Le roi danse

What a relief to see a film about the 17th century that does not feature Gerard Depardieu! Wonderful fashion detailing and locations support a serious history lesson on how music and theater were key to the success of Louis XIV. One of the best exemplars of how young men measure themselves by their physical abilities, the film provides a unique timeline for the long reign of Louis. He grows from an unsure child into a confident (well, yes, arrogant) man -- and partly this is accomplished through his passionate involvement in music and dance. Think of the foolish Emperor in "Amadeus," telling Mozart there are "too many notes," and then see this depiction of a king who actually understands and appreciates music. Yes, of course, peasants were mistreated and millions starved, but we don't see that part of 17th century France. That is another story, another film. This one is stunningly beautiful; like great art, some of these images may never fade from your mind's eye.

This movie focuses on one side of Louis the fourteenth's reign:the patron Sun King.All the best artists who were living at the time were working for the King,from the painters to the musicians to the chefs (see "Vatel" whom Louis stole from Fouquet).

Although a lot of famous historic characters appear (Colbert,Louvois,La Vallière,Maintenon),only five emerge :the threesome KIng/Lulli/Molière and ,at the beginning, two silhouettes ,the Queen mother,Anne d'Autriche ,and the king's cousin,Conti.

The king,played with talent by Benoit Magimel,who shows himself a first-class dancer ,is not exactly the king we find in history books:okay,he rules alone,but a lot of time is given over to arts ..in the first part of his reign,the king was first a soldier :the fine arts connoisseur came only second.(music,dance,gardens...).

Lulli (or Lully depending on whom you ask)was an Italian,so it's very surprising -and it's the main flaw of the whole film- he speaks without the slightest accent.Of course,and probably because c'est à la mode,the director doesn't pass over Lully's homosexuality but he does not lay great stress on it,preferring to give music more than its due:Lully's was majestic and magnificent,the KIng Music par excellence.

Tcheky Kario shines as Molière and gives what will probably be his lifetime role.A jaded and coughing actor/playwright/director whose genius was still brilliant,he had to cope with sanctimonious persons (les dévôts de la compagnie du Saint-Sacrement)and leter with Lully's jealousy.

The last Lully -Molière collaboration,"le bourgeois gentilhomme" (arguably Molière's funniest work),made Molière a visionary who was beginning to see theater as a complete show .The Turkish ceremony " in "le bourgeois gentilhomme" and its celebrated menuet (sadly not included in the film) were forerunners of the musicals.But Lully,who played the "Mufti" in the play ,felt like a buffoon and feared that the king might favor Molière over him.

Lully wanted to be a king and" a king ain't satisfied till he owns everything "as Bruce Springsteen sings ,so the dancer became a wolf .Molière was not his one victim :he actually put down all his rivals and had a complete stranglehold on the king's music.

Some users complain about Courbiau's baroque style:since at least one third of the time is dedicated to arts ,what's the point of being realist and austere ?We're not dealing with Rossellini directing "la prise du pouvoir par LOuis XIV",dash it! Okay ,some sequences are ponderous -Molière's death on stage while playing "le malade imaginaire" did not need this dancers dressed up as skeletons,for instance.But if cinema means change of scenery,"le roi danse" pulls it off with gusto.

le roi danse feels like a french response to the excellent film "amadeus." a beautiful costume film with sumptuous scenes of dance and song, it takes its liberties with historical accuracy. we never get too deep into the characters louis xiv, lully or moliere, but with hints of obsessions (homosexual or otherwise) here and there, we understand them all well enough. if you're looking for something entertaining this film will undoubtedly please, though it won't make you think too hard. many of the reactions viewers have are probably quite visceral -- though the film talks about the loftiness of dance, it deals with the most basic of human motivations and feelings, of jealousy, lust, desire, horror even. there are a few wince-worthy moments (not for the squeamish), two specifically seem to book-end the film. they're not explicit, just painful, so the squeamish should be okay once these moments pass. le roi danse is not a terribly deep movie, but there's enough there to feel compelled by the characters, thus this is still compelling and astoundingly beautiful. on top of the great visuals and direction, excellent acting by magimel, terral and karyo all.

Just arrived home from a jump into the 17th century at the royal court of Louis XIV. This film gives you an excellent inside look of one of the most protectors of the arts. You may find the story a bit thin, but the images are very carefully chosen and composed. It's not an ordinary costume show and happily made under the supervision of culture historians. Maybe the music does sound a bit the same during the film, but it also let you hear some magnificent moments. I enjoyed this movie very well because of the richness of the photography and the well balanced cast. I recommand this film to those who love western culture during one of the highest levels, the baroque.

Another reviewer was mistaken when he wrote, "In order to understand the movie, one has to be quite familiar with French history ...." While it wouldn't hurt to know everybody's back story, it is NOT essential to appreciating this movie. Before I watched it, I had never heard of Lully or Cambert or Anne of Austria; I had heard of Molière and Conti but knew nothing about them except their names; but I had no trouble at all following the movie and enjoying it as much as I could with its substantial flaws.

The same reviewer complained that the actors playing Molière, Conti and Cambert were much too old, that all three were closer to Louis' age. What bothered me more than the wrong ages of some of the supporting characters was the fabulous gorgeousness of the actors who played Louis and Lully. Please! There are good portraits of both men, and both of them were as homely as my aunt Gertrude - especially Louis.

That a man who looked like a gargoyle dwarf (he was only a few inches over five feet tall), saddled at the age of four with a bankrupt, strife-torn, second-rate country, transformed himself into the Sun King and his country into a major world power, and by the force of his will completely dominated Western civilization for nearly a century - and STILL, more than 300 years later, and despite the horrific revolution that destroyed the world he created, is the single most significant person in the history of France (only Napoleon comes close, and he was a flash in the pan compared to Louis) - is a big part of what makes him so extraordinary. If he had looked like Benoît Magimel, what would be the big deal? Gorgeous people automatically control the world; they don't have to DO anything. Louis is fascinating because he was NOT gorgeous, and making him gorgeous wipes out 75% of what makes him interesting.

The answer to both that reviewer's and my beefs with this movie is that its makers had no intention of making an historically accurate quasi-documentary about this fascinating man and the almost equally fascinating people around him. They intended to make an overblown, potboiler soap opera based loosely on real people. They made the principals gorgeous because who cares what happens to ugly people? They made the villains grotesque and old because if they had been young we might not have known they were the villains.

This is a French movie, but it might as well have been made in Hollywood. It is cheap (and I'm not talking about money) melodrama, with gorgeous, dashing heroes and old, ugly, hunched-over, troll-like villains with grotesque birthmarks on their faces. It was NOT made for experts in French history or any other persons of intelligence and discernment.

It was made for an audience that neither knows nor cares how accurate it is or who the people in it are. That's how Hollywood does everything, by formula - the same formula they used in silent westerns, where you knew the good from the bad guys by the color of their hats - so audiences don't have to think, don't have to understand anything. They know by their looks which characters to cheer and which ones to boo, and that's all that matters.