Sade

Daniel Auteuil makes an excellent Marquis de Sade (even better than Geoffrey Rush in Quills) in this intelligent film by one of France's very best directors, Benoit Jacquot (The School of Flesh, Pas De Scandale). Unlike the aforementioned Philip Kaufman picture, which examined the issue of censorship by using Sade and his work as a backdrop, this film intends to explore the sides of the infamous pornographer as philanthropist. While being held prisoner in a grand chateau with many other nobles following the French revolution, Sade befriends a curious young woman and teaches her a thing or two about growing up. The relationship they develop is genuine and in the end very moving, mostly because while instructing her to loosen up she teaches him how he can reclaim his emotional self and learn to once again love the society that he has dismissed as conventional and narrow. Not Jacquot's best, but a worthy piece of work.

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 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...

'Sade' is based on the same thesis as 'Quills' (which was better) - in a period of revolution, leading from the decadent monarchy of Louis XVI through the bloody Revolution to the imperial demagogy of the Napoleon era, the legendary marquis de Sade was not a problematic libertine author, but rather an early symbol of freedom of speech. An 18th century Flint, if you want! Well, if you accept this angle, the two films can be judged as worth watching.

The French version is rather conventional, but well made and acted, in the style of the French historical cinema (the good one). You certainly can get confused, as you may not understand all the political nuances, which are certainly familiar to any French collegian, but you cannot be indifferent to the well played theme of expecting death, counting back the days and hours before the guilotine falls. Art ('Art'?) and Love ('Love'?) are victors over fear and death - this is the central message. Mass graves and fear are unfortunately still true in the 21th century as well. So is the permanent fight between freedom of expression and dictatorial puritanism.

The rithm of the film is rather slow, but acting is solid. 'Quills' was better, because it went even further with its central theme. However, 'Sade' is also worth watching. 7/10 on my personal scale.

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.