Customer Reviews

The Lady and the Duke [VHS]

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

After viewing this film, my initial impression was that Rhomer & Company failed to quite hit the mark. Rhomer and CGI effects just seemed like too incongruous a combo and the acting, particularly from Lucy Russell, appeared to be wooden and contrived to a great extent. The little figures of actors moving around in front of the CGI sets indeed do like choppily handled puppets. If I was to have written a review after just seeing the DVD, I would have assigned it 3 or, at most, five stars.

Then I thought about Hippolyte Taine. He is a largely forgotten early 20th C historian who wrote a huge chronicle on French History, with a large section devoted to the French Revolution and its causes. The more I compared my mental notes of Taine's depiction of Ancienne Regime France with Rhomer's vision, the more sense the movie made to me. In fact, I now consider The Lady and the Duke (the title sounds silly in English, like a movie about Audrey Hepburn and John Wayne) a work of genius. All my initial objections were no doubt the result of misinterpreting Rhomer's intent.

Yes, the actors, and Mme Elliot (Russell), in particular, appear stilted and overly formal in many scenes. Yet this is precisely the way the aristocracy behaved in that era. It is one of the factors that Taine points out as leading to their downfall. Mannerism and ritual had become a way of life and further alienated them from "the common people." Every word, every movement of every waking hour spent in society was predicated on a strict code of conduct that descended directly from the King and Queen down to the Court, and then onto the rest of the aristocracy. To veer from any of these set standards was to invite ostracism from the caste. Whenever the duke calls upon his former lover, the Scottish born, but Royally connected Mme Elliot, these rituals are carefully maintained. Rhomer does an excellent job of balancing the banal, formal dance these characters must charade through, with the genuine human emotion simmering beneath the surface. The tragedy of the situation is that, like the little figures lurching in front of the painted backdrops of 18th C Paris, these two are puppets as well. He, the Duc D'Orleans (Dreyfus), though cousin to the King, is trying his best to keep in step with the new generation of revolutionaries. She (Mme Elliot) is a Royalist to the core. They are victims of political machinations and of fate. Both are playing with fire, and in the end, both are fatally burned by it.

I wouldn't say it's absolutely necessary to read a history of the French Revolution, in order to enjoy this film, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some background in order to see where Rhomer is going here. It's a very insightful look into an era that was properly described as "The Reign of Terror." Also keep an ear open for some rather playful literary references tossed in here and there, as in when the Duc refers derisively to Laclos (author of "Dangerous Liasons," which in some ways mirrors the affair between the two lead characters). This is a very artful, in many ways subtle film and I can, after grappling with it for a bit, recommend it highly.

BEK

Eric Rohmer, born in 1920, has still energy to challenge us with his new vision; "The Lady and the Duke" will remain in your memory mainly as new definition of "moving picture." After the opening credits of still paintings (made for the film by the painter Jean-Baptiste Marot), showing the city of Paris in 1790s, you watch something you have never seen -- the people on the campus start to move.

Actually, it's a little trick of CGIs, using real-life actors and props against the painted backdrops, but the unique touch of the film is quite undeniable. But the film's greatest virtue is not that only; Eric Rohmer, known for part of French New Wave Movement and his penchant for (some say, too) many dialogues and (too minutely) detailed everyday romance of ordinary people, is still the same Rohmer in this beautiful period movie. "The Lady and the Duke" is essentially about the love that once was between Lady, Scotswoman Grace Elliott, and Duke, Louis Phillip duc d'Orleans Joseph, cousin of ill-fated King Louis the Sixteenth.

Remember before you see the film that Grace and Duke once loved each other, but now their relation is, as far as the love is concerned, over. Duke found a new love in another lady, but still they care each other during the stormy times of French Revolution. As the film unfolds, you soon realize that Duke wants Lady to leave for safe England while she is worried about the fate of Duke, who she thinks is manipulated by other revolutionalists. There is an undercurrent exchange of tenderness between them, and that part is what you should not miss in this film.

As other reviewers say, "The Lady and the Duke" is based on the memoirs written by Grace Elliott, "Journal of my Life during the French Revolution" published in 1859 in England, which is soon translated in France in 1861. The film traces the events recorded by Grace Elliott very faithfully -- therefore, the way one officier throws away his jacket into fire, indignant hearing the result of the vote; or the way Lady desperately conceals former jail manager Champcenetz, who escaped from the bloodthirsty mob, is all recorded in the original journal in the same way.

This is revealing in understanding the director's intention because Rohmer treats his films as if they are novels (hence, talky nature of his films), and in this case, he is only faithful to this vivid memoir which he finds very fascinating. (When they re-issued the French version, Rohmer himself wrote a preface for that occasion.) The only important departure from the book is that the director cut the latter part of the memoir, in which Grace tells of her plights during her long imprisonment. Rohmer makes slight changes here and there -- for example, Grace is forced to see in her carriage the severed head of one Duchess in the film, but the memoir tells she only saw it on the street; Lady does record she was certainly once forced to see one head by the angry citizens as the film depictes, but the head belonged to another person -- but otherwise Rohmer is surprisingly faithful to what Lady wrote, showing how he was impressed by this independent, spirited woman's account.

