Not only is this a bad film, in every sense of the word - mostly because Bresson lets his film "dogma" overrun, as usual, common sense and just plain "watchability", but it also gives rise to two frequent misunderstandings which really irk me.

First of all, Bresson was never part of the New Wave. Very few film-makers were. He was there before the New Wave, making decent, classic, perfectly structured and acted films like "Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne", with lots of help from original geniuses like Jean Cocteau, and was still there after the New Wave, experimenting with making increasingly more boring films for a coterie of film-school enthusiasts which must have numbered half a dozen people at its peak.

Second misunderstanding: The story related in this "film" is not by Chrétien de Troyes. Although Chrétien was the first novelist to mention the knights of the Round Table, his stories never included the death of Arthur, although he did brush on Guinevere's infidelity and the legend of the Grail in books that inspired everything that followed, in French and English. So the credit should say: based on XIIIth century French prose continuations of the original poems by Chrétien de Troyes, which are found in what is collectively known to scholars as the anonymous and extremely varied Corpus Lancelot-Graal, a.k.a. as the Lancelot-Graal Cycle or, more simply, the Prose Lancelot. Are we clear on this? Thanks.