| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From director J.J. Abrams comes the next installment in the Star Trek saga, Star Trek Into Darkness. Watch it in theaters now and pre-order on Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray, DVD, and the Exclusive Starfleet Phaser Gift Set. Shop Star Trek Into Darkness and more in the Star Trek Store. Learn more |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
- 3 Featurettes: "Marquis on Marquee," "Creating Charenton," "Dressing the Part"
- Commentary by Screenwriter Doug Wright
Editorial Reviews
Customer Reviews
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)
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.
Look for Similar Items by Category
|
