Sade

While there is much to admire in the performances, writing, and photography (especially the way the Marquis' sometimes greenish-black hue contrasts to Emilie's fair skin), the central thesis of the film is a little hard to swallow. Setting the story right at the nadir of revolutionary excess, where the nobility are being decapitated in the hundreds, the film-makers advance the notion that all the raping, maiming, and torturing in Sade's books are merely a joyous upwelling of the Life Forces amidst so much horror, like William Blake writing in a refugee camp. Yet this can only be made by transforming Sade from the bloodthirsty, all-screwing libertine that he was into a supercilious chattering class of one, a Cassandra who sees life even in the maggots swarming in his prison cell. Glimpses of his work are few and almost coy, while the sexual adventures of the other detainees get the full scan as neurotic and hypocritical. However they did recapture the dark wit that suffused Justine, and it that respect the Marquis is almost sympathetic.

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.

I saw this on Cinemoi, the satellite French movie channel.

Some of us are familiar with the famous story of the notorious French aristocrat, imprisoned, in some comfort at a Château during the French Revolution. Familiar on both sides of the English Channel now, Daniel Auteille stars as the lecherous libertine and Marianne Dennicourt as the young girl, daughter of another imprisoned noble family who becomes secretly fascinated by him.

Those that have read/seen other versions - the only one I have is Philip Kaufmann's "Quills", a Hollywood-tinged softly erotic character piece for both Geoffrey Rush and Kate Winslet as the leads I mention. Quills also had Michael Caine, Joaqaine Phoenix, and Billy Whitelaw, so quite a cast.

As you might expect, director Benoit Jacquot gives us a historical drama, in comparison to Kaufman's heated and nicely sin-tinged one. They were made in the same year, 2000. Without a doubt, Sade would be the most accurate, if that's important to you.

Sade is shot rather conventionally, is never in doubt that it's a period piece and so, feels authentic, but quite dry. Don't expect the humour, sex or theatrics of Quills and savour the story of this scandalous man, as he wrote lewd manuscripts and got them smuggled out to publishers via the young girl.

Auteill takes a while to get going - too many real-life activities hinder the Marquis engaging with his young charge - when he does, he starts to show that sexually charismatic spell that he casts - the sort that all manipulating brainwashers seem to possess.

Hardly a review exists and I cannot find an age rating for it. Explicitly it is quite tame until the last scene which would be rated as 18.

If you enjoy authentic historical drama, especially French and are interested in the Sade, the man, rather than a sensationalised account of what he did, then this film may be for you. It wasn't really for me, but I can see its virtues.

'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.

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...