Quills

I originally went to see this one in a movie theater on a whim - I was feeling spontaneous, so I bought a ticket for a movie I knew nothing about, and went in free of preconceptions or expectations.

The cleverness of the very first scenes brought a smile to my face, and I knew I was in for a rare treat; off the top of my head, I can't think of a movie with a better conceived, audience grabbing opening sequence.

And the impression lasted throughout this great film. Quills is a passionate (and entertaining!) cry in defense of artistic freedom, and the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion; and it is a deliciously clever movie, both in dialog and in plot. It is actually a movie that has something to say, and does it in an entertaining, engaging way that doesn't leave the audience feeling that they are being lectured to or talked down to.

A few scenes are gruesome and unpleasant, but they, I think, are a necessary evil for the telling of the story, not a gratuitous shock-tactic.

The performances are excellent throughout, and the storyline is will firmly claim and keep your attention. Quills is the sort of movie that you don't forget, and that'll linger on in your mind long after you've seen it.

I would heartily recommend this movie to anyone - even if it doesn't sound like the type of movie you'd normally go for. I for one am very glad that I happened to be feeling spontaneous the day I went to see it, because otherwise I would most likely have missed it. So give your spontaneity a chance if you happen upon Quills in your local movie rental place.

Quills is a delightfully unsettling account of the demise of the Marquis de Sade and those he brings down with him. The film presents viewers with all the evidence they need to identify the fallacies of society's separation of "good" from "evil" and "moralists" from "sinners." It subtly asserts that the values traditionally used to pass judgment are compromised by convention and religion, and that there is moral danger in accepting these values without question.

During the film, one form of sin is only replaced by another, which defeats its resistors and beguiles the rest by hiding behind a pretentious shroud of religion and convention.

Viewers are horrified to discover that they can actually identify with the marquis, whose name inspired the word "sadist" to describe those who derive sexual pleasure from violence. Most viewers' senses of morality are sullied by the realization that they are hanging on every twist of the plot, desperate to know what will next beset these wretched characters.

Based on historical fact, Quills catches up with the Marquis (Geoffrey Rush) during the twilight of his life, when he has already been sentenced to life imprisonment in the Charenton Asylum. No longer able to pursue the perverse sexual escapades that had landed him in the madhouse after decades of unspeakable offenses, he now purges his demons by writing. At the urging of the saintly, ever-tolerant and even-tempered Abbe Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), the marquis describes his imagination's disturbing scenes on paper.

Trouble arises when one of his books, smuggled to a publisher by a sympathetic admirer - innocent laundry maid Madeleine (Kate Winslet) - catch the disapproving eye of Emperor Napoleon.

There is no escape from sin when the man sent to purify the Charenton, Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), only seeks to replace it with intolerance and unimaginable cruelty.

True to the spirit of the film, the sets are imbued befittingly with gloom and grime, and the inhabitants of the Charenton are realistically ragged.

Rush and Winslet's performances as the marquis and Madeleine are stunning. The film's delicious impropriety is heightened by their chemistry, which is so potent as to be communicable to viewers.

The super-intelligent plot is unexpectedly circular, leaving viewers feeling as though they may well be next in line for the madness bred at the Charenton. Their fears are seemingly verified by he change they know the film has already inspired in them.

Far from resolutive, the only solace the ending holds for viewers is a sense of, "Aha, now I know," and a new way to evaluate the good in evil in themselves and others.

The Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) is locked up in the Charenton Insane Asylum run by Abbé du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix). Laundress Madeline LeClerc (Kate Winslet) falls for the lascivious Marquis de Sade and helps him smuggle out his writings. Emperor Napoléon Bonaparte wants him stopped and sends Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) with his tortuous treatments. Royer-Collard marries the young Simone (Amelia Warner) who lived in a convent.

Geoffrey Rush is absolutely brilliant as the Marquis de Sade. The acting in this is first rate. I wish Rush get more screen time as the lead character. He's nominated for the Oscar as lead actor but he's more as one of the cast. Royer-Collard's hypocrisy is interesting but the movie spends a little too much time on him. I would rather the movie stay with Geoffrey Rush from start to finish and more Kate Winslet.

As someone who doesn't know too much about the Marquis De Sade, I guess that I'll have to rely on "Quills". Played by Geoffrey Rush, De Sade comes across as sort of a misunderstood man with a perverted mind. Of course, if he was a "pervert", then one might interpret him as the bane of society. Certainly here he's the bane of the people running the mental institution. Even if he's just a "pervert", then he's not the only one: watch what the Abbe du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix) does to Madeleine LeClerc (Kate Winslet) in one scene.

Overall, I don't know how accurate this movie is, but you're sure to like it nonetheless. Don't blame Geoffrey Rush if you feel a little sadistic after watching it.

QUILLS / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)

By Blake French:

"To know virtue we must aquatint ourselves with vice."

Marquis de Sade

Philip Kaufman's "Quills" will leave some audiences cheering and others disappointed and disgusted; there are good logical arguments from both sides. One of the most controversial movie of the year, "Quills, " based on the play by Douglas Wright, doesn't entirely examine the torpid mind of the disreputable 18th century French author, the Marquis de Sade, but instead indicates the impact his sexually and sadistically explicit literary work influenced the public. The biggest argument could be made with the sanity of Marquis de Sade himself, as whether he was a perverted, sex-obsessed psychopath or simply a spirited aristocrat who only stood for artistic expression and freedom of speech. The movie's characters take their own sides; after becoming aware of the authors material, Napoleon wants de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) shot dead at the insane asylum he is being held at, but instead a sadistic torturer named Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) is assigned to take charge of the patient; the virginal laundress Madeleine (Kate Winslet) , thinks de Sade is a writer, not a madman, and helps to smuggle his erotic stories out of the institution for public publication; the asylum priest, Adde Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), first befriends de Sade and grants him special privileges, but once he discovers the extremity of his subversive ideas, he reluctantly changes opinions. De Sade inarguably had some fanatical fantasies, but the film leaves it up to us to realize his lustful imagination captured on paper are transpired due to his inability to experience them in the real world outside of his chambers. The subject is carnal and a bit unsettling, and the movie exploits the eroticism clearly on screen; the film is strictly intended for mature audiences. But director Philip Kaufman ("The Right Stuff") does not portray the likes of de Sade in a disturbing manner, but keeps the story engaging. The atmosphere feels accurate and convincing, and the movie is not without humor and the expected material found within the mental institution, like the patient who thinks he is a bird, a pyromaniac, and the hulking horny guy who has his mind set out on raping any human with two legs with no external organs between them. There are a few scenes that could have captured the audience a bit more exclusively. However the entirely convincing, intense, brave, Oscar worthy performances by Michael Caine and Geoffrey Rush make up for that. The Marquis was an extremely complex individual, and Rush captures that through a character without heart or compassion, but with spirit and zest; even though de Sade went through each day with suffering, he still approached life with insight, ambition and curiosity. He is so determined to fulfill his need to write his perverse ideas, after forbidden and when his quills are taken away he still prevails by using blood, wine, and feces in the place of ink, and his clothes, sheets, and walls as paper. De Sade stands as an example that society is most successfully established when people understand that we are all simply expressions of our own nature, that it is most healthy to declare our motives and passions to ourselves. He is also a prime example of self-control, and that freedom of speech only carries us so far. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Marquis de Sade was to live in present times and if he was to exploit his ideas on screen or in novels. I think he would push the envelope to yet another level and have quite an influence on today's society. I hope people who see the artful "Quills" share their opinions with one another, after all, that is the reason why filmmakers make movies like these.