plot is very weird. My vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): "Pickpocket"
  • Wesley-Wang21 February 2019
    Warning: Spoilers
    Whereas in A Man Escaped (1956) the protagonist is imprisoned literally and free metaphorically, in Pickpocket the protagonist is free literally but imprisoned metaphorically. Both their literal states then transform into their metaphorical state- as in most of Bresson's films, the soul triumphs.

    Though contrary to my previous statement, Bresson does not hesitate with reality. In fact, he once stated in an interview, he is "obsessed with reality". His portrayal of objects and movements are simple, but precise, as the tangible often is. This is best depicted in an elegantly coordinated sequence a little over halfway through the film, where Michel and his accomplices pickpocket several passengers on a train. The "ballet of images", as Roger Ebert described it, was the most beautiful heist scene I have ever witnessed.

    Like Travis Bickle in Scorsese's Taxi Driver (1976), Michel suffers from loneliness and perverse societal beliefs. He uses pickpocketing as an outlet for pleasure, and becomes addicted. He thinks he is somehow better than everyone else, and uses this as an excuse for committing crime. As ignorant as he may seem, he does bring up some good points that are of philosophical interest. For instance, Michel argues with the inspector: "Can we not admit that certain skilled men, gifted with intelligence, talent or even genius, and thus indispensable to society, rather than stagnate, should be free to disobey the laws in certain cases?" Of course, Michel is talking about himself as one of the "supermen".

    You can especially see personal elements of Bresson's thoughts embedded in Michel's character when Michel explains regarding his "supermen" theory, "(the world) is already upside down. This could set it right." Bresson has repeatedly declared his pessimistic view of modern cinema, and how its theatricality (namely contrived emotion and expressive acting) is ruining what cinema is meant to be.

    The film climaxes at an ethereal last scene, where Jeanne, the young lady Michel was helping (also a similarity to Taxi Driver where Travis Bickle protects for Iris), visits him in prison. Michel realizes he is in love, and they touch through the bars that separate them. He narrates, "Oh, Jeanne, what a strange way I had to take to meet you!"

    The key to Bresson's style is transcendentalism. While he provides what happens, he forces the viewer to use their imagination to answer why it happened. For example, we are left in the dark on why Michel avoids visiting his ill mother. He works on the ironic, yet genius philosophy: if you bore the viewer enough, they will become entranced. I had to watch Pickpocket twice to fully come to terms to his uncompromising methodology, and even now I'm still struggling to describe the experience of watching a Bresson film with words.

    I will say this though: it's freaking hilarious how the pickpocket never locks his own door.
  • Robert Bresson's Pickpocket has many great moments, even as it didn't quite do it for me on a first viewing as a 'masterpiece'(some have said to see it twice, perhaps I will). Bresson's use of the camera is often intoxicating in the most subdued, subtle, in-direct distinctions; at times it does take on the prowess of literature. But my only minor nitpick with the film is that it leaves a sort of cold viewing on a viewer, with such simplicity and emotions stripped from the character(s) that it's hard to connect. And yet, this is really made up tenfold with the sort of style that can be likely called Bressonian; straightforward angles, tense medium close-ups, serene editing, and little to no music.

    Whatever it sets up for this actor to do, it sets up well. Indeed, the actor who plays the protagonist here is actually very good, aside from the disconnection, and provides an excellent way for us to get along his side. He is a decent person, but there are certain things that get to him, which is why he feels he must steal. At times I almost had a grin as he made some successful grabs, by himself or his cohorts. Was I rooting for him, or just pleased by the pay-off of Bresson's suspense? Maybe both; there is definitely one truly virtuoso sequence in the film, when the pickpockets go on the train.

