Pickpocket (1959)

"The style of this film is not that of a thriller," claims the wordy announcement that precedes Robert Bresson's "Pickpocket," and so it is not. What style the film is in, however, is a difficult question. I don't believe the film's style has a name because it is so rarely seen and so few have the skill to pull it off but one thing's for sure, it's not a thriller. "Pickpocket" the thriller would have been a fine movie. The plot is given to that style; cobs and robbers. But "Pickpocket" the something else is transcendent, and quite unlike any thief movie ever made, and that's very much because it's not a thriller in the traditional sense.

This movie can be thrilling. It is nerve racking and suspenseful. But Hitchcock would not have cared to make this film. The performances given in "Pickpocket" are deliberately wooden and cold. The actors are simply vehicles through which the words are said aloud and the actions are carried out. They are mannequins. The performances aren't bad, as they might seem at first or by someone not paying much attention, they are designed for a particular effect. Characters say they are scared or sad, but they are stone faced. A character reveals he was so nervous the newspaper shook in his hand, yet we see the newspaper still as a grave. There are no smiles in "Pickpocket." Why? It is one part of Bresson's multi-layered scheme to make us think, feel, and see like a pickpocket. Bresson achieves a minor miracle in this film; by noticeably rejecting every known forms of manipulation he manipulates us even more. He denies us any emotion in his film by doing so we are only too happy to supply it for him.

"Pickpocket" is about a thief named Michel (Martin LaSalle). We meet him at a racetrack where he first tries his hand at robbery, snatching some money from a women's purse. By the end of the film, he is a seasoned pro. "Pickpocket" is often compared to Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" (Bresson was a fan of the Russian's work) and Michel is like Raskolnikov in many ways, none more important than this; it is never explained why Michel is a thief just as reasons are never given for the murder that begins Dostoyevsky's novel. Throughout the movie, we are given clues that suggest Michel could make an honest living and could probably do so easier than to learning to steal. Michel is caught the first time at the racetrack and is later confronted by victim on a subway. Only after he meets another grifter (Kassagi) and learns from him does he prove to be deft at it. So why does he do it? He explains he believes that some of society's elite should not be fenced in by its laws and that these supermen are actually doing society a favor by stealing for their own superior gains. It isn't clear that Michel thinks of himself this way, he may be rationalizing his actions but for a superman he can't even face his dying mother because of the shame he feels for stealing. All of this, of course, is not shown on his face or expressed in dialogue but Bresson allows it to be inferred through his actions (he also allows it to be inferred in countless other ways).

Everything must be inferred in "Pickpocket" as so little that matters is given away for free. The movie becomes the ultimate thief, stealing our attention and even the comfort of the way we usually watch movies. As every character wears a permanent poker face, we are forced to really look at them for any tells they are invariably not giving just as a pickpocket would his victim. "Is he on to me?" "Is he paying attention to his breast pocket?" "Is it safe for me to go now?" Bresson places his camera so that hands and pockets are constantly racing by it. We screw up are eyes to look at them, look into them, look through them. Consider the second scene in the subway. Michel, through narration, has already announced he has stolen something. He exits the subway car and we watch him walk up the stairs out of the tunnel. There is a crowd but we can just see his right hand pop out against the dark gray and black suits around him. His hand seems to be in a fist. Is he clutching something? Has he got a wallet? Bresson holds the shot for some time and just as we have seen the hand long enough to be sure it is empty a man behind Michel moves to expose the other hand and we do it all again. Because we are seeing a thief on the make and Bresson's script let's us in on little moves and tricks of the wallet snatching trade as well as exercises and disciplines a pilferer can do while not on duty, we are drawn into the world and begin to think like pickpockets. L.H. Burel's camera moves the way a scanning eye would and that further reinforces this idea.

Also look at the way "Pickpocket" is edited. The film comes in at a brisk seventy five minutes and if it were edited traditionally it would be under an hour. The movie lingers on seemingly inconsequential material. When people leave a room they shut the door, instead of cutting to the next scene as soon as the door closes as in a traditional edit, "Pickpocket" lingers for a beat or two. We see hallways for seconds before any one enters them or we watch characters exit behind buildings or walls but the camera loiters there for a while after they're gone. Scenes of high tension, where fast editing is traditionally used, are shown in long unbroken pieces. Only the shots of the actual theft are cut quickly. These grifters only live in those fractions of seconds in which they are lifting money. The rest of their time is waiting for that moment. These mundane editing choices reflect that. The quick, breathless moments when money is changing hands become much more stirring because they come out of boring, long edits, like lightning. We are used to being manipulated by editing and when that traditional manipulation isn't there we are stirred to discomfort. We can't really relax during the commonplace shots because we don't have any of the queues we're used to from other movies and have no idea when or whether trouble will come about. The effect is a sort of paranoia.

Along with editing, music is one of the filmmakers great tools of manipulation. "Pickpocket" has a wonderful, lush score by J.B. Lulli but it is rarely used in the movie. Music is used to pump up emotional scenes, to let the audience know how to feel, to underline the action. Bresson primarily uses his score as transition filler. There is a montage where Michel learns new skills as a pickpocket that has music but every other significant part of the film is silent. During Michel's nerve-racking first attempt as a thief on a subway, there is an eerie lack of music. Especially during the breathtaking sequence where Michel and two accomplices seem to relieve every other man in a turnstile of a little money there is no music, really no sound at all. This creates another wave of discomfort. In a lesser movie the music that would invariably accompany this scene would fill us in on its outcome. Upbeat, triumphant music would make us relax, we'd know our heroes will get away with their crimes. Tense, hard-driving music would worry us, our guard would be up for the police. With no music we can neither relax or be totally worried. The scene is fun because of the skill of thieves but without any music to guide we can never be sure if the fuzz isn't right around the next corner. We share that with the thieves themselves. If they can't be sure what's going to happen in the world of the film, why should we be so lucky here on the outside?

Bresson has turned us into pickpockets with his film. While Michel skulks through the movie without the slightest hint of a smile or a frown, we are nervous, panicked, and suspicious for him. But we are also exhilarated. We feel the rush he gets from stealing, he does not show it but we understand. The unusual thing about "Pickpocket" is that we are never really given a reason to like Michel, he is introduced as a thief, he remains committed to being a thief for the whole movie, LaSalle's performance is purposely characterless and anything but charming, and yet we never question him as the hero of the movie. We don't particularly care that he steals and we want him to get away with it. Why is that? Most of us would never steal like Michel but many of us understand compulsion or envy the feeling that thievery causes Michel. And with LaSalle and his emotionless performance, we supply the feelings. Even though he never shows it, we understand what he gets out of stealing, and it's more than money. Bresson is able to make us provide the passion to his outwardly passionless movie. Every movie is different to every audience member but "Pickpocket" stakes its claim on that fact. Each person provides the film with his or her own perspective because the film provides so little of its own. Bresson provides the raw material and each viewer is expected to create whatever movie "Pickpocket" is to them. It's quite an experience. And as Michel says at the end, in one of the rare scenes of raw emotion the film affords, "What a strange way I had to take to meet you." He may well be speaking for us, as we've spent the last hour or so feeling for him.