Customer Reviews

Quills [VHS]

5 star:		(103)
4 star:		(48)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

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)

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)

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.

While I can't help but laugh at the fact they made the Marquis de Sade the central character in a story about artistic expression and sexual repression, I can understand why. Here is a man who wallowed in excess, seeming unconcerned with the weight of his decisions, his only escape and expression the very thing that caused his downfall. The Marquis de Sade was not a martyr for freedom of speech. He was a seriously disturbed individual whose callous disregard for mankind (he thought murder should be a privilage for the rich) was reflected in his writing. But here he is a curious old coot, with a marvelous sense of humor and a deeply hidden soft side. But Geoffrey Rush's performance makes it all easier to swallow. He is a brave actor (appearing completely nude in several scenes) who loves to portray wounded characters and he simply shines. Kate Winslet (likewise great and brave) plays the innocent laudry maid Madeleine who secretly sneaks the Marquis' writing out of the asylum where he is kept and into the arms of a publisher. When these writings reach the hands of Napoleon, the emperor sends an accomplished doctor, Royer Collard (the great Michael Caine), to silence him, undermining the authority of the asylum's resident priest (Joaquin Phoenix), who sees Sade as a creature who must be saved and who NEEDS to write in order to clean his soul. The film is filled with sexual energy, reaching certain points of eroticism that recall director Philip Kaufman's earlier masterpiece 'The Unbearable Lightness Of Being'. This is a beautiful film, nicely detailed and extremely playful. It is also dark and grisly, nothing too graphic yet certainly unsettling at times. I suppose, if nothing else, 'Quills' does stand as a 'freedom of speech' movie. I look at it as a film which simultaneously acknowledges our fasination with sex and spanks us for our dirty thoughts. But it ultimately reminds us that we all have a right to be heard and that everything has an audience. And if you've just finished watching this movie, well then thank you for helping me prove that point.

Take a controversial character, for instance, an infamous French aristocrat who writes fearlessly explicit pornographic tales from his asylum jail cell to which he has been consigned for committing violent crimes of passion.

Cast a maniacal Geoffrey Rush in that role, and use him with more than a pinch of artistic license, to philosophically discuss censorship and freedom of expression in art. Tipped in water-tight dialogue and a dramatically dark ink.

Throw in some action and intrigue, for example, our incarcerated prisoner having to smuggle his lurid works out of the asylum via a sweet, innocent maid who gains vicarious pleasure from reading the stories to self and others.

Of course, a dash of morality never hurt, so add a holier-than-thou priest who brings to the table a fresh aroma of common sensibility.

Stir well and add spice to taste. Viewers will revel in the mind play between the sordid characters you have created and be aghast at the depths to which it is possible for them to stoop. There, you have a marvel of a film that'll be seen again and again.

Quills is without reservations a fascinating cinematic masterpiece of our time, in every sense of the word, and deserves a warm place in every self-respecting film collection.

One thing I can say about Kate Winslet is that she not afraid to take on controversial and demanding roles. In "Quills" she plays a laundress in the mental hospital where the Marquis de Sade is imprisoned. Geoffrey Rush is cast as the demented and perverse Marquis who has an obsession with writing down his violent and sado-masochistic stories. He therefore needs quills to write with and, when they are forcibly taken away, he must discover other ways to tell his stories. Joaquin Phoenix gives a fine performance as a priest who tries understand the Marquis and who is himself pulled into the insanity around him. And Michael Caine is cast as a pompous doctor whose methods of cure are as sick and perverse as the insane Marquis.

Set in 18th century France, and costumed well, the scene is set for a weird historical drama which is in itself perverse and sick... so perverse in fact that I found myself retching in disgust. Although some of the sex scenes are bawdy and humorous, it's the scenes of pain and torture that linger in my mind. But, after all, what can you expect from a film about the Marquis de Sade? Frankly, I'm not one to turn away from violence, but this film is a bit much, even for me. I therefore recommend it only to the very few who might be intrigued by the concept. But if it leaves you nauseous and depressed, don't say I didn't warn you.

This is a terrific film about the infamous Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush), who wrote pornography from his cell in a mental institution and smuggled it out to be published to the delight of Napoleonic France. The story is brilliantly written by Doug Wright, who also wrote the play upon which the film is based. The rapid-fire dialogue is intelligent and biting and the humor is delightfully nasty and ironic.

Philip Kaufman's direction is excellent. The pace is exceptionally good and he brings out inspired performances from the entire cast. The period is well rendered without excessive flourishes. The costumes are appropriate, but not overly ornate as would be expected of the characters (Jacqueline West was nominated for an Oscar for best costume design for this film). Kaufman allows the characters to dominate the images rather than trying to insert slick effects and stylish perspectives, a definite plus in this film.

