MovieChat Forums > Lancelot du Lac (1974) Discussion > Bresson's absolute worst

Bresson's absolute worst

posted 18 years ago by Oliver-50
16 replies | jump to latest

It seems that every time I get excited to watch a film about knights and the medieval times I get really psyched and then let down hard. I stumbled upon this title a few weeks after looking up Bresson's directing credits and rushed out to the video store. I came home and popped it in. Within minutes I was in awe...of how awful Lancelot of the Lake was.

Don't get me wrong, Bresson has made some remarkable films (Pickpocket, Au hasard Balthazar, L'argent) but this is a murky, low-budget looking, poorly acted, horribly shot mess. I'm sure some people will say 'that's because Bresson is a minimalist and wants to show the depression and failure of these knights'...Sure.

The only reason that there are three bloody deaths in the first minute is to get us excited. Ooh, this is going to be gory, realistic and exciting! No, no, and certainly no. For the next hour and 20 minutes there is no action - oh there is a jousting tournament, but half of that scene all we see are horse hooves galloping along, hardly any action - but never again to we see any of the nitty-gritty that the film displayed in it's opening moments.

All of the acting is horrendous, but I don't fault the actors. Bresson likes to do take after take to drain his actors of all emotion and once again he does so here - with laughable results. It doesn't help either that the script is so bad; I would have a hard time pulling off this dialogue too.

The low-budget quality of the film is hard to ignore. We never see a wide shot of a castle or a tournament or a mountain, probably because the film looks as if it was shot in some farmer's backyard. Often times the camera follows the knights feet as they walk rather than looking at their faces. Is this some technique to show that since all the knights have failure in their mind they can't stop looking at the ground in sorrow? Or could it be that if the camera was titled a little more upright we would see all the problems with the poor set design and lackluster production. My guess is the latter. Most of the film contains scenes with tents and woods - cheap cost-cutting techniques.

I like the idea of the film...but nothing else. A great director's worst film.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle needs to be released on DVD!

[–] enbilal 18 years ago

"The low-budget quality of the film is hard to ignore. We never see a wide shot of a castle or a tournament or a mountain, probably because the film looks as if it was shot in some farmer's backyard. " ???

So you think that Bresson couldn't have shown us one of the thousands of medieval castles which stand on the every corner in France, if he wanted so? It shows that you don't understand his films. And BTW, the movie is made in a castle.

"The only reason that there are three bloody deaths in the first minute is to get us excited. Ooh, this is going to be gory, realistic and exciting! No, no, and certainly no. For the next hour and 20 minutes there is no action "

If you were expecting a gory action movie then Bresson is not for you. I suggest you rent Excalibur. It is gory, bombastic (carmina burana in the soundtrack, no less) and has over the top special effects.

I wonder what you think about Kurosawa's Ran (which is a very similar movie, which is violent only in the begining and at the end) or his Kagemusha which show's us only an outcome of a great battle.

Back to Lanelot du Lac! SPOILERS!

You complain about lack of action in a movie in which all of the characters (an I mean all) die a bloody death.

END OF SPOILERS

But then again, it is a positive thing that there is some discussion abut this movie.

[–] Oliver-50 18 years ago

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. My reasoning for disliking the opening sequence with the knights being sliced and diced is because for the majority of the film there is very little violence...why do we need this shock right off the bat? What I was saying was I would have preferred the film if there was NO violence as an opening scene. That would have made the finale all the more shocking. As it was, I thought the finale was pretty weak.

As for Bresson not showing a castle - I know it would have been easy, that's why it puzzles me that he couldn't take the time to show a few exterior shots. I stand by my remarks that it feels like a low-budget home movie due to poor editing and the awkward camera placements. I have my guesses as to what Bresson's intentions are with this film, but on the whole I was not involved with this one at all. Every other Bresson film that I've seen I have liked or even loved (Au Hasard Balthazar)

I went into Lancelot du lac with little knowledge of it, I prefer watching films that way I don't have things spoiled for me. I went in expecting a quiet realistic treatment of the story...instead I get a million shots of feet, combined with the usual no-acting that Bresson conducts his actors to perform - only this time it's not effective at all.