    Like A Man Escaped, there is that sort of dissection, quietly and without really digging too deep, into what a man wants with his life, or doesn't want. While the hero has only one determination in Man Escaped, to get out, Pickpocket has a man who doesn't know what to do with himself, only coming to a genuine catharsis behind bars. I think I like Pickpocket a little more, but I may like it even more on another viewing.
  • To my previous comments, I should like to add/correct. When I said that Kassagi, who plays "first accomplice" (1er complice), was a 'real-life pickpocket who served as the film's technical consultant' I was not only inaccurate, but the fact that Kassagi was actually a stage magician has some bearing on the film itself, for although the scene in which the pickpockets rip off a series of train passengers is authentic in that it shows how pickpockets operate in terms of teamwork and speed, nevertheless, the moment when Kassagi (?) 'neatly replac[es] the lightened wallet [back] in a man's pocket' is not something a real pickpocket would likely do; it is, however, exactly what a stage magician would do. A real pickpocket has no audience (or so he hopes) whereas a magician wants the audience to see him make a monkey of the hapless "volunteer from the audience." In this case, Kassagi's idea (as I am sure it was) provides a brief moment of comic relief in the middle of a movie that is otherwise without a lot of humor. It is a welcome touch and Bresson was wise to keep it in. Now, I also engaged in a fallacy when I said that 'American pickpockets traditionally prefer to steal from behind to avoid any chance of a mark seeing their faces.' In reality, American pickpockets take from behind because of necessity: even by 1959 when 'Pickpocket" was released, American men more and more carried their wallets in the hip pocket whereas European men, as can be seen in this film, continued to use the inside breast pocket. While the business about seeing the mark's face is part of the lore of American petty criminals, it is not the cause of the American style of picking pockets, but rather a rationalization after the fact.
  • In his dismissal determination to keep out elements often thought fundamental to the medium—spectacle, drama, performance— Bresson has followed an incomparable personal vision of the world that stays consistent whatever the nature of his subject matter...

    In "Pickpocket," a petty thief understands life's mystery only when his conventional wisdom is violently shaken and embraces humanity through his newfound love… Most notable, however, is not the emphasis upon redemption attained through communication and self-sacrifice, but the high-purity of Bresson's style...

    The camera keeps out pictorial beauty to create an abstract timeless world through the detached, detailed observation of hands, faces, and objects; natural sounds rather than music to satisfy the need… In thus rejecting conventional realism and characterization, Bresson manifested a fascination not with human psychology but with the capacity of the soul to survive in a world of pain, disbelieve, and restriction...
  • I hated this film the first time I saw it a few years ago. I saw it again last night because my own personal code dictates that when something is universally regarded as a masterpiece and I don't like it, then I'm the one with the problem. So I saw it again to see just what my problem was. This time I thought it was riveting. It was hard to take my eyes off the screen. It is one of the best works about compulsion I have ever seen. I guess this is one of those works, like Borges' novels for example, that needs to be experienced twice to be appreciated.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Michel, the main character in this movie, is so devoid of apparent emotion that you have to be very sensitive to his most subtle mannerisms - it's so pronounced that you are excited when you notice an eye movement or a blink. Michel lives alone in a garret in Paris with his books and his questions about whether certain superior people should be above the law. He seems to have answered that question in the affirmative for himself, since he decides to be a professional pickpocket. But moral questions do niggle him and he engages in philosophical discussions on the topic with an inspector who is on to him.

    This is the only Bresson film I have seen and I am not encouraged to go for more. If the opening and closing of doors interests you (the camera often lingers on a closed door or dwells on the entry to a doorway), then you may like this. There is not enough about Michel to have kept my interest. He appeared to be devoted to his chosen profession, in fact addicted to it, but he was repelled by it at the same time. His behavior is paradoxical in many other ways. He claims to love his mother dearly, but refuses to see her. The final scene came as quite a surprise to this ignorant viewer, since Michel was so distant from his mother's young neighbor that I had not gotten the hint that he actually loved her, nor she him as far as that goes. My reaction to the final scene was, "Huh?"

    There is some interesting camera work, but the cinematography is pedestrian, except for certain highlights like when Michel comes down the stairs and emerges from darkness into light in stages. The details of how pickpockets work are interesting and those scenes provide pretty much the only action. Is Bresson trying to show us what a movie would be like if you take away most of the qualities unique to the art form?

