(Credit: Press)

Eo, Cannes Jury Prize winner and Poland’s Oscar submission for this year, is a remake of Au Hasard Balthazar, a classic 1966 film by revered French director Robert Bresson. Obviously, it can’t be properly reviewed without considering the original film. Bresson’s pensive, avant-garde movie was a fable of sorts, a story which followed the life of a donkey named Balthazar. Born and raised on a farm, Balthazar is briefly treated as a pet until he is passed on to one owner after another, overworked, beaten, and finally abandoned. The donkey’s suffering is often compared to the human condition and its unending cruelty. Uncomprehending but compliant, the donkey patiently bears it all without complaint until the abused animal expires in a uniquely moving final scene. 

The revised version, by established Polish director and screenwriter Jerzy Skolimowski, follows the basic plot of the original: it depicts the life of the central ‘character’ Eo, a donkey, as it changes owners and experiences some kindness but far more callous mistreatment. Like the earlier film, the plot focuses on the donkey, leaving its human associates somewhat in the background; and tells the story largely from the animal’s perspective. The events of Eo’s life, trivial though they are in the grand scale of things, are personalised and made interesting and touching to the viewer, as they are clearly important to the little donkey. As in the original film, the skill of the filmmaker draws the audience in and allows them to empathise with the wordless and passive central character. 

Skolimowski’s remake has two significant departures from the original. The first is a change in the intent and overall theme. Bresson’s film was a fable, and while it is sympathetic to the beleaguered donkey, its adventures are mostly allegorical – the exact nature of the metaphors has been debated over the years. On the other hand, Eo is a far more literal story, in which abuse of the lead animal is not symbolic but the primary tragedy. Cruelty and human indifference are still the themes, but they are demonstrated in a straightforward way through the mistreatment of animals (and occasionally of other people), as represented by a single animal. For this reason, while Bresson’s Balthazar was always clearly an animal, with the qualities and understanding of a donkey, the hapless Eo is anthropomorphised, made not merely a placid and likeable creature, but a character with almost human reactions and human emotions. It grieves, sheds tears, and experiences nostalgia.

A second difference between Eo and the 1966 film that inspired it is the cinematic approach, which is frankly impressive. Skolimowski uses the camera creatively to show us events from Eo’s point of view, bringing us plausibly into the animal’s mind. For example, during a happy episode in which the donkey is set loose in a pleasant, wooded plot of land, we are shown a glimpse of Eo’s perspective. Looking up, it sees the unfamiliar sunlit canopy of leaves, awe-inspiring but slightly muddled to show the confusing unfamiliarity of the sight, and with the colours muted to replicate a donkey’s mostly colourblind vision. Again, while suffering under the hands of a cruel owner, we are shown the donkey’s misty recollections of being treated kindly by an earlier owner. The careful staging and camera work make the non-human protagonist not only sympathetic but identifiable and genuinely tragic.

A few significant changes in the plot make the anti-animal cruelty theme still more pointed, turning the film into less of a fable concerning human nature or good and evil and more of an emotional morality tale about the abuse of animals. In particular, Bresson’s distinctive, vaguely spiritual closing scene is replaced by a conclusion that is more grimly realistic and more didactic. Still other changes, however, are beautifully managed updates, which place Eo in situations representing life in present-day Europe, with all its complexities, conflicts, and modes of living. In many of these episodes, Eo is the innocent observer and frequent victim of human activity. Much like the earlier Balthazar, it provides a lens through which humanity can be examined with fresh eyes.

The occasional preachiness and sentimentality in Eo are by no means enough to spoil its overall effect. The film is a simple, moving, bravely told, and completely absorbing story, beautifully made and completely successful in achieving the filmmaker’s intentions.