Quills (2000)

I admit, that most of this film is purely fictional, including de Sade's body weight, since he became a fat old man in prison. Fact is though, that de Sade was a perverted man and that he was a guest at the asylum that is depicted in this film for many years. The fact that the events in the film are not true does not take away anything of the films quality. On the contrary, the story is quite intriguing and very thrilling and I must say I thought it was very well thought of. This intriguing and thrilling story I am talking about, of course is made up by the fictional part of the film, but there is more to this film than the fictional part. There is also the thought provoking and maybe even funny side of De Sade's writing that also leaves quite a mark on the film. And this is the part, which really makes this film. Where some films lose the essence of the main character this film succeeds in preserving it and presenting it in a charming and quite funny manner. During the film, the viewer is able to understand the people who read de Sade as well as those who burnt his books. I mean just think of the things he wrote and imagine yourself 200 years ago. Of course there were turmoils. But also imagine yourself when you were younger, when everything that was bad or forbidden was a thrill and you did it, even if it was just for kicks. These two reactions are both perfectly human, although I cannot say whether the treatment and imprisonment of de Sade was quite accurate. I mean the funny thing about the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century was that people probably knew some of the 'perversions' (such as being homosexual) described in the books, but it was not common to speak of them let alone write them down.

The good story and the great depiction of the time in which the film takes place would not have been so thrilling, exciting and interesting as they were had it not been for all the involved actors and of course the director. Any film can have good basics, but what really makes a good film in the end are good actors and a good guiding hand. I dare not say too much about the acting specifically, because I am afraid I won't praise an actor or actress enough on his or her great performance, but I dare say this: if there were Oscars to be won for ensemble's of actors, this film would have gotten ones! As far as the directing goes, I want to say this: Kaufman succeeded not only in bringing the spirit of the time but also the essence of the Marquis de Sade to the screen and he did that splendidly. A great 'comeback' after 7 years of absence from directing. I'd like to thank all of the involved for making a truly good film and I'd like to address all potential viewers by saying that this film is definitely not for anybody. I advise you to get a hold of the trailer first and watch it. If you like what you see, rent it and you won't be disappointed. If you do not like the trailer, you probably won't like the film either.

8 out of 10

post scriptum: only 3 nominations and not one statue for this film? Shame on the academy.

Fmovies: I saw the movie. I liked it. I loved Michael Caine's performance. Michael Caine is always great. I was also stunned by the stomach-turning depravity of the French legal and medical system of the time. Then I read the book. The first half of the movie is typical Hollywood bad history: composite characters, events out of sequence, a devoted wife where there should have been a devoted mistress, etc. But the second half is fiction. In fact, De Sade (b. 1740) spent the last 10 years of his life, 1804 - 1814, living in relative comfort, with a mistress boarding in an adjacent room, at his family's expense, in the Charenton Asylum. By this time de Sade had spent a major part of his life in and out of prisons and asylums for sexually abusing prostitutes and servant-girls, and also for complicated reasons connected with prison escapes, bad debts, and the French Revolution. He had even been sentenced to death at one time (1772). The pretext for his final imprisonment (he was now 63) was publishing pornography. But the real reasons were complicated. He was notorious and infamous, both for his crimes and his pornography. Napoleon wanted him put away, because he believed de Sade had written a pamphlet defaming him and his family. The family wanted him put away to protect the family honor. The asylum was under the control of the French Ministry of the Interior. It was run, except for the last 7 months of de Sade's life, by an Abbe' Coulmier, and at one time a Dr. Royer-Collard was the medical director. There was also a 17-year-old worker in the asylum, Magdeleine Leclerc, with whom de Sade had (by his count) 57 sexual encounters during the last year of his life. The Abbe viewed himself as a humanitarian not a jailer and respected de Sade as an intellectual. The Abbe has been described as despotic but enlightened. While de Sade was in the asylum, he continued to write and publish (anonymously) pornography; but he also wrote and published ordinary plays, many of which were performed at the asylum, and choral pieces, some of which were performed at the asylum's church. There were sporadic attempts to curtail his writing activities. In 1807 police seized one of his pornographic works during a search of his room. It was dutifully returned to his family after his death. (They destroyed it.) In October 1809 he was briefly placed in solitary confinement and deprived of writing materials. In 1813 the Minister of the Interior banned the performance at the asylum of the plays. But all things considered, de Sade was pretty much left alone. He was in failing health during the last 4 months of his life and finally died of natural causes at age 74. His surviving son was visiting at the time, but missed the last moments. What is particularly troubling about this movie, is that it uses the correct names of people and places. >

A baroque and quite entertaining film about the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) and the conflicting reactions (disgust, titillation, excitement, abhorrence) his ideas and writings fostered in those exposed to them.

Rush jumps into the character of de Sade with mad glee, and hardly any scenery is left after he's done chewing it all. He's a marvelous actor and one whose work goes slightly underrated. Also doing a fine job in this film is the ever-reliable Kate Winslet, and providing the ick factor he brings to every movie he's in is Joaquin Phoenix as a religious man who's disturbed by the naughty thoughts de Sade makes him realize he has.

The costumes and production design are a delight and earned Oscar nominations, as did Rush for his performance.

Grade: A

Quills fmovies. Quills is one of the best films of 2000, in my reckoning, second best only to You Can Count on Me. It is one of the most brilliantly directed, acted, produced, and written films I've seen in a very long time. There is not a (major) character in this film that is not very complex, and the issues at stake are utterly important.

