Is it just me.. having finished this film a few hours ago, about all I can remember is endless shots of the backs of legs walking away?
I came to the board expecting this to be a major topic of discussion, hoping for an answer.. but no.
I'm guessing the people who liked it think it so obvious that it is not worth mentioning, or others had fallen asleep and/or didn't care...
few visible scars
Some forum, i can't remember where, had a dude mention how the movie showed the backs of legs for no reason and he hated the movie for it. I read that before seeing the movie so expected the worst but it was obvious it was done to show the vulnerability of the knights and the decline of trust in their order. I thought it was great and simple way to visualize that. I just watched Knightriders, another take on Arthur, and it was very influenced by this movie, even to the tights and shots of bums to show human vulnerability.
shareThank you. Vulnerability eh? In interesting thought.. the most unprotected part of the (physical) body.. only shown when they turn their back (on the ideals of the order)I see where you are coming from... I'm not totaly convinced, and I wouldn't say it was 'obvious', but it's a good one to ponder on, and I'm thankful for your time in replying.
few visible scars
In addition, exposed from behind, a bit fetishistically erotic, which is ironic because the knights do everything in their power to prevent Lancelot and Guinevere from having sex. Their banter towards Guinevere is demeaning and their goal is to shut down sexual trysting that demeans the King and the Throne yet their very armour demeans them by exposing them from behind, making them objects of fetishistic eroticism. She's dressed like a homely peasant nun yet she's persecuted for adultry while they walk around partially exposed.Maybe, the armour representing an impenetrable mechanical trap preventing its wearer from sensorial experience, natural movement and natural sensorial experience are blocked, armour a machine which the knights cannot escape, once encased trapped in the cycle of knighthood (fealty, brotherhood, quests, war, jealousy, adultry, deception, internecine bloodshed)..........but all the anteriour shots signify there is escape, armour is not a total enclosure, the machine can be shut down, the armour can be quickly thrown off (remember the scene when Lancelot ripped his armour off onetwothree in the blink of an eye to embrace Guinevere).........the armour the armour of Bresson's automatism, the shots from behind: the automatism is turned off, it's hard to take the knights seriously because we can see their bare legs and the chainmail hiding their buttocks, the armour is the armour of devout monastic aestheticism which is more like automation but the devoutness the monasticness the feality the warshield the hardness is a front, easy to shed.
shareTheir very armour demeans them by exposing them from behind, making them objects of fetishistic eroticism.
I thought the same thing. I hated the framing of this film. It was an hour and a half of chainmailed ass.
----------------------
"Feel pain; eat pudding"
- Conan O'Brien
There was something truly entertaining about watching the men prod about in the clunky, noisy armor and especially the way in the camera loved to linger on their backsides highlighting the obvious vulnerability of the armour. So much effort and noise for something that was, in the end, easily penetrable. Perhaps Bresson's way of pointing out the irony of such protective gear? Man's inability to understand his own fragility and inability to realise that death is the only possible end?
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.