A few more facts. Lucy Russel, formerly seen in femme fatale role in Christopher "Memento" Nolan's debut film "Following," is perfect as strong-willed Grace Elliott. (And she did her homework surely, when she actually read this hard-to-find book in her college before audition! ) Equally memorable is Duke's Jean-Claude Dreyfus, whose previous roles tend to be smaller, but impressive ones (see him in quirky film "Delicatessen".) They succeed in showing, not too excessively, that they still like their former love, even though they know they left the sweet memories far behind.

And trivia: you will see many familiar faces you might remember in Rohmer's previous films. You see Alain Libolt as Duc de Biron, and Marie Riviere as Madame Laurent, both in "Conte d'automne." Also you see Charlotte Very as Pulcherie the cook, and Rosette as Franchette (the maid in Duke's estate), both in "Conte d'hiver." Bonus for Rohmer fans.

The diaries of Lady Grace Eliot provide the source material for this psychologically rich study of loyalty in Revolutionary France.

Lady Grace Eliot is a closet Royalist and her best friend the Duke of Orleans is a leftist; that friendship is tested by the events of the Revolution, nonethelss the two remain loyal to each other despite their political differences. This friendship provides an example of how basic human values like decency should take precedence over abstract political ideals.

The Duke is not an extremist. He is a man who believes the King has betrayed the people and he wants to effect changes in France so that the people are better served by a more just government but along the way the Duke gets swept up in events that he no longer has any control over and instead of leading he finds himself being led by an ever more extreme faction of revolutionaries. As the revolution spins out of his control he finds himself in a position of having to vote with the masses and against his conscience just to keep himself above reproach from his fellow revolutionaries. The deciding moment for him comes when he must cast his vote as to what the Kings fate will be.

Being a dedicated Royalist Grace Eliot is disgusted by the Dukes actions and yet she never allows herself to become blind with rage. She maintains a sense of proportion and propriety that everyone else lacks. The paintings which provide the backdrops are like Grace Eliot herself, they are classical and balanced. Despite the fact that a mob rules France and that the mob listens only to inhuman extremists like Marat and Robespierre, Grace Eliot continues to hold her head high. She makes her decisions based on principles not on passions and she never comprises her principles. She is loyal to those that she knows and she knows the Royals. But she also knows the Duke. Even though he is forced to do something that she finds utterly loathesome she also understands what made him do it and she forgives him -- showing him a mercy that is all too rare in these perilous times.

Grace Eliot has no obscure political objectives, she belives only in decency. She shows what she is made of several times throughout the film. In one very memorable scene (perhaps the most memorable of the film) she hides a wounded Royalist who she does not even like in her bed to save his life while soldiers search her house. If they find him it will mean certain death for the both of them. When the soldiers have left she examines her motives out loud and she is as fascinated by her actions as we are.

Grace Eliot sees the revoltion close-up and from far away as she keeps a house in Paris and one in the countryside where she can glimpse Paris through a telescope. It is this geographic distance as well as her English origin which allows her to see what is happening without being swept away by the events. And it is this lucidity and grace under pressure which Rohmer celebrates.

This is a superb movie that grips from the beginning. Based on fact, it deals with revolutionary France so that the viewer feels, "You are there". The clever ruses used then to get around guards, laws, inspections etc. are fascinating. Highly recommended for those interested in this era.

When I heard about the French Revolution, my reaction was that I was against it.
-Jeffrey Hart

I think that in order to build, we mustn't destroy... That's why, politically, I'm a reformist rather than a revolutionary.
-Eric Rohmer, 1983 interview with Jean Narboni

The first of the several pleasures in this terrific film is its great beauty and unique look, which Mr. Rohmer described in an interview (-INTERVIEW: with
Eric Rohmer (Aurelien Ferenzi, Senses of Cinema)):

AF: How did you have the scenic backgrounds made?

ER: They were painted by Jean-Baptiste Marot. We designed them together in the appropriate period style and according to the
requirements of the mise en sc?ne. Herv? Grandsart did the preliminary documentary research. We worked from pictures and engravings, but
also from street maps of the period. The interiors are not real locations. They were all built in an adjoining studio by the set designer, Antoine
Fontaine, and the rigger, J?r?me Pouvaret. To me, this work was not just a matter of being meticulous it was about striving for an authenticity
that underpins the whole film. At heart, I wasn't especially intent on making a film about the Revolution. I don't much like being pegged as an
18th century buff! Even though I've sometimes been compared to Marivaux, it isn't my favourite century.