The story is a dark and twisted examination of the Marquis and his relationship with the Abbe Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), who runs the asylum, Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), who is sent by Napoleon to keep the Marquis under control, and Madeleine (Kate Winslet), who helps him to smuggle his bawdy manuscripts to the publisher. Despite all their efforts to keep the Marquis from writing, he always outwits them and produces another "masterpiece". The scene where he puts on a play about Royer-Collard and his child bride is hysterical, with the mirthful invective coming so fast that you have to rewind it a couple of times to fully appreciate it.

As good as Geoffrey Rush was in "Shine", I thought he was even better here. Rush is electrifying, playing an extremely complex character on the very brink of insanity. He plays the role like a man possessed, and ranges from wickedly funny to frighteningly frenzied. His performance was nominated for the Oscar for best actor that went to Russell Crowe for "Gladiator". Both were deserving of the prize, and it is a pity one of them had to walk away empty handed.

Joaquin Phoenix (who ironically co-starred with both best actor nominees, and was nominated himself for best supporting actor for "Gladiator"), turns in another fine performance as the Abbe, and continues to prove himself one of the up and coming dramatic actors of his generation. Kate Winslet emerges from her self-imposed banishment to obscurity ("Hideous Kinky", "Holy Smoke") with a wonderfully rich performance in a supporting role. No Winslet performance would be complete without at least one frontal nude scene, and this film is no different in that regard. However, she also provides a well-acted portrayal of a very sympathetic character in Madeleine that makes one think that perhaps her Oscar nomination for "Titanic" wasn't a fluke. Michael Caine, as always, is fabulous as the underhanded Dr. Royer-Collard. Caine is a highly versatile actor, and he brings vibrancy to almost every role he plays.

This has my vote as one of the best films of 2000. It opened in theaters in limited release, so many people are not familiar with it. Now that it is in the rental market, perhaps it will find a larger audience. It is splendidly directed, the acting is superb, and the writing is intelligent, darkly humorous and engaging. I rated it a 10/10. Though not a film that will have mass appeal, it is a delight for the uninhibited intellectual viewer.

This movie is loosely based on the life of the novelist marquis de sade, a man whose name inspired the word "sadism." that reveals something about sade's character right away. so DO NOT expect a lighthearted flick about a randy old man! this movie is way dark and graphic. it's rated R for a reason so if you can't handle nudity, violence, and really depressing sex, turn away and don't say i didn't warn you.

THE PLOT
marquis de sade (rush), a french author of graphically perverse S&M novels, is imprisioned inside Charenton, an asylum for the mentally ill. charenton is run by the happy, constantly grinning abbe de coulmiers (phoenix), who thinks that it's good for sade to write his smut to cleanse his mind, as long as they don't get published. but he doesn't know that the raunchy, yet innocent chambermaid (winslet) is smuggling the marquis's chapters out of the asylum with the laundry. the books quickly wind their way to the publishers, where they become huge bestsellers. even napoleon gets hold of the latest copy and becomes thoroughly disgusted with the content. a doctor, royers-collard (caine) is sent to charenton to cure the marquis of his "madness." r.c. is known for employing torture techniques to cure his patients, such as dunking them in brackish water, or putting them in isolation. with r.c.'s coming, the (relatively) jolly days of the marquis at the asylum are over. the movie, which started out darkly funny and kinky, filled with innuendo and bantering, now just becomes dark. madeleine the chambermaid is discovered to be smuggling the manuscripts, and sade's ink and quills are taken away. sade begins to grow desperate, and is eventually forced to use his own blood and excrement to write. coulmiers is torn between his feelings for the church, his unusual friendship with sade, the repulsion he has for sade's writing, and his love (?) or lust for madeleine. then r.c's wife gets a hold of sade's writing, which fuels her on to elope with her lover. r.c's anger with sade is now personal and he makes SURE sade cannot write. but sade will not give up. because he has been deprived of all writing utensils, madeleine thinks of a genius way for him to "write" another novel. but the power of sade's words turn the "writing session" into a horrid fiasco... in fact, the climax of the movie is SO depressing and shocking (the scene with the bleeding crucifix) that the weird and predictable ending is actually liberating and satisfying. let me just say no one came out of this movie smiling.

THE ACTORS
Geoffrey Rush: whoever chose russell crowe over him at the oscars needs to be smacked in the head. rush doesn't need to swing big swords around to prove his worth. all he needs is a quill... i can go on and on about his acting and his grace, even when he's been stripped of everything (and i mean EVERYTHING) he has. he isn't playing marquis de sade. he IS marquis de sade.
joaquin phoenix: whoa. emotional overload there. all those conflicting emotions that bombard him can be seen in those green eyes. his emotional spiral downward is WAY intense, and yet 100% believable. the scenes with madeleine made my stomach flip so many times. (plus, he's hot.)
kate winslet: after watching this movie, i've become a fan of hers. she portrays madeleine as a girl with many facets. madeleine isn't just a "virginal chambermaid." she keeps a flirty but platonic relationship with sade, she doesn't sleep around yet she devours sade's smut. she has a real affection for coulmiers, and yet she wants to run away with the horseman. kate makes madeleine a character who possesses all the virtues and vices of a real girl, not a 1 dimensional side character.
michael caine: royers-collard was so evil. so evil. i wanted to punch the tv at the end of the movie. then i wanted to hug michael caine for doing such a good job. the funny man in miss congeniality he ain't.

