Opiniones de usuarios

It's World War I, and a Scottish Private named Plumpick (Alan Bates) is ordered to infiltrate a French village and stop a bomb that the Germans have planted from going off. Upon arriving, Plumpick discovers the entire village deserted, except for the patients of the local insane asylum, who have been left behind. The patients soon escape the asylum, play dress-up with the various clothes they find lying around the village, and take it over. Not only this, but they crown Plumpick their king! With the German army still in the vicinity nearby, Plumpick must find the bomb, diffuse it, and save his "subjects" from certain death....

An all-time foreign film classic, "Le Roi De Coeur," aka "King Of Hearts," is a marvelous movie, full of sweetness, charm, and both clever comedy & fine drama that also comments very well on the stupidity of war. Alan Bates, who sadly passed away recently, is simply wonderful as Private Plumpick, as is the lovely Genevieve Bujold as the young patient named Poppy that Plumpick falls for, and Adolfo Celi is quite funny as Plumpick's stuffy superior officer. The rest of the film's big ensemble cast, whether playing the asylum patients or various soldiers, are all excellent, too.

The only thing that stops "King Of Hearts" from being perfect is that it *could* very well be argued that the insane asylum patients in this movie aren't...well, *insane* enough. They may speak strangely to one another or to Private Plumpick, but, for the most part, they act & behave quite coherently. But other than that, "King Of Hearts" is a very charming foreign film, and one of the very best films of the late, great Alan Bates. Definitely seek this one out.

It would be easy to dismiss this anti-war film as naive and fey, but personally, I've had enough of sweaty, macho war pictures, and this candy-coloured fairy-tale suits me fine, with its echoes or foretaste of Fellini, Demy, Lester, Altman and Kusturica. The assumption that the mad are really sane is slightly dubious, and some of the more 'significant' messages are heavy-handed, while this paradise seems suspiciously white. Better still are the set-pieces which seem to erupt spontaneously from the narrative, as the fruitful chaos of the mad is asserted over the murderous order of the real world; the giddy Lesteresque farce; and the complex, bleak, inversion of traditional fairy-tales, involving time, midnight, kings, princesses and knights

As I was reading through the comments here for "King of Hearts" I noticed two different schools of thought on the film. Many, like myself, have fond memories of seeing this film in the 60s and 70s and were delighted by it. The other comments come from younger viewers who see this film as being "dated" and not that funny, yet worthwhile viewing. At first I was a little miffed at this generations comments about a gem of my generation, until it dawned on me that they were somewhat correct. The film is a bit dated because they just do not make films like this anymore. It was never meant to be knee slapping funny. The humor was a non-intrusive "gentle" humor that seems to be a foreign concept in this day and age. Another reason many younger viewers do not "get" this film is because one of the themes here is non-conformity. This was a crucial concern of those growing up in the 60s. We wanted our individuality to show and not be just a number. Society has did a 180 since then. Today people are more concerned with fitting in than standing out. So yes, this film possibly is a bit dated. It is a bit of movie magic from a far simpler time and I have a feeling that there are a lot of people under 30 who would not see this as dated at all. King of Hearts is one of a small handful of films that celebrates the simple magic of being alive. Come and experience it.

De Broca's delightful and surreal anti-war fantasy quickly attained a cult status when it was first released, but in recent years it has dropped more and more out of sight. A shame, because it is a charming film, the whimsical, romantic nature of which is entirely French. Even though the underlying message, that of preferring one kind of insanity to another is a simple, absurdist one, the viewer is still carried along by the Gaullic charm of it all.

As the much-put-upon martial ornithologist, It's not just because Bates is the only English member of the cast that one is aware of some awkwardness in his casting. For English cinema goers in particular, familiar with his career, his usual jocular masculinity is hard to reconcile with an child-like character, swept along by events. Those who remember Bates and Oliver Reed wrestling nude in 'Women in Love' (1962) from the same period, or his cocky Vic in 'A Kind of Loving' (1962), may bulk at Bates portraying such a confused innocent. Having said that, Bates' actual performance is balanced and restrained, all of a piece with the rest of the cast.

