User Reviews

A lot of people are complaining about this film and for good reason. It's a difficult film but a worthwhile one at that. Bresson's Camelot is a horrible place to be. Arthur and his knights are unintentionally making everyone around them suffer by their visions of what the great society Camelot should be. The emotion is drained because they have killed for so long, compromising and losing sight of their initial quest. The movie is by far the most thematically challenging and different of the King Arthur operas, but it's definitely better than the recent film and on par with John Boorman's Sexcalibur. This film should be seen only by those with a true appreciation for art films and not those seeking to be entertained, they are two different mediums.

You know that everything is possible and cinema has no limits when the most austere, minimalist and anti-conventional director of all-time shoots his version of the story of Camelot... and makes a masterpiece. In the first shot we see two unknown knights having a typical medieval fight; one of them eventually is hit and fall dead, and some blood runs through the ground. The winner goes away. But the difference is that it is shown in the most raw way possible, without any kind of beauty or visual show to please the audience. That's the essence of Bresson's cinema: "only the necessary", said the master. Then, after the credits, we see that is not the Holy Grail story, the traditional story, but what happens next, it begins were the legend ends. The knights return demoralized to the kingdom. Their leader, Percival, is lost, and Lancelot blames himself and his adultery with Guinevere as the reason that the Grail was not found- the search for it was, for him, also the search for God. The Queen is not convinced, and ask his love with words which have nothing extraordinary alone; however, the emotionless way she asks makes it unusual, and somewhat disturbing. The knights are completely demystified and shown not as legend, but men, and men which lack something: is it love, God, a reason to live now that their search is over (and was unsuccessful)? Maybe all that, maybe more, but the fact is that eventually it will explode, and Camelot's decadence will be inevitable. Bresson's ultra-naturalistic and anti-conventional style makes it's images very powerful. The best are a tournament when he applies one of his principles "to give something for the ears and then for the eyes, never both", increasing the effect of the combats, which would have seem even foolish otherwise, and the ending, which is a very shocking one. Because of all that, Lancelot of the Lake is one of the finest films of one of cinema's greatest masters. Mainstream audiences will probably hate it, but one who's eager to see another side of a very known story should see it.

PS: I'm quoting out of memory, so it maybe not be the exacts Bresson's words

Lancelot du Lac (1974)

It is my contention that Robert Bresson's films are not so much films as they are philosophical essays stroked out on celluloid. They are often contemplations on the soul, usually of its destruction. His films are highly stylised in that they are without any style at all. Many of the actors he used acted in the film in which he cast them. He left out what would usually be considered key moments in a plot, making them difficult, but always fascinating. He never failed in what he tried to achieve, though that doesn't mean they were all always really that enjoyable, especially If you approach them as you would any other movie anyway. They are an acquired taste, and frankly require a certain degree of intelligence. I don't say that to sound pretentious, but to merely point out the observation that to have to think about something requires a certain amount of intelligence.

In 1974 Bresson applied his philosophic sensibilities to a legendary tale. He took the famous Arthurian story of Lancelot's affair with Arthur's Queen, Guinevere. Of course, everyone knows the story, so I will not bother describing the plot so much as examine how it's executed. Bresson stripped all the lustre and romanticism from the story. Instead, he chose to emphasize the grime and cold-bloodedness. In the opening shot, he has Knights battle each other, hammering their swords against their armour until they strike flesh. Blood pours out like water from a faucet. It is a poignant gesture that Bresson begins (and ends) his film with inexplicable and horrific violence.

Bresson turns ups the sounds of metal scraping on metal as the knights move around. He makes them look almost silly in their shuffling motions. Their pride is a foolish one. Instead of noblemen, Bresson shows them as petty and manipulative. They conspire to kill Lancelot, not by challenging him to a duel, but by waiting for him to exit the Queen's room where, armed or not, they declare he'll be too caught off guard to put up a fight before he is run through. Even Lancelot is ashamed, for he has returned from his quest to find the Holy Grail a failure. His trespasses with the Queen, even if it is true love, are doomed to tragedy because of foolhardy nobility.

