Product Details

• Actors: Geoffrey Rush, Kate Winslet, Joaquin Phoenix, Michael Caine, Billie Whitelaw
• Directors: Philip Kaufman
• Writers: Doug Wright
• Producers: Des McAnuff, Julia Chasman, Mark Huffam, Melanie Woldt, Nick Wechsler
• Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
• Language: English
• Subtitles: English, Spanish
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: R (Restricted)
• Studio: 20th Century Fox
• DVD Release Date: May 8, 2001
• Run Time: 124 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (197 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B00003CXPV
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #18,943 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• For more information about "Quills" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

With bedroom eyes and the mischievous smirk of an insatiable roué, Geoffrey Rush is a perfect choice to play the Marquis de Sade in Quills, directed by Philip Kaufman and adapted by Doug Wright from his own stage play. Imprisoned in France's Charenton asylum at the turn of the 18th century, de Sade is a stately court jester in disheveled finery, and Rush imbues the role with the fierce urgency of a writer whose sexual fantasies are his sole remaining defense against repression and hypocrisy. Deprived of quill and ink, he writes with wine, then blood, then his own feces--a descent into madness or an impassioned refusal to be silenced? Quills embraces freedom of expression ("such beauty, such abomination," as one character notes) while affirming that all freedoms have a price.

De Sade smuggles manuscripts out of Charenton with help from Madeleine (Kate Winslet), a virginal laundress who relishes de Sade's scandalous prose--a divine irony since she was taught to read by asylum abbé Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), whose desire for Madeleine is suppressed by Catholic propriety. The delicate dynamic of this trio is shattered by the arrival of Royer-Collard (Michael Caine, appearing somewhat comatose), a righteous hypocrite appointed to silence de Sade once and for all. It's all very engrossing as a piece of theater (which it still is, despite Kaufman's elegant filming), and although Wright's literate dialogue limits de Sade to zesty ripostes and sneering perversity, Rush's intensity ensures that the marquis's plight is no laughing matter. Quills has a point, makes it without condescension, and knows the difference between madness and passion. --Jeff Shannon

Product Description

Fictional account of the Marquis de Sade's stay in prison.
Genre: Feature Film-Drama
Rating: R
Release Date: 17-DEC-2002
Media Type: DVD

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

57 of 57 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Wicked....but....Wonderful, March 24, 2003

By 

L. Shirley "Laurie's Boomer Views" (Huntington Beach,CA) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: Quills (DVD)

This review refers to the 20th Cent Fox DVD edition of "Quills"...

I can think of several films based on historical events or figures that do not follow the facts exactly, yet are enlightening, entertaining and are considered fine films as well. Two of recent times that come to mind immediatley are "The Hurricane" and "The Insider".These stories gave us an insight into events that we may not have known about or paid little attention to until the film burst onto the screen. Here we have another story that although was inspired by the life and the writings of the Marquis de Sade is clearly defined as an original work by writier Doug Wright.

In the late 18th century, we find Sade(Geoffrey Rush) committed to a mad house, as his literay works are so outrageously sexual and "sadistic", that he is accussed of inciting others to act out in evil ways. He, along with the other inmates, is cared for by the head of the asylum. a liberal priest, The Abbe du Coulmier(Joaquin Phoenix). Coulmier is a progressive thinker and allows Sade and the others artisitc freedoms within the confines of the asylum.

Sade has a passion for writing and is smuggling his provacative stories out with a beautiful young laundry maid(Kate Winslet) who has befriended him.They are published and all of France is is eager to read them. Napolean is appalled and appoints Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) to oversee the activities at the asylum. Collard's methods and thinking prove to be as cruel as any the Marquis could write about.

The Abbe trying to cooperate begins by taking away Sade's writing material, all his quills and ink, and eventually all of Sade's belongings. Sade becomes obsessed with wanting the freedom to write and goes to great extremes, using first wine, then his own blood and eventually other body excrements to accomplish what he feels is his right.
The more they try to stop him, the more obsessive he becomes. It is also interesting to note that, as these books became banned, the more the masses clamored for them.

