Il monaco

Beautiful images. Good cast. Generous idea and inspiring option for a successful adaptation. And final taste of sand. Result - a movie who may be more interesting, a seductive dusty story and silhouette of Vincent Cassel,drop-presence of Geraldine Chaplin and a tale told in haste and careless. Few crumbs from Spanish picture and fruits of sufficiency and self-deception. Sin as shadow of snake in the heart of every Faust. And music as oil for dark bread. A Catholic movie about price of Icarus flight. The rush is principal error. And the desire to create a powerful moral lesson. So, at final, the basic virtue is inspiring play of Cassell. Is it enough ? Maybe.

The movie is too predictable to really shock. The twists are telegraphed (or phoned in or emailed or whichever way you like to communicate). That doesn't make the movie bad, but it doesn't help making it great either. So while Vincent Cassel gives it all in a very complicated role and he delivers on it, the story and the way it is build up does not help him elevate the movie.

Acting is good, cinematography is good too and you have a decent sound design. The themes might speak to you (depending on your world-view), which is why some even saw a masterpiece in this. And I don't blame them, if they prioritize on other points than I do. I like the themes too, but again, there are quite a few shortcomings along the way.

Historical and monastery- or palace-related films are usually catchy and intense as both external and internal reclusion provide sufficient basis for these - particularly together with religious mystique. Le moine is a good example here, but not among the finest: its run is sometimes protracted, many supporting actors are unvaried (female ones, above all) and the ending does not summarize all "loose ends" recognised during the film. As of today, the issues approached do not awake the same feelings as centuries ago when the novel The Monk: A Romance was written by Matthew Gregory Lewis (1796) - at least in agnostics like me.

The gem of the film is undoubtedly the star Vincent Cassel as Capucino Ambrosio (= the Monk); he outperforms his counterparts and there are scenes where his presence could have been more visible (well, usually I am not so much into so-called solo films).

Thus, as for tenseness and uniformity of characters, Le moine leaves to be desired; e.g. The Name of the Rose is better.

Based on the Matthew Gregory Lewis novel published in 1796, the oft-adapted "The Monk" is a cinematic oddity about a 16th Century Spanish friar (the understated Victor Cassel) who's winning souls to Christ despite the fact that he is deep into his own crisis of faith (though the movie takes place in Spain, the dialogue is in French). The screenplay by Dominik Moll (who also directed the film) and Anne-Loiuse Trividic is rich in irony as Friar Ambrosio seeks salvation from the very same people who are seeking it from him. Only, in his case, salvation lies in becoming MORE worldly - particularly in the realm of sexuality - not less so. Raised an orphan in the monastery, Ambrosio is coming to realize that there are aspects of the outside world that his cloistered existence has never allowed him to experience, and that, perhaps, God is reaching out to him with the message that it might not be all that bad for him to give himself over to them.

Many people and factors seem to be conspiring to bring him to this realization, including a woman disguised as a mask-wearing monk (her cover is that she claims to have suffered disfiguring burns to "his" face); a beautiful, innocent young woman who comes to him for spiritual guidance; a pregnant nun; a series of supernatural dreams and visions; a really nasty poisonous centipede, and a strategically placed, crashing gargoyle.

Or is he simply falling prey to the Devil's lies and machinations and trying to find a way to justify rebelling against God?

It takes about half the length of the movie before we are finally hooked into the story, but, once we are, it becomes a powerful dissertation on the struggle between the flesh and the spirit that has defined the human condition for as long as we have inhabited this planet. The overly enigmatic plotting and deliberate pacing that function as distancing devices at the outset of the movie eventually pay off as the movie's theme crystallizes into sharper view.

Dominik Moll makes few movies : this is only his fourth feature film in 17 years. But his themes are always very consistent. And his latest choice, "The Monk", Matthew G. Lewis's 18th Century cult novel, cherished by the Surrealists, appears as particularly relevant in the wake of "Intimacy", "Harry, He's Here To Help" and "Lemming". It is a good pick because the book's fiendish subject allows the director to go further into the issue he has explored in his two former movies : evil lurking behind the reassuring codes of polished society. The only real differences with his former works are that "The Monk" is a period film (the scene is set between the late 16th Century and the early 17th Century) and the first one made by the gifted French director outside France (it is filmed entirely in Almeria and Madrid, Spain), which only brings added value to his questioning : what more fertile soil is there indeed for evil to flourish than the cult of austerity and purity in a society permeated with religiosity? The strange thing is that "The Monk", with such potential assets, failed to draw large audiences as well as to get good reviews. Most critics even hammered the film, going as far as to call it a bomb. But is it really such a bad work? Personally, I do not think so. For sure, "The Monk" is not the masterpiece it could have been. Its main flaw may be that the film is too wise, more illustrative than really profound and unsettling (Ken Russell's 'The Devils", or even Stephen Frears's "Dangerous Liaisons", were much more troubling and inspired), but as it is, it does not deserve such rough treatment. The critics' excessive harshness may simply be due to expectations set too high and disappointed. For despite being too controlled, Dominik Moll's last effort IS a finely crafted film with beautiful, well-framed images (some, like Ambrosio preaching to his ravished congregation, even have the splendor of a Spanish painting of the time) , high quality sound design, and a very good (though occasionally a bit invading) score by Alberto Iglesias, well-chosen locations and a good cast. Brother Ambrosio, the Capuchin friar of the title, is aptly played by Vincent Cassel, who makes you believe throughout that he is this austere and uncompromising man of God who believes only in virtue and has no doubt he will remain safe from evil and lust. Also to be noted are Catherine Mouchet, moving as an ailing woman who suffers without losing her dignity, and young Camille Japy, whose presence in the role of the ingénue untouched by evil is refreshing.

When leaving the theater you may feel slightly frustrated for, yes, "The Monk" lacks a little intensity, but slightly only, as you will just have seen an interesting, well-made film. Not such a bad experience after all.