L'Anglaise et le duc

Eric Rohmer seems to have wanted to produce a docudrama, and has made a very interesting go of it. As film fiction, it's not very good, and not even the camera work is engaging. However, many of the film's qualities are worth considering. That gritty, antique, and "real" Paris we crave is by now a cliché. However, Rohmer's computer-enhanced tableaux of revolutionary Paris, by contrast, effectively evoke period art. Indeed they are filmed engravings. Do they "work"? Perhaps not as any sort of realism; however, they remind us that this film is history and philosophy, not just drama. I felt that their deliberate alienation was interesting. The growing terror of the revolution is Rohmer's chief concern. In this film, it is palpable and fearsome, and evokes some of the totalitarianisms of the 20th century. There is certainly a story arc and as much dramatic tension as anyone could ask for. The trial scene is both exciting and intimate. The actor Dreyfus gives a luminous performance -- passionate, thoughtful, riveting. Although this film takes a long time to get itself unwound, one might even be captivated -- de-captivated! -- by the end.

"The Lady and the Duke" is based on a true story and taken directly from the memoirs of Grace Elliott, a well-to-do Scottish woman who lived in France during the French Revolution. The film concentrates on her months in Paris during the later years of the revolution (1793-1794), better known as the Reign of Terror. Director Eric Rohmer took the unusual and odd step of filming his actors superimposed over 18th Century scenic paintings. Perhaps it was his intention to contrast these inanimate objects with the real-life pain and utter misery of his subjects' existence. Lucy Russell is elegant and believable as Grace Elliott, a woman torn between loyalties to an old lover and her former aristocratic way of life. As the Revolution becomes more horrific, she sees all her friends who haven't been wise enough to leave France annihilated, and begins to wish she had left the country herself. Jean-Claude Dreyfus is also excellent as the Duke of Orleans, Grace's former lover who still remains a close friend. Although a royal himself, he makes the ruinous decision to vote for the King's death which has disastrous results for both himself and his country. Grace and the Duke's relationship are the centerpiece of the movie juxtaposed against the changing times and the coming doom and radical phase of the Terror. Director Rohmer's movie is both exquisitely mounted and historically knowledgeable. He has taken one of history's more volatile times and brought the audience into all the suffering and injustices of that period. Although one might need to know a bit of history regarding the French Revolution beforehand, this movie can still be viewed by anyone who has sympathy for the human condition. Man's inhumanity to Man is well on display in "The Lady and the Duke".

I'm worried that a trend is developing (call it "Lucas's Disease") in which moviegoers care more about digital sets than the story being told. The digital sets in this film are very attractive and are used much better than in "Attack of the Clones." The performances are moderately good (The heroine's dependence on servants reminded me of Scarlett O'Hara).

Neither of these makes up for the poor script, though. The heroine's royalist sentiments are zero-dimensional ("But he's the king!"). Her flight from Paris is completely devoid of suspense. There's no indication of the smouldering romance that supposedly exists between the lead characters. But the worst part is the repetition! Characters repeat what they said in the previous scene, which was a summary of what happened in the scene before that. I sat through this twice (the flight from Paris and the return to Paris), but when it happened again (the vote), I WALKED OUT. I can't wait for digital sets to become the norm, so that people will again pay attention to the rest of the movie.

Oh, and I hope the next film about the French revolution doesn't have Republican soldiers who act like the Keystone Kops.

Acclaimed director Eric Rohmer tries to pull off some revolutionary ideas, but I'm not entirely convinced of a success. Perhaps the most striking deviation from classic film is his use of hyper-saturated digital colours. As other reviewers have pointed out, this is Rohmer's way of creating a living 18th century oil painting. But as the other reviewers also have pointed out, it's not always convincing. Indeed there are a handful of magnificent scenes where he succeeds. For a split second you're not sure if the camera is focused on a fancy Rococo painting...until suddenly the characters begin to move and talk. But the problem arises once the gimmick wears off, and those same vivid images begin to look like cheap CGI trickery, common in low budget made-for-TV films.

The next biggest flaw--an bizarre oversight which I can't fathom--is the lack of music except at the very beginning and the very end. If this movie is indeed an aristocrat's view of late 18th century France, complete with impeccable costumes and fancy furniture, shouldn't there be, at the very least, an occasional Mozart, Rousseau or Bréval sonata in the soundtrack to help us settle into the period? Instead the scenes are awkwardly silent. I never realized how distracting it can be to NOT have music in a film!

Last topic: character development. We get a nice performance from Lucy Russell as the "Englishwoman" (she did an excellent job of creating a Parisian accent tainted with Scottish roots, and when she "dumbs it down" in the scenes where she's pretending to be a tourist, it's very impressively done). But unfortunately I feel like hers was the only character that had any soul. Jean-Claude Dreyfus (the Duke), who was riveting in DELICATESSEN as the heartless villain, and equally memorable in CITY OF LOST CHILDREN as the big ole softy, never seemed to have a clear character in this film. This, I believe, is the fault of the director. He should have given Dreyfus a few closeups to allow us to see that very expressive face of his. Instead, I recall seeing only full body shots and profiles where we're not sure how genuine he is. The result is that you never trust the Duke at his words; you never know if he's a "good guy" or a "bad guy". It also doesn't help that the Lady is constantly flip-flopping her affections/hatred toward him. The resulting character confusion leads to us, the audience, becoming apathetic and distanced from the Duke.

The story itself is very interesting, but I won't get into that because I don't want to ruin anything if you decide to see the film. Overall... I really don't know what to think of this. It held my interest for two hours but was never quite satisfying. Watch it on a rainy day and judge for yourself.

This film from Eric Rohmer is very, very unusual. While it's not unusual to use matte paintings to create effects (such as to paint in buildings in the background to cover up modern skyscrapers for period films), here Rohmer uses another technique--one I have never seen before in a full-length film. The movie makes no attempt to blend in what is real and what isn't. Instead, in many scenes, you have folks walking within giant paintings which appear to have been painted during the 18th century--when the film was to have occurred. It is VERY striking and very unusual--and you can't help but notice it.

The story is an essentially true story about a woman named Grace Elliott--a very, very interesting lady. She was the mistress of the future King George IV of Britain and after giving birth to an illegitimate child, she left to live in France. There she became the mistress of the King of France's cousin, the Duke of Orleans. However, the timing for all this was very poor. That's because a few years later, the French Revolution arrived--and her now ex-lover, the Duke, begs her to leave the country. She insists she's safe and time passes. And, as time passes, the country becomes more paranoid and more self-destructive--killing off aristocrats and foreigners in the wake of a now insane revolution.

At this point in time, the Duke and Elliott have changed. Now, the liberal-minded Duke has embraced the Revolution and is an official in its new government. She, on the other hand, is a die-hard royalist who really should keep her opinions to herself. Yet, despite their different paths, they remained friends--though there was a lot of tension between them, as the Duke eventually consented to the execution of the King--something Elliott had a hard time forgiving. What's next for this unusual lady? See for yourself in this excellent film.

The film was based in part on the autobiography of Elliott--which was published after her death. Earlier I said the story is ESSENTIALLY true because I did some reading and found that she had a tendency to sometimes 'embellish' the facts, though what's in the film is what occurred. Overall, a fascinating look into the insanity of the French Revolution and at a particularly unusual woman. Well worth seeing.