Beaumarchais l'insolent

This is a must-see film. It is a sumptuous period piece on any terms, with consistently splendid visuals of both interiors and exteriors.

But forget all that. It is everything a movie should be: inspiring, clever, funny, real .... what else do you want?

Beaumarchais is the watchmaker's son turned playwright who is most familiar to Western culture as the creator of Figaro, the central character is the famous Mozart and Rossini operas.

That he was, but he was also at times a court conspirator, a champion of liberty, a defender of the weak, a lazy sybarite, a pretend aristocrat, a humorist, a shallow womanizer, and a revolutionary. That a movie and a performer can capture all the facets of such a complex man is a wonderful achievement.

The actor, Fabrice Luchini, creates something memorable ... a revolutionary who fights not with fiery speeches or rabble armies, but with a half-smile and by out-playing the corrupted at their own games. He is brave without bravado. His unobtrusive looks and his whispery lisp disguise a will of steel.

The movie takes a fair look at the man as man ... flawed in many ways ... average in many other ways .... failing as often as he succeeds ... yet ultimately one of the architects of the spirit that empowered the new world to overturn the old aristocracies and asserts the rights of man.

Entwined as his spirit may be with the spirit of France, and his presence with the details of its revolution, you don't need to know one word of French or one fact of French history to love the movie. It's charming as hell on several levels, and it's just plain good.

This is a film for those who love democracy -- the victory of what Jefferson called the "aristocracy of talent" over the dead weight of the past. You will be swept up in this marvelous adventure, this heroic tale that recounts the American and the French revolutions at their best. This film is the LIFE, not the letter -- as it is presented in text books. Hurray for the American revolution and the French revolution and remember that their goal was wit and delight and love -- not advancement as an end in itself. The French cinema has presented this film in such a lovely, believable, natural manner. Thank you to them. Wonderful, humane acting graces a noble subject.

It's easy to understand why Guitry would write a play about Beaumarchais, a man of action, a wit and a man of the theatre he would have obviously admired. What is not as clear is how much of his original intention was wasted in this dreary production. The characters are charmless, witless and move in and out much too quickly for any of the cameo players to make any distinct impression.

Worst of all, the actors give in to the worst temptation they could have felt, which is to play in an unconvincing pedantic, precious and yet anachronistic manner, something Guitry would never have allowed in one of his plays. The worst offender is Fabrice Luchini, who doesn't look anything like the original Beaumarchais and has to be most prissy and effeminate heterosexual alive today. His "moues", "oeillades", "plissements de lèvres", egg-sucking and neck-twisting mannerisms succeed in nothing more than a rather good impression of Eric Idle playing an upper-class frump in drag.

The script doesn't spend a single minute pondering the gravity of the title character's situation as the man who wrote the play that arguably brought about the French Revolution. His motivation is never explained apart from the fact that he was left holding the bag of the expenses he incurred helping the American Revolution. In that sense, the film is extremely superficial and potentially libellous.

Its only qualities lie in its original locations (including creaky floors that should have been corrected with a little Foley work), its magnificent score by Jean-Claude Petit (Cyrano de Bergerac, 1990) and its costumes. It is unfortunate that the latter most often end up wearing the players rather than the other way around.

In short, this film is a discredit to both Beaumarchais and Guitry.

Perhaps I am biased but I absolutely love the film partly because I think there is no other actor in the world that can portray Beaumarchais the way Luchini does.

The film is not meant to be completely biographical but it's enough to capture the essence of Beaumarchais. I don't think it is possible to make a film on the whole entire life of Beaumarchais, it would last a lifetime and would have been superficial. Capturing a slice of his life is hard enough but done very well in this film in a very light-hearted way.

Other types of attempts to tell the story of Beaumarchais would probably be plastic.

An excellent performance by Fabrice Luchini!

"Beaumarchais, l'insolent" is definitely a disappointment. First, by reading the title, you could have thought that the movie would embrace Beaumarchais' whole life: from his childhood until his death. Well, it's not the case. It only focuses on the most important part of Beaumarchais' life. The one that takes place between 1775 and 1785. During this era, Beaumarchais was an extraordinary character. Not only, was he a great French writer, but he used to have several other jobs. For example, he was a spy for the king, supporter of the Human Rights (he took part in the writing of the Declaration of Independence).

Unlike to Ariane Mouchkine's movie called "Molière", here, the movie hasn't got the precision and the brilliance of the making and especially the Beaumarchais' lucid and visionary look on the society of the eighteenth century. Moreover, the screenplay only retains the most famous sequences and cues from Beaumarchais' full life.

On another hand, Molinaro had a wrong idea by making nearly all great French actors appear in one movie. Indeed, you only see them for a few minutes (sometimes a few seconds!) and generally in decorative and minor roles that don't bring anything to the movie, notably Alain Chabat. Among these actors, some of them are more specialized in comic films. So, the transition from a comic movie to an historic movie fits badly for them.

At last, the movie tries more or less to introduce a certain humor but this one doesn't articulate very well with the sequences. So, it turns out to be pointless and vain.

At the end, this is a low-key biography where you could have wished more contribution and harshness.