Though parts of the film take place in a castle, Bresson wastes no time with an establishing or grandiose shots. Even in battle, most scenes are reactionary. He makes it a point to show the knights lifting and closing their face masks as they speak with one another or prepare for war. The repetition somehow acts almost as satire. I think Bresson recognized the asinine behind the legendry.

Lancelot du Lac was one of Bresson's most abstract films. It was in many ways an exercise in deconstruction that would have done Derrida proud. It obviously must has been quite influential. When I first saw Terrence Malick's The New World, I instantly thought that it must have been influenced in some way by Lancelot du Lac. That film stripped the story of Pocahontas and John Smith to its bare essentials - albeit not to the extent that Bresson goes, but still. There is one scene in The New World which reminded me very much of Lancelot du Lac, the one in which Smith wades through a swampy forest in his clunky armour only to be bested by the nearly nude naturals. He looks foolish trying to navigate and murky forest in such clunky attire. Now whether or not the film was an inspiration or if Malick has even seen it, I cannot confirm (though I suspect he has - his knowledge of cinema is extensive) Bresson often shows his knights gallivanting in the forest, wearing armour as a formal attire in situations that do not require it, other than to shout, "look at me, I am a Knight of King Arthur's Court!." Sure they offer some added protection, but they are still no match for death - as Bresson points out by showing us at the beginning and at the end (purposefully placed no doubt) how blood finds ways to spray from the openings and holes in plates of armour. Their armour is simply a token of their supremacy over the common man.

Lancelot du Lac is Bresson's way of showing us the grandiose self-importance the Knights of King Arthur's Court presented upon themselves, and continues to be placed upon them by fairytale romanticism. When Lancelot asks for help to overcome his temptations from God, it is not for holiness or piety, but his own mortal self-preservation. Their quest for the Grail and their military victories have granted them fame and reputation. They squander what gifts they have been given to defeat one another. On one side, for the sake of Arthur against Lancelot; on the other for the sake of the Queen and Lancelot against everyone else. In the end when Lancelot concedes and returns the Queen to Arthur in exchange for her pardon, a group of Knights turn against the King at his moment of weakness. Now then Lancelot and his men return to fight for Arthur against the usurpers. It is a cycle of battle, or to be more to the point, competition. Throughout the film the Knights are preoccupied with competition in some form - jousting, declaring duels, chess, the love of the queen. They feast on an appetite of destruction.

All is done in the name of Christianity in Arthur's court, but Bresson leaves much of that to subtlety. One shot of Lancelot is framed in the foreground by a crucifix, out of focus on purpose. Guinevere responds that the Knights were looking for God as a trophy - yet God is not a trophy. The Knights have simply taken Christianity as their flag in a battle for self-supremacy, not any theological quest.

I'm still inching into the cinema of Robert Bresson, as I would a hot bath. I saw Pickpocket a couple of months ago. I liked it, but didn't agree that it was a masterpiece of any sort. I picked up Lancelot of the Lake because the video box caught my eye. I didn't expect a French New Wave guy to be directing Medieval drama (I also rented Rohmer's Perceval at the same time, but have not yet watched it), especially Bresson, whom I associate with a certain slowness.

The result is mixed. The film is certainly not entirely successful, but I'd say that it is an extraordinarily interesting film. I have a problem with his decision to erase all emotion from his actors. That works decently in Pickpocket, but not as well here. The story takes place after the Knights of the Round Table have failed to find the Holy Grail. They return defeated. They feel that they have been denied by God himself. And then they begin to doubt themselves, and eventually to turn against each other. The story is one that ought to be imbued with emotions, especially Lancelot and Guinivere. Also, Lancelot's enemies, who are jealous of his affair with the queen more than they are angry on King Arthur's behalf, their rivalry should be readable on their faces. Instead, the actors emote about as much as cardboard cutouts. I guess Bresson is going for naturalism, but he falls way below that mark. Real people have emotions.

On the other hand, Robert Bresson's direction, that is, everything but the acting, is excellent. Most everything works, and there are many masterful sequences. It's perfectly paced (well, that is, if you like his style). The editing is often amazing. The art direction and music are also very good. As for the script, well, it can sometimes be confusing. Once in a while, I got a bit lost. But most of it works really well. 7/10.