Directed by Phillip Kaufman, this film has alot to offer and poses many questions to the viewer. It does not glorify the Marquis de Sade, nor does it make him the extreme villan. So was Sade a madman, or pioneer for freedom of speech? Can the freedom to write pornographic material incite others to act out their agressions? And if so, are these traits already within those persons? These are issues that are still prevalant today. The story of "The People vs Larry Flint" comes to mind as a more contemporary case.

The film is wonderfully made and acted.It is cutting edge and makes great use of the Marquis' wickedness, his wit and his prose. There are stories within stories.All the performances were exquiste and I especially thought Joaquin Phoenix's performance was outstanding. The cinematography and costumes add greatly to this period piece. Also adding their wonderful talents are Billie Whitelaw as Madame Le Clerc and Jane Menelaus as Renne Pelagie(Sade's wife). Jane is Geoffrey Rush's real life wife and their chemistry exudes on the screen.The movie was honored with Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor(Phoenix) form the National Board of Review.

There are some disturbing as well as some sexual scenes, so this film may not be for everyone.

A terrific DVD package. First of all it is a beautiful transfer. The film is presented in Anamorphic Widescreen(1.85:1) and is clear and sharp with excellent colors. Sound set-up gives the choice of 5.1 Surround or Stereo surround(Dolby)and everything is clear and distinct. There are 3 featurettes and some very enlightening commentary by the writer(Wright). It may be viewed in French(Stereo) and has subtitles in English and Spanish.

Was the Marquis de Sade a raving lunatic or a great literary figure? You decide....

Thanks and enjoy......Laurie

recommended reading:Marat/Sade also sold under the title:The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat As Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of The Marquis de Sade (or Marat Sade)(see my book review for details)

86 of 101 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Quills: Fictional Sade Tale A Gem, January 3, 2001

By 

Christopher J. Jarmick "Word Lover" (Seattle, Wa. USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Quills is one of the best films of they year. It's adapted by Doug Wright from his Obie Award winning play and directed by Phillip (Unbearable Lightness of Being, The Right Stuff, Invasion of the Body Snatchers) Kaufman. It stars some of the best actors working in films today: Geoffrey Rush, Kate Winslet, Joaquin Phoenix and Michael Caine.

It seems an odd time for a film which more or less romanticizes the last days of Marquis de Sade to be filmed and released-yet here it is. Although it's release is on a smaller city by city schedule, you'll probably want to make a point of seeing it in the theater.

Words are powerful things. The pen is mightier than damn near anything and creates more fear and controversy than anything as well!!! The pornographic and satirical writings of the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) are not only escaping from the Charenton Asylum for the Insane where the aristocratic Marquis enjoys a great deal of creature comforts courtesy of a benevolent Abbé Coumier (Joaquin Phoenix), but they are also being published and distributed throughout France, much to the embarrassment of Napoleon who at first wants de Sade shot but then reconsiders and dispatches the sadistic but morally superior Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine)to insure that de Sade's pornography is not seen by the public ever again. The Marquis' writings are leaving the asylum with the help of a laundress named Madeline (Kate Winslet) who's infatuated with de Sade's talent and in unrequited forbidden love with the Abbe'. Thus, the main cast of characters has been introduced, and the play can now begin.

There's a somewhat overly tidy twist ending which though clever, wraps up everything so neatly we're reminded this has been a stylish work of fiction. Pity we are not given an ending to match the opening of the film in which we seem to be witnessing a sado-masochistic moment from within the Marquis de Sade's imagination only to realize we are watching a public beheading of a young woman. There's a true feeling of being surprised and unsettled at the beginning of the film. Most will not leave the film unsettled or off-balanced however unless you want to really contemplate.

