Don't Believe the Hype

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

This semi-biographical/semi-fictional account of the Marquis of de Sade (the great Daniel Autiel) is set during the "reign of terror" period of the French Revolution. The Jacobin revolutionaries had no idea what to do with Sade, who had been freed from the Bastile in 1789, but was also a symbol of the decadence of the noble class with his undisguised atheism, his sex crimes that had scandalized even the other decadent nobles, and above all his scandalous, decadent, and blasphemous plays and novels. So they put him into a "asylum"/prison on the estate of a hypocritical/opportunistic nobleman-doctor, along with a lot of other noble families hiding out from the terror (and paying financially for the privilege). There they reassert the old order, for instance, with wealthier noblemen taking liberty with the pretty young wives of poorer nobleman. Sade meanwhile tries to put on his scandalous plays under the aegis of the new regime and supposedly to preach AGAINST atheism. This movie covers roughly the same territory as "Marat/Sade" and "Quills", but drops any idea of Sade actually being insane. Here he is portrayed as quite sane--and even heroic--in comparison to the hypocrites surrounding him.This particular movie focuses less on his work though and more on two fictionalized (if not entirely fictional) subplots. One involves Sade's manipulation of the mother of his child, who is now the mistress of a high-ranking Jacobin, "Fournier", who she in turn manipulates to save Sade from the guillotine. "Fournier" is a sympathetic character, a child of the revolution who is doomed to be eaten by it, and Sade indirectly but skillfully manipulates him like a character in his one of his plays.The perhaps more interesting and certainly more sexy story involves Sade befriending the young daughter of a rich nobleman (Isild LeBesco), who he seems to simultaneously be sexually debauching for his own amusement while also saving her from the guillotine by getting her pregnant by other men (of lowlier social stations, of course). 17-year-old LeBesco is absolutely incredibly here. First off, is her truly unique looks--she is pale and blue-eyed, but actually part Asian, and is capable of looking both "ugly" and very beautiful. Second, is her voluptuous body which is just unambiguously beautiful (and not surprisingly, she shows it off a lot in her movies). Most significantly though is her ACTING. She goes toe-toe with Auteil as a precocious young girl who is intellectually Sade's equal, but still a virgin naïf in sexual matters. Her "deflowering" scene is absolutely incredible as once again Sade conducts a near-orgy like it's one of his plays.This probably isn't the most historically accurate account of the Marquis De Sade (having read of the truly appalling "120 Days of Sodom", I have trouble believing the real guy was this moral and NOT in some sense insane). But it's a very enjoyable movie.

I saw this on Cinemoi, the satellite French movie channel.Some of us are familiar with the famous story of the notorious French aristocrat, imprisoned, in some comfort at a Château during the French Revolution. Familiar on both sides of the English Channel now, Daniel Auteille stars as the lecherous libertine and Marianne Dennicourt as the young girl, daughter of another imprisoned noble family who becomes secretly fascinated by him.Those that have read/seen other versions - the only one I have is Philip Kaufmann's "Quills", a Hollywood-tinged softly erotic character piece for both Geoffrey Rush and Kate Winslet as the leads I mention. Quills also had Michael Caine, Joaqaine Phoenix, and Billy Whitelaw, so quite a cast.As you might expect, director Benoit Jacquot gives us a historical drama, in comparison to Kaufman's heated and nicely sin-tinged one. They were made in the same year, 2000. Without a doubt, Sade would be the most accurate, if that's important to you.Sade is shot rather conventionally, is never in doubt that it's a period piece and so, feels authentic, but quite dry. Don't expect the humour, sex or theatrics of Quills and savour the story of this scandalous man, as he wrote lewd manuscripts and got them smuggled out to publishers via the young girl.Auteill takes a while to get going - too many real-life activities hinder the Marquis engaging with his young charge - when he does, he starts to show that sexually charismatic spell that he casts - the sort that all manipulating brainwashers seem to possess.Hardly a review exists and I cannot find an age rating for it. Explicitly it is quite tame until the last scene which would be rated as 18.If you enjoy authentic historical drama, especially French and are interested in the Sade, the man, rather than a sensationalised account of what he did, then this film may be for you. It wasn't really for me, but I can see its virtues.

In France, in 1794, during the apex of the Reign of Terror, the scandalous marquis de Sade (Daniel Auteuil) finds himself, like many other nobles, waiting for the guillotine in one of the prison of the Republic. There, the young daughter of one of his inmate becomes fascinated by him and he becomes her tutor in the mysteries of love and libertine life."Sade" almost play like the anti-thesis of "Quills", another movie on the divine Marquis released the same year. The plot of "Quills" bears no relation to the historical reality while, on the contrary, the one of "Sade" put a great emphasis on historical accuracy. Contrary to the screenwriter of "Quills" who seemed to know next to nothing about the life and work of the real Marquis de Sade, the one of "Sade" obviously did his homework. Although taking some liberty with the facts (Sade was indeed imprisoned at the Picpus prison during the Terror but none of the events depicted in the movie actually happened; Sade's mistress did not sleep with one of Robespierre's henchmen in order to save the marquis from the guillotine), this movie is overall an accurate portrayal of the author of "Justine": a libertine, yes but also a philosopher and a critic of the society he was living in with a sarcastic sense of humor. Auteuil's performance is mesmerizing even though its choice to play the Marquis is a little bit surprising since, by the time, after years of imprisonment in the prison of the King, the divine Marquis was obese.The immorality of the Marquis which leaded to crimes only on paper is contrasted with the morality of Robespierre and his followers which leaded to real crimes in reality. Here again, the movie displays the same attention to details and historical accuracy that it did in the portrayal of the marquis: the history buff will notice Robespierre's tinted glasses, the fact that he is brought to the guillotine with a broken jaw or the depute jumping out of a window of the Paris town hall during the incorruptible's arrest.But the movie is brought down by its unimaginative direction, more typical of a made-for-TV movie than a feature film and a limited budget leading to low production values: the costumes are superb but the historical realism is kind of ruined by the generic set that fails to convey the atmosphere of revolutionary France the movie try so hard to convey.Yet, for someone intrigued by the Marquis de Sade or the French Revolution, "Sade" is a nice portrayal of an extreme man who lived in some extreme times.

Daniel Auteuil makes an excellent Marquis de Sade (even better than Geoffrey Rush in Quills) in this intelligent film by one of France's very best directors, Benoit Jacquot (The School of Flesh, Pas De Scandale). Unlike the aforementioned Philip Kaufman picture, which examined the issue of censorship by using Sade and his work as a backdrop, this film intends to explore the sides of the infamous pornographer as philanthropist. While being held prisoner in a grand chateau with many other nobles following the French revolution, Sade befriends a curious young woman and teaches her a thing or two about growing up. The relationship they develop is genuine and in the end very moving, mostly because while instructing her to loosen up she teaches him how he can reclaim his emotional self and learn to once again love the society that he has dismissed as conventional and narrow. Not Jacquot's best, but a worthy piece of work.