    I would advise skipping the introduction by Paul Shrader on the Criterion Collection DVD until after you have seen the movie, since he summarizes the entire film, complete with clips including the final scene.

    There are those who venerate this film and I say more power to them, but the value for me was only to expand my understanding of existential despair. However, if that was the goal, then I suppose I would have to give a higher rating.
  • I just saw pickpocket for the first time last night, and thought it was the best bresson film i've seen- the others being l'argent, balthasar, and an early one (possibly about a prostitute?) of which i can't remember the title. It's a minimalist masterpiece- only kiarostami's 10 has taken a step onwards and stripped cinema even closer to its essentials- which has more than one moment of transcendence, through a decisive act breaking the compulsive repetition- felt both by protagonist and audience. the only point i have to add is that i found it very hard to stop comparing it to crime and punishment, american gigolo and taxi driver. It's incredible how bresson makes the lesser crime of stealing seem just as immoral as a brutal murder, and the film is sufficiently cinematic and different from its obvious thematic source that it is incomparable to dostoyevsky's novel (which happens to be my favourite book). However, i think the combination of schrader's identification with, and admiration for, both bresson and the russian master, when combined the psychological mastery of scorsese and the uniformly excellent acting of taxi driver make it the better film. Is this perhaps because it gives the audience more sensation, and therefore more to react to, than pickpocket? In this it is closer in tone and style to crime and punishment and notes from the underground, and also perfectly encapsulated a period of time and social mentality just as dostoyevsky did. however, these points are largely irrelevant, for without pickpocket these links would not exist; and without bresson, cinema would have been severely impoverished.
  • writers_reign25 September 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    There's a lot of irony here whether intentional or not. For instance the protagonist, Michel, makes a living as a dip yet he NEVER seems to lock the door of his apartment which is in what is more or less a tenement. Not only does he not lock the door but nine out of ten times he leaves it ajar to boot. By now I've seen enough Bresson to recognize the trademarks; the 'players', invariably amateurs who act as if on valium seldom straying from the middle of the spectrum, no hysterics whether comedy or tragedy is the springboard; the camera dwelling on a scene long after the actors have left it, the gaps in chronology, etc. If you like and/or admire Bresson then this won't matter, in fact it may even enhance the proceedings, but if you're indifferent and/or actively dislike him then these schticks will only add fuel to your critical fire. I saw this within 24 hours of watching The Umbrellas Of Cherbourg which made it easier to notice that in both films the guardian figure - respectively aunt and mother - of the protagonist has a companion in the shape of a young girl who is, it seems, there only to supply an eventual love-interest for the protagonist, in this case she is played by Marika Green whose own niece, Eva, is now acting in French films herself. This is certainly worth seeing and there's an outside chance it could grow on you.
  • entreacto9 August 2001
    In Pickpocket theres nothing but the souls of the characters. Bresson's technique is perfect: the softness on the movements of his camera, his direction of his models ( he never called them actors ), all in form is headed to make a content:a story about crime and redemption. The ending is a breathtaking, a moment of true beauty: The thief on her beloved arms, a resemblance of Michelangelo's "La pietá" in one of the highest points cinema as a major art.
  • Some reviewers say that "this film is not for regular film-goers but for people with a better appreciation for art", but there is only one criterion for a true work of art; an original expression appealing to the heart. Criterion, in its introduction to one of his films says: "...Robert Bresson began to implement his stylistic philosophy as a filmmaker, stripping away all inessential elements from his compositions, the dialog and the music, exacting a purity of image and sound.". He also refrained from using professional actors. We'd better watch documentaries. This film, with its "wooden" acting, lifeless dialogs, monotonous tempo, unnecessary narrating voice, stolen but frozen version of "supermensch" argument of Nietzsche (religiously criticized in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment with PASSION -lacking 100% in this film) leaves nothing to enjoy. All to one side; an "art" film avoiding everything popular tries to display the "subtleties of pickpocketing", orchestration of gang members in operation (without success due to non-fluid editing done) "a la Hollywood"in order to add some life to this otherwise worthless drama. I have watched a few films by Bresson: "Les dames de.." lacks emotion. "Diary of a Country Priest" is advisable only to priests. "A ManEscaped" is much better since it does not preach and has a nice change of tempo at the end.
  • THe story is about a very emotionally constricted man who has a compulsion to steal. On top of that, he's obviously read some Nietsche and feels entitled to steal, as he is superior to those around him and every time he steals, he proves this to himself.

