
by Sam Juliano
Frenchman Robert Bresson (1901-1999) is one of the greatest film directors of all-time, yet his output, considering both the advanced age he achieved and his active years was relatively limited. Meticulous and uncompromising, Bresson was idiosyncratic, disavowing conventional notions of cinema and popular subjects, in favor of personal issues and themes. Indeed, despite his astonishing range of subject matter, there are perhaps no films more unified or deeply marked by their director’s personality, which in his instance was marked by three major influences: the Catholic church (which manifested itself into the fabric of three of his films: his first Les Anges du Péché, about an order of nuns, his next, Le Journal Un Cure de campagne, which concerned a priest who lost his parishioners and his faith, and Le Procès de Jeanne d’Arc, which dealt with the defining aspect of the heroic religious icon; his early years as a painter, which made their indellible mark on his compositions; and his time as a prisoner-of-war. Hence, the concurrent themes of free-will vs. determinism, which is integrated into the secular works, the famed austerity that informs his painstaking cinematic canvases, and the various prison motifs and themes, which are fully examined in the two films he shot in prisons.
Les Anges du Péché (1943) is Bresson’s first feature film, which is a far more conventional film than his later works, as it is talkier and far less reliant on filmic rhetoric, including ‘elliptical editing.’ The film, along with the director’s sophomore effort, Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne, stands apart from all the subsequent films in that it employs professional actors, who offer more expressive performances than the sullen and seemingly detached (though of course purposeful) amateurs of his later masterpieces. The use of real actors troubled Bresson, who purportedly cautioned himself against drawing “tears from the public with the tears of your models” instead of what he alluded to as naturalistic settings and characters who are “exactly in their place.” Still be admitted he was thrilled with the actual performances in the film.
Anne-Marie (Renee Faure) is a girl from a reputable family who attaches herself to the Sisters of Bethany, a Dominican order devoted to the rescue and rehibilitation of women with criminal records. Almost too high-spirited and strong-willed, she is concerned with one Therese (Jany Holt), who responds with unbridled hatred. “Liberated” Therese shoots the man on whose behalf she was unjustly imprisoned, and returns for refuge to the convent, to the joy of Anne-Marie, who is ignorant of her real motives. Sensing that the girl’s weak point is pride, Therese flatters her, and lures her into denouncing the sub-Prioress for excessive love of a cat, and the Sisters for hypocritically fawning on it too. Refusing the ordered penance to kiss the feet of all the nuns, she is expelled, but humble still creeps in each night to pray at the grave of Father Lataste, the Order’s founder. Caught in a downpour, she falls ill, and is nursed by Therese, whom she dissuades from returning to her disorderly existence. Dying, she is unable to pronounce her vows, so Therese speaks them for her, and is led, manacled, from the convent, past the nuns, to the last of whom she murmurs: ‘A bientot.’… The issue of Therese’s salvation is counterpointed against the subtler issue of Anne-Marie’s. The film is a study of, in a sense, twin souls: of two rebels finding peace through each other and through the system, a system which needs its rebels, but no more than they need it. Therese’s machinations aim not simply at the expulsion of Anne-Marie, but via some unconscious diabolism, at her damnation, through pride – that aggressive vehemence in one’s subjective conscience which Protestantism may applaud but which Catholicism certainly does not.
That Anne-Marie shares Therese’s contrariness is hinted in two early scenes. Her initial refusal to burn the photographs of her family, by way of worldly renunciation, is presented in terms of a refusal which disappoints a not-to-intolerant Sister. And her decision to burn them is presented in terms of its painful effect on her worldly mother.
For Bardeche and Brasillach the story is ‘a matter less of God, than of domination and sacrifice.’ in this sense it is similar to Bresson’s next film, Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne, a tale of revenge transcended by acceptance. There, a lady transforms a sinner, to revenge herself on a man; in Péché a lady converts a sinner also, perhaps as a kind of sublimation of sadism. Péché has its cachet of artistic authenticity that, from a lay angle, it makes an even more disturbing kind of sense. It is tragic rather than cynical, and all the more movingly pessimistic in that the characters, as they are, have no real path to happiness.
