User reviews

Between the movies that integrate the series called Moral Tales and those which integrate the other one called Comedies and Proverbs the French director Eric Rohmer turned himself to historical or legendary themes such as those which inspired La Marquise d'O and this one Perceval Le Gallois. In them all he revealed his genius as a creator of stories and types always in a gentle narrative style not so dramatic but no less psychologically deep. This movie is based on a story by the 12th century novelist Chrétien de Troyes and while respecting the text surrounds it by beautiful images, music and chants also inspired in mediaeval tunes very appropriate for the theme. The sceneries are not real and rather symbolic which underlines the legendary nature of the story of Perceval whose mother, having lost her husband and two sons in combats, has educated him in the ignorance of chivalry. But one day he meets five knights whom he takes for God and four angels. This leads him to go to King Arthur's court to have knighthood conferred upon him. From then on the story develops itself in a series of romantic scenes and episodes of mediaeval taste in the suave usual Rohmer's style. Of course those people who prefer dramatic or violent movies will not appreciate this one. It's however a good movie of its kind.

"Our hero is Perceval, one of King Arthur's legendary Knights of the Round Table, but played by a callow, gauche Luchini, a diametrical opposite of an invincible, valiant medieval jouster in appearance, there is an almost farcical overtone to the seriousness on display, perhaps, this is also intentional toward emotional disengagement, yet, sitting through the ongoing peroration demands quite an effort, especially for those who are not francophone, Rohmer's sedulous and fastidious coaxing of the ancient wording is unavoidably lost in translation."

read my full review on my blog: cinema omnivore, thanks

I was quite skeptical during the first few minutes of viewing _Perceval_; I hadn't been aware ahead of time of its unique style. As I made the leap from thinking about this as a cinematic experience to viewing it as more of a theatrical production, I got into it more. I liked the minstrels -- I love that style of medieval music, and they provided both entertainment and a necessary Greek-chorus-like narrator role.

I do not speak French; however, by listening to the dialogue (instead of just reading the English subtitles), I was able to appreciate the rhythm and rhyme.

I found the level of Perceval's naivete hard to swallow at times. But the most disturbing thing was how the narrative became fragmented and then just petered out at the end -- mixing Gawain's and Perceval's tales, and not resolving either of them.

Overall, a stylistic tour-de-force, but a narrative disappointment.

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.

The first time I saw this film, I thought it was terrible; Plan 9 from Outer Space Terrible, but the more I thought about it, the more the film grew on me. Soon, I came to realize Rohmer's vision about this film...

Perceval le Gallois is the film adaptation of the medieval epic poem "Perceval" by Chretien de Troyes, and it is the story of Grail seeking Arthurian knight Perceval(Parsifal to Wagner, and Parzival to Wolfram von Eschenbach, who is my favorite) I came to realize that Rohmer was making the film as though medieval Chretien had had access to a camera. The use of the decidedly un-realistic sets is designed to give the viewer an impression of medieval entertainment and style, and the fantastic, magical tone of the work. The use of the minstrels is a great way to let the viewer in on how a medieval audience would have experienced this story, without sets or actors, just the story teller and his accompaniment. This film is pure genius, and is a must see, even though it is extremely difficult to locate.

If you like Chrétien, this is certainly for you. Even if you don't, your struggle against unfinished storylines and stagelike production will be worth it when you get to the masterful conclusion of the quest.

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.

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 like the majority of Eric Rohmer's individual and thoughtful low- budget movies (The only one I have yet to watch being SIGN OF LEO)but PERCEVAL lacks any of the usual charm and engagingly endless chatter. It leaves me utterly cold I'm afraid. It's....well actually it's pretty awful to be frank! Some of the acting, despite the constraints of the stylised elements (intrusive madrigals, forced rhyming and so forth) is good but it's a 2+ hours journey through a cardboard landscape to absolutely nowhere. One sees the credits roll and cannot help asking "is that it?" Rohmer's strength was always to create engaging contemporary love triangles in which much amorous youthful angst was discussed at length in rambling but rather mesmerising dialogue , usually by at least one very attractive young actress. Sometimes the stories ended abruptly or just fizzled out to nothing but in all cases there was an element of reality in that. Rohmer's costume pieces are all far less successful than the contemporary fables. PERCEVAL is the nadir. Everyone is allowed a dud. This is the great Rohmer's.Thats a far better record than most directors.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When one talks about the French New Wave, names like Godard and Truffaut would be the first to come to mind. And yet, I find that it is this severely underrated director, Eric Rohmer, who is probably the best of the lot. Rohmer's films are unique. I have never seen anything like them, and yet in a way they are all the same. The plots often contain similar outlines, and you pretty much know what you're going to get when you sit down to watch one of his movies. Perceval is different, to say the least. Not only has Rohmer left the settings of 20th century France to go back in time, he seems to have entered a parallel universe as well. Perceval exists in a world with painted backdrops, metal trees, fake castles and musical accompaniment to much of the dialogue. One of the things I love about Rohmer's films are that they are so unpretentious, yet remarkable. Such adjectives are definitely applicable to Perceval. It should appeal to all of those who have once had an interest in the legends of King Arthur, French cinema, for that matter cinema in general. Or, simply, just see Perceval if you want to see a brilliant and unique film.

