Perceval le Gallois

I've been on a long Rohmer kick this year, and while I greatly enjoy almost all his work I have to admit there are ways they're all rather alike. With two tremendous exceptions: "The Marquise de O." and "Perceval".

I'm glad I read the earlier-placed IMDb comments, it's very helpful to think of this, as someone suggests, as what Chretien would have produced had he had access to filmmaking rather than narrative poetry. 20th Century narrative manners had not yet developed, and what would be quirky (or downright incompetent) structuring in a late 20th Century film are entirely normal in this 12th Century film.

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.

This is the movie about the 12th Cenutyr that I've felt is the closest in spirit with what has been written about that time by the people themselves. Far from the ridiculous Hollywood accounts of Robin Hood and Excalibur, this movie is nothing more (and nothing less!) than a filmed chanson de geste. A troop of actors/singers portray the Chrétien de Troyes poem. Half the story is told by speaking, the other half singing. To be able to stick to the text, the characters often talk about themselves in the third person: it is effective in distancing the minstrels from the characters they impersonate. I pity those who see it but can't speak French, as Chrétien's prose has no equal, and the English translation is much more trivial than the other-worldly formulations of the author, faithfully rendered in the film...

I'd advise greatly to read Perceval before watching the movie. Only then can one see how faithful to the spirit of the author Rohmer has managed to be. The original poem already takes place in some sort of magical, fantastic land and time, where everything is made of gold and velvet, and where not everything has to make sense. The Middle Ages literature tradition is very, very big on symbolism, and therefore mustn't be taken too literally. That's what Rohmer does here: castles and trees are symbols.

The last aspect I shall mention is the resemblance between the movie and medieval paintings. Watching he movie, you often feel like watching an animated medieval fresco. Colors, clothing, positions, everything is taken directly from those depictions of medieval life. The scene of the Passion is made of everything good in that movie: very good music, amazing costumes and colors, symbolism, fresco-like positions... This movie is a masterpiece.

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.