Quills

Rating:
Summary: provocative daring view of sex
Review: It's post-revolutionary France. Napoleon is in power. The Age of Enlightenment is in full swing, yet the remnants of the Dark Ages still linger to restrain the thinking of many a powerful monarch, religious leader and rank-and-file common citizen. In all areas of life, the barriers to freedom and self-expression are rapidly giving way, leaving traditional institutions and values fighting for their very survival. And this includes that most sensitive of all areas, the one that has, perhaps, caused more consternation for the race than any other in our history - determining the role that sexuality plays in defining who we are physically, emotionally and spiritually. Long thought of as little more than a necessary evil, sexuality is suddenly starting to be reexamined in the light of other scientific and academic reassessments. Small wonder that at such a crucial moment in mankind's sexual awakening, a figure like the Marquis De Sade would emerge, a man whose name has since become synonymous with perversion, deviancy and licentiousness. It is this epic struggle between religion and nature for the soul of humanity that Philip Kaufman captures so brilliantly in his wickedly perverse, mordantly witty and brilliantly acted film, "Quills."

Director Kaufman, working from a screenplay by Doug Wright (based on his play of the same name), chooses to start his tale almost at its end - at the period when De Sade was already wasting away in an insane asylum, considered too perverted and dangerous in his ideas to be allowed to run loose among the general populace. Yet, it's hard to keep a creative genius down - and De Sade has, unbeknownst to the priest who runs the facility, been regularly smuggling out manuscripts to publishers on the outside, much to the chagrin and delight of many elements of the French public. One of those least amused is Napoleon himself, who decides that he must take action in silencing this reprobate once and for all. He decides to send a "specialist" in mental health - one Dr. Royer-Collard, a man more in tune with the techniques of the Spanish Inquisition than of modern medicine - to take charge and bring De Sade to his senses. Wright's and Kaufman's other two main characters include the priest, The Abbe du Coulmier, who is keeper of the institution, and Madeleine LeClerc, a beautiful young devotee of De Sade's work who serves both as laundress and chief smuggler for the author and his works.

In many ways, the most interesting conflict turns out to be the one between De Sade and the Abbe, two men seemingly antipodes apart yet somehow able to find a common ground of mutual respect and understanding. On the one hand, we have a man who has completely thrown away all sexual inhibitions and indeed lives to not only experience every possible sexual pleasure but to encourage others to do so as well. On the other hand, we have a man who has chosen a life of chastity and celibacy, opting to completely shut down the sexual aspect of his life as a pious sublimation to God - and yet neither extreme seems normal, healthy or practicable. In fact, near the end, De Sade suffers the torment of realizing that someone he cares for very deeply has become a tragic victim of one of his "ideas" run amuck, just as the Abbe, after years of repression, finds himself inching ever closer to the insanity that he is supposed to be curing in others.

Interestingly, the Abbe, the representative of the church that held the world in the grip of the Dark Ages for so long, is actually a beacon of enlightened reason compared to Dr. Royer-Collard, the self-ascribed "Man of Science." Here is an individual actually aligned with the Church's Medieval methods, inflicting any form of excruciating physical and psychological torture on his patients to achieve their ultimate "cure" - though we can see by the way he subtly abuses his own sixteen year old wife that "power" is, as always, the world's strongest aphrodisiac.

Special not must be taken of the superb performances by Geoffrey Rush, Joaquin Phoenix, Michael Caine and Kate Winslet. Each does a superb job in bringing these diverse and complex characters to vivid life.

In terms of art direction, costume design and cinematography, the filmmakers do a fantastic job in recreating this strange world of the past - capturing that startling admixture of piety and licentiousness that bespeaks the "dual nature in Man," which has forever served as the basis for the epic struggle between religion and nature. In a world like the one we live in now - in which explicit pornography has found a comfortable and, indeed, quite lucrative niche - De Sade seems ever more a man ahead of his time. It was his misfortune to be born into a world not quite ready to accept the ideas he had to offer. Had he been living in this century, perhaps we would never even have heard of the name De Sade at all. Perhaps he would be just another anonymous pornographer, using the camera rather than the written word to graphically illustrate his darkest sexual longings. Then again, who knows? Perhaps it would be he who founded a world famous magazine and set up a mansion dedicated solely to the propagation of male sexual pleasure. It is, in the face of "Quills," a thought worth pondering.

