Quills

Every so often there comes a person who tries to change our ideas of Free Speech and what it means to pornography. Back in the late 80s it was Robert Maplethorpe. In the 70s it was Larry Flynt. Hell, even in the 30s there was Henry Miller. But one of the first and still most controversial had to be the Marquis de Sade. His mixture of pleasure and pain along with his erotic prose caused a furor in late 18th Century France. So much so that he was thrown in an asylum for the remainder of his years after publishing a couple of books.

Now, before we get into the review proper I have to tell you: this film is a work of fiction. Yes, most of the characters did, in fact, exist in real life, but they did not interact (or look) the way they did in the film. There was no altercation a year before de Sade’s death and he actually died peacefully.

That said, lets go into what the movie says:

The Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) is already locked up in an asylum where Madeleine (Kate Winslet) is secretly getting his manuscripts to a publisher. Now, the Marquis and Madeleine have an interesting relationship. They respect each other and even seem to love each other (although de Sade would never admit to it), but she will not consummate the attraction. She is in love with some one else.

When Napoleon finds out he sends Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), a renowned “doctor” who thinks that he can cure deviants by bleeding them and trying to drown them, to remedy the situation. He meets with Abbe Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix) and finds his policy of respect and normalcy for the inmates distasteful at best, dangerous at worst.

The Abbe is, of course, shocked and surprised that de Sade is able to get his manuscripts out of the asylum. He was only allowed to write because the Abbe felt that it would help him “purge his demons.” Dr. Royer-Collard allows the Abbe to continue his treatments as long as the Marquis is watched more carefully and no manuscripts are allows to get out.

Meanwhile, the good doctor goes to pick up his betrothed, a beautiful girl no more than 16 YEARS OLD!!!! Yes, the hypocrisy starts to rear its ugly head.

So things only escalate from here. The Marquis, who is in charge of the asylum theatre (which is very popular with the townies), writes a play that ridicules the Doctor and his child bride. The causes all quills to be taken away from the “madman.”

But, you see, without his quills, the Marquis can’t write. And this is what truly drives him crazy. The thoughts that he has scream to be let out until he can come up with ways to write them down anyway.

The Doctor and his new wife aren’t happy, either. He keeps her locked up in her room with very little time outside of it. She was raised in a convent and was shielded from the perversities of the outside world, “and I will not allow her to be defiled now.” I think we all know where this is leading.

So this movie is not really about the Marquise de Sade, not in a historical way, anyway. It’s really about censorship. What this man wrote back in the late 1700′s is pretty hardcore even by today’s standards, but he was handing it out to people who would have probably broken the dick off of the statue of David. But these same people had their own idiosyncrasies, like marrying children and expecting them to perform their “wifely duties.” They also had no qualms about making money off of something that they think is dirty. In fact, they will sell it under the pretense of using the money for good causes. Imagine a church selling Marilyn Manson cds and saying that it was ok because they’re using the money to build a new wing for worship.

There’s a bit of confusion, though. Throughout the whole film we know that the Doctor is the bad guy and that we’re supposed to be on the side of the Marquis and Madeleine. (The Abbe is stuck somewhere in the middle. He’s a good man, but he also thwarts de Sade’s publication because he thinks the stories are dirty.) But when someone dies at the hands of someone who heard de Sade’s work, we’re left to wonder whether it was his fault or not. In fact, he even seems to blame himself for it. I, personally, believe that it’s not his fault. The killer was unbalanced in the first place and would have eventually been set off, and was in fact set off earlier in the film. He was just stopped before he was allowed to finish the deed. I believe in putting blame where it belongs: on the person himself and the people who were supposed to be watching him.

But the filmmakers seem to think that it was de Sade’s fault. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense. First off, it undermines the message of the rest of the film. Second, director Philip Kaufman was almost a victim of censorship himself. When he made Henry & June he caused the NC-17 rating to be created. Before that he would have had to have cut the film to get a legitimate rating.

So why would he make a film that shows why censorship is sometimes a good idea? No idea.

Other than that Kaufman has turned in a great film based on his favorite idea: an idealistic outsider who comes in a causes a controversy. He’s done this many times in films like Henry & June, The Unbearable Lightness Of Being, Rising Sun, even to some extent in The Right Stuff, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers and his screenplay for The Outlaw Josey Wales.

He’s also apparently able to make a film of a play without making it look stagy, something that even David Mamet sometimes has a problem with.

Ah, Kate Winslet. I’ve loved Kate ever since I saw her in Sense & Sensibility. And she’s as good in this as ever as the young girl who is torn between her hidden love of a man and her love of erotic literature. Joaquin is great as the tortured Abbe who genuinely likes de Sade and considers him a friend, but feels that he’s done something wrong by allowing him to write for so long. But I think he should probably keep his shirt on from now on. He’s got some problem with his back that makes his shoulder look totally out of joint. Kinda gross, actually. Poor guy. He not only has to work his way out of a dead brother’s shadow (which he’s pretty much done), but he has to put up with a hair lip and a fudged up back. Very good actor, though. Gotta love the guy.

Caine is very good, as almost always, as the evil and perverse Doctor. He can run off at the mouth about how horrid de Sade is for writing about sex in such straight forward ways, and then turn right around and get his jollies off of a 16 year old. (Although, I will have to admit a certain dirty pleasure at seeing her come out from under a desk with a look of utter satisfaction on her face. Heh heh heh.)

But, of course, the real performance here is by Geoffrey Rush as the Marquis de Sade. Yes, Mel Gibson’s old roomie put in an absolutely amazing, if a bit hammy, performance as one of the most controversial figures in history. He’s over the top. He’s dirty. He’s perverse. He’s funny as hell. And, most of all, he’s extremely charming. How else could you explain lines like, “You’ve already stolen my heart, as well as another more prominent organs south of the Equator.” and “Conversation, like certain portions of the anatomy, always runs more smoothly when lubricated.” coming off as something more than just lewd. They sound as if they were actually spoken by an intelligent man whose intent is more than just to shock. He wants to bring these kinds of thing out into the open. Why should we hide sexuality behind a veil of filth? Why not talk about it like it’s something that we all do. “We eat. We shit. We fuck. We die.” I can see why he’s up for on Oscar for this one.

The script helps him out a lot, though. It has its moments of triteness, but overall it’s very witty and serves its subject well.

Great movie that deserves more of an audience. It brings up some important questions about censorship throughout the ages. But, in all of its seriousness, it doesn’t forget its sense of humor. It’s actually a very funny movie at times. Certainly worth a look or two.