    I know there are many folks out there that LOVE the French New Wave. As for me, I love some and I hate some--and I hated "Pickpocket". Now I understand that the director deliberately made this film as non-elegantly and non-Hollywood as possible. And, I know that the minimalist acting style was part of the mystique of many New Wave films. My problem is that I just didn't care, as the main character was about as interesting as a block of moldy cheese. No...moldy cheese is infinitely more interesting! It's is really a shame, as there WAS the basis of an interesting story here but the film was so muted and low=tempo that I literally found myself falling asleep as I watched it. It's a shame, as the scenes where the leading man shows off his skills at picking pockets are wonderful. Overall, you could find many things more interesting than watching this film...many.
    • Do you feel lonely ? -Bresson : very lonely …. Very … but I don't like it to be lone !!


    It would be hard for a regular movie-watcher , some one who just watches for fun , to like the movies made by formalist , strictly stylist director , Robert Bresson . But when we are aware of his elaborate work and subtlety , we admire his skill , undoubtedly .

    Pickpocket ( 1959 ) , is one his best and most thoughtful films and has a key role in recognizing both Bresson and his works .

    Pickpocket is about an alone and desperate writer who think of himself as a superior to the society ; He thinks he is better than others and believes to be in the right of breaking the rules and neglecting the social Contract .

    He defines justice for himself as " some people have the privilege to break the laws , willingly " . He feels humiliated to do regular jobs and thus , begins pocket picking .

    And from one of the most basic elements of the story , i.e. main character , there is a gap , a distance , between us ( audience ) and the film . In fact , because of non-naturalistic quality of the plot , we can't sympathize with him ; and what makes him even more distant , is the Bresson's personal touch and fond of "deadpan acting and not showing emotions " . Bresson says himself that " if possible , he prefers to utilize an image , a sound , and any other elements ( and metaphors ) instead of actors " . He wants the actors ( as a matter of fact he uses non-professional actors after his second movie ) to act deliberately and be aware of a witness called camera . In other words he wants them " not to act " .

    In this movie , the cast and specially the hero are totally flat and expressionless ; even his walking style is sort of flat . But we can't reject his way of acting ( in fact , not acting ) . There is a deep coldness in this style of performance which makes it surprisingly and paradoxically acceptable and fits well in the world of the movie ; particularly , sympathetic face of the main character which increases contributes in this plausibility .

    The cinematography , lighting and playing with shadows and lights in this movie is truly delicate and these factors in addition to a cold open and sort of suspension , forms the idea of a thriller movie . Yes ! Suspension is a key factor here ; and not a regular kind of suspension ; but a Bresson type .

    Even , some think that sound editing in this movie , decrease the suspension in some scenes and increase it in some other scenes . For example , in some occasions , a sound or noise , inform us of the occurrence of an incident ; or repeating a sound in another scene can mitigate the effect of suspension . Also there is a scene in which the main character is walking anxiously in a crowded sidewalk ; we can not hear the sounds , the street noise and even the cars ; the only sound is his footsteps , which makes suspension .

    It is true that use of music is not considerable in this film , but we can't renounce the sound effects here .

    Another point is that Bresson never lets the main character to show fear and anxiety ( unlike Hitchcock who loves to do so ) ; instead he depends on images and sounds to supply the fear : sound of footsteps , images of shaking hands and cold faces ( the opening scene ) , door handle turned quietly … and actually anything .