As said prior; I can think of reasons to show shots with the camera aimed at low angles, but it wasn't pulled off in a manner that was effective.

I love Kagemusha and Ran as well - those films were done with such an epic scope with so much beauty filling them, and they sustained it for 3 hours! Lancelot du Lac can't keep me interested after the 10 minute mark.

Lancelot du Lac feels like a rushed, botched job complete with awful editing, sound, and acting. No one can convince me that this is a legitimately good film - especially if the argument is 'well, it's Bresson and he knows what he's doing'. Almost every director has a stinker and this is Bresson's.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle needs to be released on DVD!

[–] enbilal 18 years ago

Ok. We don't have to agree. But I hope we are clear on this one, if you've seen it. Bresson's film closest to a stinker is his first movie (Les Anges du Peche), no doubt.

I think all of this comes to the individual tastes. Lancelot du Lac (as a story and as a creation) was one of the most interesting films by Bresson I've seen. By the end, I was so much involved in the story, like in no other Bresson film. And I've seen them all. Maybe the fact that prior to seeing it, I've read some very negative IMDB comments, which made my expectations go down. I was wondering how will Bresson manage to avoid spectacle in this movie, which is something I was certain he's intention might be. And he did it. Of course, I cannot say that I know what his intentions were, but from some of his interviews, it is clear that he never wanted to make epic movies. That's why his movies are so short. He is the oposite of an epic film maker. What he doesn't want to show, he doesn't. When a mere sound is enough to show something, he doesn't show it. But you probably know all of this. That is why he doesn't show us a castle (although he could it if he wanted). It was not the question of budget. Why didn't he do it? Thinking about his motives is one of the many richnesses of this movie. Think of Jacques Tati, who made his masterpiece (Playtime) about American tourists visiting Paris. And he never shows us Eiffel Tower or any other spectacular sights wort of seeing, except in two brief scenes as reflection on a glass doors of shopping malls. And he made the movie in Paris. At one point this tends to frustrate, until we realise that there is a big reason why he is doing it. I don't know if you've seen it, so I won't go any further. Or Andrei Rublyov by Tarkovsky. In a film about a great icon painter, we never see him hold a brush in his hand.

I am not a great fan of movies dealing with Arhurian legends, Middle-age Europe, knights (Excalibur was a painful experience to watch). I can't even stand some Shakespeare adaptations (like Polanski's Magbeth). Why is that? Because I can't stand the theatricality of them. The pompous speeches which sound like poem reciting. On the other hand, Kurosawa's Magbeth adaptation (Throne of Blood) was a delight. Lancelot du Lac is theatricality free. It is a peaceful movie, where dialogue does not alienate the viewer. That is why I think that Bresson's style found the best utilization in this movie and it is more than justifiable. It makes the movie different than the rest of the genre. Bresson said in an interview that he tried to make the film as anachronistic as possible in order to make it closer to modern audiences. That is why characters of his movies set in modern times and those from the middle ages behave in the same way. People in those times lived just as we did. Their perception of their spectacular surounding was ordinary, not much different than ours when we see a building, a car, and other usual things we see every day. So if a film maker emapasizes the specatcle of some time in the past, he is not telling the truth of that time. Why do historical movies have to show things which are not expected from movies set in modern time?

As for opening sequence, I think that some of the best movies play with our expectations. We don't always get what we expect. I was expecting a stinker, but I've got a great movie.
I'm glad you like Kagemusha and Ran. I find Ran's plot and message very similar, if not almost identical, to Lancelot du Lac, btw.

[–] Oliver-50 18 years ago

Ran is very similar in it's plot and it's message; but Ran handles it so much better.

I understand what you're saying about Lancelot du Lac and toning down the theatrical elements, I think in a stronger film it would have worked wonderfully, but the dialogue itself seems to have that theatrical grandeur. Very little of what was spoken seemed to be presented honestly. It was like watching a straight-faced eight year-old read a Shakespeare play and have no idea what the hell was going on. Frankly, I've never seen a group of people act so stone-cold and lifeless for as long as I've been around - so I can't say that he pulled off the modernized tone that he may have been stressing.