Rating:
Summary: Great until the end
Review: The first two thirds are very well done, engrossing, and often quite funny. Geoffrey Rush is obviously having a ball as the Marquis de Sade, Kate Winslet's Madeleine is a nice combination of sauciness, charm, a bit of pathos, and practicality. Joaquin Phoenix also hits just the right middle ground between lonely and happily naive, while Michael Caine is enjoyably hypocritical. The snippets of purple pornography we hear in narration , and the asylum inmates bawdy representations of them, are very funny, in a dark and twisted way. Apparently, the fun was too good to last. Although a darkening was inevitable, I feel it was a bit to heavy, and too soon coming. It was also not entirely clear what the final point was meant to be. The film failed to stay realistic within the boundaries it had set for itself at the beginning. The climactic scene seemed a little over the top, and the ending, while ironic, was almost too clever for its own good. This is mostly the fault of the screenplays depending increasingly upon Phoenix's priest, who was a fabulous supporting character, but not really suited to be the lead. Still, the movie had plenty of great moments, it's just a shame it couldn't hold together at the end.

Rating:
Summary: Splendid, powerful... One of the 10 BEST of 2000!
Review: Quills is so much more than a good story, it's a desperate fight for freedom and the use of our very own ideas...
The Marquis de Sade, the most wonderful stroyteller the world has ever had, couldn't be brought back to life better than Rush does in the film.
'Perversely' directed by Philip Kaufman, this red-blooded film shines as one of the best in years. Winslet makes her best performance ever, same as Phoenix Caine couldn't have been a greater villian, and Rush's performance... So real that scares you. Thay all together make the best film ensemble of the year, undoubtedly.
This powerful, smart, fast, moving, scary, bloody, sexy, naughty movie wouldn't have worked without Write's screenplay, which makes of it an original masterpiece, although I do not recommend this film to those who can't stand to real cruelty.

Rating:
Summary: Smart, controversial, involving and brilliant - masterpiece!
Review: *There may be some spoilers*

Quills is a dark, sadistic and brilliant film right from the very first opening shot, where Geoffrey Rush's voice narrates in the background and we open on a shot of a young lady who is known in town only as a down-right whore and she is decapitated. Then we find out this is just one of Marquis' stories, and we are already into the story of the film. Quills is a film that literally bursts out of the screen with its energy and intrigue, it is a film that feels like you are actually there, experiencing the traumas or happy moments. I felt like I was the Marquis De Sade dancing on the table or writing with my own blood, or like I was Madeline being strapped continuously and been totally engrossed by the Marquis' stories. Unlike some other period dramas, this film is never boring. It always has something going on and you'll find it hard to look away from the screen. I just loved everything about the movie - especially the performances. Geoffrey Rush is a master at this kind of thing. He becomes the Marquis De Sade and I looked at the screen and truly thought it was actually the character. You can't see Geoffrey Rush's acting. He acts in the film naked a lot and puts all of his effort into the making his performance a success. A truly great actor, and a brilliant performance. Kate Winslet also gets naked once again, but we find out there is more to her than a pretty face and a big bust. Joaquin Phoenix is always he always is - strong, real and totally awesome to watch. Phoenix invests his character extremely. He gives a truly memorable performance. Michael Caine was also very good as the villain type guy, but I don't think we saw enough of him. Philip Kaufman's direction is outstanding. He has come up with an excellent film and his effort is truly stupendous. There were some scenes I thought were truly astounding. The play "The Crimes of Love" is hilarious and shows off how much The Marquis De Sade mocks people with his absolute truth. The scenes near the end, including one stunning one when a statue cries blood, are all extremely well directed but I don't want to ruin the end for viewers who haven't seen this film. The script for this movie was dark, funny, literal, intelligent and endlessly intriguing. Kudos, Doug Wright. You wrote an awesome play and a better movie. This movie is controversial, brutal and has a lot of rape, violence, language and particularly revealing sex scenes, but it is all worth it. This movie gets a place in my top 50 favourites. Excellent work!

Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Fabulous: Performances are Revelations
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A decent Friday night flick.
Review: This may not be released yet, like it reads on Amazon, but I rented it on VHS this past weekend (09/07/01). It's a good period piece. I doubt it reflects history very well but it's really played for camp, high camp. Everything is well done but you could still have someone over to watch it with you and visit at the same time without losing the thread. Kate does not show up totally naked as she often does in her movies. Jeff does, if you count careful camera angles. Bummer! So to speak. Kate, excellent actress that she is, is still worth the price. Some of those reviews on the DVD section want to run on forever, pontificating as if this movie has something to say. It doesn't. It's just a decent Friday night flick with good performances from Kate, Jeff, Michael and the rest of the cast. I gave it three but it's really a 3 and a half.