I know, I know, Robert Bresson, as told in cinema school, is a great director, but I always tought that he was so very arid ! Here, he makes supreme efforts to be realistic, to be like he takes a trip in a time machine and shoots his movie in the real middle age. Sorry, but his knights all looks like rock singers of the 1970's. About this reality, all the cling clang of the armors that we hear all the time really irrites me! So is the sound effect of the horse, running in a loop about every 12 minutes. I will probably have a bad note at my cinema school!

This film is amazing. At first I was wondering why aren't these people expressing themselves, why is it so hard feel for these people. Then it hit me! It is about handshakes! When Lancelot puts his hand out and it is not returned with a shake, I felt it in the depths of my stomach! This is not really a period piece at all, it is just about how hard we try to keep ourselves inside. The colors on the stockings and the tips of hats. The jousting scene is incredible, Bresson focuses on stuff that makes you feel and see things that you would never see. I can not believe that Bresson was able to make this normal trite subject a complete and utter masterpiece! He has a remarkable skill for transforming people and scenes into his own vision. Bresson is a true master of cinema and we should all learn form these close-ups and editing and sound. Thanks Bresson!

My Rating : 6/10

Not an easy watch, this is strictly for die-hard Bresson aficionados - extremely minimalist filmmaking at its best.

An old tale made for celluloid by a most unconventional auteur.

A difficult, frustrating watch - albeit very real and natural.

I watched this film as part of a degree module on Arthurian legend in my final year of university. Looking back, I now know this is the sort of film made only to torture students of literature and film.

Seven years on, I still remember with clarity the iron force of will I had to bring to bear to sit through the full length.

Having studied Brecht, I know that entertainment need not always be entertaining. Sometimes, Brecht told us, theatre must and can be used as an instrument of social commentary, and employed his famous 'alienation effect' to remove the popcorn munching bourgeois from their comfort zones. Even so, with Brechtian theatre one is moved by emotions other than pleasure, such as anger or a desire to correct a perceived injustice.

What did I take away from this movie, other than a sense of soul-deadening boredom, and a sense of valuable time forever lost? At first, nothing. Nothing at all. It was not only a bad film, it was my first ever experience of anti-cinema, an exercise of such profound arrogance and pomposity as to numb the senses. I felt utterly unmoved in every way. Emotionally. Intellectually. Spiritually.

The anger came later. I was angry that more than a single frame of celluloid had been wasted in the creation of the unpolished lincoln log that is "Lancelot du Lac".

Bresson has done for cinema what L Ron Hubbard's earlier pulp novels did for science fiction (which were at best, embarrassingly amateurish nonsense), yet like Hubbard, he has inexplicably been deified by a small but influential group of people who are under the bizarre impression that he actually had something valuable to contribute to the 'zeitgeist'.

But nonetheless, I still think it should be shown in film schools. Why? I paraphrase a very useful piece of pop wisdom. "Nothing is completely useless. It can always serve as a bad example."

Robert Bresson utilized a minimalist style in film, one that if anything brought more emphasis to the subtexts of his works. In this wonderful film, his focus is on the end of Camelot, and the death that accompanies it. The film itself it indescribable, relying almost completely on its style to convey its message. That said, I think it's a must see. Especially for fans of French cinema and the Arthurian legend.

I saw this movie as a student when it first came out and would probably have forgotten about it, but for the fact that I've always been struck by how much I was reminded of it when I saw Monty Python's Holy Grail - screen shots from all over the place; graphic violence 'come back it's only a flesh wound'; knights riding through the forest (in Python's case using coconuts).

Check it out if you're a Python fan and like to see possible source material.

A director that intentionally drains all the emotion and any interpersonal energies from his characters must have a point, but I can't get it. It does not increase the mythic quality that Pasolini was able to capture, nor does it provide us with abstract ideas and messages that are somehow universal. This movie is just plain silly. The gore at the beginning without faces or personality and the very unrealistic constant clinking of the men never taking off their armor suggests that the whole "message" here is about the ridiculousness of war. It certainly is not a love story. Why then does the plot revolve so much around the dry and empty encounters between Guinevere and Lancelot? Everyone is insignificant and vacant. Why would Bresson possibly believe the audience would want to sit through such pointlessness? This is almost the polar opposite of "Diary of a Country Priest," which was deeply compassionate and expressive.

