Lancillotto e Ginevra

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

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.

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'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.

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.