AF: Was your approach comparable to the way you made Perceval: using pictures from the period to depict the period itself?

ER: Yes. I don't much care for photographic reality. In this film, I depict the Revolution as people would have seen it at the time. And I try to
make the characters more like the reality you find in paintings. The opening scenes of the film are pictures, and I'd be pleased if the
uninformed spectator thought they were period paintings and was surprised when they suddenly come to life.

The Wife and I, being "uninformed spectators", were completely fooled by this opening, which is almost magical, with the characters seeming to spring to life.

The story that follows is nearly as unique, a magisterial dismissal of the French Revolution, all the more surprising for having been directed by a leading light of the French cinema, Eric Rohmer. Grace
Dalrymple Elliott--whose memoir, Journal of My Life During the French Revolution, Mr. Renoir stumbled upon--was an upper class British woman, former mistress of the Prince of Wales, who left
England for France and became the lover of the Duke of Orleans, cousin of Louis XVI. By the start of the film their liaison has ended, but they remain friends. In the background are the early stirrings
of the Revolution. The Lady (Lucy Russell) is fiercely loyal to the King and Queen, but the Duke (Jean-Claude Dreyfus), for reasons, mostly, of jealousy and hurt feelings, is no more than ambivalent.

As the pace of events quickens--though not the pace of the film, which, be warned, is rather stately--the interests and passions of the two begin to diverge. The Lady remains loyal to King and
Queen, despite the dangers from increasingly unruly revolutionaries, while the Duke imagines that he can use the Revolution to rise to power, and that he can control its path. Tensions between them
flare when the Lady takes in a wanted man, the Marquis de Champcenetz, and expects the Duke to help him escape Paris. The Duke, whose royal origins make him suspect anyway, fears being
caught and only reluctantly agrees to help.

The true break between them comes when the fate of the King is being decided. Grace secures a grudging pledge from the Duke that he will not vote for death at the King's trial. He agrees that
though he can not vote with the King and still maintain his own political viability, he will arrange to be absent from the vote on punishment. However, as Grace and friends are gathered together, with
messengers bringing them news of the proceedings, the Duke proceeds not only to betray his promise but is the deciding vote in favor of regicide.

France proceeds to descend into terror, claiming many of Grace's friends and the Duke, who she reconciles with when it's clear he's doomed, as the Revolution eats its own. There's one frightening
episode where she's discovered to be in possession of correspondence between a British officer and the politician Charles Fox, so she's suspected of spying. But she first shames the committee
interrogating her by her refusal to read a letter not intended for her and then when they try to read it but realize they've no translator, they have to turn to her, and the letter contains nothing but
(misguided) praise for the Revolution, leaving her accusers further dishonored.

The Lady obviously survived to write her memoir which in turn captured the attention of Mr. Rohmer. Here he's told the story entirely from her perspective and the result--whether entirely accurate
or not--is a portrayal of her as embodying all of the best traits that were supposed to be associated with nobility--she's loyal, brave, generous, and devoted to God. Meanwhile, the revolutionaries
are no more than a destructive rabble, with no redeeming qualities. Between them are a few soldiers who, though sympathetic to the Revolution, try to behave decently. And, of course, the Duke, who
comes off worst of all--he debases himself and abandons the ideals of his class in the mistaken belief that revolution can be a restorative for a sick society. Instead, as it must, the Revolution destroys
mindlessly.

The cumulative effect of the film is like walking through an exhibition hall, and studying the unraveling catastrophe of the French Revolution in a series of beautiful but eventually grim paintings. Some
may find it lacks action, but it certainly has drama--the human drama of one woman who kept the faith. And the aptly-named Grace emerges as a genuine counter-revolutionary heroine, of film
and history.

A magnificent work of art.

While some will indeed find the pacing a little slow (and incredibly, others will actually mistake the luminous art design for a cost cutting budget decision) -- The Lady and the Duke is one of the finest films of the past year.

It is a riveting journey through the infamous "Reign of Terror" 1792 -1794 as seen through the eyes of Grace Elliot, an English emigre with distinctly Royalist leanings.

The exquisitely rendered backdrops give the impression that the characters move within paintings of the period and are meant, I think, to represent Grace Elliot's memories of her Paris. The Paris of an 18th century woman who remembers its beauty before the terrible bloodletting. They have a profoundly dream-like quality which eventually gives way to coarse clarity as Grace watches France tear itself apart.

The film does not set out to educate anyone in the history of the French Revolution. It assumes one has a reasonable grasp on on the major figures and events of the time. To those who do -- the handsome dialogue with its many references to such people and things will be utterly fascinating. Those who do not may find themselves completely baffled and bored by The Lady and the Duke.

A beautiful important film, The Lady and the Duke is essential viewing for the lovers of history and art.