Rating:
Summary: perverse? it's the marquise de sade!
Review: this movie is perverse. there is no doubt about it. it is about an author who wrote sexually explicit stories that crossed all boundries. don't complain about that fact. if you went into this movie expecting something less, then i feel sorry for you. the acting was superb as was the writing and directing. the story was disturbing. de sade was disturbing. a movie about him could have been nothing less. for everyone that couldn't handle the explicitness in this movie, never, and i mean never, read de sade's writing. you would faint after the first paragraph. if you focused on the perversity that was throughout this movie, instead of the intensity of the story, then you totally missed the point.

Rating:
Summary: Monsters, Madmen & Art
Review: This tale of the supression and imprisonment of the Marquis De Sade in the insane asylum at Charenton and the ensuing struggle and turmoil caused by the arrival of Dr. Royer-Collard to stop his smuggled-out writings from being published has much to recommend it, especially in the first half of the film. Chiefly the performances of Jeffrey Rush as De Sade, Joaquin Phoenix as the caring and humane Abbe Coulmier in charge of Charenton, and Kate Winslet as the sympathetic laundress, Madeleine, who is smuggling the manuscripts for fun and profit.

This De Sade is a monster of sorts, not so much of depravity, as of vanity and selfishness & self-obsession. He is compelled to write at any cost, and is by turns clever and obnoxious and self-destructive and indifferent to anything or anyone but his own need for self-expression. Well-played by Rush, he is a reminder that art mustn't be confused with the artist--terrible people can create beauty. In this instance, the art of De Sade may not be beautiful and may not even be "art" to most minds, but the need to create is real and just as valid with bad art as with genius and must be protected.

Winslet and Phoenix present foils for De Sade in the forms of, by turns, an enticing virgin intrigued by and intriguing with the Marquis and a conflicted man of the cloth enjoying the intellectual challenge of the man while protecting and seeing to his care. Both are fine.

Alas, we come to the fourth character in this drama, the conservative Dr. Royer-Collard played by Michael Caine. A bureaucrat and a closet sadist, before the name had become attached to the behavior (bit of irony there), he is such a villain that he only lacks a long black moustache to twirl. I won't fault Caine because I imagine he's playing him as written, and, especially in one scene at a door in the Apocalyptic finale I felt expected to hiss & boo him. The finale was a bit much as well.

But it is the Caine character that brings the movie down to my mind. It is too much an obvious and cheap shot. The mendacious conservative. It would have been so much more interesting had the character not been so one-dimensional in his evil. When we first are introduced to him, Dr. Royer-Collard looked to be interesting: a true believer in his own nutty cures (soaking madmen upside down to calm them) so I had hopes of an exploration of two halves of crazy extremes, the libertine (De Sade) and the orthodox conservative, the incendiary & the politician. Both monsters & madmen in their own ways. Well, you won't find it here. What you get is beknighted artist and slimy bad guy. Cliches. Also, the subplot of Royer-Collard's young wife is a wasted & unnecessary plot device, no more.

What you will find is some extreme behaviour from Rush in a good, but at times mannered performance, [an incomplete] defense of art at any cost, a penny-dreadful villain, some nice honest performances from the younger set (Winslet & Phoenix), a fiery finale that is over-the-top and a bit silly, and an ending that is not a twist or surprise but wants to be. Snappy dialogue isn't enough to carry the day.

Yet, Phil Kaufman is too intelligent and talented a director to make a boring film, and this isn't one. The production values are great and this is a film at least about SOMETHING, and there are ideas afloat here. While I think it ultimately didn't convince me, it is a worthy effort. Probably 3-1/2 stars.

Rating:
Summary: Good movie
Review: I would recommend this movie to people who love literature and history. The casting, acting, costuming and staging was wonderful. The story is about the Marquis de Sade who tries to sell his controversial writing to the public even though he himself is indisposed. An altogether sensational movie which keeps you on the edge of your seat. Geoffrey Rush did a great job in the role of the Marquis, his acting was superb.

Rating:
Summary: A perverse historical drama for strong stomachs only
Review: 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.