    There are some references to" Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment" ; like the basic similarities between the heroes : Michel and Raskolnikov who both tend to commit crimes ; both being lonely and isolated … and even the hole behind Michel's bed he use to hide the stolen valuable goods ( like Dostoyevsky's hero ) . Knowing these references , is a suspension itself ; some kind of fear .

    Yes ! most of the times , we don't have music ; the music remains silent , and waits ; ( something unusual in those days of film-making ) ; yet , this small appearance of music , is fitting and timely . There is no such a thing as spare scenes or excess dialog in this movie ; everything is in its right place and for those who can't comprehend the non- naturalistic structure of the film , and can not accept fears , anxiety , and emotional disturbances of this cold hero , Bresson arranges the famous final scene in which the main character redeems through love ; with music !! Now , let us come back to the QA we had at the beginning of this article ; we see Bresson , lonely like the hero of his film ; self-consciously tries to break the rules ( another kind of rules ) ; and has a style of his own … ! … And make us to admire his mastership and loneliness !
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Having seen the unanimous regard for this film as brilliant, in addition to critic Roger Ebert's putting it on his list of the greatest films ever made, I was expecting another masterpiece in the vein of Bresson's "A Man Escaped" and "Au Hasard Balthazar." I watched this film twice, and unfortunately I came away each time entertained but perplexed. Bresson's technique in film is similar to that of Ernest Hemingway or Raymond Carver in writing - a pure minimalism with everyday life stripped away to its essentials but great passion submerged underneath. Characters in a Bresson film are emotionless, perpetually casting their gaze downward as if hiding their true feelings from the camera. Unfortunately, I don't believe this technique was the proper one for a cinematic interpretation of Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment." Dostoyevsky's novel was long, dense, and filled with long meditations on the human soul. By contrast, this film is short (75 minutes), clipped, and has minimal philosophical exploration. There are some short dialogue scenes portraying the title character Michel's Nietzschian belief in the ubermench who can be permitted to live outside conventional morality in order to further society creatively. However, we never get any sense that he is an intellectual, that he reads heavily, or even that he has one original thought. All we have is a sullen young man who refuses to take a job and gives into his compulsions to steal.

    There are some very good things about this film: Bresson's choreography of the pickpockets is like pure ballet. His casting of characters is perfect - the faces of each seem to convey things with little work from the actors themselves. However, there are several problems. The technique that the police use to finally capture Michel is way too far-fetched. Also, I couldn't help but get the impression that large, important passages were removed in the editing room. Michel's one final display of emotional catharsis with Jane at the end had the potential to pack a great wallop, but with hardly any backstory or interaction between the two previously, it seems to come out of nowhere. Just as some short stories are meant to be novels, this is a long, probing psychological story reduced to something of a short film. After all, could you imagine "Crime and Punishment" as a short story?

    I have been able to understand even the more controversial entries on Ebert's Great Films list, like Errol Morris' 1978 pet cemetery documentary "Gates of Heaven" or "Saturday Night Fever," but this is the one film I think Ebert made a mistake on. Who knows, maybe he saw a longer, more complete version of the movie?
  • Pickpocket is a film that apparently has serious flaws- from the very beginning it displays little to no emotion as the actors on screen just say their lines and the camera just follows them from a distance, with no close-ups or any other tricks.

    But what is unique about this film is that this very criticism is actually a deliberate attempt to cause uneasiness in the viewer. And it succeeds- the anxiety, as felt by the pickpocket in his everyday living, is also transmitted to us. So, to correct my previous statement: this movie does not lack emotions- it has emotions: anxiety, uncertainty, but these are delivered in an unconventional manner.

