Gefährliche Liebschaften

There is a literary work of the same name that also serves as title to this article (Les liaisons dangereuses or Dangerous Liaisons), which was written by the writer Pierre Choderlos Laclos (1741-1803) and published in 1782, with a plot showing the human miseries of the high classes as far as feelings are concerned. Broadly speaking, it is a story of seduction, betrayal and revenge, where perfidy is the dominant element of that society of nobles, where love is nothing more than a caprice or a temporary passion. The work has been taken to the cinema in several occasions, but the versions more known are the French one of 1959, directed by Roger Vadim with acting of Jeanne Moreau and Gérard Philipe; the British production of 1988, directed by Stephen Frears; and the third one, which is the subject of this article, co-production Canada-United Kingdom-France, in miniseries for TV (2003), directed by the Frenchman José Dayan, set in Parisian society in 1960. Dayan chose a first-class actress to play the role of the seductive beautiful Madame Isabel de Merteuil, Catherine Deneuve, an elegant woman from head to toe, with a very suggestive look and really attractive movements. The libido of any man rises when he watches the figure of this actress in this miniserial. His interpretation as an entity devoid of love, full of ambitions and selfishness is simply masterful. The other antihero is the Visconde Sebastian de Valmont played by the English actor Rupert Everett, who became famous as an actor previously with a supporting performance in the comedy "The wedding of my best friend (1997)" by director P.J. Hogan. Everett played well the role of another depraved, who boasted of his personal beauty. It is not a purpose to describe the plot of the miniserial, but especially emphasize that the performances of their actresses and actors were all well done, to the extreme that it seems that they are the same characters in the novel. The interest in following the novel increases with its development.

First and foremost, this movie is beautifully filmed. The art director obviously had a ball with the sets, clothing, and other period details. He or She put a lot more care and detail into every scene than I would have expected, and it's a delight to watch. I find myself peeking into every nook and corner-. And the cars! Even if this movie was terrible in every way, it would be worth watching (or skimming) just to see the 1960's Rolls Royce, Maserati, Bentley and other gorgeous vintage European cars. Divine music: Motown, blues and a bit of rock and roll. This movie intentionally moves at a slow, even pace, and the richness of the period details help keep the mind and eye occupied. I'm not exaggerating by much when I say that this movie could be viewed with the sound off. It's like looking at a high-end fashion catalog from the early and mid-1960's - if you like that sort of thing (which I do).

Secondly, I think it's important to keep in mind that that this book was not originally written as either a morality tale or critique of ancien regime aristocrats. The fact that it's interpreted that way speaks only of our contemporary sensibilities. Valmont's death is pointless, and Merteuil loses nothing except her position within the demi-monde. Like Versailles the characters in this movie exist in an amoral plane. Common notions of morality simply do not apply to these aristocrats. The very rich (like the very poor), have nothing to lose.

Third, this is a very funny movie if viewed with a certain amount of irony. I'm glad this version doesn't psychoanalyze the characters - Everyone is exactly what they seem to be. If the characters were complex and 3 dimensional, watching the slow sadistic manipulation, seduction and disposal of other lifelike characters would be unendurably painful. As it is, it's comical. I can only smile and laugh at their breathtaking cruelty. One of my favorite scene is when Valmont's aunt Rosamonde tells him that Tourvel has left because he is making her suffer so. Biting his thumb and with a look of sheer demonic glee he asks "Is she really suffering?" Very very funny. But only because he is, existentially, a predator and nothing else. The director studiously avoids delving beneath the surface of these characters. True to the source material, (and life at Versailles) appearance is the only reality.

This movie is beautiful to look at, and it's a lot of fun to watch the audacity with which these cold, emotionally bleached aristocrats ruin others and themselves for no good reason (other than sheer boredom).

This version of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" is, in my opinion, a very good 'modern' adaptation/expansion of one of my favourite stories. I liked the 1988 version very much. As an expanded version, this one was delicious.