THE DVD
eh. the special features were so-so. the regular stuff. the commentary, the featurette, the trailers. but you're buying this movie for the MOVIE not the special features, i'm assuming.

OVERALL
five stars!! this is a brilliant piece of moviemaking. good dialogue, good actors, good plot. best movie i've seen in a long time. if you want a dark, sharply humourous, shocking, deep, (a little) romantic, sexy, and emotional gut wrenching ride, then watch quills. this movie is not a biography. it's very fictionalized. so please remember, "this is a work of FICTION. not a moral treatise."

To say that Quills, Philip Kaufmann's newest work, is a film about censorship, deviant sexuality, or ill-fated inter-relationships would be, at best, icing on the cake. The fact of the matter is, Quills offers us one of the rare, cherished instances where Hollywood's faint renegade impulse surfaces to challenge the status quo. Quills addresses the unquestionable sanctity of "morality", the privileged position granted to "science" over art, and the hollow cliches with which much of the film industry's productions are replete (happy resolutions, lucid distinctions between personnas, etc.) What we have here is a deceptively simple yet layered event that engages a character grossly misrepresented by history and conventional perspectives. Geoffrey Rush brings the necessary elegance, wit and command of language that one would expect of the Marquis de Sade, a crafty non-compliant 18th century aristocrat who lived through three regimes and was rejected by them all, not only for his pornographic literature, but for his unrelenting criticism of the decadence of religion and other social institutions. Joaquim Phoenix does justice to his role as the Abbe de Cloumier, a man torn between passion and righteousness, piety and curiosity. His solid demeanour throughout the film makes for a great follow-up to his part in the Gladiator. Kate Winslett also delivers an endearing performance as the sneaky and mischievous chambermaid who helps the Marquis "spread his insiduous gospel" by smuggling his manuscripts to a mysterious messenger who in turn takes them to an urban press. She is the thread that charmingly runs through the film binding the Marquis and Abbe's destinies with her own. And lastly, Michael Caine's stately presence as Dr. Royer-Collard provides the consummating quality of a film worthy to claim its perch with the most revered historical dramas.
One of the strengths of the film is the multiple dimensions of the principle characters. Instead of residing singular values and personnas in each particular character, Kaufmann complicates the film by endowing each character with disparate and conflicting tendencies. The lines between good and evil not only blur, but we are left to ponder their very existence in the aesthetic and polemical sense. The film's unseemly twists and turns whet not only our curiosity about the Marquis de Sade and the social and political realities of 18/19 century France, but it also serves as a treatise on the hypocrisy and perils of "moral crusading". The film also brings a lofty, but welcome, message to the individual who seeks reprieve from the restraints of expectation, if only for the moment.
The film does take some liberties with the subject matter but this is hardly a liability. Quills is every bit art as it is "fact", if not more so. It is not academic history nor is it an accurate biography. It does not feign to be either. It is a film, however, that features valuable social insights as well as counter-cultural criticism and themes. Perhaps this is the strength of all transhistorical films: the ability to reflect and satirise immediate circumstances, flavouring them with historical topics and backgrounds. Quills "merely holds up a mirror and apparently some will not like what they see". Granted. But that is the "peril of creating such incendiary films."

What a brutal, rough, cruel, magical, eye-opening, passionate masterpiece. Not easy on the eyes, I'll warn you. Not easy on conservatives, I'll also warn you.
The Marquis de Sade (Rush) is living at the Chareton Asylum, and is sneaking is books out by way of Madeleine (Winslet). They're doing this unbeknownst to the Abbe Coulmier (Phoenix). Soon, a doctor (Caine) arrives to silence the Marquis, and all hades breaks loose.
Geoffrey Rush is magnetic on the screen. You can't take your eyes off of him, not counting his numerous nude scenes.
Kate Winslet is naive and lovely, seductive and innocent. She's a perfect paradox.
Michael Caine is a bit too card-boardish for playing the villain, but that's what he had to work with.
And Joaquin Phoenix is...beautiful. That's the only way I can describe it. Physically, emotionally, subtly, the guy is gorgeous. I can't believe that A) they chose his Gladiator performance (good, but not quite to this level) over this one for nomination, and B) they probably still would've given it to Benicio Del Toro even if Phoenix was nominated for this. His eyes show more emotion and passion than words or facial expression could. You've also gotta give him and Rush props for their sexual bravery. If you've seen the film, you know what I mean.
The costumes suit each character extremely well. Sade looks all the more devilish in his off-white suits, Madeleine (Winslet) is the perfect-looking chambermaid, the Abbe is the sexist priest you'll ever see in his cassock, and the good doctor Collard looks imposing in his black.
Should've been nominated for about three time what it got. Amazing, liberating stuff. See it.