Perceval le Gallois

How many movies do you remember for 25 years and constantly look for the DVD release. This movie is impossible to explain, it requires a visit. I saw this in NY when it was first released and I never forgot it. At the time I had just finished reading several Aurthurian novels and myths as well as Richard Monaco's Parsifal and the excellent Mary Stewart Merlin Trilogy. It capture the myth in the same way that renaissance and medieval music portray the period with their beautiful simplicity. I have very little more to add except to watch it if it ever makes it to DVD. Unfortunately since the policy of this site is a 10 line minimum I have to waste space and time by typing until I reach the minimum number of lines. Good luck.

I admit that I avoided this film for years – probably because most films that have dealt with the Arthurian legend have been pretty bad. So when I finally watch it this year during a retrospective of Rohmer's oeuvre, it was a surprise to find that this movie is really wonderful, and it ought to be better known. Based on Chretien de Troyes medieval book, the film is at times faithful to its literary source and at times very, very eccentric. The style is difficult to explain: the movie wallows in its deliberate artificiality, with its cardboard sets, its wooden acting, and its impromptu (and wonderful) medieval songs. And to top it all, the movie ends with a long rendering of a medieval mass. The movie has a lot of humor actually, which is fairly unusual in Rohmer films, a humor that is very self-conscious and is very 20th century (brechtian distance is a phrase that comes to mind when you watch this film), yet at the same time, the film sometimes looks as a film that could have been made in the 12th century, had the technology been available back then.

I am truly a lover of Rohmer's films in modern settings. Although the dialog is elevated and more self-aware than any found in real life, the dilemmas of the unusually beautiful people who ponder their way through Rohmer films are always involving and relevant.

But the latest Rohmer historic film, The Englishlady and the Duke, was quite leaden, despite the use of digitized versions of classic paintings as backdrops. The characters were too involved in their narrow revolutionary or anti-revolutionary politics, and the opportunity to relate to those characters was nil.

So I was not looking forward to Perceval, but I was completely entranced by it. It is somewhat "historical," but totally stylized. It is largely narrated by madrigal singers who wander in and out, sometimes portraying characters. The lead, Perceval (Fabrice Luchini) is a nice-looking youth, but not one to make you swoon. He's attractive in a Jean-Pierre Léaud way--objectively odd-looking, yet appealing.

The plot involves Perceval's admittance into the world of knights, gallantry, and chivalry. He is so awestruck by knightly notions that he takes to knighthood, and is taken into knighthood, with no challenge that he cannot surmount. He arrives at Arthur's (Marc Eyraud's) court, finds it feeble and on the verge of hostile takeover, and singlehandedly restores it to glory. He meets women and treats them with respect and reverence, serving them and protecting their virtue.

The plot winds away from Perceval toward the final third of the movie, focusing on Sir Gawain (André Dussollier) and one of his exploits. But I assume that this follows the source material. The movie ultimately reaches a nicely French, existentialist conclusion.

I don't know who this movie is for: perhaps for Rohmer, myself, and a few French & Francophile intellectuals. But I thought it was quite lovely.

Let me start off by saying most folk I know are going to hate this film. I'll go one further: most human beings will hate this film. Rohmer has taken the Parsifilian myth and in translating it for the screen has created a hybrid form of storytelling combing the artifice and conventions of the world of theatre with the continuity we've grown accustomed to in the world of cinema. For some freaks (like yours truly) the wedding of these two formats works in an almost otherworldly manner making it quite unlike any film one is likely to see. Although combining elements of several of the Parsifal legends, Rohmer's retelling seems more centered on Chrétien de Troyes story than von Eisenbach's epic, endless poem.

Visually – here, at least – Rohmer remains in the world of theatre: the sets are often painted flats, or small scale models that suggest or are more representational of the tale's locations than they are visual recreations typically found in film. There are trees constructed of metal, and myriad other odd touches to the set, all of which seems to be on an enormous stylized turntable or disc that revolves as the story progresses. The film is often narrated by a group of madrigal singers who, with their ancient instruments, wander in and out of the picture (and the story) adding commentary and observation serving a function in the manner of a Greek chorus. The effect is charming adding a further medieval, church mystery quality unifying the disparate elements of Rohmer has chosen for his storytelling. Conversely, it is also one of the elements that will annoy the hell out of many viewers.

Rohmer's telling of the tale is primarily centered with the young Perceval's fascination with the world of knights and his desire to enter their world chivalrous universe. In the title role Fabrice Luchini portrays the young novice with a typically cool French sense of detachment, and arrogance – yet somehow manages to balance it all with humility and honor. Fearlessly he passes through all of his trials and in the process shows that arrogance is not always wed with pride; when one's right and aware of his skill and abilities, he needn't be boastful. It's a fascinating portrayal.

Interestingly, and more honestly than most Arthurian films Rohmer suggests more of the turmoil, weakness and near dissolution of Arthur's court than its glory. The young knight's stint at the castle, his integrity and eye for honesty wins the day earning him glory.

Rohmer's pushing of the tale to include Sir Gawain's story moves naturally adding a deeper level to this Arthurian tale, as well as reminding us of the complexity, intertwining, and timelessness of all of these legends.

Even those who may not like will not argue that visually Rohmer has created a world that is often breathtakingly beautiful. Indeed, many of the shots feel as though they'd dropped to us from glorious tapestry hanging from a damp castle wall.

I'm at a loss over what I could say about Eric Rohmer's Perceval. I was so deeply affected by it. I'm guessing that many will be annoyed at the French New Wave style, which I personally love. I'm definitely a French New Wave fan. I'm not really a Rohmer fan, though. This is only the second Rohmer film I've seen, after his 1997 film An Autumn Tale (I think that's what it's called). I was unimpressed with that. Perceval will probably lead me to see more of his films, although, from what I've heard, this film is stylistically different than anything else he has ever made. Heck, I haven't seen anything at all similar in style in the many, many films I've seen. It's as if it takes place within the world of the theater. Naturalism is thrown out the window. The landscape is reduced to a bare minimum. Trees are sculpted out of metal, and are more symbols of trees than trees themselves. Castles are small, like the skenes of ancient Greek theater. The palette is made up of mostly primary colors. White appears frequently, and there are a couple of scenes with some purple. Silver and gold are abundant. This goes for the sets and constumes. The acting is exaggerated, I think, to imitate a Medieval style. Best of all, a lot of the narrative is sung to gorgeous Medieval arrangements. This is perhaps the most hypnotizing aspect of the film.

The only thing that has a tendency to disappoint is the narrative. It's choppy, things go unresolved and so forth. It didn't bother me too much. I've actually read some Medieval literature, and it doesn't generally obey Aristotle's rules. The main piece that feels unresolved is the story of Gawain. Only after about one hundred minutes does he become important, the story follows him for a while, and then it goes back to Perceval, never to return again. Still, this didn't bother me too much. There's not an individual scene in the film that lacks beauty. Several are amongst the most beautiful ever captured on film. Perceval even contains the second most powerful version of the Passion of Jesus Christ I've ever seen in a film, slightly behind the one in Andrei Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev. I know that I will come back to Perceval as soon as I can to study it closer and love it more. It's instantly one of my favorite films. 10/10.