Geoffrey Rush has finally found his `role of a lifetime'. At times perhaps you will see a bit of James Woods in Rush's performance. But Rush goes beyond what I suspect Woods would be capable of doing. He inhabits the immorality of his character like it was the skin he was born to stretch in. One forgets we are witnessing a bravura performance.

The more observant will witness a remarkable subtle performance from Joaquin Phoenix which does pay off in a fiery confrontation scene late in the film. It's not the kind of love it or laugh at it performance we got from him in Gladiator, but a much more textured and less affected performance.

Kate Winslet remains one of the most emotionally honest actresses of our time. I can't think of another actress working today who is able to seem so effortless and natural and resist the temptation to become overly theatrical when on screen, yet still portray distinctive and powerful characters like Winslet does. Her character wears a variety of masks, and the seemingly difficult task of playing someone like this in a natural, non-theatrical manner is handled perfectly by Winslet. She refuses to chew the scenery even when several opportunities beg for her to do just that. She's simply marvelous and has never been in a better film.

The film dazzles us in several ways. First is the approach that Kauffman takes. He is having his cake and eating it too, when he frames this vision of a Marquis de Sade as an 18th century martyr of freedom of thought and opinion. A man who's pornographic, satirical and sacrilegious writings so influenced the world, he had to be locked away in an insane asylum and persecuted for his `art'. Kaufman and Wright don't shy too far away from de Sade's words, or from suggesting that his words are powerful, influential, hypnotic and dangerous. These are words that are capable of causing people to act on their animalistic urges and perhaps these are words that will create anarchy if not muted.

Yet Kaufman and Wright can not really show us much of De Sade's work at all. It would not get past today's censors and it would not be met by an audience with anything short of disgust. Some of de Sade's writings are beyond gross and a mainstream audience would hardly be able to stomach some of the material. We do hear snippets of what most would consider the sacrilege of his work, and it's shocking to see him spit on the bible and dismiss it so sharply - but these things are just the tip of an iceberg that the audience is spared from hearing or seeing.

Instead we get a pretty simple morality tale. Rush's de Sade is so beyond anyone's idea of decency that he doesn't seem very much like a dangerous threat to society as much as a drag queen martyr for freedom of speech and thought. The character of Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) is such a hypocrite, as an ultra conservative who uses his morality as an impenetrable shield, giving him carte blanche to cut with a sword without regard to how many he hurts in the process. He's a slimy villain minus only a few degrees of camp. We are given almost cliched scenes of melodrama and sequences that could have come from any number of over-written bodice ripper type novels (where caged women yearn to be freed). It's just here they are taken for a spin in a unique direction. They have been partially re-invented to fit into a more acceptable tall tale telling of the Marquis de Sade's last days. Even the most obvious and cliched of conceits, Dr Royer-Collard's teenaged wife Simone wanting to experiment sexually with a young contractor, after reading the Marquis de Sade, is acceptable because of the conviction of Amelia Warner's performance coupled with a need for something a bit familiar, and overdone to hang onto and feel vastly superior to.

There is some strong stuff in the film and it's not for squeamish or the prudish. It almost goes far enough at times, and it's certainly understandable why it holds itself it back from going any further.

No secret that repression and censorship and prohibition breeds acts and behaviors which rebel against the oppression. Here we have a film which tidily wraps the story of de Sade in 18th century clothing, but is quietly shouting messages to all who care to take notice of them. The repression the Marquis endured undoubtedly fueled his sordid tales, and the careful way the film represses itself may make audience members imagine more than what they've really seen.

I loved it. I enjoyed the deceptively tasty tone the script, actors and direction bring to the material which becomes a cousin to a Greek morality tale as re-thought by a modern Shakespeare, carefully presented for mass audience consumption..

Rather than be overly gross or pornographic the film gives us brilliantly conceived filmed scenes like when the Marquis ingeniously makes his clothing a parchment on which to write his latest story using his own blood as ink. Or even better when he whispers his stories from in-mate to in-mate until they are finally copied down by the devoted laundress Madeline to be smuggled to the mysterious man on a black horse who will whisk them away to the publisher.

