O Enigma do Colar

The costumes are lavish, the sets lush and resplendent. The story is compelling: how a strange affair of court intrigue becomes part of a larger mosaic of incidences that will eventually bring down the French monarchy. As a backdrop to the main events of the film is the rising unrest of the French citizenry who are becoming more and more disillusioned with their monarchy. A couple of great actors, most notably Jonathan Pryce as Cardinal Rohan, stand out. And yet, although much of the film is there, it is not quite all there. Unfortunately for all its splendor, the final piece needed to make the movie a triumph is lacking: a leading lady right for the part. And maybe some adjustments in the music department.

First the positives: Despite a number of misgivings, this film still has the one element I always look for in any film: is the story compelling enough that, at any given moment, I care about what will happen next and it is not obvious what will happen next? And this movie definitely possesses the required attribute. Few movies have this rather simple facet, and yet, for me, it is often what will make or break a film regardless of the genre. Films as diverse as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Amadeus, and The Sting have the notable quality of being unpredictable until the very end. These last examples are of course masterpieces of film-making where Necklace is not. It's a good film with a good story but not one that will make any critics' lists.

The story of The Affair of the Necklace is extremely complex involving a countess, the Cardinal of France, the Queen of France, a gigolo, a sorcerer/psychic, a couple of jewelers, a peasant actress, forged letters, and a necklace of tremendous value and prestige. From the start, we know who did it, and the story back-tracks to tell us how and why the intrigue was perpetrated.

Now the not-so-good news: Hillary Swank, a 2-time academy-award-winning actress, is miscast for the part. The rest of the cast acclimates relatively well to late 18th-century France except for her. At times she seems to be playing a character more akin to an early 20th-century debutante than an 18th-century former member of the aristocracy. At times, some of her scenes appear contrived to provoke pity. The character is portrayed on the more innocent and vulnerable side of the female-character spectrum. This seems a bit hard to swallow as this woman is also a mastermind behind an intrigue that may have contributed to the downfall of the aristocracy. Maybe someone like Helena Bonham-Carter would have been a better choice...

The music is also inconsistent. For the majority of the movie, 18th-century and even 17th-century music is heard which seems appropriate as this is a period picture. I noticed a brief excerpt from the Monteverdi Vespers of 1610 in one of the church scenes. At other times, "original" music sounding a lot like Enya is played which always ruins my "disbelief". It reminds me we are in a movie made a couple of centuries after the events that are taking place. The filmmakers would have probably saved a lot of time and money by sticking to period music and not hiring a composer who writes new age music.

That said, this is still a good film when good films are uncommon. Perfect, not by a long shot. The script? Inconsistent but has its moments. Absorbing? Definitely. If you like period pictures, particularly those portraying pre-1800 Europe, you will still get a lot out of The Affair of the Necklace.

This was a movie I had always had a slight interest in seeing and never gotten around to it, then I eventually forced myself to rent it and I must say I really did enjoy it. For all the history buffs this is not a movie for them, but if you really just sit down and watch without analyzing every detail it is very enjoyable. The plot is very interesting and interwoven and for the most part the cast does an excellent job. My only exception was unfortunately Hilary Swank. I have always loved Hilary Swank, but she didn't seem to have a clear understanding of what she wanted to portray with Jeanne. Jonathan Pryce was absolutely fantastic as the cardinal. He conveyed a danger that was very subtle yet frightening at the same time. The costumes were amazing, and I was very happy to see some scenes actually shot in "The Hall of Mirrors." Charles Shyer didn't blow me away with his directing style and some shots seemed uneven and out of place, but it was in no way distracting. Overall, it's a movie that doesn't necessarily require you to think very much, but it is still enjoyable. I'd recommend it for a lazy afternoon next chance you get.

I love period dramas. I love the costumes, the sets, the horses, the street scenes. I love the fact that maybe I can learn a little bit about history along with being entertained. So it was with hope that I rented this movie even though it had only been in the theater two days and there were only two copies of it at Blockbuster (both bad signs). I understand now why no one had wanted anything to do with it from the beginning.

This film simply did not click. There was nothing in it that made me interested in or care about the protagonists. The main fault should go to the casting director who terribly miscast Hillary Swank as an 18th century French noblewoman. Don't get me wrong, I do like Hillary and have recently praised her depiction of the young cop in "Insomnia", but in "The Affair" she was like a fish out of water, too angular, too wooden and quite obviously a modern American actress faking an English accent depicting a French character.

Then we must blame the director, because the sense of tension in this film was minimal. This was a movie about a court intrigue where the stakes were huge both monetarily and punitively. Much more passion should have been injected, more fear, more highs, more lows, intense love and ferocious hate, anything to get the viewer engaged. That this was not done was unfortunate, because the film has a beautiful look to it and the sets and costumes do not disappoint.

If we do not like the American/English accents, the French should have made this movie. But they didn't. And if they would have -like they should have as it is their history- who would have seen it, apart from European audiences? But it is annoying that no choice was made of what 'accent' to perform it in. A clear decision was never made and that spoiled the movie for me (though the entrance of Christopher Walken was enough for me to hang on -and I loved the way he reacted to the guard before he was led into le Bastille).

Historically: Mozart's Requiem was heard in one of the scenes -but that was not composed till 1791. And at that time the Affaire of the Necklace was over and the Royals were in deep merde...

Reading over the comments for this film, I'm surprised how many people disliked it. They harp because there are no accents, different accents, or partial accents. They complain about wooden acting. I'm wondering of somehow the world is cross-wired, since the film I saw had very fine acting, gorgeous costuming, and excellent period dialogue. I was pleased scriptwriters didn't dive into the vulgar, although some scenes (most particularly the actual bodice-ripping) did push the mark.

As a period film fan, I found this story not only exquisite but also fascinating. The plot is intelligent enough you don't have to check your brain at the door, unlike many other dramas. True, it's not completely historically accurate and they've made Jeanne la Motte much more likable and moral than she was, but that's the point of a MOVIE. It's NOT supposed to be reality, just a loose translation of a historical event. I found it worthwhile and watched it three times in a week... a rarity among films.

If you're not too snobby to put on your thinking cap, give it a go.