Vatel

Roland Joffe's "Vatel" does something few movies can do these days: it takes you to a place you've never been before.

The French made film has Louie XIV visiting a poor province ruled by an improverished prince, who must put on spectacular entertainment fit for the Sun King. There's more than the King's time at stake here, though, for Louie wants the prince to lead his army, should France go to war with Holland, and the Prince desperately needs Louie's financial help, to save his nearly brankrupt province.

Enter the prince's chief steward, Vatel, played by Gerard Depardiue. A combination French chief extraordinaire and showman supreme, he not only serves up unbelieveable meals, but also puts on shows that would out do James Cameron, and does it on a much smaller budget. From pop up lawn decorations to fire works extravaganzas that would shame the Chinese, Vatel displays a genius for spectacle that will literally leave you breathless.

"Vatel" the movie includes lots of court intrigue and some fine acting from those carrying it out. Deparidieu delivers an unexpected performance as Vatel. Rather than the explosive, temperamental French chief, he plays this 17th century showman as a harried administrator who is trying keep a lot of balls in the air at the same time he must navigate the tricky waters of French politics. It's an understated performance in which much of what is going on is behind his eyes (and probably in his stomach ulcers) rather than on the surface.

His protagonists are Julian Sands as the petulant,devious King and Tim Roth as the chief court intriguer, kind of an early version of a political advance man. Uma Thurman is a lady in waiting who has caught all three men's eyes.

All are good, but what sets "Vatel" off is the visuals which give you a look at spectacle the likes of which this writer had never before seen. This film should walk away with all the set design, costume design and effects Oscars hands down. It is one of the most incredible visual experiences in film history. See it in the theaters, though, and not squashed into a TV screen.

Letting yourself be submerged by the visual aspects of this subtle but not so fast movie is the key to its understanding. The images are rich and varied; the atmosphere is deep in history if not somewhat accurate at least attempts to recreate wonderfully the ambiance, decadence and glory that was France during the Reign of Louis XIV. Those who love history will love this movie, not for its content, but for its exuberance and unashamed panache.

I will not attempt to decipher the story line, the words in itself are what is important here. Whether the story is accurate or not or whether is fact or fiction or whose point of view is it, is irrelevant, you should make your own conclusion. The most important aspect for me is its own subtlety, seeing its hidden little treasures in its rich tapestry of images and symbolism was the most fun, also its unassuming little gems of wisdom about human nature here and there, gave enough impulse to the story to keep it interesting, Yes! This is not `The Three Musketeers' for those looking for action and Yes! This is not `Cyrano' either for those looking for the power and poetry of the prose.

What these characters do is not as important as how they do it, specially during those days of very conventional and strict etiquette, their seemingly detached attitude is only a reflection of their hidden emotions as much as their blind following of the rules imposed by a necessary tyrant. Only then we come to understand that this was only a clever device that Louis XIV created to maintain all of these rich dilettante aristocrats busy with life at court to keep them away from the real world and the real politics thus providing him with absolute power (This was his glory not Versailles).

I find that if we look carefully under the varnish and the gold, they were not too far from the farce and ridicule that we see on today's society. When we look around, the music, the clothes and the places might be different, but the treachery, pettiness, envy, jealousy, hunger for power and those who utilize it for their own purposes are still the same. If anything, this movie is a mirror of society at is very worst and best, and a great point of reference to look at ourselves as we were and as we presently are. Those who pretend that this story is just a boring fantasy of the past of some fertile imagination dressed up in pretty costumes with some period music; they need a better set of glasses than an eye doctor can normally prescribe. Those with the sensitivity to appreciate what is not obvious and can read between the lines will be ready for a treat.

Aren't movies in the 1600s fun to watch? There are always beautiful costumes and hairstyles to look at, gorgeous architecture and interior design, and peaceful royal gardens. In Vatel, King Louis XIV, Julian Sands, attends a three-day festival hosted by a prince, Julian Glover. Even though that's story enough to keep the movie going, that's not even the main plot. The prince's steward is the lead, and he's tasked with any number of errands and quests to please his boss. Sometimes he's put in charge of really important events, and sometimes his chores are small and demeaning.

Gérard Depardieu plays the humble royal chef, hopelessly in love with Uma Thurman, the king's mistress. She's far friendlier to him than any woman of her station would be, and he eats up the crumbs of affection knowing they're all he'll ever get. It's very sweet, and also rather sad. It's made very clear to the audience that it's an impossible romance, so even though you're watching it and hoping that somehow the class boundaries can be broken down, the movie doesn't make promises it can't keep. For example, the prince wants a particular fowl dish and refuses to compromise, and rather than sacrifice Uma's birds, Gérard has his own sent to the kitchen instead. See what I mean? It's a sweet gesture and very generous, but it inspires more tears than smiles.

This is a movie you probably should check out at least once. I've seen it twice, and it was entertaining both times. It's very aesthetically pleasing, and Gérard gives a wonderful performance, as usual.

The film opens with an elaborate scene of the Sun King defecating while conducting an on-the-road political meeting with his closest advisors. This is to establish that kings are human and that Vatel is of the History-as-a-collection-of-body-fluids school of movie-making, of which 'Le Roi danse' is a prime example. It's all downhill from there. The story is very loosely inspired by Mme de Sévigné's relation in her letters to her daughter of the story of the famous chef who committed suicide because the fish were late in arriving during a banquet organized for the King's visit to his master's castle, thus becoming the martyr of haute cuisine and an inspiration to caterers everywhere. This is not the story you will see in this film however. The hero falls in love with the King's mistress (Uma Thurman), an impossible attachment which explains his final demise. Every attempt of the art directors to convey the beauty, expense and spectacle of a royal party in XVIIth century France is marred by sadistic and inopportune gory deaths and dismemberments. Even Vatel's suicide is made to look as disgusting as the law will permit. The members of the cast appear to be sedated or in various stages of a post-overdose depression. The script's comments on the nature of love, power, servitude and human happiness are all pointless. Avoid at all cost.

Can't wait to show it to all my Friends again and again. You will be impressed by the beauty of the scenes and discover the public show technics used under French King, Louis the 14th. It is amazing to see how much they could do at that time and how they were doing it. Apparently they could also do ice statues as a dinner presentation. Whaow!! what a show!