'King of Hearts' is primarily an ensemble piece. Many of the film's most delightful moments spring from the fancy-filled and flirtatious lunatics who quickly fill the streets, shops and occupations left by the fleeing villagers, their interaction with each other, and Plumpick. This world of fantasy is curtailed by the village walls, which physically as well as mentally encircle their environment. Outside is reality (no matter how ludicrously it is presented), conflict, death. Inside the walls is harmony of sorts, life celebrated. This distinction between outside and inside is made clear in the film. As soon as Plumpick attempts to ride a horse back into the real world for help, the music and the mass accompaniment of him by the inmates has to end until he is obliged to return.

As the 'King of Hearts' Plumpick is at the center of his motley 'people', as well as of Coquelicot's (Geneviève Bujold) affections. Once he awards himself his name, in a panic and on the run, his 'subjects' call out for him. He is promptly 'crowned' (both by banging his head, inducing his initial confusion, and though acquiring his 'kingship'). He is awarded a bride, and accepted as an unique traveller into the society of the amiably mad. Their acceptance of him anticipates the final scene of the film, when a chastened Plumpick re-admits himself into their company, having rejected the larger insanity of warfare.

It's fitting in a way that the least successful parts of the film lay outside of the village, where comic stereotypes replace whimsy and the comedy is drawn with much broader strokes. In particular Colonel MacBibenbrook (Adolfo Celi, better known as Emil Largo in 'Thunderball') is uncomfortably close to parody, and his part would have been much better cast with an actor like Trevor Howard who could excel with a line in ironic bombast. The Germans fare no better and, although amusing and lightweight in their capers, one misses the delicacy with which the lunatics are portrayed. One suspects that De Broca associates more with the geniality of the insane, as we all do given the options, and this sympathy is reflected on screen

Tellingly, the lunatics are not completely oblivious to the hostile world which surrounds them, although they are content to ignore the immediate threat of destruction and Plumpick's warnings. At the end of the film, once the opposing forces have symbolically destroyed themselves, Marcel says:'I'm tired of this game, let's go back to our rooms'. With deliberate sadness, they divest themselves of their play robes and return to their asylum, a divestment scene at the same time quiet, serious and eminently sane. It is clear that they are mad - but not crazy.

Perhaps I am biased because the female lead, Genevieve Bujold (Coquelicot / Poppy) reminds me of a young French girl whom I fell in love with, and then lost, 40 years ago - the very same year that I first saw the film (1966 or early 1967).

But personal memories apart, it is stunning to watch how French director Philippe de Broca managed to fuse hilarious fun and melancholy reflection in a mold that is an incredible mixture. There is fairy tale, commedia dell'arte, circus, slapstick, comedy, romance - and World War I carnage. Among the supporting roles, the cast features some of the foremost French actors of those times; and it is obvious that they enjoyed every bit of it, especially as they put in a number of biting quips along with marvelous cameos.

This is what happens: For one day Private Charles Plumpick (Alan Bates) becomes, rather against his will, the mock king of a group of lunatics. This motley crowd have escaped from their asylum and have temporarily taken possession of a deserted town in Northern France between the 1918 front lines. Eventually Plumpick owes it to his lunatic friends that he survives when his Scottish battalion and their German counterpart meet in battle. There seems to be no way out of the madness of war. But don't miss the penultimate scene! (Rumour has it that it was censored in the American version at the time...)

My favorite scene is when young, innocent Coquelicot takes the shortest way from the brothel (well - it's a French film, isn't it?) to the town hall to meet her loved one, the King of Hearts - using two telegraph wires as a tightrope.

Why the film was a flop in its own country, and why neither a DVD or at least a video tape is available in France, I simply do not understand. Is it because only the French speak French but the Scots speak English and the Germans speak German? (Note de Broca himself, very early in the film, in a 5 second cameo as Private Adolf Hitler!) No need to worry - there are subtitles to help you along. Actually the DVD recently on sale in the USA *is* the original French version! Subtitled, and uncensored, to be sure.

