Quills (15 December 2000)
directed by Philip Kaufman
starring Geoffrey Rush, Kate Winslet, Joaquin Phoenix, Michael Caine, Patrick Malahide, Amelia Warner
|
MPAA rating: Studio: 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures Script: Doug Wright Running time: 124 minutes Tags: Drama; Marquis de Sade; murder; sex; torture; writing Tactical strength: [6/10]
|
for strong sexual content including dialogue, violence and language
So how do you make a movie that documents the life or works of the Marquis de Sade, the person from whom we get the word sadism? Quills answers this question with, "You don't," but you can piggy-back your movie on his reputation. Quills takes exorbitant literary license and creates a story for which "roughly based" doesn't provide an adequate disclaimer.
What does Quills get right? De Sade did spend some time in prison, where he did write most of his texts; he did have an enormous libido; and he did write some the most sexually explicit and violent prose ever. (And just for the curious, I have read 120 Days of Sodom -- one of my professors assigned this as part of an 18th-century literature survey course.) As I recall, de Sade seemed to make several points with his works. For example, the privileged classes of his time took many (sexual) liberties for which they excused themselves because of their class. De Sade makes a satire of this practice by showing that characters who have decided to cross over into taboo sexual practices don't have any further limits on their behavior. Once you have consented to consuming excrement or other "forbidden" practices, where do you then draw a moral line. What makes the choice to beat your sexual partner any different than severing a finger or a limb?
Although not the story of the historical Marquis de Sade, Quills does tell an interesting story. In Quills, de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) lives as a resident of Charenton, a mental institution. De Sade's influential (i.e. rich) wife has arranged for de Sade's commitment to spare her the shame of having a husband imprisoned for his pornographic writing. The Abbe du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix) manages the asylum and believes in treating his patients with very "modern," humane techniques, such as encouraging de Sade to put his wicked stories on paper with the idea that de Sade will somehow work the evil out of his system. De Sade doesn't write just for therapy. Instead, he has one of the maids Madeline le Clerc (Kate Winslet) smuggle his manuscripts out to his publisher. The emperor, Napoleon, takes offense at de Sade's writing, orders the printed copies burned, and assigns Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) to Charenton to get control over de Sade. Dr. Royer-Collard believes in the tried-and-true methods for treating mental illness such as dunking the patient repeatedly in icy water. In a side story, Dr. Royer-Collard marries a teenage girl, Simone (Amelia Warner), and demands that she fulfill her duty to him each night. Ironically, Simone reads a copy of a de Sade book, which inspires her to sneak off with the contractor remodeling Royer-Collard's home.
The Abbe doesn't want to loose control of the asylum to Royer-Collard, so the Abbe pleads with de Sade to cease writing. The main storyline follows de Sade's intractable determination to write in contrast to the Abbe's numerous attempts to silence de Sade. When the Abbe takes away de Sade's quills and paper, de Sade writes with wine on his bedsheets. When the Abbe takes away de Sade's furniture, de Sade writes on his clothing with blood. And ultimately in solitary confinement, de Sade writes with his own excrement. The persistent artist refuses to stop writing or change subject matter no matter what the outside influences. At one point, de Sade recognizes that the Abbe lusts after Madeline, so the Abbe has this secondary agenda for silencing de Sade -- to keep him from expressing the unspeakable desires in the priest's heart.
In a minor subtheme, Quills questions the responsibility of the artist for the actions of the reader. After hearing one of de Sade's stories, one inmate kills Madeline in imitation of the story's protagonist. Although the movie does raise the issue, it seems more like the disclaimer "don't try this at home" and doesn't provide any serious consideration of this issue.
Overall, good performances by the cast, and the individual scenes work fairly well, but the overall effect left me wanting more. A strange feeling for a movie so filled with sex and innuendo.