    From a personal standpoint, I wasn't sure if I liked it or not. It is hard to appreciate this dimension of the film at first. But after seeing some extras from the excellent Criterion package, I was able to understand better. How Bresson actually committed to cause these emotions in the viewer, how he re-shot several times various scenes until the actors just repeated their lines, until no trait of emotions were left. Michel's narration voice-over is flat, plain. These were non-professional actors set to work in a non-standard way, Bresson's way. And the result is this: a film somewhat off-putting, but still a great work of art.
  • Robert Bresson's PICKPOCKET has an average rating higher than some of the movies in the top 250 movies on this site but I'm somewhat dismayed as to why it's so highly regarded . I suppose if you're a fan of Bresson and you want to see him do a movie in the new wave sense then you'll probably enjoy it but if you're unaware of new wave cinema and have people heaping superlatives upon it you'll probably be as disappointed as me

    The story itself is relatively threadbare , there's little plot and is mainly character driven . The story centres around Michel a recently released thief who returns to his old ways as a pickpocket . He meets up with a couple of other fingersmiths and there's a bit of romance involved and that's basically it plot wise . I wasn't convinced by the pickpocket choreography either , especially in one scene where Michel robs a bloke on a bus . I doubt if anyone could have failed to notice the way Michel acts so suspiciously . Honestly if this guy came to stand beside you on a crowded bus you'd instantly be worried about becoming a victim of an indecent assault !

    I do realise that French new wave cinema has a massive amount of fans and its legacy leaked into the new Hollywood of the 1970s . You can tell Paul Schrader was heavily influenced by PICKPOCKET and one of his own screenplay's mirrors the ending here . Apart from that however you're probably better waiting for it to turn up on television than spending six quid to watch it in the cinema
  • In another review I spoke of those films that are not just "tens', but elevens, the touchstones of cinematic art. Having seen this film, I would, without doubt, classify it as an "eleven'. Rarely has a parable of Sin and redemption been presented with greater precision and clarity. Bresson as been called a "jansenist ' film maker: it would be more accurate to call him a "Pascalian'. In its formal precision, this film embodies what Pascal called "Le Esprit de Geometrie": in its emotional wallop, it embodies what he called "Le esprit de Finesse". Bresson shows, by the skill with which he portrays both the sensual attractions of evil and the sudden, startling light of grace, thats he fully understands the reasons of the heart.
  • After hearing a lot about Robert Bresson's movies, I decided to give them a shot, starting with "Pickpocket". I was quite surprised that this movie is often considered a masterpiece, because I found it disappointing. While I also haven't enjoyed some other classics made around that time, such as Godard's "Contempt", I usually acknowledge that I may have missed something in those movies, and might be willing to give them a second chance. With "Pickpocket", however, it's different: while I may also have failed to notice some things which make this film a masterpiece, I can actually point to some aspects of the movie which in my opinion were really underwhelming - contrary to movies like "Contempt" which just failed to impress or fascinate me, without leaving a feeling of bad execution.

    First, the main character is really flat and I could absolutely not sympathise with him. A movie like "The Lost Weekend" by Billy Wilder, made in the preceding decade, did a much better job of making me feel empathy for someone who has a strong addiction that makes him spiral down into antisocial, self-destructive behaviour.

    Then, even though I enjoyed the visual style of the movie, the pickpocketing shots felt quite clumsy to me. They are the kind of things which make you see the technical plumbing behind the movie, which prevents you (or me at least) from being fully absorbed in the movie because they remind you that this is just a fictional movie (which is fine when it's done intentionally e.g. by Lars von Trier, but that doesn't seem to be the case here). Also shattering that illusion are the dialogues, which feel like written language; I'm quite sure it was very unnatural to talk like that even in the 50s; a movie like "Antoine et Antoinette" (1947) by Jacques Becker shows everyday life in Paris, with dialogues that feel reasonably natural and are not so distant from how French people still speak today.
  • Looks like there are a few negative reviews from misguided people who thought that this was supposed to be an adaptation of Dostoyevski's "Crime and Punishment". Let me say this slowly...

    IT

    IS

    NOT.

    There are many allusions to C&P which were quite deliberate. But don't expect it to go any further than that. Instead we get a very complex & original work which, if anything, is more like Faust by Goethe. (But don't expect Faust either.)

