Chevalier

Apparently, one of the (main?) drivers of the French Revolution was racial equity. Who knew? This is a new Hollywood trend: you transpose current (broadly accepted) societal views into different geographies, cultures and historical periods, basically to prove that they always were eternal. Women Talking, The Woman King are two recent examples of this trend. Art has always been used to convey the ideas of its time, and there's really nothing wrong with it. Except when you pretend that what you're depicting is historically accurate, in which case it becomes revisionism or cultural imperialism. As a violinist and a person who lived in Paris for four years, the cultural imperialism in this film may upset me a bit more than most. But I could actually go with it if the movie were good. But it's not.

The story is actually amazing. Imagine: a black violinist and composer in 18th century France. A man of color who was a contender to become head of the Paris Opera under Louis XVI, and who then became a leader in the French Revolution. One can only dream of what this film could have been in the hands of Spike Lee, Jordan Peele or even better Ladj Ly. It could (should) have been an exploration of the character, his motivations, what it was like to be a person of color in the court of Louis XVI, how he truly embraced revolutionary values and how they reflected on his own condition. What do we get instead from Stephen Williams? An attempt to remake Amadeus with a black character. The plagiarism is so overt that many times you feel as if you were watching segments of Amadeus again, with a few dashes of Kubrick's Barry Lindon here and there. Except that Williams is no Milos Forman and no Stanley Kubrick. His film, weighed down by its narrow program of easy answers we all knew before going into the theatre, is dull and empty, and the characters, without the freedom to exist in their own right, increasingly feel like figures at a wax museum.

One can only hope that a real filmmaker will retake this story and turn it into the film of relevance that it should be.

Joseph Bologne (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) was born in Guadeloupe to a white plantation owner and his black slave. He is given an education in France despite racism towards his status. He becomes a great composer and violinist teaching the ladies of high society. He has an affair with the married Marie-Josephine (Samara Weaving). He impresses Marie Antoinette (Lucy Boynton) and is knighted Chevalier de Saint-Georges. With revolution brewing, a weakened Antoinette denies him the directorship of the Paris Opera due to popular racist sentiment.

I didn't know this fascinating historical figure. This biopic is competent for the most part. I really don't like the Mozart opening. It's just name dropping. In a way, that's what Joseph is doing at that moment challenging Mozart in public. It would be a great opening if Mozart is an important figure in his life. Instead, it's an one-and-done. I kept waiting for his rivalry with Mozart to begin. It takes some of the steam out of the story. Otherwise, this is all about the lead, racism, and the unknown historical figure. It's generally pretty good.

Was really looking forward to Chevalier - so disappointed!

What should have been an amazing film chronicling Bologne's talents and story, is instead a CW channel type movie with an "agenda." The films spends too much time on Bologne's affair and making contemporary "political" statements.

A bad script with anachronistic dialogue; events presented that did not happen and could not have happened; and inaccurate and misleading depiction of 18th century life (gee - no one bowed to the Queen, aristocratic women somehow were able to walk around by themselves and their absence at home was unnoticed, etc).

The cast is British with the exception of the lead Kelvin Harrison Jr, and his American accent is jarring and does not make sense. There are many young British actors who could have played this part beautifully

Incredibly Hollywood seems not to understand that willfully fake presentation of history does not educate - it just creates more ignorance.

Mind-boggling.

I was really looking forward to this, and after it starts with some compelling duelling violins between the eponymous "Joseph" (Kelvin Harrison Jnr.) and none other than the great Mozart himself (Joseph Prowen) that features some magical musical improvisations, I thought I was in for a treat. Sadly, though, t'was not to be. Essentially this is a rather plodding melodrama that could quite easily have been at the more musical end of an episode of "Versailles". Born, illegitimately, to the owner of a plantation and one of his indentured slaves, "Joseph" shows a considerable talent that his father is keen to see developed. He relocates the boy from Guadeloupe to Paris where he must learn - on his own - to thrive. To be excellent. He does, he even befriends Marie Antoinette (Lucy Boynton) and is to be considered for the job of musical director at the Opera de Paris. He has a competitor, though, and the Queen decides that a tournament is the order of the day. "Joseph" recruits the mellifluously talented marquise "Marie-Josephine" (the really quite sterile Samara Weaving) to sing in his new opera but her menacing marquis husband (Martin Csokas) is having none of that and pretty soon young "Joseph" is facing disgrace, humiliation and with losing his popularity at court. Gradually, now, he is drawn into the revolutionary world of his friend "Philippe" (Alex Fitzalan) with quite a denouement looming! The film looks great and when there is music, that is also rousing and distinguished. It's just the story and, for the most part, the acting. It's all just a bit weak. There's way too much dialogue and romantic shenanigans that we know are dangerous, reckless even, but they only manage to clog up the potency of this story of lust, bigotry, politics and power. I enjoyed it, but I suppose I expected - certainly wanted - something a little more like "Amadeus" (1984).

A fantastic life story, and great piece of history, that is relevant today, presented with impressive music, in nice sets (except CGI) and pleasant costumes. Should be great.

Yet a childish story and similarly childish storytelling, and the overwhelming abundance of barnstorming scenes removes this film from the realm of cinematic art. Uneven acting does not help and the anachronistic dialog (and make up) adds to the feeling of a B movie or propaganda piece, especially that what was meant to be character development is decisively cartoonish.

I am not sure what else to say to hit six hundred. I was not bored and neither I resent that we watched this movie but am not thinking back to it with appreciation.