Les Anges du Péché is perhaps, more lusher in a visual sense than the later Bresson. Cinematographer Phillipe Agostini favors rich blacks and luminous whites, creating images that seems almost opulent next to the more muted contrasts of the films photographed by L.H. Burel or Ghislain Cloquet. But the two latter cameramen are among the greatest in the history of the cinema. The music in the film is far more obstrusive than Bresson would tolerate in subsequent films, with the minimalist use of it. Bresson once said: “Music takes up all the room and gives no increased value to the image to which it is added.” Sparing use of baroque and classical punctuates all his mid-career masterworks, but in Péché the more abundant score was written by7 Jean-Jacques Gruenwald, who also wrote Le Journal d’un cure de campagne., which gives the film an austere, if kitschy religious quality.
Although Les Anges du Péché is somewhat distant from the later films in a number of ways, it is still a film of power, precision and expressiveness. It served as a harbinger for what was to become arguably the most brilliant body of work in movie history.







……….I have seen the film about the priest with stomach cancer, the one of the daring prison escape and the one about the suffering donkey. All great films, but need to look at this and the rest in his resume. Nice to see such a distinguished review of his first film………….
Definitely one of your better writings Sam. Sorry to say I am unfamiliar with this film, and always thought the 50′s film about the priest who lost his faith was the director’s first religious-themed film. Would you say that Besson more than any other director examined the religious themes inherent in church doctrine better than any other?
I don’t think this particular film has ever been available on DVD, so I’m amazed you were able to see it at all. I commend you on an outstanding treatment of it. I’m assuming you chose to do this in view of the 40′s poll.
Another film I have seen a few years back but do not have a copy of. Exquisite examination here, Sam. Everything you say is true. I love Agostini’s camerawork, and Bresson’s themes are always fascinating to delve into.
Frank: Thanks for the kind words as always. I quite concur on the showcasing of those three films you mention as they are three of my favorites films in the entire history of the cinema. Mr. Bresson is one those rare directors who doesn’t really have a weak film (his poorest in effect would trump most director’s best films) and seeing this as well as a number of others in his modest output would be in my view, essential.
Peter: Likewise, I salute you for your flattering statement. To answer your question: yes and no. Bresson’s treatment of church doctrine within the respected sphere of Catholicism and its spirituality has no greater adherent. However, the Spaniard Luis Bunuel, another supreme master of the cinema took a different approach in his numerous examinations of faith. He was far less respectful, and used satire and mockery to attack the church’s less desirable practices, and (in view) the absurdities of faith in general.
Ricky: The DVD is actually a bootleg, often available on e bay. The film has never been released officially.
Alexander: We will have to see what we can do to fill that hole in your collection.
I am well-aware of your supreme love for this director, as my blogging has uncovered your many extravagent comments about his films and themes (and unique cinematography) Thanks so much again for your appreciative response.
Excellent piece Sam. The DVD incidentally has been available in France for a while:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews29/anges_du_peche.htm
If you recall this was frightfully expensive at one point. Initially it wasn’t even available at Amazon but now is. It has Eng subs.
Kaleem, thanks very much for your kind words and for that invaluable information for WitD readers.
Bonjour! Sam Juliano,
What a very well written and very interesting review of a film that I have not viewed yet, but I know that will be (or can be) rectified.
Btw, is the title of the film in English The Angels of “Fishing?” Pèche mean ‘Fishing?”
Pèch meaning a short, fast, and forceful breath.
Merci! Beaucoup!
DarkCityDame
Bonjour DCD!
Thanks so much for those kind words, and indeed this can be rectified soon enough!
Actually, although in a few Latin languages the word “peche” does mean “fish,” the actual translation of the title of this film is “Angels of the Streets.”
The film is also known as “Filles de l’exil” which is “Angels of Sin” in English.
Merci! Beaucoup!
Sam
As you know, I am quite fond of this director, especially of “Pickpocket” and “A Man Escaped.” These will both be prominent I know, in the 50′s poll.
