L'Anglaise et le Duc

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 was shown as part of the 2002 French Film Festival in Sydney and it is certainly very French, being pre-occupied with the morality of the French revolution, here seen from the aristocratic point of view of Grace Elliot, the Scottish ex-mistress of both George, Prince of Wales (later George IV) and the Duc d' Orleans, cousin of Louis XVI (who was a supporter, initially, of the Revolution). As played by Lucy Russell, Grace is an unwavering royalist who goes on living her gentlewoman's lifestyle in and around Paris, regardless of the dangers, which are considerable for someone like her. She has no sympathy with the revolutionaries and is horrified by the execution of Louis and his Queen, which she observes from afar.

Having once walked out of an Eric Rohmer movie (`Clair's Knee') rather than die of boredom, my expectations were not high. This movie (taken from Graces' memoirs) is mostly talk - gentlewomen did not, after all, engage in much action – but she does harbour an aristocratic fugitive at one point, to the Duke's dismay. Grace's relationship with her ex-lover, the portly and rather pompous Duke (Jean-Claude Dreyfus), is an intriguing one. She is not able to exercise much influence over him, not because of any lack of persuasive powers, but because he is too weak and irresolute to follow her advice. As a foreign woman living alone (she was widowed a year or two previously), she needs a powerful friend or two, but the Duke, for all his courtly manner, isn't a lot of help.

The cast weave in and out of stylised (and digitised) backdrops and this production style fits in well with the historical setting. The sets are intended to be seen as backdrops, unlike, say, the Coliseum scene in `Gladiator'). This has the effect of focusing the audience on the actors rather than be distracted by the set. It was brave of Rohmer to adopt such an innovative format, but it works well here. There are a few dramatic moments such as when Grace is hauled before the local revolutionary committee on suspicion of spying for Britain (naturally the most handsome revolutionary takes her side). It is however basically a talk show (`what I did in the revolution I hated'), and often rather slow. Lucy Russell, though, is quite compelling as Grace, and this time at least I was not driven from the theatre.

"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 found this film quite fascinating apart from the fact that it is a well acted, structured story. Set in revolutionary France it tells the struggles of a Scottish emigre royalist and her life during the revolution and her somewhat complicated relationship with a former lover a aristocratic Duke with revolutionary sympathies. Despite being a revolutionary politician the Duke is eventually consumed too by the revolution.

The film is fascinating on several levels. The relationship between the Lady and the Duke is at some levels a doomed love story. They are interestingly former not current lovers but continue to have fond (if not strong) regard for each other despite differing political viewpoints and comprimised actions during the ups and downs of the revolution & I found it interesting watching the strains placed on this relationship by the buffeting of historical events. I think this relationship is at the core of the film. Though I did enjoy the political side of the film. It is somewhat refreshing to see a historical epic from the side of the losers (the despised aristocracy). Rohmer resists the obvious counter point in the film of the film in showing a side/viewpoint of the poor majority. Maybe he assumed that most film goers would be aware of the social/political/economic conditions that lead to the revolution. Whatever the reason I think the film is stronger for it because we see the events through the eyes of the Lady and the fear and terror of the Royalists (and moderate revolutionaries ultimately consumed by the more extreme fires of radicalism). The victims are shown as human beings and not some carictures.

Having said that I enjoyed some of the ambiguities of the film. The aristocrat the lady helps is someone she held no particular high regard for in the Royalist days, and indeed first helps him only out of a sense of duty. Even Robiespierre, the radical, is shown briefly in the film. Instead of some frothing of the mouth caricture he is shown as a focused almost reasonable type. He stops one of his underlings arresting the Lady at a revolutionary tribunal saying the revolution has more important things to worry about. I think possibly these interesting ambiguities arise from the fact the story is based on the actual experiences of the Scottish Lady who transcribed them after her eventual escape to Britain after the revolution.

Finally a commendation to the two actors (the Lady and the Duke) who I really enjoyed. The Duke was particulary good,he was the right mixture of idealist,charmer and self important but endearing pomposity and you can see why despite all his faults the Lady was still hung up on him.