Vatel

It is deeply frustrating that what could, and should, have been a great period drama, with some fine acting talent, should end up a dull, mediocre piece of cinema. The film lacks structure, has a lacklustre script, whilst the acting performances are generally lame and, in some instances, quite awful. There is some graphic and totally unnecessary violence, and vulgarity is used as a substitute for wit. To garnish this unhappy ensemble, the background music is repetitive and feeble to the point of nausea. I couldn't get out of the cinema fast enough.

First, the acting. Uma Thurman appears to be totally miscast in the role of Vatel's secret admirer, and her performance is dull, emotionless and sometimes irritating. By contrast Gérard Depardieu, a great acting talent, is wasted completely. All he is required to do is walk about the sets barking out orders to his servants and occasionally looking a bit miffed when one of the aristocracy gets his gander up. One suspects that he has already realised that the film is a turkey and so feels no enthusiasm to waste his energies trying to lift the film out of the pit of mediocrity in which it is well and truly lodged. And one can hardly blame him.

The film's only saving grace - indeed the only reason for seeing the film at all - is the magnificent depiction of the royal entertainment designed by Vatel. The scale of the activities is quite breathtaking, brilliantly executed, and offers an interesting insight into the life of the royal court at this time in history. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to enjoy the legendary fireworks scene because a servant is brutally and explicity killed in the process. This is probably the one true great moment in the film, but it seems to get in the way of the one piece of entertainment on offer to us and the tragic impact is lost completely.

On balance, it is the ending that is the greatest disappointment. This should be a deeply moving and tragic finale, but it fails completely to have any effect. The film just loses momentum after the fireworks scene and gradually shrivels up to nothing. It looks as if the entire cast and production team gave up and went home early. The final scenes lack any emotional impact or integrity and overall the film appears shallow and insubstantial.

A totally wasted opportunity.

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.

Vatel was not a bad movie, in fact it was worth viewing. If it were not a true story you could argue it was too calm and had too little excitement for the people who seek diversion entertainment. However, since it is a true story, about a royal cook and what he had to go through just to do his art it becomes very interesting. Another good theme was the disfunctionality of the royals and how the servants interacted with these powerful people (Vatel tried not to as much as possible). I particularly liked the part where Vatel said "no thank you" so philosophically to a nobleman's perverted request that Vatel won him over as a friend through respect. If you like brinkmanship and maneuvering, this movie has it, be it subtle.

This film is about a servant of noble values having to prepare an extravagant feast for the King's visit.

Vatel understandably focuses on one single character, Francois Vatel. To me, everything else in the film seems to be subplots or minor characters. Much time is spent on portraying Vatel as a hardworking, bright and noble person. He even knows his subordinates' life history by heart! Vatel's noble virtues contrasts with the corrupted mortals of high social status. The film's dark theme is sometimes overshadowed by the merry atmosphere of the feast. The extravagant sets and amazing costumes are very dazzling. The film is worth the watch just to see the feast scene!

This film tells the story of François Vatel, a master of ceremonies at the service of Prince Louis II of Condé, one of the most important aristocrats of the French court but that was bankrupt and away of the good graces of King Louis XIV. The approaching of a war with the Netherlands makes Condé, anxious to led the king's armies, decides to invite the king for a weekend at his Castle of Chantilly, hoping to be able to recover the royal sympathy. Then Vatel is in charge of organizing a three-day party like never seen before for king's amusement. Based on historical events, the film is directed by Roland Joffé, has argument by Jeanne Labrune (in original French version) and features Gérard Depardieu (Vatel), Uma Thurman (in the role of Anne of Montausier, one of the king's lovers) and Tim Roth (as the Marquis de Lauzun, the king's confidant).

Joffé managed to make the audience relive the events. The environments, the locations for filming, the costumes, the music, everything was thought out and analyzed carefully to reproduce the atmosphere of the time, so we must congratulate this effort for historical accuracy, which even received a nomination for the Oscar for Best Art Direction. The actors met well with their roles. The script also works in interesting ways, including some situations where we glimpse the contrast (and even shock) of the two worlds of seventeenth-century France: the richness and unparalleled luxury of the court and the absolute misery of the common people. Also positive note for the soundtrack of Enio Morricone, although not one of his best-known or most interesting compositions.