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.

Rohmer was a teacher of the classics before becoming a director. In that capacity, he also produced several educational films teaching students about classic works of literature. This film seems to be a holdover from that period of his life. While I understand his goal of not making his interpretation of the original French work, somehow he managed to do exactly that. Instead of being a brave, naive wannabe knight, Perceval is a rude, arrogant narcissist who forces himself on everyone he meets. He forces himself on a young damsel and then robs her of her ring and food. Not a great start for this supposedly brave hero. Then he tries to strong arm King Arthur because he wants to be the Red Knight. He's disrespectful to the man who will become his lord and master. But all is forgiven because he manages to kill Arthur's enemy. This guy is a total jerk. As I watched the film, I hated him more and more and wondered why I was wasting my time. It was also difficult to believe that this effeminate weakling is a courageous knight. Put a dress on him and you wouldn't be able to tell him from the damsels in the film. He's far too delicate to be a knight.

Rohmer said that he was only interested in taking what was written by de Troyes and putting it on screen. He did not want to make his interpretation of de Troyes' work because he wanted to emphasize the original language of the 12th Century to stimulate interest in the original work. Unfortunately, he forgot that any performance of a literary work not produced by the original author can only ever hope to be an interpretation. Nobody but de Troyes knows what he was trying to say with the story of Perceval. The actors' performances are their interpretations of the words on the page. The costumes and sets (or lack thereof) are the director's vision of how he wanted to portray these characters. It's impossible to get around this when you're making a film. Unfortunately, Rohmer's stated goal of trying to stimulate interest in the original literary work has failed miserably because what is shown on screen is so two-dimensional that it blocks any emotional involvement viewers might have to the story. If the characters are riding through a forest, what harm would it do to actually have real trees and birds on screen? In de Troyes' time, trees were very much the same as they are today. It's not ruining the integrity of the story to show this on screen. If Rohmer is trying to share his love of 12th Century literature with cinema viewers, why not make the story interesting engaging? Somehow he managed to make a tale of heroism and love into a boring, cheaply made high school production. The first rule of attracting new fans to a literary work is to make it entertaining enough to warrant further study. Rohmer failed horribly in this.

Eric Rohmer is a wonderful cineast and proves here to be a wonderful raconteur of fables too !

Certainly Rohmer has his own remarkable way to tell the saga of Perceval, the knight who is here not so much naive but rather ignorant. This knight starts out as a twin brother of that other ignoramus: Siegfried, immortalized by Richard Wagner.

What a stupendous crude, rude and totally dimwit idiot that one is and remains !! Not Perceval: he learns, grows ... all be it the hard way... And shines !!

A truly unique film, I have not seen anything like it; combining so many different art forms in one, and excelling in all. Plus performances by marvelous actors (don't miss Dombasle in a small supporting role !!), guided by one of the truly gifted directors of the XXth Century.

PS: Rohmer never used silly soundtrack-support, which has been in vogue thanks to the crushing influence of Hollywood. Here though he compensates by giving us a medieval ... musical !!

Thank you very much, cher Maitre.

After watching most of Eric Rohmer's work, some movies at the low end felt stale, uninspired and really just a waste of time. But I was lucky enough to stumble upon this refreshing experience to remind me what he's capable of regardless of the plot or lazy writing. Throughout the movie I felt as though I was watching it in theater and could hear the audience laughter. The movie follows an arthurian legend/poem word for word and I am not one for literature or poems but I really was looking for the closed curtains at the end to open again and continue.

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.