Perceval (1978)

Strong and Moving!

Just what I expected

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Fresh and Exciting

and it doesn't help rohmer's case that a few years later Syberberg came along and made a staggeringly great piece of work on the same subject (with a little help from Wagner).maybe this movie didn't look so paltry when it came out, without the syberberg film to compare it to, which was probably shot on an even smaller sound stage with fewer resources. I actually can't recall at the moment whether there are horses in the syberberg film. all I know is, the German version is pure magic, while this one looks like some college production documented on film for archival purposes.the music... la musique... isn't even credited here on IMDb... but someone based it on 'airs from the 12th-14th centuries" or something... well it isn't a great help to the film. it comes off as inauthentic and cheesy, comme le frommage mon cher!!!rohmer is one of those french auteurs who likes his leading men generally quite unattractive, too, and that doesn't help matters. syberberg's Parsifal was adorable, and can be seen on German television today selling some kind of special bicycle he invented. .. .I shudder to think what watching the syberberg on video is like. I remember that the last time I saw the film in a theater, the print was so bad that the experience was a whopping 5 hour travesty. But even then it would have to surpass what this version has to offer, I'm afraid.points for earnestness, for chutzpah, but... this film simply needed beau-coup more bucks. it doesn't look like a medieval manuscript it looks CHEAPO! BON MARCHE!! oh and yeah, it just ends very arbitrarily with Parsifal going to church and this cheesy passion play being interjected... blah!

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.

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.

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.