I cannot deny that the film does have its shortcomings. The story is somewhat inconsistent, there seem to be goofs galore, continuity is lousy. But then it seems that de Broca had to make do with a lousy budget, too. And what he has created is essentially a dream which opposes to the nightmare of war a vision of humanity. In such dreams inconsistency, goofs and lousy continuity do not really matter. So it is still 10 out of 10.

Villagers in a small town North of France in 1918 believe their homes will be blown up by the Germans and quickly evacuate; Scottish soldier Alan Bates is "volunteered" to infiltrate, and inadvertently lets loose the patients in a lunatic asylum who got left behind. French-Italian co-production is a handsome little fairy tale with wartime satire and child-like whimsy, and director Philippe de Broca wastes no time setting the scene and getting right down to business. His approach is romantically silly and simple, but he's never simple-minded or pretentious. The filmmaker also uses Bates to his best advantage, keeping him running crazily like a patient himself, and he's careful not to overdose on Genevieve Bujold's youthful beauty (she's around just when she's needed). Funny and sweet, the movie was something of a slow-rising cult hit, and was back in theaters after some ten years had passed. **1/2 from ****

The King of Hearts should be seen by a new generation of viewers now in the

summer of 2004. This is a great fable--which during the 1980s might have

seemed dated, but now is more relevant than ever. It is a great meditation on war. As a movie, the circus-like atmosphere and characters combine to form a grand entertainment. We get seduced by the world of childlike imagination and sense of wonder we see in the inmates. We embrace them. Great

philosophical moments abound--all surrounded by beautiful colors, wonderfully funny moments and a gorgeous music score. The final scene is such a classic-- and takes the audience by such surprise--one goes out of the film absolutely

exhilarated. A funny, charming and ultimately profound film.

In the waning days of WW l a retreating German regiment wires a French village with explosives, timing them to detonate when the Scots occupy the city. When the townsfolk get wind of this they flee, leaving only the residents of the insane asylum behind. Ordered to scout out the village Private Plumpnick (Allan Bates) mistakes the loons for the sane citizenry even if they are a little flamboyant in their actions. Meanwhile the clock is ticking towards zero hour, further complicated by stubborn officers on both sides willing to waste lives over the inconsequential parcel.

Employing silent film technique and greatly assisted by Georges Delerue's touching music score director Phillippe De Broca carries King along with a well paced comic juxtaposition of the rational with the irrational for most of the film's length. Bates is an engaging everyman and Genieve Bujold as his love interest quite a knockout for an asylum resident. But after the raucous introduction of putting the inmates in colorful finery and having them stridently assume occupations of the towns people DeBroca runs out ways to keep them fresh relying more heavily on the already established bombast of the opposing commanders to hammer home the message and dilute the film's greatest asset, it's poignancy.

The first time I saw King of Hearts was in 1970 at an east coast bastion of counter culture, The Rhode Island School of Design. With everyone on the same page we were not only as Jean Cocteau stated sharing the same dream but the same feelings and emotions as well. War was absurd and governed by vainglorious fools who quibbled little about sacrificing youth at its altar. With the conflict in Viet Nam intensifying and becoming highly unpopular King of Hearts spoke to the mood of the day with its sentimental tact but pointed condemnation of war. I was both touched and moved that night and in subsequent viewings over the next decade but like all Zeitgeist its shelf life eventually expired and the profoundity then comes across as a well intentioned simplistic approach today.

I saw King of Hearts on its original release when I was 15. For 35 years it has remained one of my favourite movies; perhaps the number one. Nothing in particular about the film so qualifies it. I like quite a number of "better" films, but KOH touched me in a way that stuck. It is an authentic movie; the reality is as simple as the english speaking english, the french french, and the germans german. The crazy people are sane, the sane people crazy. It is funny and tragic and perhaps a little too quirky but ... if you haven't tried it on you should.

