Sade

It is hard to rate a film about Marquis de Sade without being preoccupied in any way. For instance, compared to "Goya en Burdeos" this film performed much better in drawing a historical context for a historical character. But I would still expect more than that from a film about de Sade. Despite the very good acting, original sets and costumes, and a coherent script, there was something missing. De Sade's known main characteristic are his sexual notions, and those have been hidden in innuendos. It was an attempt to portray de Sade without showing sexual excesses, but you cannot discuss a controversial character without disclosing the reasons for the controversy. To those who are not familiar with de Sade, I would recommend reading a brief description of him in an encyclopedia before seeing the film.

This semi-biographical/semi-fictional account of the Marquis of de Sade (the great Daniel Autiel) is set during the "reign of terror" period of the French Revolution. The Jacobin revolutionaries had no idea what to do with Sade, who had been freed from the Bastile in 1789, but was also a symbol of the decadence of the noble class with his undisguised atheism, his sex crimes that had scandalized even the other decadent nobles, and above all his scandalous, decadent, and blasphemous plays and novels. So they put him into a "asylum"/prison on the estate of a hypocritical/opportunistic nobleman-doctor, along with a lot of other noble families hiding out from the terror (and paying financially for the privilege). There they reassert the old order, for instance, with wealthier noblemen taking liberty with the pretty young wives of poorer nobleman. Sade meanwhile tries to put on his scandalous plays under the aegis of the new regime and supposedly to preach AGAINST atheism. This movie covers roughly the same territory as "Marat/Sade" and "Quills", but drops any idea of Sade actually being insane. Here he is portrayed as quite sane--and even heroic--in comparison to the hypocrites surrounding him.

This particular movie focuses less on his work though and more on two fictionalized (if not entirely fictional) subplots. One involves Sade's manipulation of the mother of his child, who is now the mistress of a high-ranking Jacobin, "Fournier", who she in turn manipulates to save Sade from the guillotine. "Fournier" is a sympathetic character, a child of the revolution who is doomed to be eaten by it, and Sade indirectly but skillfully manipulates him like a character in his one of his plays.

The perhaps more interesting and certainly more sexy story involves Sade befriending the young daughter of a rich nobleman (Isild LeBesco), who he seems to simultaneously be sexually debauching for his own amusement while also saving her from the guillotine by getting her pregnant by other men (of lowlier social stations, of course). 17-year-old LeBesco is absolutely incredibly here. First off, is her truly unique looks--she is pale and blue-eyed, but actually part Asian, and is capable of looking both "ugly" and very beautiful. Second, is her voluptuous body which is just unambiguously beautiful (and not surprisingly, she shows it off a lot in her movies). Most significantly though is her ACTING. She goes toe-toe with Auteil as a precocious young girl who is intellectually Sade's equal, but still a virgin naïf in sexual matters. Her "deflowering" scene is absolutely incredible as once again Sade conducts a near-orgy like it's one of his plays.

This probably isn't the most historically accurate account of the Marquis De Sade (having read of the truly appalling "120 Days of Sodom", I have trouble believing the real guy was this moral and NOT in some sense insane). But it's a very enjoyable movie.

This movie deals more with Sade as a philosopher than with the sex-addict whose writings later gave birth to a new disciplin : sexology. The Sade depicted here begins to age and is the prey of anxiety for his life (his life is threatened by Robsespierre' s hatred in the revolutionary turmoil) and about getting old and still having some books and plays to write. In 1794, he sits in a "luxury" prison, thanks to the help of his mistress who "sees" a friend of Robespierre, and undertakes to complete the "education" of a young Emilie de Lancry. He first faces the hostility of his environment, who is too aware of his reputation, but then, since they are all there eventually to be waiting for their death, they respond in various degrees to his claims for spiritual freedom and to take advantage of the joys of the moment that could be the last. Auteuil has always been a good actor but he is truly magnificent here and is by himself enough of a good reason to see the film...

For a historical French film, this effort by Benoit Jacquot comes on target. The tragic figure that was the Marquis de Sade is given a very sympathetic view from the director and it helps that Daniel Auteuil is portraying the main character.

The screenplay based on the novel by Serge Bramly, by Jacques Fiesch shows us the days of the Reign of Terror in France and what happened to these royals are they are sent to the country estate because they all have fallen out with the revolutionary government for different reasons.

The Marquis de Sade would, by today's standards, have been an eccentric living among the high society of Paris without raising an eyebrow, but unfortunately, his life happened during that period of turmoil where he was singled out as evil for just questioning the values and the hypocrisy of the French aristocracy.

The portrayal of de Sade by Mr. Auteuil is very restrained and dignified in contrast with other accounts of the Marquis by other actors in other films. He is interested in Emilie de Lancris, who just happens to be in the same place with her parents. Isild Le Besco, the actress playing her, has an enigmatic kind of beauty. She wants to learn and chooses the Marquis to be her guide into an unknown world.

An ensemble cast was assembled for this film. Among the most the best: Jeanne Balber, as the naughty Madame Santero. Silvie Testud and Gregoire Colin in minor roles and the great Jean Pierre Cassel as Emilie's libertine father.

This has been one of the most underrated films that have come from France lately, and unfortunately, it only lasted not even 2 weeks at Manhattan's mecca for "arty" films, the Lincoln Plaza complex, where there were only about 6 people in the theatre when we saw it. Yet, the same theatre was full when the overrated Amelie played for months.

This is an extremely competent movie technically. The camera work and direction are excellent and the acting is fine as well--especially the fine acting by Daniel Auteuil as the Marquis. I really thought there were no problems at all with these aspects of the film. Instead, I was a bit annoyed by the way the Marquis was portrayed, as it didn't seem all that honest and seems to be a very revisionistic view of history. In fact, in recent years, the Marquis has undergone a bit of a transformation to a defender of freedom with great insight, not the fat sado-masochist rapist he really was. In a way, this is highly reminiscent of the whitewash given in THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLINT--where these men are elevated to hero status. Even if you don't think that the Marquis' perversions weren't all that bad (they included rapes and extreme violence), his portrayal in this film as a "sexual social worker" in this prison seems pretty silly. Instead of the violent and selfish Sade, he spends a lot of time carefully grooming a young virgin and slowly helps her to explore her own sensuality. What a nice and kind man. In fact, now that I think about it, this performance reminds me of the man Maurice Chavalier played in GIGI (but without the singing)--a cute older man who loves the ladies. I strongly doubt the real-life Marquis de Sade would have recognized this character at all!

The film, surprisingly, doesn't have a lot of nudity, though what it does show is extremely explicit. Only a maniac would let their kids see this as this is a very adult drama. It's very well-made and pretty entertaining--just not all that truthful. The director admits that the film is largely fictional in the interview among the special features on the DVD I watched. So go ahead and see the film if you'd like--understanding it just isn't very good historically. During the 18th century, sexual libertines were quite accepted in France as they were pretty broad-minded, so despite what the movie implies it wasn't SEX that was the issue, it was the violence and rape that was (and still is) the problem.