The Triumph of Love

I wasn't expecting anything quite this silly when everything looked so sophisticated. Surely not SIR Ben Kingsley? Well, he gives his usual fine dignified performance and refuses to be anything other than sophisticated, and yet as the farce becomes sillier, so does he.

I'm not that familiar with Mira Sorvino but she does a wonderful job here. And yet she's too pretty and has too nice a voice to be convincing as a man. Somehow she does fool some of the characters.

Fiona Shaw also does a good job as a scientist who thinks she is over the hill and flattered to be told otherwise. Her experiments are interesting to watch, especially later when she is turning cranks quickly and the editing makes it look like everything is happening quickly.

Rachael Serling has a supporting role also pretending to be male. She manages to be more convincing, because she looks like Fred Savage, and has a voice more like a man. And it is funny to watch her with Harlequin the servant.

Luis Molteni is a rough-looking and funny gardener. While we know it's not his work, the place looks gorgeous. I kept thinking of Brookgreen Gardens near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The house is also fabulous.

There is so much deception one wonders how the princess will get out her situation. Somehow it all works out, but it's hilarious when no one knows the whole truth. And of course through most of the movie, only Corine knows she is the princess, because the princess is hated.

The costumes are great. People dressed so well in the 18th century.

I'm not sure why, but I didn't feel quite satisfied, but I mostly liked everything.

Why was there an audience? They showed up occasionally for no reason.

A common complaint with imdb reviews was the editing. I noticed at the start that the movie was edited to fit the time allotted. I blamed the sloppy editing on that, but now I wonder. Did all these imdb reviewers see a version edited to fit the time allotted, or was the editing really that sloppy? Still, that was the main weakness.

Is this family friendly? Perhaps. In the version I saw, Agis is naked but blurred. And of course the women participating in the deception are shown changing their clothes. Later, Agis gets to feel the princess' breasts to prove she is a woman. Other than that, there may not be a problem for more permissive parents.

I mostly had a good time.

Truly a remarkable film for its ups and downs. The ups are delightful (dialog, costuming, movement); the downs are simply awful (acting, timing, editing, concept). The "jump" cutting, so dear to advertisers, becomes extremely annoying. The reference to the play as play by intercutting scenes of modern-day audience watching the play and the cast "curtain call" in modern day dress are distracting. I wish they gave us the English to the French song at the end -- it's probably the best part, and my French is only good enough to guess at the meaning. It was also reformatted for the screen (TV) which already gives it two strikes in my opinion. The 18th century French must have loved it.

The Princess (Mira Sorvino) and her maiden Corine (Rachael Stirling) are disguised as men in order to infiltrate an estate. She had inherited the stolen throne from her family. She wishes to return it to the rightful heir Agis (Jay Rodan) whom she has fallen in love from afar. The problem is that Hermocrates (Ben Kingsley) had raised him to hate her. She entices Leontine (Fiona Shaw), the madam of the estate. Then she tries to seduce Hermocrates.

There is a bit of fun here. It's an 18th century play. Sorvino is trying very hard with both a fake voice and manly mannerisms. The estate is beautiful. The fourth wall is cracked with the injection of an audience. At that point, the movie is simply trying too hard. It adds nothing and subtracts from the reality of the story. This cannot do anything but feel like a play. Again Sorvino is trying very hard. Her seductions of both Leontine and Hermocrates are partly awkward and partly funny. It must have been hilarious comedy back in the 18th century. It has a lightness to it but is unable to fully embrace the intended comedy. It's all a little awkward but also a little fascinating.

The commentators so far seem to belong to one of two camps; those who hated the picture for what it is and those who liked, but did not love it, because of what it was not. I think both groups are missing the point. You simply have to accept the conventions of this type of story, just as you do when you read/watch Shakespeare's plays. Do that and you will have a wonderful time with this film. I thoroughly enjoyed it; it was witty, fast paced, sexy, the acting was fantastic (especially Kingsley though Sorvino is no slouch)etc. etc. etc. etc. Just let go and let it sweep over you. A splendid time is guaranteed for all.

This movie is about a princess simultaneously seducing a prince, his protégé and the protégé's sister, portraying herself as either a man or woman, all in the name of undoing a wrong that her family has done to the prince's a long time ago. It has some wit, with some wordplay, some farce comedy, and the slow breakdown of each of the character giving in to her seduction. But the buildup and final revelation at the end does not have the usual Shakespearean touch, where she would get closer and closer to being revealed, until a final big bang. This film just didn't have that, although it did produce some laughs when the protégé and his sister both come out dressed in clothes they otherwise would never be caught wearing.

The camerawork plays a bit with its jump cuts, trying to impose some sense of realism to this otherwise lack of stagey feeling film. The sudden revelation of the audience did not occur frequently enough to signify anything beyond an aberration of the plot.

Still, an interesting film with good interaction between characters, and a little insight to French plays of that period.