A timeless and exquisite treatment of profound and compelling issues, this 1966 International collaboration, was one of the few films ever to give tasteful testimony to being truly sane, or maybe I should say being truly (in)sane in a cruel and berserk world. If you liked Life Is Beautiful, E.T., Star Wars, The Great Dictator, Gandhi, Henry V, Blazing Saddles, or Rain Man... you will probably love this movie. It remains for me among the top three or four, of all movies I have ever seen.

Sometimes a movie can hit you a certain way, and then when you go back to recapture what you remember, it's gone like some dream. This was one of the more extreme examples for me, a delightful farce when I saw it in high school that became a lead balloon for me as a middle-aged adult.

In the last full month of World War I, German troops prepare to evacuate a French town, but not before laying explosives to blow it up the next time the church clock strikes midnight. The townspeople learn of this and flee, so when Scottish soldier Pvt. Charles Plumpick (Alan Bates) shows up to reconnoiter, he finds only escapees from the local insane asylum, a merry band who make Plumpick their king. But he knows about the explosives, and tries to get them to leave.

"What characters!" Plumpick exclaims. "I can't let you die!"

I think that was the brief director Philippe de Broca gave his cast, to play up their various mild forms of insanity for all they could as they don the outfits of the townspeople who fled. It is what passes for comedy in this undernourished farce.

Geneviève Bujold plays a woman named Poppy who flounces and curtsies after finding a tutu, while Michel Serrault becomes a mincing hairdresser when he comes upon a fancy wig. Adolfo Celi plays Bates' Scottish commander, which means we get to watch the normally menacing Italian actor in a kilt doing a jig. The supporting performances are entirely too broad. There are also chess-playing monkeys and an elephant waving a white flag, which draws a Benny-Hill-type reaction from investigating soldiers. It's that kind of film.

Bates meanwhile is entirely too subdued in the lead role, probably because it requires him to play unconscious entirely too often. He falls for Poppy and accepts the crown, but he's otherwise frustratingly passive and given to acting as oddly as anyone else.

The point of the film, as other reviewers note, is the insanity of war and who are the real mad people anyway. It's an entirely too obvious point dragged across the screen like a plowshare. Plumpick's commander keeps calling him "Pumpernickel" to show how dense he is, and assigns him the job of dismantling the explosives because he's a "specialist," not bothering to learn it's the wrong kind. But we see the Germans wantonly killing civilians and laying explosives to demolish the town, making Plumpick's mission a humanitarian one.

The insanity aspect is weakly handled, too. I understand this is a farce and not a clinical study of people in altered mental states, but de Broca doesn't have any ideas what to do with the madness aspect other than have his inmates toss a rugby ball around a street or carry colorful umbrellas from scene to scene.

"You pay customers?"

"Yes, that's why business is good."

I kept wondering why I liked this film so much back when. Maybe because it presents a kind of funhouse mirror to society I found appealing then. "King Of Hearts" does have visual charms, a pleasingly Mancini-lite musical score, and a final pair of scenes that are surprisingly eloquent in delivering a satisfying ending. But it was hard to appreciate them as much when I found the rest of the film a chore to sit through. Were my expectations too high? Maybe, but it wasn't helped by the weak story, lame humor, and forgettable characters.

My mother had seen King of Hearts years ago, when she was in college. When I was about seven or eight (a few years ago, she rented the movie. Most of the movie is in French and it had subtitles, so even though I could just barely understand what was being said, I had a wonderful understanding of what was going on. It's the type of movie where what's on screen is enough to let a person get a gist of the scene. When I first saw the movie, I remembered how lovely the music was, how I grew to love the "crazy" people from the asylum, and how beautiful the movie was. When my mom bought the movie, we watched it constantly. I still watch it at least once a month. It's one of my favorite movies. I really do love the music. For me, it simulates fun insanity. I love every single aspect of King of Hearts. If you ever have a chance to see it, then go! Go see King of Hearts!

