Some Methods of Bresson

In his book, Notes on the Cinematographer, Bresson states," Flatten my images (as if ironing them) without attenuating them." (pg.11) This statement at first appears too cryptic to be of any use until one sees and becomes intimately familiar with any of Bresson's works. For it seems that Bresson had carefully developed a method of "flattening" his images (or rather reducing the expressive nature of a shot) so that when his images are juxtaposed next to one another via montage meanings can be communicated to the audience with precision. How is this flattening done? I believe Bresson achieves this "flattening" by his consistent and unerring use of a 50mm lens while shooting his films and a consistent and unerring control of costuming. On the first point, it was widely known and Bresson had mentioned in numerous interviews that he only used a 50mm lens when shooting. (Cf, Robert Bresson by James Quandt) Why? Because he believed, and rightly so, that the 50mm lens (also called a 'normal lens') approximates the view of the human eye. This standard lens has one important function in cinematography," with a normal lens, objects appear as they would to the naked eye, in terms of size and proportion." (Laytin, Creative Camera Control, pg. 21) By using a lens that approximates the view of the human eye Bresson deliberately 'retards' the expressive potential of a shot by forcing its depth of field and the relationship of objects and space to remain consistent with the human eye. Unlike, say Antonioni's use of the telephoto lens in the opening sequences of THE RED DESERT which flatten objects and space by collapsing foreground, middleground and background or the deep focus cinematography of Gregg Toland which exaggerates the details by keeping all of the different 'grounds' in focus (CITIZEN KANE, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES) the shot in Bresson's work is deliberately restricted to the 'normal' view of the human eye so that he might better be able to use montage (or editing) to precisely control the meaning of his shots via the cinematic grammar through which they are juxtaposed. An example of this precise control of the shot can be found in PICKPOCKET during the scene when Michel is confronted by a man who demands his wallet (portefeuille) back at the exit of the Metro. The medium shot begins from a low angle on the feet and legs of the passengers as they ascend the stairs out of the station. The camera pans slightly to catch the feet of a man that stop and turn about in front of another pair of man's feet abruptly. The camera then tilts up quickly to capture the man facing whom we now see is Michel just as he demands his wallet back. Here the narrative information of the shot has been carefully reduced (only shots of anonymous feet and legs) so that when the camera tilts up we are given just enough visual information to move the narative forward on a precise detail. Our intitial disorientation with the shot (who are these people? Where is Michel?) is answered for us by two precise movements of the camera (pan/tilt) and thus the expressive potential of the shot is reduced in the effort to retain artistic control over its meaning. On the second point, Bresson's characters usually wear the same costume throughout the entire film or for unusually long amounts of narrative time. In his early films- particularly, A MAN ESCAPED, since the main character was in a German prisoner of war camp this restriction of a character to a single costume had a plausible story context. In later films, though, this restriction of a character to a single costume had seemed to develop for Bresson a significance beyond simple story context. For instance, in PICKPOCKET, Michel wears the same suit for the entire length of the film. In fact all of the characters wear the exact same costumes in spite of the notation of lengthy passages of time. Why? I believe this restriction of costume was one of the methods through which Bresson controlled and limited the expressive potential of the shot; the meaning of a shot is 'flatten' because with the character wearing the same costume throughout the film there is less external or rather, extraneous 'mise-en-scene' to distract the eye. We can recognize our 'hero' and his supporting cast immediately from their surroundings. Another reason for this restriction of costume is that it encourages the spectator to concentrate on the internal nature of a character rather than the external characteristics; external characteristics which were superfluous to Bresson. If a character is constantly changing costumes throughout a film, although it may be plausible in the story context, it encourages the spectator to constantly 're-judge' the character in light of his new apparel and keeps our eye attuned to the external characteristics of man rather than his internal nature. (One should easily see why the story of King Arthur's knights would appeal to him since the characters in Lancelot du Lac are most always seen in their 'shining' armour.) It is through these specific methods that I believe Bresson achieved the 'flattening' of the image he so desired so that he could control the meaning of his images and sounds via montage rather than within the shot as a completely expressed whole.