De Sade

Looking at it today, this film is a pretty tame story of the infamous DeSade, but at least it is the most highest budget version of th story, with a much better cast for this sort of material. What was once deemed X is pretty tame R by todays standards. Keir Dullea makes a very convincing DeSade without overacting, and John Huston brings integrity to the film with his powering presence. And the soundtrack is very good, the only thing odd is the beginning credit animation sequence, which looks like it came out of a psychedelic film, as you see a shadow painting of a bird man juggling a ball, then turning into a guy and a chick and a horse!!! Looks like it belongs in an animation short or something. Still check it out if you want to see a "Hollywood" version of the infamous character, told way too many times in cheapo Euro versions!

At the tender age of 17 I was dying to see this flick but blinked and it disappeared. Around that time i was interested in Sade (or "De Sade'), whose writings were being pushed by Grove Press. I read bits and pieces of his work which thrives on irony and paradox, staples of French lit. Those looking for cheap thrills in Sade will be disappointed as even the freakiest activities depicted are written in ironically refined language./ Anyhow, the person who wrote, "We see God the way a blind man sees colors," is depicted here as a lavender-clad fop w/ a crazy priest uncle (john Huston chews up the lavender here). Sade's real first name was Donatien Alphonse; here, God knows why, he's "Louis."/ The scattered plot, the period psychedelic colors, cheapo effects, and fleeting t and a typify early '70s "sexploitation" flicks. Most hilarious (and frustrating to some) is a silly, frantic "orgy" scene obscured by a lava-lampish red tint. Directed by Hollywood vet Wm. Wyler who tried liked hell to avoid that X rating via quick cutaways and a lot of running around, ripping up pillowcases, smashing champagne glasses, etc---but no screwing! So why'd the code bunch lump in "de Sade" w/ "Curious Yellow" which went all the way? Well, the name had a rep preceding it./ It is a fun movie to watch, the sumptuous sets and garish clothes shot in a fuzzy wash that shoots for "art". / In an ironic, nostalgic way, i appreciate "de Sade." It looks CHEAP, trashy, while EVERYTHING in film today is so high def as to be dull. "de Sade" sucks, but i love it. It's stupid, pretentious, smarmy FUN, an unintentional comedy. Those were the good old days!

Though I did not see this movie until recently I remember it's theatrical release in 1969. This was the film that Keir Dullea made immediately after his performance in "2001: A Space Odyssey", and by sheer irony the two films seem to be connected. As David Bowman his last scenes in "2001" took place in a French room that was decorated in French style. He left that room, in a very mysterious way, in that movie and seems, in "De Sade", to have continued with the French decor. However, his performance in this movie is very disappointing- particularly compared to his performance in "2001". In fact, the entire movie is a big disappointment.

I am of the opinion that if you have naked women and sex in a movie then it cannot be a total flop. And, in fact, the naked women in this film were the only thing that made this movie bearable to watch. As this movie was made in 1969 there were some aspects of female nudity they still could not show on the screen- they had to concentrate on breasts and butts back then. Nothing wrong with womens breasts and butts, but the total nudity that could be shown in movies by the late 1970s was still off limits in 1969. If you examine this film you will see that though there is a lot of female nudity in it; there is still a lot of "suggestion"-they could not show everything back then. And, that includes the sadistic scenes. Some sadism is shown but not enough to show how De Sade earned his reputation.

One very good thing about the DVD release of this movie is the recent (in the year 2001) interview with the writer Richard Mathison concerning the historical Marquis De Sade. He gives a bit of history about De Sade, and how he was actually something of a nice guy in real life. The movie could have taken an interesting turn (it almost did but not quite) on examining whether or not we are all sadists at heart. Sometimes the best thriller or mystery story is the one that ends with the perpetrator being discovered and finding that the bad guy is the one whose face is seen in the mirror (i.e. the observer). But, as disorganized as this movie is that aspect was not shown.

I remember this movie been considered disappointing in 1969. Thirty Eight years later it still is.

I wish they had saved the German version of this one, but alas, only the AIP version seems to turn up, though most versions are barely longer than the one USA network ran in their infancy. What was once given an "X" rating, barely rises above PG-13 standards for this new millennium. Dullea, fresh from "2001", is out of place amidst the tame exploitation, but gives it a good try. John Huston, in the midst of a long string of aging weirdo roles, steals the show easily. The script by Richard Matheson, is well done, but manhandled by the multiple directors different approaches, and the different exploitation requirements of the various producers. It easily extends the normal AIP formula, but falls short of it's goal to cross into more "Adult" film-making. Not worthless, but not all that thrilling, with much "dead Air"

My friends and I should have known we were in trouble when the opening credits had that late-60s GoGo/orchestrated music and a James Bond-ish red dot with morphing black figures dancing around it. To give it some modicum of credit, it was so absurd and had such awful acting in the first 20 minutes that it showed some so-bad-it's-good promise. Sadly, the same scene replayed itself another 8 times through the movie, putting me, at least, to sleep. And the movie had nothing whatsoever to do with the Marquis de Sade. As my friend said after the movie, "It didn't work on so many levels."

2001 will never be the same.