One of the great ones; makes you ask the question, " Who are the real lunatics?" Excellent cast and direction; done with rare humor, yet carries a profound message

One of greatest movies of all time, it is charming and sweet, funny and romantic. It is a unique film that at once captures the best of humanity and the folly of war. Set in a small town in World War I France, it has a crazy premise that works because the film is true to that premise to the very end. Everything about it is superb: the acting, the direction, the writing, the score, the cinematography. Alan Bates and Genevieve Bujold are perfectly cast in the lead, but the entire cast is great. The music is beautiful. The ending is brilliant.

If you rent it, be sure you get the subtitled version. It is in three languages (French, English, German), and the dubbed version loses a lot.

In a small picturesque town established in France, towards the end of the First World War, a squadron of Imperial German troops implement an explosive booby trap in the conspicuous "blockhouse" that will obliterate the entire vicinity when the "knight strikes midnight". Its inhabitants desperately escaping in a flurry of fear. With the town now abandoned, a nearby Scottish French-speaking soldier is sent at the behest of his commanding officer to disarm the bomb before it detonates. However, in the midst of the mass scarper, the local asylum is left unlocked, resulting in the patients leaving their confinements and inhibiting the roles of the townspeople. The soldier, unbeknown to their mentalities, has no reason to doubt their way of living and must find the bomb swiftly whilst dealing with the surreal pageantry on display, whom crown him the "King of Hearts".

De Broca's comedy-drama war feature Le Roi de coeur, is an absurdist's perspective of post-First World War disillusionment, and an extraordinarily phantasmagorical splendour at that. The cluster of joyous lunatics freely living their lives momentarily symbolise the societal impact that the war has had on several nations, France in particular. The British and German rivalry destroying the country whilst its inhabitants forced to watch their civilisation crumble, clinging onto limited cheer. However, aside from the introductory ten minutes that was unable to immediately establish a specific tone, de Broca alongside Boulanger's sparse screenplay manages to transform the bleak hostility of war into a slapstick-inspired comedy that harks back to the silent shenanigans of Chaplin creations. Think 'City Lights' meets 'Alice in Wonderland'.

For the most part, King of Hearts remains uplifting through absurdism, providing distraction from terror by reinstating the colourful comedy of French cinema. Whilst not appreciated back in '66 upon its theatrical release, to which hardly anybody submitted attendance, it has since gained popularity in hindsight. Why? Well, to be honest, it's rather funny. The visual comedy alone has a unique blend of British comedy classics, like 'Dad's Army' and 'Monty Python' collaborations, and intellectual optical stability. It never resorts to pure slapstick just to conjure a laugh or two. The surreal lunacy of the entire situation and its eventual escalation, vivid characterisations included, exudes a prompt whimsicality that acts as a contagion for joy. Sure, performing acrobatic stunts on the town's clocktower ingrains Chaplin to a heavier degree. Yet the majority of the feature's runtime balances cultural significance with buoyant humour excellently. A few darker moments, such as mercilessly shooting various individuals at point-blank range, do not necessarily merge with the substantially larger comedic tones. However, they provide constant reminders that this is undoubtedly a war film at its core. Consequently, these acts of horror should be rightfully displayed.

The inherent problem with an absurdist's joke like these merry lunatics, is that it's overstretched for an entire film. King of Hearts is a one concept comedy. There's only so many occasions the same gag can be repeated before it becomes exhausted. Unfortunately the second act traverses that monotony with Plumpick, perfectly portrayed by Bates with exquisite exaggerative body acting, adhering to the playful townspeople whilst adamant in locating the bomb.

Still, despite the repetitive nature of its humour, King of Hearts remains a refreshingly absurd comedy on a devastating historical event. De Broca's clear direction cements the surrealist nature of said concept whilst ornately injecting culture and characterisation into its hilarity as well. That, right there, is a royal flush.

It's 1918 in the last days of the war and the Germans are in full retreat. The British are advancing on Marville, France but the Germans have boobytrapped the town and the bridge. Topographer Private Charles Plumpick (Alan Bates) is volunteered into an impossible mission to infiltrate the town and disarm the explosives. He is chased by the Germans into an asylum where the inmates believe him to be the King of Hearts. Coquelicot (Geneviève Bujold) takes him as her fiancee. He tries to lead them out of the town but they are unwilling to follow.

