Sade (2000)

not as good as all the hype

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

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.

As our republic turns to an Empire under another mad King George, it is interesting to see in another time the responses of power-mad people who are sex obsessed and repressed to a libertine. For the first time, I began to understand 'why Napoleon'? As we see the French aristocrats in their maggot-laden prison (evoking the maggot-laden aristocracy and their excesses?), we come to view the soon-to-be headless from another perspective. As far as I'm concerned, deSade is merely an excuse for showing us how it is to face death daily. These people because of their wealth could afford to pay to live in this 'asylum'. Most assuredly, seeing the headless, former friends of yours dumped into ditches outside your 'chateau' would drive you mad....knowing your own fate lay mere feet away. The guillotine, also erected nearby provided yet another view. In order to inject a little humor in what otherwise is unbearable (how many of you remembered the photographs at Auschwitz when you saw the ditches filled with the bodies?), we see the French peasants on burial detail throwing the heads from one to another. We are then told by a young man, obsessed with watching the daily parade of tumbrels to the burial ditches (formerly gardens-- growing vegetables that you watch uprooted....what pictorial analogies!!!) that "They are wedging the heads into the bodies." Scuse me for pulling a Henry James on you.Autiell is indeed magnificent. Having just seen "The Widow" where he plays a sheriff about to USE the visiting guillotine on a good man, I thought the role-reversal was a great perspective for him. As Sade, he too faces the blade: as Ropespierre, in his obsession to force belief in a diety on the French, is trying to execute de Sade as an example of a 'godless atheist'. (Can you be an atheist without being godless? Seeming redundancies fascinate me.) I could not hear this announcement without thinking of our clear disregard for the Constitutional separation of church and state in our 'under God' interruption of the nice cadences of the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm old enough to have learned the Pledge when it wasn't hampered with a reminder of our careless disregard of the Bill of Rights.Of course, there's a sex scene. Which raises the question, "Is it men who get turned on by violence?" To me, it was repulsive. Being introduced to sex by a gang bang would have made me frigid, I'm thinking. Yet, as Auteill tastefully points out to the young man whom he has just had whip him, "You're hard; that's good." Is that why men like violent movies? And is that why they can, with logic-tight compartments in place, cry out against movies with sex scenes while loving an Arnold Schwarzenburger 'kill-all with loud guns and lots of blood' fest? They have been sexually satiated with the violence, so need no 'cissy love-with-sex' scenes? The idea that adultery is worse than mass and/or state-sanctioned mass murder by my country-men still astounds me!! But maybe, this is a partial explanation.Sade is aging, and it would have been more convincing for the maiden's introduction to sex, had Auteill not been so sexy and full of chemistry himself, as it oozes out of the screen, as though we had the ability to pump phenomes through the air!!! Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has a great auditorium (where I saw this film), but it ain't there yet!! See 'Quills', see 'Marat/Sade' and see this. All different viewpoints of a very complex point in French and world history.

Not too long ago we had an excellent portrayal of the Marquis de Sade by Geoffrey Rush in "Quills," a well acted, fast-paced, tense distortion of Sade's stay at the notorious Charenton insane asylum. Plucking at our compassion demanding decent treatment of the mentally ill and our general revulsion against extreme physical "cures" for madness, "Quills" reminded us of the bad old days when the insane were brutalized by the inhumane.Now we have a very different marquis in "Sade," a film that has received some extravagant and, in my view, not fully deserved praise. It is a very interesting film, worth seeing (the full-scale guillotine in action is worth the price of admission). But it's not great.Daniel Auteuil (Sade) is a very fine actor, one of the most interesting and versatile in both English and French language roles. His Sade is remarkably laid back given the Terror, the uncertainty of survival in a rest home cum upper class jail. For a man whose writings are permeated with lurid descriptions of sexual acts of every kind and who describes his own participation on most pages of many books, Auteuil's Sade comes across as a man on holiday from his perversions. Geoffrey Rush was closer to the soul of Sade (he had one, you know).Sade befriends a very able actress, Isild Le Besco, "Emilie," an awakening teenage noblewoman at first repelled by and then saturninely attracted to her new mentor. Sade informs her that he is indeed a "libertine" who has done it all but, unfortunately, he expresses himself with the same passion that a first time-invited dinner guest to my home will mention that he is a vegetarian.The real marquis was a fiery character and not just on paper. Imprisoned (as he was most of his life), he rallied angry protestors outside the walls of his jail with such effect that he was immediately whisked off the premises to another facility. Thus he missed the storming of the Bastille the next day (which would have resulted in at least his temporary liberation), an event that has given France a great holiday and made it easier for many to remember my birthday.The machinations of Robespierre (and one of his lieutenants who shares a bed with Sade's still involved mistress, by whom he has a cute kid,) are almost tepid given the fervor of that madman's mode of governance. So tame is this Robespierre that I almost felt badly for him when he went for the Big Haircut.Auteuil is much too detached for his character and for the times. When he expounds on his libertine philosophy to Emilie and anyone who will listen he sounds like a present day alternative-press sex columnist on a time warp trip. Sade stirred things up wherever he was confined. In this film even the one scene of intense sexual passion appears to almost bore him.The cinematography is impressive. Perhaps to avoid being described as a period piece, instead of music associated with the French Revolution (not a bar of the Marsellaise) the music of Poulenc provides some of the background. Poulenc and the French Revolution?An interesting but overpraised film.

Daniel Auteuil makes an excellent Marquis de Sade (even better than Geoffrey Rush in Quills) in this intelligent film by one of France's very best directors, Benoit Jacquot (The School of Flesh, Pas De Scandale). Unlike the aforementioned Philip Kaufman picture, which examined the issue of censorship by using Sade and his work as a backdrop, this film intends to explore the sides of the infamous pornographer as philanthropist. While being held prisoner in a grand chateau with many other nobles following the French revolution, Sade befriends a curious young woman and teaches her a thing or two about growing up. The relationship they develop is genuine and in the end very moving, mostly because while instructing her to loosen up she teaches him how he can reclaim his emotional self and learn to once again love the society that he has dismissed as conventional and narrow. Not Jacquot's best, but a worthy piece of work.