At the end, the film starts to explode into a bloody Spanish Inquisition inspired finale you always wanted to see in one of those Hammer (or Poe inspired)Roger Corman films, where a larger budget would let them show you more debauchery and bloodshed. But it's then twisted into a too clever and too tidy of a finish.

The decadent look of the film must be credited to Rogier Stoffers' superbly crafted cinematography. He paints with light and film magically. There's also fine supporting work in the film by actors who portray other inmates suffering from various conditions of insanity. Although at times the in-mates are used as sort of comic relief, they remain quickly painted memorable portraits or characters, and not merely unimportant props.

There's great detail in the film which I savored with relish. The frames were used sumptiously by the director and his cinematographer. A few very memorable images will be replaying in my head for quite some time.

I know the film will disappoint some of you for compromising itself, and it will shock and offend some of you because of its material. I also know it's one of the best films of the year. Chris Jarmick, Author of The Glass Cocoon with Serena F. Holder-a steamy cyber- thriller Available January 2001 (Thanks for pre-ordering your copy here at Amazon)

19 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A film I both loved and loathed, May 7, 2001

By 

Robert Moore (Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Quills (DVD)

I had very strong reactions to this film, so that I honestly cannot say whether or not this is a very good movie or a very bad one. It might be most accurate to say that there are things in it that are extraordinary, and that there are many, many elements that I profoundly disliked.

I should perhaps first point out, what others have also mentioned, that you will learn NOTHING about the life of the Marquis de Sade from watching this movie. Ezra Pound once wrote of a book that it was so filled with errors that an errata slip should have been published as a companion volume. It would take either a full length book or a documentary film to start untangling the historical errors. The movie is, therefore, not a biopic, but a complete fiction whose central character is very loosely based on the Marquis de Sade. The main historical point worth mentioning is that de Sade lived a long life and died in bed of natural causes, with full use of his oratorical faculties.

The virtues of the film are many. One must begin with the look of the film. The film garnered an Oscar nomination for art direction, and it was a nomination that was richly deserved. There are a lot of "period" films, but few that will feel as realistic as this one.

Then one must proceed to the acting. Geoffrey Rush was simply Geoffrey Rush. I have often wondered if Rush has any limitations as an actor. Every role I have seen him in he has played an apparent ease and familiarity that few of his contemporaries can achieve. I wonder, in fact, if he might not deserve crowning as perhaps the best movie actor active today. And all the rest of the cast was quite superb, from Kate Winslet to Joaquin Phoenix to the least of the asylums inmates.

My primary quibble with the film was that it was unnecessarily unpleasant. I understand the irony involved in the completely sadistic treatment of the man whose name gave us the word, but it doesn't automatically translate into a likable plot. Michael Caine's character was so simple and vicious and self-serving that he was almost a cartoon. And his refusal to intervene in Kate Winslet's rather brutal murder was too nasty to be believable.

This movie is most definitely not for the squeamish. There is much maiming, blood, and explicit sexuality. I will add that the movie doesn't try to make de Sade out as a great artist. Virtually anyone who has attempted to read him will sound the same criticism of his work that most others have: he is boring, his sex scenes (of which there are thousands) are decidedly unsexy and unerotic, that he describes act after act of the worst kinds of mutilation and violence, and that his characters are cardboardish and unbelievable. Susan Sontag pointed out that Justine in the novel bearing her name is inexplicably just as shocked the 300th time that she was raped as the first time. The movie certainly doesn't want to argue with this depiction of Sade as a poor though popular writer. Geoffrey Rush's de Sade has a compulsion to write, but this does not mean that he writes well.

I think how much one likes this movie depends on how well they can deal with the unpleasant elements. I did not deal with them well, and as I result I did not enjoy the movie very much, despite being extremely impressed by many things within it.