I guess I need to catch up with some of the early stuff, though I do have high regard for the depressing movie about the dying priest. This first film does sound intriguing I will admit.
Bonjour! Sam Juliano,
I will response to your email in a few minutes…
…Sam said, “Actually, although in a few Latin languages the word “peche” does mean “fish,” the actual translation of the title of this film is “Angels of the Streets.”
The film is also known as “Filles de l’exil” which is “Angels of Sin” in English.”
Sam Juliano, Thank-you!…so much! for the clarification, but I believe my confusion occurred with the word Pèche because the word for “street” in French is
Rue ….I remember the title of…the 1947 film 13 Rue Madeleine starring actor James Cagney. Translation: 13 Madeleine “Street”
Merci!
DCD
Just a note on the French there — as with most romance languages, in French meaning is derived from emphases and accentuations as much as consonants and vowels. A tiny accent line can alter an entire definition, and this is a good example. “Pèche,” as Sam has written, indeed DOES mean fish, but “Péché” (not the difference in accents) is one of I think the three or four francophonic words for sin.
See, now, I KNEW taking 4 years of French in high school wasn’t a complete waste of time! I admit I had to dig out some of my old study urls but I had a feeling that was the issue. Also, beware of the “Péché du Pèche”!
As always the erudite and exceptionally informed and gifted Mr. Lanthier makes superb clarification here.
Taking French (if it is accompanied by a love of cinema) can be a most worthwhile pursuit. Another feather in your cap my friend.
DCD, you can see there that “Rue” is technically the correct word for street, but accents come into play to alter the meaning of other words that ultimately mean the same as Jon has made clear.
Bonjour! Sam Juliano and Joseph “Jon” Lanthier,
I stop “painting,” (and working on the “Sistine Chapel…” which I actually started working on last Sunday) “eating croissants,” and drinking “coffee” and decided to do some lurking, but of course!…
…Well, Sam and Jonathan, I understand that sometimes accents, punctuations and pronunciations can alter the meaning of words in different languages.
Because I have several friends and (a family members that reside in Ontario Canada and 1 in France) that I communicate with regularly. Therefore, I’ am well aware of how words can be lost in “translation.” For instance, see Sam Juliano’s
Translation of the word “Filles de l’exil, “which can also be translated into “Daughters of Exiles.”
I was just being “curious” or “wondering out loud” about the …The title of which I thought should be pronounce Les Anges de la rue translation: The Angels of the Street.
Even with the word translated from “Péché” meaning “Fishing” to “Péché” meaning “Sin” which of course would make more sense when the title of the film is translation to English. I still would have been curious and questioned the translation.
Hi! Joseph “Jon” Lanthier,
This is my first time communicating with you and I ‘am so very sorry!
For addressing you in my response if you were just communicating with Sam Juliano.
Merci! Beaucoup!
DCD
In addition to the clarifications Jon has offered on ‘peche’ let me add one more. If this word is written with a circumflex on the first ‘e’ the meaning is ‘peach’.
Let me also offer one correction here.. the same word for ‘peach’, i.e. with the very same accent also stands for ‘fishing’ (the word for ‘fish’ itself is ‘poisson’). The verbal form ‘pecher’ with a circumflex on the first ‘e’ can mean ‘peace tree’ or ‘fishing’ but this latter verbal quality is slightly different from the one implied by the first one. Of course with an acute accent on the first ‘e’ the same word would mean ‘to sin’.
There is (I’m sure this is an oversight on Jon’s part) no ‘peche’ with a grave accent on the first ‘e’.
Finally I should add that writing a word in French with the wrong accent is considered simply inaccurate spelling. One doesn’t get any points for getting it right otherwise though of course as speakers of English we all have a problem coming to terms with this!