    The camera-work is primo. It's very fluid and keen, capturing so much in each motion, much like Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece "Rope" but even better in many scenes. And unlike many of the other French "nouvelle vague" directors of the 50s-60s who felt obligated to be weird in order to make a statement, this film was done very lucidly. We don't get gratuitous weirdness like long scenes of the backs of people's heads (Godard). Instead, this is more subtle in its approach to art. It's meticulous and very finely detailed, and that speaks for itself.

    My only criticism is that the ending didn't seem believable to me. I think it happened too quickly, whereas the rest of the film was given ample time to breathe. So I was kinda left saying, "huh? where did that come from?" But I dunno, maybe I missed something. Overall this is some pretty good stuff. It's my first Bresson film, and it renews my faith in French movies of that period.
  • am4919 December 2008
    Although a clear piece of cinematic art with its slow and detailed sequences, I feel I have missed the genius within Pickpocket. When watching, nothing grabbed me in the same way as A Man Escaped and I finished the film appreciating its beauty and form, without feeling truly impressed.

    I must point out that it was not that I thought that this was a bad film. Stylistically I agree that this film is fantastically shot in black and white, it was just that I feel that there is something I've missed.

    Undeniably the theft sequences are blindingly brilliant and I really felt myself leaning in to watch as hands exchanged wallets with the deftest of touches. I also felt that tension was built up fantastically with the use of sound and imagery. I thought that the ending was well measured and summarised the film well but it was the story as a whole that never grew on me enough and I felt disappointed at points with the way it unfolded.

    I hope, however, to watch this film again and perhaps more times after that because I sense that it was what I missed as opposed to what the film lacked. For me, perhaps, it will age like wine. I certainly hope so.

    For now... 6/10
  • sr_wolfrider3 September 2008
    One of the things that sets humans apart from other species, besides the thumb, is their ego and the way it makes an individual (usually a man) believe he can rise above all the others by blazing a path of his own. Robert Bresson's masterwork tells the story of such a man. Although it's a movie that's easy to watch but difficult to like, it certainly is memorable for the way it makes a seemingly indifferent person stick in the back of your head.

    The film's main character is Michel, a regular looking guy who lives on his own in a small room full of books and dust. He's a loner, and his only close contact is his pal Jacques. He has a soft spot for his mother, but he avoids meeting with her face to face, leaving her care to the hands of her beautiful young neighbor, Jeanne. Michel wants to make something of himself but thinks he is too smart to follow the standard average procedures in life. He believes a man who is skilled enough to cheat without being caught should be rewarded by society.

    Here is a man who desperately wants to prove something not to himself, his clean-cut buddy or even some smart cop, but to the women in his life: his mother, the one he's in debt to, and Jeanne, the one whose love he has to earn. He firmly believes in his right to skip the rules so he tries a type of crime through which he can outsmart them, picking pockets. His first time gets him caught, but it gives him pleasure, the way he approaches his victim and works his way into her purse. Michel's facial expression may be almost non-existent but between the act and the arrest he confesses feelings of superiority unknown to him before. After he's released due to inadequate proof, Michel is right back on the "wrong" track, trying to learn all the tricks of the trade and practicing with religious zeal to make his hands quick and agile.

    A while later, a master pickpocket spots his talent and recruits him for his gang. In a tightly choreographed scene, Bresson shows his admiration for the art of emptying people's pockets as an ensemble. The gang of three almost rips off a whole train before stepping out while, in a rare humorous moment, Michel puts an empty wallet back to the pocket where he took it from a minute before. But he's not so special anymore, the other two being even more skillful than he is, so when they are caught on the act he quickly leaves Paris in his sole logical decision of the whole film. This is, probably, the moment when Michel loses that arrogance that kept him so focused all along. After two successful years as a crook abroad, he returns home. Almost accidentally, as he puts it, he falls in front of Jeanne's door. Earlier on, he asks Jeanne if she believes all people will be judged. She says yes, so he follows his question with another one: "Judged how? According to laws? What laws?" But now Michel craves to be judged. By the laws cause he has to, and by Jeanne cause he needs her acceptance.

