Perceval (1978)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Expected more

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

and it doesn't help rohmer's case that a few years later Syberberg came along and made a staggeringly great piece of work on the same subject (with a little help from Wagner).maybe this movie didn't look so paltry when it came out, without the syberberg film to compare it to, which was probably shot on an even smaller sound stage with fewer resources. I actually can't recall at the moment whether there are horses in the syberberg film. all I know is, the German version is pure magic, while this one looks like some college production documented on film for archival purposes.the music... la musique... isn't even credited here on IMDb... but someone based it on 'airs from the 12th-14th centuries" or something... well it isn't a great help to the film. it comes off as inauthentic and cheesy, comme le frommage mon cher!!!rohmer is one of those french auteurs who likes his leading men generally quite unattractive, too, and that doesn't help matters. syberberg's Parsifal was adorable, and can be seen on German television today selling some kind of special bicycle he invented. .. .I shudder to think what watching the syberberg on video is like. I remember that the last time I saw the film in a theater, the print was so bad that the experience was a whopping 5 hour travesty. But even then it would have to surpass what this version has to offer, I'm afraid.points for earnestness, for chutzpah, but... this film simply needed beau-coup more bucks. it doesn't look like a medieval manuscript it looks CHEAPO! BON MARCHE!! oh and yeah, it just ends very arbitrarily with Parsifal going to church and this cheesy passion play being interjected... blah!

Eric Rohmer's Perceval Le Gallois transports us back to the Middle Ages, offering a magical vision of the Grail legend in poetry, music, and simple imagery. The film is set in the time of King Arthur and his roundtable. By using costumes based on religious paintings of the Middle Ages, and sets of miniature gold castles and metallic trees, standing silhouetted in front of a painted canvas backdrop, Rohmer creates a sense of childlike wonder. Though based on an unfinished 12th century novel by Chretien de Troyes, the text has been modernized for modern audiences. Female and male choruses sing the connecting narration in traditional rhyming couplets and, with true theatrical flair, actors speak not only their lines but also the thoughts of the characters. Perceval (played by Fabrice Luchini in a performance I found to be the film's biggest drawback) is a naïve youth who lives with his mother. When he is awed by his first encounter with a knight, he determines to go to King Arthur's court to become a knight. Securing the blessings of the King, he takes lessons in chivalry from the wise Gornemant de Goort (Raoul Billerey). His adventures and a subplot involving Gawain take up the remainder of the film. Perceval first captures the heart of Blanchefeur (Arielle Dombasle), then those of other fair maidens, always remembering the simple tenets taught to him by Gornemant. With a powerful depiction of the passion of Jesus Christ and an episode involving the Bloody Lance and the Holy Grail, Perceval gives us a modern insight into chivalry, and also allows us to glimpse the underlying mystery of life.

This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.

First there was that medieval novel in verses. Then, there was this offbeat idea of making a film out of it. Cardboard trees and a castle impossible to mistake for the real thing. A lot of talking meant only for lovers of French language. You either love or hate it. If you a)ever read poetry, b)watched other Rohmer films and c)understand some French, you may love it, otherwise, avoid it at all cost. Video prints are nearly impossible to find. Years from now, long after Shakespeare in love is trashed and forgotten, this flick will still be enjoyed by many.