I didn't find the duel/contest to be very convincing. Having said that, I think this is my only negative criticism of the picture. I didn't bother to see the English version. The French version with English subtitles worked very well.

After I watch a film, I tend to go online to see what other people had to say about it, merely out of a sense of curiosity. Most of the time other people's opinions are kind of odd to me, but they're interesting anyways. What I don't understand, though, is the negative reviews of Les Liasons Dangereuses.

This movie (or miniseries, as it actually were) was sitting on the shelf of my local library, and I had confused it with "Dangerous Liaisons", the 1988 film with Glenn Close that I had been told I "need to see." (I get told that often... one of the drawbacks to being a cinephile, as it were). My mother and I were confused when we looked at the tape and learned that it was so long... but we sat down to watch the entire thing anyways.

Soon we were awash in intrigue. Merely by accident, I had found myself immersed in a very dark albeit colorful world of deceit, with characters who's unexplained passion for destruction buried us deeper and deeper into a story neither of us actually knew anything about. I'm the type of person to pay a lot of attention to cinematography, directing, editing, and the like, but I forgot all of it as the acting and dialog took charge... especially dialog so well-spoken and clear that despite the fact I only have a couple years of French under my belt, I think I could have understood the film without the English subtitles.

However, even though I didn't focus on the cinematography and directing and editing the way I usually do, in retrospect, it was simply amazing. It's one of those works where every single frame is not only a beautiful still image, but every single shot has purpose and a point. Also, the movement of the camera is such that there's always this feeling of shifting... where, though, you never can tell, and it leads up to the next shot in the most amazing of ways. Sometimes, a character's face is hidden, and from reviews I've read of both this work and Punch Drunk Love, I can see that such a technique is not very popular with viewers... I don't understand why, if the face is hidden, it's for a reason, and this film definitely had it's reasons.

Thus my surprise when, after rewinding the tape and coming online, I see that this film only has a 6 star rating... and very many angry reviews about wasted talent. Well, I don't know what to say about that. My only explanation would be that the way the film sort of throws the viewer into the midst of the story without bothering with much build-up and character introduction kept people from really getting into it, and thus they didn't like it. Or a few mentioned that "Catherine Deneuve is too old for that role." Well, the thing about adaptations is that they aren't necessarily the original work, and in this version, Isabelle's maturity and aged elegance adds to the feeling of cold, pure evil that radiates from the two main characters. I think the fact that I didn't know what to expect is why I got more than I expected, so if you're wondering if you'd like this film, I'd say probably... unless of course you are familiar with the other works of Dangerous Liaisons. Then maybe you might not like it. I don't know.

All I know is that I'm having a very hard time imagining Glenn Close come even... close...(wow that's bad)... to the character that Catherine Deneuve created.

--PolarisDiB

I do believe this is the best adaptation of the famous book since this series has an absolutely amazing cast. I can't imagine a better m-me de Merteuil than Catherine Deneuve - she is naturally very cold, beautiful and smart-looking. I believe this is exactly the way one has to be to do the kind of things m-me de Merteuil does - a cold criminal mastermind. Nobody could have played this better than Catherine. Glenn Close is great, but this the next level of evil.

Dark-looking and handsome Rupert Everett did a great job as Valmont. I believe, his look is the best I've seen for Valmont as well. Nastassja Kinski created a very touching and fragile image of Marie de Tourvel. No other adaptation has made me feel so sorry for Marie Tourvel as this one since Kinski is very genuine and, I don't know, mermaid-looking or something. Fragility, femininity, sincerity.

And I also loved the time the story was transferred to - I believe, it fits the end of the 20th century well and accentuates the characters even better. It was normal that Marie de Tourvel was virtuous in the XVIII century, (after all, each romance led to babies back then). It is precious that she is virtuous in the 20th century and makes all the following events look even more serious. It is normal that being a rich person all you care about is balls and beaux in the XVIII century. It looks loathsome for the people of the 20th century.

I also enjoyed the pace, the sceneries and the dialogues. This is a great mini-series and I strongly recommend it as a two-evening watch. Don't forget the red wine! 😊