July 17, 2005
I watched Robert Bresson's Lancelot Du Lac this evening, and thought it problematic, but ultimately inspiring. I found Bresson's style an odd mix with the medieval trappings, and while there are countless memorable compositions, they have a theatricality that is entirely absent from his other films. His style here often occupies an odd ground between the extremely cinematic (as in Dreyer's Passion Of Joan Of Arc or Bergman's The Seventh Seal) and the painterly (the film's color scheme seems drawn straight from artwork of the period), which would be less distracting if not for the setting. I think part of the problem may be that we're unused to seeing knights of Arthurian lore outside of a mythological context, which is stridently avoided here, and which, ironically, was the very thing I admired about the film as a whole. I was aware going in that Bresson would eschew any of the grandiose elements we remember from Malory, and indeed, in examining the last days of the relationship between Guinivere and Lancelot, I was thrilled to see him displace it from its archetypal position. The psychology of their affair, examined through the limited window of the film's context, is fascinating (as is Laura Duke Condominas' stitled, petulant, perfect performance as a Queen far too young and pampered to place nobility over her own personal feelings).
I mentioned that I was unconvinced by Bresson's compositions, which at times almost feel timid; this is in stark contrast to the forceful and altogether brilliant editing with which he stitches those compositions together. The rhythm of the film apparently extends beyond the juxtaposition; there are suggestions in this review of the film (from robert-bresson.com) that the poetic source material was reflected meticulously in Bresson's dialogue - something that's sadly lost in the English subtitles.
So yes, I was inspired by it; there are certain elements of the film's sense of romantic hubris that I've already halfway explored (on the page, at least) in Henry Lee, and seeing the way Bresson handled offered some credence to my own planned approach (both in rewrites and, oh-so-hopefully, in filming); but the troika of unattainable goals represented by The Grail, Guinivere and the Round Table gave me some ideas for an entirely new script.
Just what I need! Given my current circumstances, I'd best let this concept perambulate around my skull for a bit before I bother putting it down on paper.
I'll have more to write about the screen cap from my last post, and what it pertains to, at a later date. I've been reluctant to provide anything but cryptic details thus far - perhaps for fear of revealing that there's not that much to reveal? Last night, some friends asked me what I've been up to lately, and I honestly couldn't think of a single thing to say except that I've been going running a lot. Later, I tried to figure out why I didn't feel like talking about any of the many things I've been working on; I think it's because I must measure productivity by outcome, and the ratio between the two is pretty far from balanced at the moment.
I was going to write about why this Wired article, and other articles of its ilk, don't scare me; but then I saw that Stu Willis beat me to it, at greater length and with greater gusto than I probably would have managed.
Actually, I really don't have anything else to say at the moment.
Posted by David Lowery at July 17, 2005 01:37 AM