I loved this film and I highly recommend this beautiful work. I even buy copies to give as gifts to people interested in the period of history.

Murder, violence and destruction of all that has been and existed for centuries is taking place. One can watch this film and feel as if one is actually there with the heroine. There are scenes of great courage displayed by Grace Elliot as her world disintegrates in the violence of a revolution that has lost its way and has degraded into murder and a reign of terror that was surely instructive to another cadre of revolutionaries in 1917 and culminating in the purges of a self proclaimed "man of steel" in the twentieth century.

I acknowledge that this is a challenging watch for fans of fast-paced films employing gritty realism. It is not a film that would appeal to the action film crowd. "Like watching paint drying" would be an understandable complaint if one expected the Governor of California to roar onto the stage.

This film is not fast paced and its realism is in the faces and body language of the actors -- not in the use of camera angles and close ups. This is a movie where the emotions of the heroine and the other characters build suspense or convey grief, despair or fear. It is a very different form of cinematic expression than say, "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Passion of Christ".

The acting is superb. Indeed, the aristocrats are highly aloof but that was their way and it is not usual for us moderns to encounter this type of aloofness even in the face of catastrophe. To perceive the range of emotions and expressions manifest in this work one should also listen to the tone of voice and watch the gestures of the lower classes -- including the voices of women who are given voice in this work -- the revolutionary militiamen,their officers, and political representatives. There are powerful emotions revealed in these faces and the body language is expressive of so much of the feelings being expressed by the characters.

Some criticism is made of the outdoor scenery but I would suggest that the scenery gives one an impression of a world that was both serene and surreal. Revolutionary violence is intruding upon the landscape of a dying rococo world of Fragonard giving way to the severe and clear neoclassical of David. The revolution is spreading outward upon the old world with the effect of dark ink from a squid into clear water. The interior scenes give one a chance to see the furnishing and appointments of the aristocracy at home in Paris. The revolution was an intrusion upon their privileged lives and their heretofore inviolate dwellings too. The Lady and the Duke conveys this sense of intrusion and violation in a very powerful way.

It is certainly not a film to appeal to the sensibilities of the worlds dwindling numbers of social revolutionary radicals. I doubt this film has too many fans at Communist Party USA headquarters. By the same token, one needn't be a Royalist to empathize with the heroine. To employ one's empathy is what is key to the enjoyment of this film. Set aside politics and tune into the characters as they come to life in their era.

This is a film that would appeal to students of history and culture from the unique perspective of the last gasping remnants of the ancient regime. Students of the French language might also find value in this film because the language is crisp and clear

This is an excellent movie. It shows that History is very often better than Fiction. Also, showing the backgrounds or settings as paintings is very well done. I watched it once for this alone.

D.

If you are interested in filmmaking as an art form, this is a must-see of modern film. The acting and production values here are all top notch, but it is the production itself which makes this film memorable and outstanding.

The story is the story of two aristrocrats during the French Revolution, one a royalist Englishwoman, one a revolutionist French Duke. This is the solid story of how the political became personal as they saw their friends and themselves enmeshed in the politics that became so bloody.

What is revolutionary in this film is that every outdoor scene appears to be a painting, so that the actors are acting, living, within beautiful paintings. This is mesmerizing and captivating effect. It has a bit of an unfortunate side effect of distancing you from the actors emotionally as you are enchanted by the scenery effect.

Because of this, and the structure of the majority of the scenes having only two to four people, this is much more like watching quality theatre. Really the BEST example of a play on film, because the script is very talky, and the whole outside world is painted backdrop. But all done so beautifully. But I do need to say that, like theatre, some film viewers will find it too talky and too slow. The revolution is primarily "over there" or "out there" not in here with us.

Lucy Russell's performance is a bit too restrained (but more attainable for a modern audience used to underacting), which can make her hard to "feel" for - but it becomes clear she herself is detatched from her emotions in general, fist because she is a creation of society, then because she can not allow herself to be attached to the horrors. Excellent performances throughout.

A mature and mesmerizing piece of art. (Then watch Rohmer's "The Marquise of O" - artistically literate, detail perfect, and a simple, but more compelling story.)

Rohmer returns to his historical dramas in this movie dealing with the real story of Grace Elliot, an Englishwoman (and fervent royalist) who stayed in France during the apex of the French Revolution. One always suspected that Rohmer was a conservative, but who knew he was such a red-blooded reactionary?. If you can put aside Rohmer's unabashed defense of the monarchy (and that is not an easy thing to do, given that, for instance, the French lower classes are portrayed here as hideous louts), this is actually an elegant, intelligent and polished movie. Lacking the money for a big cinematic recreation of 18th century France, Rohmer has instead the actors play against obvious painted cardboards. It is a blatantly artificial conceit, but it somehow works. And newcomer Lucy Russell succeeds in making sympathetic a character that shouldn't be.