Pickpocket

 SPOILER ALERT! The plot will be discussed.

 

If you know Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, you don’t need Roger Ebert to point out the echoes of that story in Robert Bresson’s Pickpocket (1959). However, Ebert’s insights help to clarify this story about a man, Michel (Martin LaSalle), who, like Raskolnikov, sees himself as superior to the rest of society, and thus existing in a plane above the morality of others. However, Ebert notes in his book, The Great Movies, that Michel, “fearing he is worse” than the general population, “seeks punishment” for his crimes. Could it also be that he is an emotional vampire who is empty inside and is attempting to suck out the spirit of others that he robs?

The film begins with a sort of disclaimer which says the filmmaker is not presenting a thriller, but instead is providing a story about a man with a compulsion, and that the situation also brings together two people who may never had otherwise met each other. Bresson, thus, is giving us a character study that is the primary focus, and the events are the vehicle which brings these people together, and to us.

The music that plays as the titles are displayed sounds like a classical dirge that suggests crime can be artistic but also can lead to the undoing of the criminal artist. The beginning has Michel, who is writing in a journal, succinctly summing up what he thinks is his superior nature. We hear his voice as he narrates his tale. He says others think of committing certain acts, but he has actually done them.

At the racetrack, where people are carrying money to bet, he surveys the crowd. His eyes are always moving, observing where he can strike, like a predator. Ebert points out that the pickpocket must get close to the victim, suggesting sexual intimacy. Michel approaches a woman, and his close proximity shows he is penetrating her personal space. The way he strokes the female’s purse (which prostitute’s sometimes call the vagina) appears sensual. When he releases the catch, he gives out a slight sigh and closes his eyes, which is relief he didn’t get caught, but may also imply sexual satisfaction. Even the way he inserts his hand and removes the money is suggestive. As he exits the location he says he was “walking on air,” which stresses his ecstasy at violating the standards meant for the mediocre masses. However, he is arrested, probably because the woman saw him close to her and described him after realizing she was robbed. But, because he was not caught in the act, he is released. He later says he needs to think about what has happened, which implies he is experiencing the exhilaration of getting away with his crime, the fear that he almost was caught, and the guilt of breaking the law. As Ebert points out, Bresson does not allow his actors to show emotion to give away their feelings, and that the audience must surmise what the characters are feeling by the action he, as the director, presents.

As he goes to his mother’s place, Michel admits that he does not visit her often. He does not have a key, which shows his lack of connection to her. The neighbor, Jeanne (Marika Green), lets him in and she is the one who knows more about his mother’s ill health than he does. He will not even go in to see her, and hands Jeanne some money to give to his mother. Ebert suggests that, since we don’t really know, Michel may want to avoid a reminder of his connection to an ordinary woman.

Michel meets with a friend, Jacques (Pierre Leymarie), who appears to know Michel has the talent to be a good pickpocket because he has good ‘hands.” The two join a third man, a policeman, L’inspecteur principal (Pierre Pelegri), who knows about different types of crooks. When pressed about why he thinks some people break the law, Michel is philosophical. He rhetorically asks, “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 laws in certain cases?” L’inspecteur principal notes the danger in people deciding that they are “supermen.” Michel says these special individuals will benefit society when they act according to their superiority, which they recognize in themselves. But L’inspecteur principal notes that it would be difficult to find someone who doesn’t consider himself to be “exceptional.” He adds by questioning the concept of a “useful thief,” saying that would create a “world upside down,” a reversal of the social order. Michel counters by saying, “It’s already upside down. This could set it right.” Michel is arguing that if the world is so flawed it needs an outlaw to correct its wayward path. Of course, one could also argue that breaking more laws would only create more chaos. In this exchange we have the closest connection to Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. L’inspecteur principal, according to Jacques later, is becoming suspicions of Michel, whose verbal justification of criminal activity could be part of a desire to be found out to get acknowledgement of his talent, but also possibly to get caught as penance for his transgressions.

