Chevalier: Pasión y libertad

When I first saw the commercial, I was intrigued to watch this movie. One of my friend won a preview today at 7:30p, which was pretty packed with folks. The movie is quite good, made me teary and there were moments which really made one admire how it must have been for a talented young man who lived during such difficult times. Though I am glad I managed a sneak preview, I would definitely suggest buying a ticket, sitting back and listening to the lovely music played. While I do enjoy some classical music, learning of Joseph's life and his musical talent needs to have more focus on it and hopefully this movie can help bring that to light.

I am so disappointed. 1. I love the Chevalier de Saint-Georges. 2. His life story is fascinating 3. It's a shame we don't learn about him like we do his friend and contemporary Motzart, who was slightly less famous in their lifetime (this erasure of his history was systematic by Napoleon, who wanted to re-engage France in the slave trade). 4. Stephanie Robinson, the writer, kills on 'Atlanta' and 'What we do in the Shadows.' So I was excited about this! And it failed.

Just historically inaccurate, which made it less exciting and interesting. His relationships with every historical character in the movie, including his parents, were totally false. His relationship with the French Revolution was inaccurate.

I don't understand why you'd lie to make a story worse. His actual life story is so captivating. Skip the movie, put on the Chevalier de Saint-Georges' Spotify, and read his Wikipedia page instead.

I was really looking forward to this, and after it starts with some compelling duelling violins between the eponymous "Joseph" (Kelvin Harrison Jnr.) and none other than the great Mozart himself (Joseph Prowen) that features some magical musical improvisations, I thought I was in for a treat. Sadly, though, t'was not to be. Essentially this is a rather plodding melodrama that could quite easily have been at the more musical end of an episode of "Versailles". Born, illegitimately, to the owner of a plantation and one of his indentured slaves, "Joseph" shows a considerable talent that his father is keen to see developed. He relocates the boy from Guadeloupe to Paris where he must learn - on his own - to thrive. To be excellent. He does, he even befriends Marie Antoinette (Lucy Boynton) and is to be considered for the job of musical director at the Opera de Paris. He has a competitor, though, and the Queen decides that a tournament is the order of the day. "Joseph" recruits the mellifluously talented marquise "Marie-Josephine" (the really quite sterile Samara Weaving) to sing in his new opera but her menacing marquis husband (Martin Csokas) is having none of that and pretty soon young "Joseph" is facing disgrace, humiliation and with losing his popularity at court. Gradually, now, he is drawn into the revolutionary world of his friend "Philippe" (Alex Fitzalan) with quite a denouement looming! The film looks great and when there is music, that is also rousing and distinguished. It's just the story and, for the most part, the acting. It's all just a bit weak. There's way too much dialogue and romantic shenanigans that we know are dangerous, reckless even, but they only manage to clog up the potency of this story of lust, bigotry, politics and power. I enjoyed it, but I suppose I expected - certainly wanted - something a little more like "Amadeus" (1984).

Apparently, one of the (main?) drivers of the French Revolution was racial equity. Who knew? This is a new Hollywood trend: you transpose current (broadly accepted) societal views into different geographies, cultures and historical periods, basically to prove that they always were eternal. Women Talking, The Woman King are two recent examples of this trend. Art has always been used to convey the ideas of its time, and there's really nothing wrong with it. Except when you pretend that what you're depicting is historically accurate, in which case it becomes revisionism or cultural imperialism. As a violinist and a person who lived in Paris for four years, the cultural imperialism in this film may upset me a bit more than most. But I could actually go with it if the movie were good. But it's not.

The story is actually amazing. Imagine: a black violinist and composer in 18th century France. A man of color who was a contender to become head of the Paris Opera under Louis XVI, and who then became a leader in the French Revolution. One can only dream of what this film could have been in the hands of Spike Lee, Jordan Peele or even better Ladj Ly. It could (should) have been an exploration of the character, his motivations, what it was like to be a person of color in the court of Louis XVI, how he truly embraced revolutionary values and how they reflected on his own condition. What do we get instead from Stephen Williams? An attempt to remake Amadeus with a black character. The plagiarism is so overt that many times you feel as if you were watching segments of Amadeus again, with a few dashes of Kubrick's Barry Lindon here and there. Except that Williams is no Milos Forman and no Stanley Kubrick. His film, weighed down by its narrow program of easy answers we all knew before going into the theatre, is dull and empty, and the characters, without the freedom to exist in their own right, increasingly feel like figures at a wax museum.

One can only hope that a real filmmaker will retake this story and turn it into the film of relevance that it should be.

I don't quite understand the furious negativity about this film - as I thought it was highly watchable. I am a classical music lover, and I've known - and hugely enjoyed - the music of St Georges almost from when first recordings were released. He was certainly one of the most remarkable men of his time - supremely gifted: a brilliant violinist, composer, and swordsman (as indeed shown in the film); and known in France as "Le Mozart Noir" - the black Mozart.

The film certainly takes liberties with the facts (insofar as they are known), and the director admits that the opening musical duel between Mozart and St Georges never happened: this idea was based on the similar musical duel between Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix. But so what? It makes for good cinema.

So you can't really call the film a biopic; it's more of an historical fantasy based around St Georges and the tumultuous times of pre-revolutionary France. His music gets a bit of air-play, as it should, but in fact not much really, and I found I didn't mind. I was quite happy simply to be swept along by it.

And it is really very well staged: the costuming, the scenery (both inside and out) are nicely done - I don't know how historically true they are, but for me that doesn't matter. And I thought that Kelvin Harrison Jr was quite fantastic, bringing a gravitas and a passion to his role as the Chevalier.

Weak points were his co-stars: Lucy Boynton as Marie-Antoinette seemed petty and a real light-weight, far from the imperiousness one would expect from the Queen of France. She also seems to wander about quite a bit, especially given the grumblings from the revolutionary mob. The scene in which she appears in St George's lodgings to put him down, she sounds more like an aggrieved shopper being given the wrong change. Samara Weaving is pretty enough, but seems to have no depth of character. Her husband the Marquis de Montalembert is played by Marton Csokas, who acts more like a small-time crook or stand-over merchant than a real menace.

There are times - and possibly too many of them - where the film dragged and seemed to lose its direction and focus. It could do with more rigorous editing and lose 10 or 15 minutes to tighten it up.

For all of those reasons I was going to give it 6/10, but my partner - a much more fierce and demanding critic than me - thought the film was terrific and worth 8/10. So I'm compromising with 7!