Arthur's knights, far from being heroic, are conniving and greedy men who, just before the film starts, have failed miserably to find the Holy Grail. Aimlessly resentful at first, the developing relationship between Lancelot and Queen Guinevere focuses their rage, leading to inevitable tragedy.

In common with Bresson's later films, the cast was composed of amateur actors, several of whom did not appear in any other film. Bresson's direction demanded a purposeful lack of emotion in the acting style, and reduced or eliminated the fantastical elements of the Grail legend. This unglamorous depiction of the Middle Ages emphasizes blood and grime over fantasy. This is what really sells it; by taking place after the Grail quest, we are left with no magic or anything fantastic... and this allows the film to begin with some amusing battle scenes.

Interestingly, it was Michael Haneke's second-place choice in the 2002 Sight & Sound poll of the greatest films ever made. His number one was also a Bresson film. No one else has ever before or since rated the film so highly, but I think Haneke is on the right track. "Lancelot" needs to be honored as much as "Pickpocket" and the other Bresson greats.

I'll start my comment with my comments on the other comments :) The exaggerated blood spurts is of course ridiculous and I believe was meant to be. This is also what Monty Python parodied, not the other way around as others had put it. And why else would they not? It's transcendental! The actors looking like rockstars ... good thing it's vogue in the 70s and besides, the setting is the medieval period its fitting. What do they want, spikes and high crew cuts? And the complaint about the expressionless actors, I rather think that it is because the drama is in the emotions that the viewers feel for the characters.

And now for my film comments... maybe because I have such a penchant for the medieval period and familiar with the legend that I wholly liked it. And sure I found many symbolisms which I did not understand but I certainly did see the beauty. I loved the way it was filmed, the costumes, the speech, the passion... yes passion! For instance, Gawain/Guvain's devotion to Lancelot and yet remained loyal to the king. I didn't mind the repetitious cuts/editing style as I'm sure they have meanings for which I am still yet to uncover. And gladly I will.

The only complaint I have (yes, I also have a nit-pick but it's minimal *wink*) Lancelot looked a lot older than King Arthur. He's supposed to be this strapping man! Anyway, that is easy to get over with. This film is certainly something that I would love to watch again. Read PTA-fan's review and maybe you'll learn something you may have failed to see. I know I did.

Bresson's directorial antics are certainly not everyone's cup of tea, but here they fuel a strong, nihilistic love drama.

Camelot. The Holy Grail. Lancelot. Knights of the Round Table, Merlin, Guinevere. They're all here, ripped right from the pages of history and countlessly re-told versions of the King Arthur mythology/history and made into, yes, a film by Robert Bresson. This means that those who want just a meaty action movie aren't going to be entirely happy with what they see, particularly because of its promise literally in the first minute of the film has some explicit, rampant bloodshed. It was indeed what spurred on the "It's only a flesh wound" scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And unlike the Python gang, Bresson plays it with such a straight face one will think straight away that this might be the most bloody of all of the Arthurian pieces of cinema.

It is, I should report, not that really. Oh sure, when it comes time to it, like in the last five minutes, there is quite a good deal of it, and shown in that matter-of-fact approach that gives a clinical fascination as in any Bresson picture. But you may also notice that the film has no stars that are actual "stars", or even actors for that matter (this was Luc Simon, playing the title character, in his only screen appearance), and this was the commonality with Bresson. This is what makes Lancelot of the Lake one of Bresson's most challenging pictures even for someone who respects and admires his work ("loves" may be too strong a word to associate), since it's still taking something that is kind of a fable or legend, something a child could understand with the essentials at bedtime, and does his stripping away as in stripping away the soul to the bone, so to speak.