    Bresson's underlying theme of redemption through self-accusation and punishment, for even daring to think bigger than you're allowed to, is an obvious reference to Christianity since the director was known to be religious. But if you see it in a different light, it's simply universally human. A man is not only afraid of failure but, often enough, he gets horror-chills from the very thought of success and the loneliness that goes with it Michel couldn't care less about losing to the system as long as he knows there may be no real point in winning after all. After going along with his vices, the only thing that makes sense is coming back to another human being's warmth. That a smart cop sees through him early on, gives him a sense of security rather than fear. It's a way out of his microcosm, proof he still exists within the real world which he uses as an escape door when he decides to return there for Jeanne.

    As for the popular assumption of the sexuality beneath Michel's interaction with his victims and his peers, it's an overplayed cliché, a case of wanting to see something so much it's bound to appear. The way I see it - every accomplishment or moment of tension potentially provides a substitute for sexual satisfaction. Michel watches a master pickpocket at work with admiration and discovers the other members of the caste he dreams about. It's got to be fulfilling at least, before it all blows back to his face.

    Bresson's actors are non-professional. Plus, they're overworked, and it shows. Obviously the master wanted it that way, to let the story be told by movements rather than expressions. Whether we like it or not it works, minus a few moments of abnormal inertia. The dialogue is minimal and the first-person narration provides information about the central character without over-explaining. In the end, behind bars, a redeemed Michel wonders: "Jeanne, to reach you at last, what a strange path I had to take." There are times in life when it's not the trip, but the destination that counts most. Unfortunately, that trip is usually inevitable.
  • No doubt that this is a very well done film but it at the same time also isn't the best or most effective one within its genre.

    The movie has the same sort of story and approach as for instance the other European movies "Ladri di biciclette" and "Umberto D." but big difference with those movies is that you never feel the same sort of desperateness that the main character must have had. I just never felt it was a necessity for the main character to be a pickpocket. Surely he could had gotten a straight job, if he tried hard enough. It was just a way of life that he had picked for himself because it was one of the most easy things for him to do and felt more comfortable doing that than an actual normal job. The movie therefore felt kind of less involving and powerful to watch, than the earlier mentioned similar type of movies.

    The main character also falls kind of flat due to the quite weak acting within the movie. Martin LaSalle's face remains basically the same throughout the entire movie, so all of the emotions also already fall kind of flat due to all of this. Apparently this was a type of acting-style that Robert Bresson liked but I'm just not much into it or impressed by it at all.

    And the story also just doesn't work out that interesting because of all of that. The story gets mostly saved by the fact that the movie is being an extremely short one and therefore never starts to drag. It's not like the story is dull but it's just the type of movie that tries to pick a more realistic approach, with a more realistic and everyday type of story, in which not always an awful lot (interesting) is happening.

    But oh well, it's still a very well shot film, so the movie remains for most part still a real pleasure to watch. All of the pickpocketing scene's are quite well done and show the art and skill that goes into it. No doubt some people, with criminal intentions, are taking notes from this movie, just like the main character from this movie was taking notes from a book.

    A good watch but at the same time also a movie that you can easily do without.

    7/10

    http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
  • kenjha7 August 2011
    Bresson has taken elements from Dostoyevski's "Crime and Punishment" and Camus' "The Stranger," yet comes up with a film so dull and pointless that it's a chore to sit through it despite the short running time. The pickpocket scenes are so poorly executed that it's hard to believe that the victims would be so oblivious. The performances by actors making their film debuts range from dull to wooden. LaSalle is meant to be brooding as the protagonist, but he wears the same dour-faced expression throughout the film, making him about as interesting as a wet noodle. Green is quite lovely; LaSalle's lack of interest in her (until the contrived ending) is implausible.
An error has occured. Please try again.