This is a dark war satire. I don't really understand why the Germans would abandon the town. The three British soldiers are too silly. It's a balancing act and the movie has to figure out the level at which it operates. Once Hitler is introduced, he has to be the villain. He can't be a side character or end up as a cameo. It would be great to have Hitler be the German soldier staying behind to set off the explosives. The fact of losing the town to crazy people could set him off on his historical path. As for Alan Bates, he's a fine veteran actor but the role is begging for a younger, more inexperienced kid. He's in his 30s and the private should be an innocent teenager. The final shootout is stupid although I get the point. I wonder if Hitler could elevate this.

A movie to make you think differently about the subjects of war and mental illness. Excellent early performances by Alan Bates and Genviene Bujoid (sorry for my spelling). A rich (in both visuals & dialogue)and unique film that after seeing thousands in my lifetime, holds a permanent place in my all time top 5. All of the supporting characters are wonderful and add to the charm of this film. Make the effort to find and see this one, I cannot imagine that, no matter what your views, you will be disappointed. It is filmed in several languages, including English, French and German, so be aware that there are subtitles during the film, but the entire film is not subtitled.

'Le roi de coeur' starts from a formidable idea and ends up betting too much on it. In the filmography of director Philippe de Broca, the film occupies a special place, being considered one of his most 'serious' films in terms of message and compared to most of his other creations that aim for pure entertainment. The heroes in 'Le roi de coeur' are either soldiers or patients in a madhouse. Soldiers, German and British or rather Scottish, butcher each other in the final months of the First World War. The asylum patients live with the nostalgia of a royal and princely past and become the masters of the city abandoned by the local population and by the retreating occupants. When the world is engulfed in madness, are not the diagnosed mentally ill more rational than those on the outside? What is sanity and where can it be found? 'Le roi de coeur' approaches this theme in the context of an emphatic anti-war message. In the 60s the film enjoyed success and gained the status of a 'cult film'. Some of the luster has started to fade over time, but what's left is still pretty consistent and interesting.

The screenwriters do not hesitate to play with symbols as explicit as possible. The lead hero is an ornithologist soldier, who takes care of the pigeons of a Scottish regiment. Pigeons, which were to become a symbol of peace much later, were used during the First World War to transmit messages across enemy trenches. Private Charles Plumpick has the misfortune of being the only one in the regiment who speaks French and for this reason he is sent on an impossible mission to prevent the blowing up of the mined town by the retreating Germans. Arriving in the city and being chased by the Germans, he takes refuge in the mental health asylum where he declares himself to be the "King of Hearts". When the mined town is deserted by both the Germans and the inhabitants, the lunatics come out of the asylum's gates left open and take over it. They do it with charm and imagination, as only fools know how to do. They have the food, the drink and the clothing of the whole city at their disposal. The war from outside, however, will not let the colorful performance that seems to resemble a Fellini circus continue for a long time.

The metaphor behind the question 'where is the real madness?' works up to a point, but it can't support an entire movie. 'Le roi de coeur' looks very good visually. There is one formidable scene, that of the two regiments - British and German - entering and marching in the town square without noticing each other. Pure comedy, Philippe de Broca at his best. But the historical metaphor is too far from history. The characters, except for the main hero, lack any depth. The military - both German and English - are portrayed based on stereotypes. They look like in a vaudeville, their uniforms are impeccable and the music of the brass band and bagpipes is sounding loud even after more than four years of bloody war. Even the lunatics gallery fails to provide characters that are memorable or at least differentiated from each other in typology and character. Highly gifted actors like Pierre Brasseur or Jean-Claude Brialy get roles in which they are almost unrecognizable and which we immediately forget. Geneviève Bujold, in one of her first consistent roles, will perhaps be remembered only for her physical presence. The notable exception is Alan Bates, already a well-known actor when this movie was made, who creates a memorable role that is more sensible and luminous than most of his other screen appearances at the time. The image of the king crowned by the lunatics, reluctantly assuming the crown to discover little by little where the lesser madness can be found, is the one that sticks in the spectators' memory, I believe.

