Hey, excellent question, the perception of the French Resistance has changed radically since it happened. The biggest shift is a general rejection of the main narrative of the resistance.

Tony Judt puts it this way: "De Gaulle in France [...] found it necessary to tell their citizens that their sufferings had been the work of the Germans and their handful of traitorous collaborators, that they had suffered and struggled heroically and that their present duty, the war now over and the guilty suitably punished, was to address themselves to postwar tasks, place their faith in constitutional regimes, and put the war behind them."

This was out of a need to find sudden social cohesion and a way to "move on" from World War 2 without putting France's government under serious scrutiny for their own wrongdoings.

Slowly, this narrative began to break down and be questioned with historians like Paxton (as you mentioned) and Henry Rousso. In reality, the French resistance was relatively small and confined the end of the war, but had become so wrapped up in the identity of France during the war that it was very difficult to examine, especially under De Gaulle. The main source of resistance activity was restricted communist groups, as well as other areas in the political periphery- ultranationalists, monarchists, etc. This meant that during the war, the resistance was generally unsupported by the general population, as well as being significantly misrepresented by De Gaulle and others, who had no desire to give credibility and respect to communists and fringe political groups.

Since about the seventies, the French resistance has been reexamined in this light, as the French government is no longer close to the government of Vichy France. Now a very large subdiscipline of critical resistance historiography has emerged from the work of Paxton.