The Triumph of Love

I really wanted to like "Triumph of Love;" several of the elements, in fact, might be organized into a film I could enjoy. There's the elegant period sets and costumes, the gender-bending undertones, a couple comic servants, and Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw giving fine performances as a pair of emotion-disdaining intellectuals who become undone by their own vanity. But "Triumph of Love," sadly, proves to be all promise and very little payoff.

Mira Sorvino is the princess of an unspecified (and presumably fictitious) country, who infiltrates the house of her political enemies disguised as a man. Her purpose is twofold: to right the wrongs wrought by her father on true heir to the throne Agis (Jay Rodan), and to win Agis' heart, which has been taught to disdain love by his guardians Hermocrates (Kingsley) and Leontine (Shaw). Since nobody can do anything the easy way in a story like this, Sorvino's character works towards her ends by wooing Leontine (who thinks she's a guy), Hermocrates, and Agis (both of whom are in on her ruse) at the same time. That's the setup; unfortunately, it's also the majority of the film. Comedy of this sort usually hits its stride when complications entangle the protagonist's original design. Here, the difficulties are introduced to late and resolved too quickly for us to care. Meanwhile, a handful of servants are thrown into the plot and then given almost nothing to do either within or apart from it.

Nor does director Clare Peploe help her case much. Several scenes consist of choppy, distracting cuts--and not even cuts from different angles, but cuts from the same angle, giving the impression of a bargain-basement film cobbled together with the only pieces of film that were usable. Images of a "modern-day" audience peeking in on the action add nothing to the procedings, and are introduced in such a way as to feel like an intrusion on the film, rather than a part of it.

For a much richer experience in this genre, I recommend the recent adaptation of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night." Like "Triumph of Love," it features a cross-dressing heroine, romantic entanglements and misunderstandings, comical servants, and a good turn by Ben Kingsley in a supporting role. But it also contains infectuous life and energy and a story that dances merrily on its way rather than walking sedately. Also Imogen Stubbs, as the gender-defying central character, makes a much more convincing man than Mira Sorvino.

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.

In college I studied Marivaux -- whose play this movie is based on -- so I have an understanding of the movie's context and characters. Given that, I found Triumph of Love to be rather enjoyable. But I don't recommend it for everyone. If you like Shakespeare in film or other cinematic adaptations of theater, you might well like this one. Mira Sorvino is, of course, lovely in the starring role(s).

This is a very light period piece, in the spirit of plays like a midsummer night's dream, based on a 17th century farce.

Don't expect the type of comedy that will make you laugh out loud, it's more the atmosphere of things not to be taken too seriously, particularly the princess having to pass as a young man. In the spirit of the movie and of older plays it's all perfectly normal and acceptable, because these kind of stories sacrifice believability in favor of good fun. And though flawed, the film is much better than the hugely overrated Shakespeare in Love.

What I did have a problem with, was the horrible jump-cut editing. In a lot of scenes there were useless, unnecessary cuts because the camera did not even switch views, it looked extremely unnatural. Did someone spill coffee on some of the tape so they had to leave some out? Now the acting is what saves the film, I was especially delighted with Mira Sorvino and Ben Kingsley who both skillfully display grotesque but pleasant, sympathetic personalities. It was fun to see Mira in a men's outfit with boyish mannerisms tho still maintaining a feminine look. Also, the backdrops (of the 18th century-design garden and house) are gorgeous, real eyecandy.

I bought this film for quite some money because I was very curious about it and have become fan of Sorvino. I would have rented it, would it have been available, but had to find it somewhere on amazon. But even though it wasn't entirely worth the money, I had a reasonably good time. If you want to see Mira's best, go watch Wisegirls, but this one is worth a watch as well! Enjoy.

I give it 7 out of 10

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.