I can appreciate that Bresson seems to be in total control of what he is doing, but I don't want to be thinking about a director's motives as I'm trying to get involved in the story, that takes me right out of the movie. There are so many directors who have their trademark or their own style that they try to slip in to something when it doesn't fit.

A friend told me to stay away from Les Anges du Peche, so I havne't seen it yet; but now I'm curious.

Excalibur was tough for me as well, terrific to look at but hollow.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle needs to be released on DVD!

[–] enbilal 18 years ago

Les Agnes du Peche is not a bad movie on it's own, but it is weakest of all of Bresson's films. Especially towards the end when it comes out a bit naive, preachy and too melodramatic. But the direction has some dream-like qualities.

"I can appreciate that Bresson seems to be in total control of what he is doing, but I don't want to be thinking about a director's motives as I'm trying to get involved in the story, that takes me right out of the movie."

Well, I also don't think about it while I'm watching the movie (although I find myself puzzled many times). For me, films continue to "live" in my mind as long as I think about them. That's when I usually think about aspects other than the story, (like motivations of the director, etc).

[–] Oliver-50 18 years ago

That's exactly how I felt watching Lancelot du Lac - puzzled. I wasn't enjoying myself, none of it was thought-provoking, I didn't like the minamalist style of it all. I too love thinking about movies once I've finished watching them, although I often dissect a film far too much even if I really enjoyed it. For Lancelot du Lac I sat there thinking why this, why that?

Straight Time needs to be released on DVD!

[–] maz89 12 years ago

My reasoning for disliking the opening sequence with the knights being sliced and diced is because for the majority of the film there is very little violence

Well, I haven't quite heard THIS type of complaint before. Just because it features some gory violence in the beginning of the film... means it must feature more of the same during the film? Quite a curious complaint.

As for Bresson not showing a castle - I know it would have been easy, that's why it puzzles me that he couldn't take the time to show a few exterior shots.

Because to do so would have been contrary to Bresson's aims. He wasn't just making another conventional film adaptation of Arthurian legend... applying his artistic approach to the film, he removed all of the glory and superficially entertaining aspects that are typical in such epic movies. Instead, he made a "pure" film composed of only the bare essentials, a film about man's destructive nature, the pointlessness of his material, external pursuits including power, and the resulting erosion of moral values and spirituality. Under Bresson's direction, therefore, the downfall of the Knights of the Round Table becomes a bleak contemplation of the human condition rather than a superficially exciting action-packed number about treachery and deception.

I went in expecting a quiet realistic treatment of the story

Uh, realism from a film based on Arthur folklore? And if it's the "acting" that bothers you, one must wonder what you love about Au Hasard Balthazar.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[–] Antoine Tremblay 17 years ago

I'm not going to repeat my other post but let's just say that I adore this movie, as most of Bresson's filmography. Some people here seems to think that "Les Anges du Pêché" is his worst feature. Even if it's not one of his best, I tought that "Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne" was his weakest by far. To me, it was just interesting but not in the same as his others films. Still, I have yet to watch "Une femme douce", "Quatre nuits d'un rêveur" and "Le Diable probablement". What film should I watch first?

[–] jonathan-ives-1 17 years ago

What can I say about this film ? Slow and dull are the best I can come up with.

Where to begin ?

On the plus side it makes me love Monty Python and the Holy Grail even more as I can see where some of the ideas come from (Is it possible to watch the deaths at the start and not internally hear "It is but a flesh wound" ?).

The dialogue is so awful and slow. The scenes between Guinevere and Lancelot are interminable - delivered in a single slow pace by both actors. He is quite good at times and probably the best thing in it, but how he could fall in love with this hoity sullen woman is just beyond me. She just yacks on about nothing in a single monotone, with no emotion . She appears to be in some form of Gallic coma.

