Valmont

"Valmont" is a 1989 film based on the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos, as well, of course, the better-known film Dangerous Liaisons starring Glenn Close and John Malkovich.

Here, Annette Benning is the Merteuil who is stunned to learn that her lover, Gercourt (Jeffrey Jones) is betrothed to the fifteen-year-old virginal Cecile (Fairuza Balk). She makes a bet with her Casanova-like friend Valmont (Colin Firth) that he can seduce Cecile so that on her wedding night, she is not a virgin, thus giving Merteuil revenge against Gercourt. Of course, the best-laid plans and all that - Cecile is in love with her music teacher (Henry Thomas), and Merteuil aids and abets the romance as much as possible. But things become more and more complicated, with Valmont, the eternal playboy, actually falling in love himself. And as the story says, once you fall in love, your power is gone.

This film is far superior to the more famous one. Forman is a fantastic director, and the cast warms up what is basically a cold, calculated story and really makes you care.

Annette Bening is more full-dimensional than Close's Martueil - she's beautiful, smart, and she's so sweet and lies so beautifully one has no idea what she's really like. Firth's Valmont is far more believable than Malkoitch's egomaniacal portrayal.

Henry Thomas is the desperately in love music teacher - it's good casting, but he comes off as too modern. It's a minor point because the entire cast is wonderful, including Fabia Drake as Madame de Rosemond, Sian Philips, Meg Tilly, and Fairuza Balik.

The film is beautiful to look at, sumptuously and carefully produced. It's a sad case of being the second film version out when the first was better marketed with a more American cast. Nevertheless, it's not too late to discover this gem.

Milos Forman's version of 'Dangerous Liasons' was relegated to the second tier at the time of its release, which occurred close on the heels of Stephen Frears' version starring Glenn Close and John Malkovitch. I saw them both in the theatre when they were released and from the start enjoyed Forman's film far more than Frears'.

Annette Beining is a wonderful Madame de Mertueil, beautiful, intelligent, ruthless and in the end tragic. Glenn Close is pretty two-dimensional by comparison for Frears. And Colin Firth is more the laughing cavalier, with a heart, than was John Malkovitch for Frears, who mostly grimaces smugly and is highly distasteful and ego-centric. I liked Firth's sense of humor about himself, it makes the ending more poignant.

On paper some of the casting of Forman's version seems questionable, but all, except one, work very well. Most surprising was Henry Thomas's young lover. Thomas can be a dull actor but his reticent performance is apt for the gauche young man learning the ropes of 18th century Parisian society. Fairuza Bulk is delightful and funny as the virginal Céline. The supporting cast, notably Fabia Drake's dotty old Madame de Rosemond, are excellent. Siân Philips and Jeffrey Jones provide some very funny moments, though their characters are anything but "funny".

Only Meg Tilly falls short. Her American accent and modern delivery of the lines is disappointing. But she is a good actress and manages to convince in the end, though a more "Frenchified" performer would have served the story more effectively.

The music, cinematography and choreography are superb. The settings are very beautiful.

Forman's 'Valmont' deserves to be reconsidered by those critics who found it lacking when it first appeared.

I must confess that the first time I saw that movie, few years after it's release, I couldn't help, but find it a pale version of Stefan Freirs "Dangerous Liaison". Recently I have seen both movies and I must say that my opinion is quite the opposite now. In "Valmont" everything is subtle and I think this is why most people didn't get it. You can destroy someone's life without having written "I'm Bad!" on your forehead. With her slow-velvet voice Annette Bening is a snake under a rock:she is terrifying. As for Colin Firth's Valmont he is charming, he flies like a butterfly, but he knows exactly what he is doing. We believe in his seduction not because we are told to but because we are seduced ourselves. People have been saying that Valmont was too light, too boyish. There is nothing boyish in the way he says at Mme de Tourvelle "Is that what you want?" You see at that point how his hight-pitched voice, that goes with his voice and smile, is only a mask, as powder was John Malkovitch's mask. Colin Firth said that Milos Forman was too subtle for his own good and I think this is why some people can still find "Dangerous Liaisons" more powerful. As for "Valmont" even if the end is a bit weak, I wouldn't hesitate to say that it is from far the best version of the two movies. For those who go by the book, as I once did, you might be puzzled by the differences with the original story but for its deep sensitivity, its wonderful cast and this art of subtlety, it's really worth every moment of it.

Milos Forman's Valmont is ultimately no better and no worse an adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuse than Dangerous Liaisons by Stephen Frears which made it into theaters months earlier. Both are entertaining, yet both dip into tedium around the three-quarter point because the web of aristocratic intrigues they are following gets too tangled for a two-hour screen treatment.

"Valmont" occupies a wider canvas which encompasses visual reminders that the privileged central characters live amidst a largely impoverished society. As soon as horse-drawn carriage gallops away from palace or mansion, the squalid reality of the streets of Paris is revealed. Frears's "DL" is able to show the same difference by closing in on relationships such as the intimate master-servant morning rituals that open his film. Forman's "Valmont" humanizes the main characters by toning down their cruelty and blunting their extremes. By contrast, in "DL" Glenn Close plays the Comtesse de Merteuil with a cold reserve that dissolves into hysteria whereas Annette Bening in "V" exudes a high-wattage, tightly controlled gaiety which remains more or less constant throughout. Colin Firth's Valmont is more dashing and virile than John Malkovich's, but his performance lacks the corrupt menace which Malkovich provides in overly strong doses. Firth's seduction of the young Cecile (Fairuza Balk), is brilliantly conceived, staged and performed. Meg Tilly as Mme. De Tourvel has a simplicity and vulnerability that eluded Michelle Pfeiffer in DL, and Tilly doesn't strain for effects. She and Firth are also a better physical match, and the development of their relationship makes more sense here. Henry Thomas as the music tutor in love with young Cecile has much more screen time than Keanu Reeves in DL, which is all for the better because he has the acting chops to pull it off – a 17-year-old with more principles and purity than all of the adults in his orbit combined. Whereas "Valmont" is a diffuse and leisurely satire, DL is a highly stylized tragedy.

I notice a bit of a war going on between partisans of this and "Dangerous Liaisons" (the Glenn Close/John Malkovich/Stephen Frears vehicle). I'm not entirely sure why, but I find "Valmont" so much better. I think it's because: A) Milos Forman is unquestionably a better director than Frears, especially when he can call on the photographic talents of a cinematographer like Miroslav Ondricek; B) "Valmont" takes the time to develop some of the relationships between characters on screen, while the other simply injects the viewers into preexisting relationships; C) Colin Firth and Annette Benning are quite simply sexier than Glenn Close and John Malkovich; "Dangerous Liaisons" is too intellectual, while "Valmont" works at the hormonal level too. D) Fairuza Balk is far more believable as a virgin than Uma Thurman (can anyone say differently?!?). I certainly acknowledge "Dangerous Liaisons" as a well-made, well-acted film, but in the end I find it nearly unwatchable compared to "Valmont", which I can (and have) enjoyed over and over.