Perhaps the greatest success of the film is how well it works on commenting both on its own time and situations and our own world today. The issues of free speech, creativity, dementia, corporal punishment, religion, sexuality and especially politics are woven into the film in amazing ways. Yes, politics, for it works as an allegory to the recent presidential scandals.

There are two flaws, one major, one semi-major. The semi-major one involves the epilogue. It is not bad, but it is unnecessary. Perhaps the best way to describe it is superfluous and predictable. The major flaw would destroy any lesser film. Here, it is hardly noticable. Still, if one contemplates it, there is no getting around it. There is never a believable reason why Madeleine should be so helpful to the Marquis de Sade. They present a tiny one, but it is not good enough.

Still, with its successes elsewhere, these flaws do not weaken this film. Without them, it would have been perfect. With them, well, just because it is flawed, doesn't mean it isn't a masterpiece. 10/10

Quills is a delightfully unsettling account of the demise of the Marquis de Sade and those he brings down with him. The film presents viewers with all the evidence they need to identify the fallacies of society's separation of "good" from "evil" and "moralists" from "sinners." It subtly asserts that the values traditionally used to pass judgment are compromised by convention and religion, and that there is moral danger in accepting these values without question.

During the film, one form of sin is only replaced by another, which defeats its resistors and beguiles the rest by hiding behind a pretentious shroud of religion and convention.

Viewers are horrified to discover that they can actually identify with the marquis, whose name inspired the word "sadist" to describe those who derive sexual pleasure from violence. Most viewers' senses of morality are sullied by the realization that they are hanging on every twist of the plot, desperate to know what will next beset these wretched characters.

Based on historical fact, Quills catches up with the Marquis (Geoffrey Rush) during the twilight of his life, when he has already been sentenced to life imprisonment in the Charenton Asylum. No longer able to pursue the perverse sexual escapades that had landed him in the madhouse after decades of unspeakable offenses, he now purges his demons by writing. At the urging of the saintly, ever-tolerant and even-tempered Abbe Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), the marquis describes his imagination's disturbing scenes on paper.

Trouble arises when one of his books, smuggled to a publisher by a sympathetic admirer - innocent laundry maid Madeleine (Kate Winslet) - catch the disapproving eye of Emperor Napoleon.

There is no escape from sin when the man sent to purify the Charenton, Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), only seeks to replace it with intolerance and unimaginable cruelty.

True to the spirit of the film, the sets are imbued befittingly with gloom and grime, and the inhabitants of the Charenton are realistically ragged.

Rush and Winslet's performances as the marquis and Madeleine are stunning. The film's delicious impropriety is heightened by their chemistry, which is so potent as to be communicable to viewers.

The super-intelligent plot is unexpectedly circular, leaving viewers feeling as though they may well be next in line for the madness bred at the Charenton. Their fears are seemingly verified by he change they know the film has already inspired in them.

Far from resolutive, the only solace the ending holds for viewers is a sense of, "Aha, now I know," and a new way to evaluate the good in evil in themselves and others.

QUILLS / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)

By Blake French:

"To know virtue we must aquatint ourselves with vice."

Marquis de Sade

Philip Kaufman's "Quills" will leave some audiences cheering and others disappointed and disgusted; there are good logical arguments from both sides. One of the most controversial movie of the year, "Quills, " based on the play by Douglas Wright, doesn't entirely examine the torpid mind of the disreputable 18th century French author, the Marquis de Sade, but instead indicates the impact his sexually and sadistically explicit literary work influenced the public. The biggest argument could be made with the sanity of Marquis de Sade himself, as whether he was a perverted, sex-obsessed psychopath or simply a spirited aristocrat who only stood for artistic expression and freedom of speech. The movie's characters take their own sides; after becoming aware of the authors material, Napoleon wants de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) shot dead at the insane asylum he is being held at, but instead a sadistic torturer named Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) is assigned to take charge of the patient; the virginal laundress Madeleine (Kate Winslet) , thinks de Sade is a writer, not a madman, and helps to smuggle his erotic stories out of the institution for public publication; the asylum priest, Adde Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), first befriends de Sade and grants him special privileges, but once he discovers the extremity of his subversive ideas, he reluctantly changes opinions. De Sade inarguably had some fanatical fantasies, but the film leaves it up to us to realize his lustful imagination captured on paper are transpired due to his inability to experience them in the real world outside of his chambers. The subject is carnal and a bit unsettling, and the movie exploits the eroticism clearly on screen; the film is strictly intended for mature audiences. But director Philip Kaufman ("The Right Stuff") does not portray the likes of de Sade in a disturbing manner, but keeps the story engaging. The atmosphere feels accurate and convincing, and the movie is not without humor and the expected material found within the mental institution, like the patient who thinks he is a bird, a pyromaniac, and the hulking horny guy who has his mind set out on raping any human with two legs with no external organs between them. There are a few scenes that could have captured the audience a bit more exclusively. However the entirely convincing, intense, brave, Oscar worthy performances by Michael Caine and Geoffrey Rush make up for that. The Marquis was an extremely complex individual, and Rush captures that through a character without heart or compassion, but with spirit and zest; even though de Sade went through each day with suffering, he still approached life with insight, ambition and curiosity. He is so determined to fulfill his need to write his perverse ideas, after forbidden and when his quills are taken away he still prevails by using blood, wine, and feces in the place of ink, and his clothes, sheets, and walls as paper. De Sade stands as an example that society is most successfully established when people understand that we are all simply expressions of our own nature, that it is most healthy to declare our motives and passions to ourselves. He is also a prime example of self-control, and that freedom of speech only carries us so far. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Marquis de Sade was to live in present times and if he was to expl