j'y reviendrai quand j'aurai la maturité pour pcq ptn c'était quoi ça mdrrr au secours

j'y reviendrai quand j'aurai la maturité pour pcq ptn c'était quoi ça mdrrr au secours

Honnêtement, ça donne un rendu de film de bourgeois 

Le travail au niveau de la représentation et de l’esthétique est risqué mais ça marche très bien ; c’est 2h20 de tableau et chant, représentant l’art médiéval qu’on nous légué 

Bon malheureusement, de ce que j’ai compris, Rohmer a fait quelques faux pas au niveau de la justesse historique et ça fait tâche.

En plus, en choisissant d’adapter le roman « les chrétiens de Troyes » de cette manière, avec cette narration et ces dialogues, ça crée une sorte d’incohérence : la narration est simple et facile à suivre, avec des décors théâtrales voir enfantins, et de l’autre côté on a des dialogues d’un autre temps, qui sonnent creux et qui ne font que décrire l’image mais avec des mots compliqués 

En ce sens là, le film est bourgeois, et c’est pas mon cinéma

Honnêtement, ça donne un rendu de film de bourgeois 

Le travail au niveau de la représentation et de l’esthétique est risqué mais ça marche très bien ; c’est 2h20 de tableau et chant, représentant l’art médiéval qu’on nous légué 

Bon malheureusement, de ce que j’ai compris, Rohmer a fait quelques faux pas au niveau de la justesse historique et ça fait tâche.

En plus, en choisissant d’adapter le roman « les chrétiens de Troyes » de cette manière, avec cette narration et ces dialogues, ça crée une sorte d’incohérence : la narration est simple et facile à suivre, avec des décors théâtrales voir enfantins, et de l’autre côté on a des dialogues d’un autre temps, qui sonnent creux et qui ne font que décrire l’image mais avec des mots compliqués 

En ce sens là, le film est bourgeois, et c’est pas mon cinéma

I got a kick out of this. If I described this to myself, I don't think I'd make a good case for it. But it feels like a bouncy fanciful tale told in a surprisingly authentic way. The texture and theatrical foundation works pretty efficiently to eliminate much of the disconnect or isolation you might initially have. The straight-faced literal adherence to word and principal make for an amusing and ironic tale.

I got a kick out of this. If I described this to myself, I don't think I'd make a good case for it. But it feels like a bouncy fanciful tale told in a surprisingly authentic way. The texture and theatrical foundation works pretty efficiently to eliminate much of the disconnect or isolation you might initially have. The straight-faced literal adherence to word and principal make for an amusing and ironic tale.

Very enjoyable! 

I don’t really like Fabrice Luchini tbh.. still this was pretty good! Éric Rohmer’s vision is maybe a bit stranger than usual and it kinda felt like I was watching some surreal side quest of sorts. 

Almost childlike feel and with playful filmmaking that feels like a break from his more naturalistic direction, still not breaking the mold and you can clearly feel this is a Rohmer. The storytelling is great! 

My issue mostly lies with the plastic set designs, especially when you think that Rohmer made this movie, a director known for his realistic and argumentative touch. I’m not a fan of the actors in this either especially Fabrice Luchini which always felt out of place in the Rohmerverse.

Very enjoyable! 

I don’t really like Fabrice Luchini tbh.. still this was pretty good! Éric Rohmer’s vision is maybe a bit stranger than usual and it kinda felt like I was watching some surreal side quest of sorts. 

Almost childlike feel and with playful filmmaking that feels like a break from his more naturalistic direction, still not breaking the mold and you can clearly feel this is a Rohmer. The storytelling is great! 

My issue mostly lies with the plastic set designs, especially when you think that Rohmer made this movie, a director known for his realistic and argumentative touch. I’m not a fan of the actors in this either especially Fabrice Luchini which always felt out of place in the Rohmerverse.

Rohmer was one of the greats but I just can’t with this one. The problem lies with me in that I just didn’t find “Perceval” very funny. Rohmer movies work best for me when his acute portrayal of the whims of men and women are applied to characters I find relatable, which is admittedly a trite fallback argument that people often use to justify why they didn’t like a film. “Perceval” though is staunchly medieval and demands the audience to engage with it purely on those terms. I mainly recommend this to those who have a stronger grasp of Authurian legend and medieval customs, because I genuinely don’t have the background to appreciate this and am therefore blind to its virtues.

Rohmer was one of the greats but I just can’t with this one. The problem lies with me in that I just didn’t find “Perceval” very funny. Rohmer movies work best for me when his acute portrayal of the whims of men and women are applied to characters I find relatable, which is admittedly a trite fallback argument that people often use to justify why they didn’t like a film. “Perceval” though is staunchly medieval and demands the audience to engage with it purely on those terms. I mainly recommend this to those who have a stronger grasp of Authurian legend and medieval customs, because I genuinely don’t have the background to appreciate this and am therefore blind to its virtues.