Vatel

"Vatel" is a French period film with Depardieu as the title character, a master steward under the crown of King Louis XIV whose job it is to put on feasts and spectacles for the pleasures of royalty. Typical of director Joffe, the film peers deep into the character of Vatel, around whom swirl politicking and wickedness, with such depth and dimension as to make the plot of secondary importance. Replete with sumptuous sets, elegant costuming, and epicurean delights, the film fills the eye and whets the palate as few films can while it paints a portrait of a sensitive and honorable man who makes the supreme sacrifice for dignity.

A superb watch for those into period films painted with delicate brush strokes and subtle nuances.

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.

Letting yourself be submerged by the visual aspects of this subtle but not so fast movie is the key to its understanding. The images are rich and varied; the atmosphere is deep in history if not somewhat accurate at least attempts to recreate wonderfully the ambiance, decadence and glory that was France during the Reign of Louis XIV. Those who love history will love this movie, not for its content, but for its exuberance and unashamed panache.

I will not attempt to decipher the story line, the words in itself are what is important here. Whether the story is accurate or not or whether is fact or fiction or whose point of view is it, is irrelevant, you should make your own conclusion. The most important aspect for me is its own subtlety, seeing its hidden little treasures in its rich tapestry of images and symbolism was the most fun, also its unassuming little gems of wisdom about human nature here and there, gave enough impulse to the story to keep it interesting, Yes! This is not `The Three Musketeers' for those looking for action and Yes! This is not `Cyrano' either for those looking for the power and poetry of the prose.

What these characters do is not as important as how they do it, specially during those days of very conventional and strict etiquette, their seemingly detached attitude is only a reflection of their hidden emotions as much as their blind following of the rules imposed by a necessary tyrant. Only then we come to understand that this was only a clever device that Louis XIV created to maintain all of these rich dilettante aristocrats busy with life at court to keep them away from the real world and the real politics thus providing him with absolute power (This was his glory not Versailles).

I find that if we look carefully under the varnish and the gold, they were not too far from the farce and ridicule that we see on today's society. When we look around, the music, the clothes and the places might be different, but the treachery, pettiness, envy, jealousy, hunger for power and those who utilize it for their own purposes are still the same. If anything, this movie is a mirror of society at is very worst and best, and a great point of reference to look at ourselves as we were and as we presently are. Those who pretend that this story is just a boring fantasy of the past of some fertile imagination dressed up in pretty costumes with some period music; they need a better set of glasses than an eye doctor can normally prescribe. Those with the sensitivity to appreciate what is not obvious and can read between the lines will be ready for a treat.

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.

This film is about a servant of noble values having to prepare an extravagant feast for the King's visit.

Vatel understandably focuses on one single character, Francois Vatel. To me, everything else in the film seems to be subplots or minor characters. Much time is spent on portraying Vatel as a hardworking, bright and noble person. He even knows his subordinates' life history by heart! Vatel's noble virtues contrasts with the corrupted mortals of high social status. The film's dark theme is sometimes overshadowed by the merry atmosphere of the feast. The extravagant sets and amazing costumes are very dazzling. The film is worth the watch just to see the feast scene!