Michel continues his narration, saying that even though he does not want to return to his seedy apartment, which only has a latch as a lock, he questions if his desire to steal is based on the acquisition of money. While on the metro, he scopes out a victim and feels compelled to pickpocket him, although he does not act yet. He continues to practice his technique and is successful the next time he rides the train. Michel, as Ebert points out, is unremarkable in appearance. Of course, by not calling attention to himself, he is able to perform his illegal actions unnoticed. The idea that this type of criminal act is done by making appearances look innocent is demonstrated when Michel hides a stolen wallet inside a folded newspaper. The fact that the theft is done in an underground vehicle suggests symbolism that implies wrongdoing is propelled by the forces of the underside, that part of one’s psychology that rebels against the standards imposed from without.

One of Michel’s marks stops him on the way out of the metro, confronting Michel with the theft of his wallet. Michel gives it back and quickly leaves, feeling defeated. He then stays in his apartment for a while, probably requiring solitary sanctuary for his failure. His place is full of books that he reads, which also feeds his ego regarding how he values being thought of as an intellectual. As he sits in the small living space, it almost looks like a jail cell, which also implies that Michel is already imprisoned by his compulsion.

Jacques brings Jeanne to Michel to tell him that his mother is very sick. He still is not able to find it within himself to visit her, despite admitting that he loves her. His contradictory attitude is still not explained, and we can only guess at why he feels alienated from his mother. He follows a man who was sizing up his place and finds out that he is a pickpocket who then helps Michel perfect his technique. The classical music is back as the hand maneuvers are put on display, equating the movements with an artistic work, despite the fact they are illegal.

Despite Michel’s intense observational ability, he, ironically, misses seeing a note left by Jeanne urging him to come to see his mother. The implication is that his connection to others is not his primary concern. However, he now visits his dying mother, who passes away after she says he can accomplish anything. Her statement also is ironic, since he can construe her encouragement to justify his pickpocketing enterprise. He cries at her funeral, which is the first time we see any emotion on the part of Michel, thus demonstrating he can have feelings for others.

After bringing his mother’s few belongings to his apartment with Jeanne, he asks her if people are judged. She mistakenly thinks he is talking about his mother, who Jeanne says will be treated kindly in the afterlife. He is most likely thinking about himself. He questions, “Judged how? According to laws? What laws? It’s absurd.” She asks if he believes in “nothing.” His sarcastic response is, “I believed in God, Jeanne, for three minutes.” He is an existential character who has thrown away concepts of absolute rights and wrongs, but he has not replaced any traditional spiritual beliefs with another code. The poet William Blake created his own mythology because, he said, he must build a system to follow or be enslaved by one created by another.

Michel and his accomplice/mentor use their slight-of-hand skills to steal from several people. A second pickpocket then joins the team. Back in his apartment Michel finds Jacques there picking up a book about a famous pickpocket. Jacques is concerned about his friend being interested in a life of crime. He says that thieves “disgust” him because they are “idlers.” But Michel defends the “Prince of Pickpockets” noted in the book, saying the famous crook read constantly. When Jacques stresses that thieves go to prison. Michel asks his friend if he knows what prison is. The implication here is that Michel is already in the prison of his own compulsion to steal, which sprang from his outsider personality.

Jacques brings the book about the pickpocket to a meeting that includes the L’inspecteur principal. The policeman asks Michel if he knows how many of these “supermen” lawbreakers there are. Michel says no, because they are smart enough never to have been caught, which can imply that he is smart enough never to be captured. L’inspecteur principal invites Michel to talk with him about the book. Michel afterwards tells Jacques that he knows the policeman and Jacques suspect him of breaking the law. But, he says he will go see L’inspecteur principal anyway. Here we have his arrogance showing, but also that contrary subconscious desire to have his illegal activities discovered. He meets with the policeman, but it is a brief encounter and Michel believes it was a trap to get him away from his apartment so it could be searched. When he returns he finds that his stash behind the wall molding has not been touched.

He meets with Jacques and Jeanne, only to leave them to steal a watch. The next scene reveals that he has hurt his hand and leg and his clothes are dirty. He must have failed at keeping his theft covert and fallen while running away from the scene of his crime. His pickpocketing is a dangerous activity, but it is the adrenalin rush that makes it attractive. Jacques finds Michel at his apartment in his disheveled state. Michel shows some jealousy, wondering if Jacques and Jeanne have fallen in love. Perhaps he has some genuine feelings for her, but is it enough to save him from his antisocial behavior?

