MovieChat Forums > Lancelot du Lac (1974) Discussion > Classic or joke?

Classic or joke?

posted 14 years ago by TheZoolooMaster
6 replies | jump to latest

As is common when one is left alone and at a loss from what appears to be a mediocre, boring and pointlessly tautological film, one comes to a forum like this one, in search of answers. And, of course, before letting free flow to my impressions, I could not ignore the few lamplights along the way.
So, as I begin to unravel my thoughts, I am wondering if I should search deeper into the metaphysical realm, and leave the physical altogether. This, at any rate, seem to be the key to understanding then appreciating this piece of art.

I cannot but ask these questions, because this film held nothing, at first glance, worthy of putting it on a pedestal, embossed with the title of 'classic'. It is neither a classic, nor entertaining. The acting is wooden beyond belief; the rhythm is amateurish at best; the sound is pointlessly aggravating -- the mysterious horn blowing every now and then, the lack of music, the bagpipe's repetitive screech at the tournament. If such a film were released today, it would be laughed at in festival screenings, and dismissed and forgotten rather quickly. In point of fact: the film, if once great, has aged dreadfully, and cannot be a proud bearer of the title, 'classic'.

But because of the history, the man who made it, the illustrious names who brandish it among their jewelled favourites, I ask what have I missed?
Is the camera work so pioneering? Has Bresson revolutionised film by steering our attention to each specific detail he wishes -- the tights, the horses, the saddles, the lances, the flags, the shields, etc? It does not take a genius to understand that his shots, consistently cutting the human element out of the picture, were purposeful, but why? Why devoid the whole film of the human spirit? Why ban emotion from each dialogue so as to make us feel we are in a dress rehearsal? Why tarnish the film so badly that we are not allowed to enjoy it?

I feel that it may even have been one of his intentions, to ensure that the viewer does not enjoy the film. What then? Where does it leave us?
People have said that the period is a pretence, a meaningless trap; that we must concentrate on the symbols, the internalisation of human emotion; that we are deliberately alienated from the characters, impeded in our natural instinct to empathise... That we are brought to view the film as cold and objective machines?

I don't have the pretension to want to turn around in circles, concerning this film, since everyone is entitled to his opinion; I am genuinely searching for answers.

[–] gutzilla 14 years ago

I can't give you any answers because I had a similar reaction to the film to you, although even if someone does answer satisfactorily, it won't change your reaction to the film. So I don't think you can be far wrong. Trust yourself :)

~ You place too much trust in your magicks ~

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TemporaryOne-1 12 years ago

The acting is wooden beyond belief

Burning restraint. Lancelot was burning in his restrained fervour towards G-d and Arthur and Guinevere and the Throne. Mordred was burning in his restrained jealousy towards Lancelot. Gawain was burning in his restrained adoration/idolship of Lancelot. Guinevere was burning in her restrained resignation towards her prison-like situation.

the mysterious horn blowing every now and then, the lack of music, the bagpipe's repetitive screech at the tournament.

Flip-floppery there?

Why devoid the whole film of the human spirit

Perhaps because he was making a comment about how the world lacks human spirit? Art imitating life? World gone to hell and film used as a means to break through humankind's self-created self-imposed automatism before human automatism becomes a natural genetic trait irrevocably part of the natural order of life? Perhaps he was making a comment about how sexual lust, or warmongering, or kingdomship/governourment, or the quest for unobtainable knowledge (quest for G-d, quest for life's answers), or the quest for material wealth, or the brotherhood of man (knighthood), is predetermined to morph humankind into autopilotrons and strip humankind of its spirit?

Why ban emotion from each dialogue

The emotion was in their body movements and facial expressions and intensity of eyes, and emotion was built up through the film's action and sound and imagery. For example, in the tournament sequence, the emotion was built up through the repeated bursts of music introducing each joust immediately followed - without any thought, without any deliberation (a jump from the introductory music to the end, thematically emphasizing the automated mechanical nature of the joust) - immediately followed by the Unknown Knight (Lancelot) in plain unadorned armoury (in contrast against his fellow knights) re-arming himself for the next battle over and over and over and over, the actual joust itself never depicted, only the sound of the crashes and the bodies hitting the ground offscreen, and repeated cutting to Gawain articulating Lancelot's name, Lancelot's tension and sense of determination built with each repeated clip of him re-arming, Gawain's adoration of Lancelot and sense of redemption towards Lancelot building, the sense of disbelief and jealousy building amongst the other knights. Other emotions of primitive ruthlessness evinced at the very beginning when a knight castrates another knight, strong emotions of spiritual confusion, Lancelot and Gawain's confusion about meaning of life, confused feelings about authority of Throne (inability to find Cup casts doubt over authority of Arthur's self-invested gnosticism and over overall authority of knighthood), confused feelings about fealty, their confused feelings about Guinevere and lust and love and piety evidenced in their tense stares mantled by the flickering campfire light during their night conversation. Intense feelings of retaliation when the knights rigourously scramble to track down Lancelot after the joust. Intense feeling of weariness and defeat when a bloody Lancelot returns to free Guinevere from her hayloft prison. Intense feeling of bloodlust as the jousting crowd roars and howls. Intense feeling of wastefulness, senselessness, devastation, loss, timelessness, as the camera lingers on the heaping mass of metal corpses smothering the smoldering field.

Why tarnish the film so badly that we are not allowed to enjoy it?

Are films supposed to be enjoyed? Is filmmaking defined as "making films for people to enjoy?" Isn't film one of the most powerful mediums with which to invite and challenge people to re-examine every single aspect of the cosmos and beyond? Shouldn't film be used to promote and enrich and advance the humanities? Shouldn't film be used as a mirror to hold up to society in order for society to learn and change and progress? Mayn't one enjoy intellectually/artistically/philosophically/etc challenging films? Shouldn't the definition of "enjoyment" be "the somewhat relieved state of mind reached when one is at least somewhat satisfied one has plummetted the depths of a challenging film as much as one possibly can and came out alive after experiencing some type of epiphany and learning something knew and evolving one's beliefs in some way"? Isn't the best kind of enjoyment borne from heavy mental (and physical) toil? When one finally glimpses the meaning after battling one's way through the nine circles of hell?

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Are films supposed to be enjoyed? Is filmmaking defined as "making films for people to enjoy?"

I'd wager some are, sure. And similarly, filmmaking isn't defined as "making films for people to cause them to reach some epiphany resulting in an evolution of their beliefs and perceptions".

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[–] mac_alain 12 years ago

If such a film were released today, it would be laughed at in festival screenings, and dismissed and forgotten rather quickly.

Somewhat presumptuous, nest-ce pas?

[–] mac_alain 12 years ago

I feel that it may even have been one of his intentions, to ensure that the viewer does not enjoy the film.

I do not think that Bresson made films to be enjoyed just as there are films by other directors that fall into the same category. But that does not meant that they are not good or even great films.