Que la fête commence...

a page from French modern history. impressive cast. bitter story about power, desire and sins, good intentions and the reality behind appearances. a bitter show , using in wise manner the clichés about the period, the large sort of humor and the splendid atmosphere of a France reduced at the life of elite, în which the ordinary people is reduced at status of silhouettes. short, an ironic perspective about a time who, în too many aspects, seems more than familiar.

This is a film that has haunted me for thirty years. I just re-viewed it on DVD and it was every bit as good as I remembered. I don't know why it doesn't show up in festivals and best-of-all-times list; it is on mine. It is satisfyingly densely textured and the acting is flawless. It is rich in every way-- historically fascinating as it shows the tugging at the fibers of France that would eventually (but not quite yet) culminate in revolution, the many nuances of class resentment from the top down -- tension between royalty and nobility, generals and (would-be) clergy, and provincial gentry and their peasantry.

Luxurious scenes and costumes and cinematography. Psychologically rich, terrific dialog, in the closely twined relationship between jaded nobility and ambitious bourgeois that plays out in a tug-of-war over the fate of Bretons. Philippe Noiret as the jaded regent is the ambiguous moral center, stoic yet decadent, embodying la patrie yet carving a private erotic niche apart from a world where his decision can tip the balance of European powers.

This movie tackles heads-on a very interesting period in French history, when the nephew of Louis XIV , Philippe d'Orleans, was made regent for 10 years while Louis XV, a 5-year old child, waited for his majority. Its strength: the angle chosen by the scriptwriters, who encapsulate in 90 mn a sharp evaluation of the character of the Regent in the context of the era he lived in. The director makes the choice to shows us a man eager and able to do good for the country, while jaded in every other part of his life. The story is cynical and bawdy, but there is great wit in the dialogs, and very sharp moments of political observations relevant to the period (as well as to our modern period, frankly). We see the Powerful, the Entitled, the greedy, the ambitious and the scruple-free, and we occasionally glimpse at the rest: the Poor, brutalized and hopeless. I liked how the figure of Philippe d'Orleans, a libertine and miscreant who notoriously managed to govern France wisely against all odds, is humanized here by his keen intelligence of the facts around him, and how he grabs the viewers' empathy thanks to his self-awareness -and inherent compassion-while steeped in widespread decay. Whether, as a ruler, he deepened that general decay with his own turpitudes, or whether despair in front of its extent prevented him from fighting it is the question the film poses.

Unfortunately, this sharp attention to the character of Philippe is not given to the rest of the production. There is a feel of 'made for TV" movie about both the production and the casting. The main parts (Rochefort, Marielle and Noiret, Vlady) are wonderfully acted and utterly believable; but the rest of the cast feels like a bunch of extras hired on the run, thrown a costume and told to look and act "peasant", "soldier", "nun", "nude prostitute", "blind musician". I noted for instance that all the "starving" peasants look in fact well fed, and that the château's staff is forever statically sweeping the floor or pouring liquids in glasses. It seems no one cared to give them real directions, and that flaw distracted my attention too often. As a historical or political pamphlet, Let Joy Reign Supreme is truly a compelling movie to watch. But as a work of art, it left me wanting.

This movie IT'S DEFINITELY NOT "probably the best historical movie ever" or "one of the few movies featuring 3 of the best French actors (in leading roles)",as someone SO WRONGLY says in a review!THESE ARE SIMPLY HUGE NONSENSES!First of all,this movie IT'S NOT AT ALL "probably the best historical movie ever"!To say something like this means that YOU DON'T KNOW ALMOST ANYTHING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL MOVIES!This film is pretty nice,but THERE ARE A LOT OF HISTORICAL MOVIES which are MUCH BETTER and which DEAL WITH MUCH MORE IMPORTANT HISTORICAL THEMES!Then,THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT "one of the few movies featuring 3 of the best French actors (in leading roles)"!THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER MOVIES featuring 3 OR MORE of the best French actors in leading roles(obviously because such actors WILL ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE THE LEADING ROLES)!So,some people SHOULD REALLY STOP WRITING all kind of BIG NONSENSES like this in here!

well, the film directed by auteur Bertrand Tavernier did win 3 awards at cesar, Tavernier who a former assistant to french crime master Jean Pierre Melville who died 2 years before the cesar award came out(1975)(so obviously unable to make his name into the cesar history) now could be touched in his grave since his prestigious student did it for him or in his name

well, the man who directed this decent film----Bertrand Tavernier, suddenly became a director after his master's death in 1973 and who I admit is a good director all the way , deserves his wins , but that doesn't mean the film is superior to those films made before 1975 when there were no awards to honor them. after all from today's point of view, 1975 is sorta the weakest year in all time french cinema, so we hope if cesar could have been launched much earlier than 1975

I also noticed that some people,Michel Blanc ,Christian Clavier,Thierry Lhermitte,Gérard Jugnot who later became very famous here were all under the direction of tavernier who i actually didn't consider a star maker at all before this time

could have won more cesars if Tavernier was a better student