Michel narrates that working with his partners was going along very well. But, he says it can’t last. He is obviously a pessimist about life. There is a wordless sequence which presents a clinic on pickpocketing. The three thieves work seamlessly at a train station removing wallets and substituting purses under the arms of women for the stolen ones. They move the goods between them for safekeeping so none of thieves gets caught with the merchandize. The audience marvels at the skill of these crooks, maybe even cheering for their talents. But these men are victimizing innocent people. In this way, Bresson is like Alfred Hitchcock, who implicates his audience in wrongdoing in his films as he has the viewers get thrills from their voyeurism and vicarious involvement. Bresson, like Hitchcock (think of Psycho, Strangers on a Train, Shadow of a Doubt, Rope), even puts the audience in a position where they wish for the perpetrators to escape capture.

L’inspecteur principal confronts Michel at his place. Michel tells him he knows the policeman suspects him and he shows anger here saying he does not want to be hounded. The inspector says that there was a report that an old woman stated she was robbed but the complaint was withdrawn. Then the woman’s son was at the racetrack right after that and was arrested as a possible pickpocket. He admits he is talking about Michel and confesses that he should have considered Michel as the person who stole from his mother. So, we see that Michel’s compulsion even makes his own mother a victim. Could he have stolen from her as a sort of revenge for coming from an ordinary upbringing? The policeman simply leaves and refuses to tell Michel his future plans concerning the suspected thief.

Michel knows that Jeanne was questioned by the police in connection with his mother’s robbery. Jeanne says that his mother dropped the complaint. Jeanne is the opposite of Michel. She is an innocent and does not suspect Michel until he calls her an “idiot” for not realizing that he lives without any evidence of income, and states that his mother must have come to realize her own son stole from her. She is appalled that he could have done such a horrible thing. Her goodness is a challenge to his amoral behavior. His cynical response is that just knowing a deed is considered wrong doesn’t preclude one from committing it. He is again asserting his option to dismiss conventional morality if he is above it. He says she has accepted her lot in life even though it has inflicted her with a drunken father and an absent mother. He most likely is asserting the right to alter one’s inherited situation if it is detrimental, even if it means breaking the rules to right the wrongs. She provides a sort of spiritual, fatalistic attitude, saying things must occur for a reason. He says to her, “are you that naïve?” This exchange shows how opposite these two are in their approach to life’s tribulations. She admits that she believes that he is a thief, but instead of recoiling from him, she hugs him, as if offering Michel a chance at redemption if he can experience kindness.

He retrieves what he stole and escapes on a train to avoid being arrested. He writes that he went to Italy and then England where he continued being a pickpocket for two years, but he lost all of what he stole on gambling and women. He returned to Paris “penniless.” So, the acquisition of wealth, to “get ahead” as he told Jeanne, was not really his goal. It was the act of stealing that interested him.

He visits Jeanne, whose father has taken all of her belongings. She now has a baby, and Jacques is the father. She says she couldn’t marry him because she didn’t love him, and it would have been a deception. She is above being dishonest. Michel promises to help her, perhaps because her being a good person who has not had an easy life and who showed him compassion brings out the humanity in him. He gets a legitimate job and gives money to Jeanne.

The story returns to the racetrack, where it began, providing a sense of closure. A man there shows Michel that he has a lot of money in his pocket from his winnings. But, Michel sees that the horse the man chose did not win. So, he suspects the man to be a policeman. Out of arrogance, he attempts to pick his pocket anyway, but the cop catches Michel in the act and puts handcuffs on him. Did he subconsciously try to get arrested out of guilt or feelings of inadequacy? In jail, Jeanne visits, and he says, “These walls, these bars – I don’t care. I don’t even see them.” Maybe that’s because he has always felt imprisoned by the way life treated him. What bothers him is that he “let his guard down” and was caught, which undermines his vision of himself as being superior to failure. He says he will confess everything (the prison bars suggest the divider is a confessional) but will then refute what he says just as a way of stubbornly resisting his defeat.

He eventually gets a letter from Jeanne telling him that her baby has been very ill, so she continues to suffer life’s tribulations. She promises, however, that she will see him again. When she visits, they are separated by the barrier, but they touch each other, and he kisses her head gently. The last words are, “Oh, Jeanne, what a strange way I had to take to meet you.” He, ironically, has made a meaningful emotional connection to her at a time when his actions have prevented him from being with the woman he cares about.

The next post deals with recent films.