And that bloody horse neighing sound effect must be used about 500 times. It sounds like the same one from "Young Frankenstein" when anyone mentions Frau Blucher. Clearly I've seen too many comedies.

I like French movies but this seems to be a parody of one, with too much dialogue and nothing actually happening. I also think that he relies on white backgrounds for visual effect (or economy ?) so we have endless scenes in white plastered rooms or in white tents.
And the climactic battle , well ....

For Arthurian completists, Python fan boys, Movie Francophobes or horse impersonators only

[–] thao 16 years ago

It is not all bad but I agree that it is far from being good enough. I think Procès de Jeanne d'Arc is worse. I give this 6/10 but Jeanne d'Arc only 5/10. I think Bresson is best when he keeps the dialog to minimal, and lets the shots and sounds do the "talking".

- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -

[–] Dice_Man 15 years ago

Alas - I so wanted to like this film. Instead I must agree largely with the OP. It appeared to me as if a censor had removed half of it and not bothered to run it past an editor again to see if there was any context left. And the acting - however stylish it was meant to be - just seemed so stilted, the script was largely inane, occasionally flowering into short bursts of descriptiveness, and the production (armour aside) appeared to have been cobbled together for the price of an old and feeble horse one step from the glue yard. Even at 80mins I found it hard to keep interest. Although deeply flawed itself, I found Boorman's Excalibur to be far more accessible.

Farewell Mr. Sorrow....

[–] tuffysmom 15 years ago

I really enjoyed this film. I loved the mood of despair, and the idea that everyone was doomed no matter what they did.

[–] maz89 12 years ago

If only accessibility was a mandatory characteristic of a great movie...

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[–] lordgoblinking 12 years ago

Now THIS guy knows what he's talking about!!!!!! (The OP.)
I applaud you sir, for standing up to the Bresson Bullies. I have never seen any other Bresson films, so I really should not commment too much on his style or his whole oevre, but I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with everything you say about this movie. Oh man, it was SO bad.

"Dude, it's Lord Goblin King, not Lord Go Blinking!"

[–] lordgoblinking 12 years ago

Having now read everyone else commenets and replies, I wish to say this: I can deal with weird, avant-garde, minimalist, you name it. It seems that the fans of this film (or just Bresson) are doing their best to talk up its supposed merits, but they don't seem to see that this film is just POORLY MADE. Poorly acted, poorly filmed, pathetically low budget, just not good. All the positive comments are far outweighed by the negative aspects of the film.
If you like quiet and minimalist, then Jim Jarmusch should have made this movie and it would have been, much better. This flick doesn't even come cloe to Ran, which I find also a bit slow-moving, but I would watch it a hundred times in a row if it meant I would never have to see Lancelot de Lac ever again.
If Bresson was such a genius he would have been able to handle this better and make it at least watchable.
Everyone dying a violent death does not mean this movie has any action. Most of the "action" happens OFF SCREEN! And those deaths at the beginning are so lame that it was almost unbearable to watch. 3 seconds after being stabbed, the guy remembers it was supposed to hurt and he starts "acting". Or the one guy who lies down carefully before he dies. SO LAME. As over the top as Excalibur may be, I would still rather watch that.
Those two people playing Lancelot and Guinnevere...they were supposed to be in love, right?
:)
"Dude, it's Lord Goblin King, not Lord Go Blinking!"

[–] robojobo 11 years ago

Have just read through the whole thread. It's my first Bresson film...I thought it was great. I went in knowing very little other than being quite aware of Bresson as a director, and his ideas behind some of his films more generally.

I was amazed how caught up in the plot I was the entire way through, and adjusted to the acting within about ten minutes, not really questioning it. I didn't have many questions really. The mysterious horn seemed to occur when people arrived or left as far as I could tell, but I did wonder for a moment and might be wrong of course.

I did wonder why we weren't shown a castle at all, but, as with not seeing the jousting, I think it's about what is happening to the characters, not where they are - there was no need to see it.

Anyway, I enjoyed it a lot. And this is my first post!