Chevalier

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.

A fantastic life story, and great piece of history, that is relevant today, presented with impressive music, in nice sets (except CGI) and pleasant costumes. Should be great.

Yet a childish story and similarly childish storytelling, and the overwhelming abundance of barnstorming scenes removes this film from the realm of cinematic art. Uneven acting does not help and the anachronistic dialog (and make up) adds to the feeling of a B movie or propaganda piece, especially that what was meant to be character development is decisively cartoonish.

I am not sure what else to say to hit six hundred. I was not bored and neither I resent that we watched this movie but am not thinking back to it with appreciation.

Imagine a prime time soap opera with 18th Century French period piece trappings, and you've pretty much got the gist of this fact-based (and loosely so, I understand), underwhelming offering from filmmaker Stephen Williams, a director best known for his acclaimed cable TV series work (which is probably why this release feels so much more like a television piece than a movie). The picture presents the biography of Joseph Bologne (Kelvin Harrison Jr.), the Chevalier de Saint-Georges, an acclaimed multiracial violinist and composer who rose through the social ranks to attain a celebrated place in the court of Marie Antoinette (Lucy Boynton) in pre-revolutionary France. But, rather than focusing on Bologne's accomplishments (many of which have been lost over time but are allegedly traceable), the film instead tells the scandalous (for the time) tale of a failed interracial romance and its fallout, a story that deeply affected him personally and changed the artist into an advocate for society's downtrodden (noble ambitions that, regrettably, receive short shrift in the film). While all of this should provide the makings of a captivating watch, much of it falls dreadfully flat - a collection of pretty images populated with arrogant, elegant aristocrats casting knowing glances and wry smiles but not providing significant fodder for viewer engagement. Such blandness even spills over into the performances, like that of protagonist Harrison, an actor whose work I generally admire but who comes across here to be about as interesting as a bowl of lukewarm porridge. To me, it seems like so much more could have been done with this story, but what comes from it here is stunningly uninteresting and uninvolving, a disappointment given that Bologne deserves better than this.

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!

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.