|
|
Geoffrey Rush interprets the marquis interned at the Charenton asylum and profiting from privileged conditions thanks to the benevolent friendship of the asylum's director, the abbot Coulmier, played by Joaquin Phoenix. Thus the man can devote himself to his passion of writing and then transmit his manuscripts to his editor by the means of a chambermaid and admirer, Madeleine (Kate Winslet). The success of his major novel Justine arrives to Napoleon's entourage, who then sends his best brain washer, Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), to Charenton in the hopes of bringing the writer back to the right path. One should not however try to see in Quills a bibliographical film or a historical reconstitution. The play on which the scenario is based is a work of fiction. Justine or the Crimes Of Love were not written during the author's incarceration and the majority of the characters are fictitious whose only raison d'être is to serve the ends of the realizer. Much too often Sade has been compared to a vulgar pornographer. The man was a libertine whose escapades, more than the books, were at the origin of his contentions with justice. His works are certainly salty, but his writing is rich and gleaming while his books still harbor a philosophical dimension. His work is above all a reflection of the decadence of the nobility and society of his time. The man assumes his perversity, but especially airs out the vices of his peers. He reveals what hides behind the apparent propriety of the nobility and the court. Hence the success of his books with common people and the danger he represents for those in power. Kaufman, who knew to define these different stakes, thus plays the card of neutrality with respect to his principal character. The director neither condemns nor defends him. He depicts Sade as a perverse but heroic being; while his camera approaches him with a certain derision, but also with affection. The writings have only little importance and the camera does not at any moment grant the right to judge Sade. The director's goal is elsewhere: Sade is only one vehicle for his ode to the freedom of expression and against hypocrisy. The right to freedom of expression is the main thread of the film. Quills is in fact summarized with the combat of a man who tries to preserve this right. Any contemporary dictatorship could have been used as a backdrop. By choosing Sade and French Revolution era human rights, Kaufman depoliticizes his subject, rendering him universal. He also challenges the hypocrisy of said democratic societies. As a caged bird, Sade continuous to write his colorful prose while Dr. Royer-Collard tries to silence him by all means. The Marquis who sees the removal of all means of expression manages each time to find a response to preserve his right and continue to write. When quills and paper are withdrawn from him, his recourse is to chicken bones and bed linens. When all of his furniture is removed, he writes on his clothing. When he is denuded, he uses speech to communicate his texts to his cell neighbors, who entrust them to Madeleine to write down (one the strongest scenes of the film). When finally his tongue is cut out, he writes with his excrement. The man is thus heroic in his battle, and what do his words matter, since his right prevails against the censurship. But allusions of the film to the freedom of expression do not stop here. This is symbolized in Madeleine's character. The chambermaid maintains her right while passing his manuscripts to his editor. The fact that she is a virgin shows that her action aims more at preserving this freedom than to promote the perverse writings of the Marquis. She also symbolizes the purity of this freedom which will moreover be sacrificed through her (in parrallel to Sade). As for the abbot and especially the doctor, they symbolize cowardice and hypocrisy. If the abbot personifies the cowardice of " passive " people, the doctor symbolizes the hypocrisy of appearances that Sade denounces in his books. The man wants to be seen as respectable and a defender of virtue but proves to be an amateur in private with young girls. The play staged by the Marquis openly mocks him (Crimes of Love), thus confirming that his books are only a reflection of the society and represent a danger in the eyes of the powerful (paragraph 4). As for the structure, it's equal to the content. The direction meticulous and comprises of very strong scenes, from the opening scene with the guillotine to the famous passage of the text through the chain of prisoners, to the Coulmier's dream of necrophilia. The tone oscillates between derision and drama. The dialogues are rich and sharp while the camera avoids sinking into an overly seductive voyeurism. However, nothing would be possible without the performance of the actors. Geoffrey Rush accomplishes a veritable tour de force in a difficult role. He passes skillfully between the various states of his character. Lecherous or ironic, charming or repulsive, victim or heroic, he always manages to preserve the dignity of the Marquis. With this film the discreet Rush rises to the top of his peers. Michael Caine is obviously impeccable in the uprightness of his appearance and the weakness of his vice. Kate Winslet brings her freshness to a repugnant world while Joaquin Phoenix shows another facet of his acting, all restrained in a benevolent role, before sinking into a register where he excells. Quills is probably the major work of the year 2000. A film which arrives at point named and not innocently in a cinematographic universe corroded by censorship. While European cinema tries to make one of the last taboos fall in the name of realism, real sex onscreen, and that the puritan and senile American MPAA does not hesitate in cutting the work of major directors, allowing the propagation of lobotomized cinema, the message of Phillip Kaufman is clear: the right to the freedom of expression is an inalienable right regardless of the nature of the contents.
 |
|