Kaleem, you are quite right, that accent grave should be a circumflex, and thanks for making the noun/verb distinction…been a while since my last grammar lesson du français, I will admit. And yes, your notes regarding the further meaning (ie “peach”) are also appreciated — it’s worth considering that much of the specific meaning of linguistic forms are also derived from context as much as anything else (I’d make the same assertion when the issue is English). And I’m well aware that one doesn’t get any points for correct letter spelling with incorrect accents, since this is a frequent debate over grading in rudimentary French (as you can imagine)!
Dark City Dame: you are still quite right to challenge the titular accuracy, although there are many films who suffer from multiple alternate names. I wonder which one Bresson preferred? Also, I apologize if my original message seemed overtly didactic or condescending, as that was not my intention (this is especially ironic since I made an error), and thanks for the note about your Francophonic kin (I have some Cajun-French speaking family myself, which comes with a whole other panoply of complications).
Finally, Sam: I apologize for not commenting about your text, above, but as I haven’t seen this I’m loathe to spoil anything…although the bits and pieces I’ve taken visual stabs at possess your typical erudition. A Bresson marathon may be in order Chez Lanthier…
Jon: Of course there is ‘peche’ with the grave accent on the first ‘e’ but that if you recall is the accent changing when the last vowel in not stressed in a verbal form. So this is just one of the forms of ‘pecher’.
Jon: And you were quite accurate about everything else. I would suggest that while context is necessary for any language it is particularly so for something like French when one is conversing (in the written language it’s usually quite clear) because so many words sound completely alike that one’s tone and intonation have to be precise.
Kaleem — most conjugations of “pêcher” I recall seeing have the circumflex (as with the infinitive), but as I’m a long way from an expert on French verb tenses I’ll take your word for it.
And certainly this gets hairy when conversing vocally in particular. While we’re talking about “le péché du pêcher” we could mention “le poison du poisson,” etc (both of those are likely sic…my wife is from Honduras so I’ve spent the last three years attempting to tutor myself in Spanish, and it’s marginalized what spotty French skills I once had).
Hi! Sam Juliano and Joseph “Jon” Lanthier,
Joseph “Jon” Lanthier said,”A tiny accent line can alter an entire definition, (This is true!) (and this is a good example. “Pèche,” as Sam has written, indeed DOES mean fish, but “Péché” (not the difference in accents) is one of I think the three or four francophonic words for sin.”
I communicated with my Canadian friend and asked him to visit Sam Juliano’s blog and to see what mistake I have made…and he said,” it was the little slip with the accentuation marks… he said, remember one misplacement of the accentuation mark (s) and the entire word is changed! Ooo La La…In my “zest” to make a point, I removed 1 of the 2 accentuation mark(s) over the letter “e” and promptly changed the word from “Sin” to “Fishing” and then the confusion ensued, but of course!…Joseph “Jon” Lanthier said, “I wonder which one Bresson preferred?”
He (my friend) love director Robert Bresson film “The Angel of Sin” and he said, he read that director Robert Bresson, pronounced the film “Les Anges du Péché” as Sam Juliano, said in his review and his explanation to me!
bid you “Goodnight!”
Merci! beaucoup!
A very “blushing” and “humble”
darkcitydame
Dark City Dame:
It is I who am humbled by that enriching anecdote and by your further clarifications here. Your friend has exquisite taste, and consumate knowledge. I wish I had the backround in French that our fecund friend Jon has, as well as Kaleem, who is often able to navigate a French film without English titles. I guess at the end of the day we can conclude that French has some English characteristics, in that there are conflicting meanings based on punctuation and accentuation points, and that there are instances where the English-French translation is not consistent with the actual words or phrases that are transcribed.
What may have begun as a simple matter of semantics has turned into one of the most fascinating threads we’ve had here, and again I thank Jon, Kaleem and Dark City Dame for their wonderful and (enlightening) contributions.
Jon: I didn’t mean pecher (to fish), hence not the one with the circumflex but pecher (to sin). Here as you might recall for example in the present indicative the acute is changed to a grave everywhere except for the first and second person plurals (because the final vowel is not mute here).
Kaleem: you are correct sir, and we were speaking of two different verbs albeit with identical letter characters. Yes, conjugating pecher = to sin would necessitate an accent grave in several tenses, but I believe the way Sam has it in the article above is still incorrect because the title refers to the noun formation (right?) which is spelled “péché”. Or could the title include the present participle form with grammatical accuracy?