The educated film fan has one more problem to face. It's very hard to appreciate asylum movies after having watched 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', which would be made nine years later. Any comparison is unfavorable. This also happens with 'Le roi de coeur', which is perhaps not even the cult film it was considered for a while. And yet, there are many reasons why this film is still worth watching today.

I've been a regular visitor to Marville, France, for years, ever since I first stumbled into Philippe de Broca's "King of Hearts" (1966). I must have dreamt of strolling through that eccentric little town a dozen times, each viewing a fresh invitation to shed the world's dull logic and just exist there. With all this COVID-19 unrest, I've been revisiting so many favorite classics. What a pleasant surprise, then, to find a 4K restored version of this gentle, tender comedy. It looks even better now, buoyed by Georges Delerue's wonderful score which, to my delight, I'd also caught drifting through the soundtrack of "Frances Ha." A charming and fitting little world, indeed.

As an anti-war film, "King of Hearts" doesn't use blood or harsh violence to make its point. This film conveys its message with utter charm; it hides cruel incidents, using a mental institution as a metaphor for the world outside. In this film, the insane ones are the sane, while the world beyond seeks only to conquer or destroy. This year has been rough personally, and hitting rock-bottom is a tough phase for me. Few films have kept me going, and this one left a lasting impact when I first saw it many years ago and still does.

I recommend "King of Hearts" to everyone, it's an absolute joy.

"Le roi de coeur" is a film with a story about World War One but a message intended for the Vietnam war. By the way "Le roi de coeur" is not the only film that, on second glance, is about a different war than it originally seems to be. Isn't "MASH" (1970, Robert Altman) after all not more about Vietnam than about Korea?

The message of the film is rather simple. It is about the madness of war. "Le roi de coeur" is about a little village that is disputed by the English and German army. The village has been abandoned by its inhabitants, with the exception of the inhabitants of a lunatic asylum. The central question of the film is: "Who is more crazy, the soldiers or the lunatics?".

The film takes its time (maybe a bit too much) to answer this question, and (in all honesty) the answer is a bit obvious. In the middle part of the movie the soldiers are absent and the film depends on the fantasies and playfulness of the lunatics. No matter how endearing especially Geneviève Bujold as Coquelicot and Pierre Brasseur as General Geranium, it is in this part of the movie that it becomes clear that Philippe de Broca is not a Federico Fellini.

The movie made me think of the famous Dutch novel "The house of refuge" (1952, Willem Frederik Hermans). In this novel it is not a village but a house that is in between two armies and there are not many lunatics but just one old man that is (becoming) senile. As could be expected from Hermans "The house of refuge" is much more cynical than "Le roi de coeur".

Why did this movie flop the same way 'Bringing up Baby' did some thirty years earlier? Howard Hawks acknowledged that you can't have all the characters in a movie behaving foolishly. Foolish is funny when you are able to see at the same time what are normal people, i.e. you can't have a movie only with the Marx Bros. playing pranks on themselves. Name it comic discrepancy if you will.

In The King of Hearts everything, everybody is supposed to be a comic character. The setup is already a carnival war before the lunatics are released in between. No question it is more difficult for a clown to be funny and steal the show if he goes on stage after another clown with the same kind of humor. So what? Director de Broca and his writer fumbled one interesting idea: a war satire with lunatics taking over Mankind's asylum. Remember that custard pie fight Kubrick eventually left on the editing floor for Dr Strangelove? Here we are desperately waiting for the images to be more than pretty: Alan Bates is handsome, Genevieve Bujold is beautiful and the whole cast is seemingly enjoying every bit of it. It might well have been a very funny shoot which is usually a sign the audience will get bored and here you do get bored as actors play for laughs and lines read for cleverness. From the very start the whole thing was way out of tune.