This doesn't mean anything is taken away from the story, per-say, but it's the way he goes about it. Take the jousting tournament as a prime example. It's not shot at all in a conventional style, even if the pieces appear to be there. We get a shot of a bagpipe playing, but at an odd angle. We get maybe a shot of a knight gearing up to run. Then a cutaway to the the specific knight spectators as the joust is done off-camera. Then many shots of the horses hoofs going around, their eyes, flags waving high. It's like a puzzle that is pieced together in front of you that you can quite put together yourself. The only star of Lancelot of the Lake is Bresson himself, and goes about giving us the details of the aftermath of the failed quest for the Holy Grail with a limited scope of drama. It's about the people, but it's also about a sense of place without much hope, of a God that is cruel and dark and cold, of which Lancelot and his ilk failed to grasp a taste of from their aborted quest.

So while the film drips and oozes with incredible atmosphere, and while it's filmed beautifully and the story, with some exceptions, is presented without too much pretension, it's not for a mainstream "Braveheart" kind of crowd. I don't meant this to put down the film, or even the audience. Maybe some who are more attuned to being enamored with the period and history and Arthurian mythology will gobble it up. Others may end up finding out why Monty Python struck such rich gold out of something that did, at the least, take itself seriously enough to mock. But it is a very interesting picture, one with a question or two posed to legend itself and what it amounts to. I wasn't enthralled by it as an action picture (even if a few times Bresson surprisingly does pretty well with suspense), but rather as a moral tale pulled apart, of what men who've sacrificed themselves to something already feel and do when at the whim of Lancelot or Arthur, or God. It is, and I mean this as a compliment, hauntingly ponderous.

According to George A. Romero, Bresson has made only zombie films, and this one indeed suggests this conclusion. Inspired by Cocteau's Les chevaliers de la table ronde, the director created an absolutely unspectacular, scanty, masterful historical scenery which ultimately destroys all romantic imaginations of knighthood. Lancelot and his colleagues strut around stoically, preferably full-armoured, with a lowered visor and even when the helmet's off, there's not one emotion to read on the knights' faces which blink towards a world that is doomed to failure, a world that has lost its pivot because of guilt, doubts, a growing consciousness which calls itself into question. There's only one long shot in the entire film which stimulates the viewer in thinking beyond the pictures into a spiritual dimension which always has been Bresson's intention and theme. Lancelot is an impressively consequent, utterly economically told film that raises the big questions of life, love, faith, loyalty, honour and treason.

I saw it last year and think about it every few weeks. It is like, intentionally trying to make a bad movie, to see if that is possible to yield greatness too. Yet there are these moments and stretches that are sublime.

The home movie gritty feeling of it is kind of ahead of its time in that it immerses in a picture of larger ideas. The fact of this being King Arthur is informing it the entire time and lending it gravitas, even as it is low-fi as possible. The idea of telling big pictures from a modest point of view is still very new.

I remarked at first how dry and poor the acting is, but then yet as I remember it later, every single character is burned into my brain forever. This is not 'good' or 'bad' acting, it is just completely potent.

The Frenchness of it is not just that they are speaking french, but the attitude of the whole pic. And how is Frenchness defined? It is this constant frame, whether it is poetic, or whether it is a dead end, it is restlessly seeking outcomes, contrasts, moments. French to me is also a sort of elegance. And this movie, attempts to be anti-elegant as possible in its dirtiness and grit, but still has this great elegance... in some pose, or some moment of blocking out of nowhere, or some emotional look, or line, the film become immortal and etched in stone.

Bresson's philosophy helps, where he talks about minimalism and how one well placed word can elevate an entire piece that feels very plain on the page. If you want to experiment in writing, you can do the same and tone down your words to the most bare simplicity, experimenting on key word choices, then you really see what he's talking about, that so little can create such a large impact. Any time this film loses me it will throw out something that will re-define what is on screen. It is like a cinema gauntlet, of can Bresson do Lancelot of the Lake.

Even by the end perhaps he is not sure.

Because it is the simplicity of it that gets me, it is like ABCs being taught by someone from another world.

Not sure what else to say. It is one of those films everybody has to see, to either hate, or ruminate on the possibilities of cinema. It got its hooks in me and I became obsessed.