Interesting tidbit, wikidictionary claims that since 1990 the Academie de française has recommended spelling the infinitive with the grave accent — pècher — to reflect common pronunciation.
And I’m not even going to get into the title massacre that US distribution companies have inflicted upon French cinema for years with films such as “The 400 Blows” (a much too literal translation with horribly misleading connotations) and “The Grand Illusion” (grande simply meaning “large” or “big” in French).
And one of my favorite phrases in this regard is one Derrida uses as a key to a reading of Ulysses (Joyce) where he takes up the word ‘oui-dire’ ‘hearsay’ in French.. the English word is exactly the same being compounded of ‘to hear’ and ‘to say’.. the ‘oui’ comes from an archaic French verb (current only in that ‘hearsay’ word) ‘ouir’ (to say, and with a trema on the ‘i’).. and keeps punning it with oui (yes).. true ‘hearing’ in other words involves saying a ‘yes’ to the ‘other’.. before a question can be answered it must first be ‘heard’.. one must consent to hear it.. this involves an acceptance (some theorists would call it a radical passivity) that can be understood as a ‘yes’.. the closing words of Ulysses are of course Molly Bloom’s repetitions of ‘yes’.. but an enormous ethics opens up with this thought and one that is by no means foreign to many of the debates we have here or the lists we draw up and so on.. how often are we really, truly ready to ‘receive’, to ‘hear’ that which is truly ‘other’ to what we are predisposed to believe?
Jon, I think the noun is the only form that would make sense in the title..
The present participle is ‘pechant’ (acute on ‘e’).. the past participle would be spelled the same way as the noun, i.e. the same accents.
‘The Angels of Sin’ is what it is..
Heady stuff here guys! But a fascinating extension of the existing discussion!
Jon: I just read your fascinating if “off the beacon track” review of Malle’s LACOMBE LUCIEN at Powership. I urge Kaleem and anyone else here to check it out, especially if you are familiar with the film.
Thanks Sam and also for alerting me to that piece by Joseph. I was glad to read it. I personally prefer Malle’s ‘childhood and growing up’ work to Truffaut’s. Murmur of the Heart is probably my favorite though.
Kaleem: sorry, I meant to write PAST participle, and it was mostly facetious speculation, since “Angels of Sinned” makes absolutely no sense, obviously.
Everyone else: thanks for checking out my review…yeah, I guess it is a trifle “off the track,” but I thought the film warranted it. And like Kaleem I vastly prefer Malle’s adolescent explorations to Truffaut’s — the loose trilogy collected in the Criterion set is a singular, sustained masterpiece, imho.
Jon: It was a great review and I did in the end realize the angle you were exploring. I also am with both of you on prefering Malle’s adolescent explorations to Truffaut’s (although THE 400 BLOWS stands apart), as is my cousin Bobby McCartney, who is here right now, and who also read Jon’s review.
Thanks to everyone. By the way, there seems to be some confusion — I actually ranked “Lacombe, Lucien” a 3.5 out of 4 stars, and consider it a remarkable film. However, I’ve just added a reply to Sam’s comment about the writing of the blog entry itself, which was attempting to burrow into the film unhindered by simple declarations of love or hate (a typical approach I essay). I’m in a way rather perversely pleased that folks thought I was lashing out at the film, although that wasn’t my intention…anyway, just wanted to set that straight.
Indeed Jon. I just added yet another comment under yours acknowledging that I had somehow takes your modest disclaimers more seriously than you had intended. 3.5 of 4 does indicate near-excellent. I highlighted one sentence from your review that I pretty much concur with.
This is a wonderful film. The photography is masterful. There are moments presaging Bresson later cinematographic language
I seem to remember having read that Luis Buñuel felt that the final scene in which the Therese kisses Anne-Marie’s feet as being the most erotic scene in film history.
And yes, “Péché” is the masculine noun , translated as sin in English.