Ligações Perigosas

Shot in French, director Josee Dayan's `Les Liaisons Dangereuses' (2003) is the fifth film adaptation of the classic Choderlos de Laclos tale of amorality, deceit, revenge, betrayal, lust and love. In its extended 252 minute mini-tv series version, the film presents a reworked, coherent story reset into the 1960's. Because of awesome cinematography, a highly complementary musical score, and a first rate cast with superb performances from Catherine Deneuve, Rupert Everett, Nastassja Kinski, Leelee Sobieski and the supporting cast, `Les Liaisons Dangereuses' (2003) is a stellar integrated work that is candy for both the eye and the mind. All of the major characters have depth that is allowed to develop because of the mini-tv series format of 252 minutes (a lot longer than most films). This film is a rarity because it is entirely dialog driven. The editing is very tight and the film never drags. For mature audiences only, there is a look and feel to it that is absolutely riveting.

There are three dvd versions available: (1) in French with English subtitles, (2) English spoken by the actors, and (3) the definitive extended 3 dvd set in French with English subtitles and an interview with the director. (1) and (2) are truncated 200 minute versions with anamorphic transfers. I saw `Les Liaisons Dangereuses' (2003) on (3) and this is probably the dvd to watch because of its gorgeous anamorphic transfer in a European 2.35:1 aspect ratio, although it is listed as an anamorphic 1.78:1 aspect ratio. (3) is the extended version with a total run time of over 300 minutes, including a 50 minute director's interview.

After I watch a film, I tend to go online to see what other people had to say about it, merely out of a sense of curiosity. Most of the time other people's opinions are kind of odd to me, but they're interesting anyways. What I don't understand, though, is the negative reviews of Les Liasons Dangereuses.

This movie (or miniseries, as it actually were) was sitting on the shelf of my local library, and I had confused it with "Dangerous Liaisons", the 1988 film with Glenn Close that I had been told I "need to see." (I get told that often... one of the drawbacks to being a cinephile, as it were). My mother and I were confused when we looked at the tape and learned that it was so long... but we sat down to watch the entire thing anyways.

Soon we were awash in intrigue. Merely by accident, I had found myself immersed in a very dark albeit colorful world of deceit, with characters who's unexplained passion for destruction buried us deeper and deeper into a story neither of us actually knew anything about. I'm the type of person to pay a lot of attention to cinematography, directing, editing, and the like, but I forgot all of it as the acting and dialog took charge... especially dialog so well-spoken and clear that despite the fact I only have a couple years of French under my belt, I think I could have understood the film without the English subtitles.

However, even though I didn't focus on the cinematography and directing and editing the way I usually do, in retrospect, it was simply amazing. It's one of those works where every single frame is not only a beautiful still image, but every single shot has purpose and a point. Also, the movement of the camera is such that there's always this feeling of shifting... where, though, you never can tell, and it leads up to the next shot in the most amazing of ways. Sometimes, a character's face is hidden, and from reviews I've read of both this work and Punch Drunk Love, I can see that such a technique is not very popular with viewers... I don't understand why, if the face is hidden, it's for a reason, and this film definitely had it's reasons.

Thus my surprise when, after rewinding the tape and coming online, I see that this film only has a 6 star rating... and very many angry reviews about wasted talent. Well, I don't know what to say about that. My only explanation would be that the way the film sort of throws the viewer into the midst of the story without bothering with much build-up and character introduction kept people from really getting into it, and thus they didn't like it. Or a few mentioned that "Catherine Deneuve is too old for that role." Well, the thing about adaptations is that they aren't necessarily the original work, and in this version, Isabelle's maturity and aged elegance adds to the feeling of cold, pure evil that radiates from the two main characters. I think the fact that I didn't know what to expect is why I got more than I expected, so if you're wondering if you'd like this film, I'd say probably... unless of course you are familiar with the other works of Dangerous Liaisons. Then maybe you might not like it. I don't know.

All I know is that I'm having a very hard time imagining Glenn Close come even... close...(wow that's bad)... to the character that Catherine Deneuve created.

--PolarisDiB

First and foremost, this movie is beautifully filmed. The art director obviously had a ball with the sets, clothing, and other period details. He or She put a lot more care and detail into every scene than I would have expected, and it's a delight to watch. I find myself peeking into every nook and corner-. And the cars! Even if this movie was terrible in every way, it would be worth watching (or skimming) just to see the 1960's Rolls Royce, Maserati, Bentley and other gorgeous vintage European cars. Divine music: Motown, blues and a bit of rock and roll. This movie intentionally moves at a slow, even pace, and the richness of the period details help keep the mind and eye occupied. I'm not exaggerating by much when I say that this movie could be viewed with the sound off. It's like looking at a high-end fashion catalog from the early and mid-1960's - if you like that sort of thing (which I do).

Secondly, I think it's important to keep in mind that that this book was not originally written as either a morality tale or critique of ancien regime aristocrats. The fact that it's interpreted that way speaks only of our contemporary sensibilities. Valmont's death is pointless, and Merteuil loses nothing except her position within the demi-monde. Like Versailles the characters in this movie exist in an amoral plane. Common notions of morality simply do not apply to these aristocrats. The very rich (like the very poor), have nothing to lose.

Third, this is a very funny movie if viewed with a certain amount of irony. I'm glad this version doesn't psychoanalyze the characters - Everyone is exactly what they seem to be. If the characters were complex and 3 dimensional, watching the slow sadistic manipulation, seduction and disposal of other lifelike characters would be unendurably painful. As it is, it's comical. I can only smile and laugh at their breathtaking cruelty. One of my favorite scene is when Valmont's aunt Rosamonde tells him that Tourvel has left because he is making her suffer so. Biting his thumb and with a look of sheer demonic glee he asks "Is she really suffering?" Very very funny. But only because he is, existentially, a predator and nothing else. The director studiously avoids delving beneath the surface of these characters. True to the source material, (and life at Versailles) appearance is the only reality.

This movie is beautiful to look at, and it's a lot of fun to watch the audacity with which these cold, emotionally bleached aristocrats ruin others and themselves for no good reason (other than sheer boredom).

This version of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" is, in my opinion, a very good 'modern' adaptation/expansion of one of my favourite stories. I liked the 1988 version very much. As an expanded version, this one was delicious.

I didn't find the duel/contest to be very convincing. Having said that, I think this is my only negative criticism of the picture. I didn't bother to see the English version. The French version with English subtitles worked very well.

I saw this on DVD, with French sub-titles (I'm learning French).

I'm absolutely amazed at the number of commentators on this site who disliked this production. I've seen four versions of the work, and in my opinion this is by far the best. It is ravishing to look at, the story is compelling and presented with great clarity and sophistication, and the acting is outstanding. Yes, Catherine Deneuve was too old for the part. But she didn't look it, or act it; regardless of the date of her birth, she retains an allure that I for one would find difficult to resist if I had the honour and good fortune to meet her. As for Rupert Everett, who cares about whether he's used botox or not? He's got exactly the right sort of snake-like ability to fascinate and attract. And both of them can actually act. I think it's one of Catherine Deneuve's very best performances, probably because of the quality of the screenplay with which she had to work.

I found it compelling from the very first moment, and I'm about to buy the DVD.