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.

Can't wait to show it to all my Friends again and again. You will be impressed by the beauty of the scenes and discover the public show technics used under French King, Louis the 14th. It is amazing to see how much they could do at that time and how they were doing it. Apparently they could also do ice statues as a dinner presentation. Whaow!! what a show!

Aren't movies in the 1600s fun to watch? There are always beautiful costumes and hairstyles to look at, gorgeous architecture and interior design, and peaceful royal gardens. In Vatel, King Louis XIV, Julian Sands, attends a three-day festival hosted by a prince, Julian Glover. Even though that's story enough to keep the movie going, that's not even the main plot. The prince's steward is the lead, and he's tasked with any number of errands and quests to please his boss. Sometimes he's put in charge of really important events, and sometimes his chores are small and demeaning.

Gérard Depardieu plays the humble royal chef, hopelessly in love with Uma Thurman, the king's mistress. She's far friendlier to him than any woman of her station would be, and he eats up the crumbs of affection knowing they're all he'll ever get. It's very sweet, and also rather sad. It's made very clear to the audience that it's an impossible romance, so even though you're watching it and hoping that somehow the class boundaries can be broken down, the movie doesn't make promises it can't keep. For example, the prince wants a particular fowl dish and refuses to compromise, and rather than sacrifice Uma's birds, Gérard has his own sent to the kitchen instead. See what I mean? It's a sweet gesture and very generous, but it inspires more tears than smiles.

This is a movie you probably should check out at least once. I've seen it twice, and it was entertaining both times. It's very aesthetically pleasing, and Gérard gives a wonderful performance, as usual.