La reine Margot

Everything about this picture is beautiful, even the ugliness is beautiful...an oxymoron, but the only way I can describe it. This is a stunning tale of 16th century sex and violence, with a dirty realism, but still an overlay of beauty.

Isabelle Adjani is intense, beautiful, and sensuous as Margot, the highly sexed, intelligent and dutiful sister of the doomed King Charles IX of France. She is forced into a marriage of political and religious convenience by her bitterly ambitious mother, Catherine de Medici (Virna Lisi) to the repulsive Henri Navarre (sympathetically played by Daniel Auteuil). There is a tremendous amount going on, and Margot's incest with her brothers is more than hinted at.

The searingly sensual Vincent Perez plays La Mole, who eventually becomes Margot's doomed lover. Their first encounter is an acrobatic feat of anonymous sex in an alleyway that is breath-taking. Their later love scenes are intensely erotic. This film only becomes better on repeat viewings. I found I was able to grasp more on my second viewing. There is so much going on, so many twists and turns and shocks, and the film is also quite long. It never lags, and even Margot's grudging tolerance, if not love, for her husband, is believingly portrayed. Very highly recommended.

The timing of the release of this movie was sublime, if coincidental. I was living in France in the Spring of 1994 when this movie was released, so I got to see it on the big screen in Paris. It was quite chilling really: I was sitting in a theater watching the St Bartholemew's Day Massacre right in the midst of where it happened some 420 years earlier. Torture, mutilation, immolation, throwing naked bodies in the river, all because people were of the wrong group.

Then I went home to my apartment and when I turned on the TV, I got to watch torture, mutilation, immolation, throwing naked bodies in the river, all because people were of the wrong group. This time it was in Rwanda.

Catholics and Huguenots, Hutus and Tutsis, Seine or Nile, we haven't progressed very far in a half millennium.

The movie was a bit complicated, but it seemed to catch the the politics and the scheming that was taking place in the French court at the time as well as the horror of the massacre. But it is also a movie of our times: the message that civilization is only a hair-trigger away from from the most savage acts of barbarism. And that we haven't stopped even yet. The timing and the message were an accident, and made all the more vivid for it.

I highly recommend the movie for the performances but also for the message.

I don't pretend to know the minutiae of the historical record, but it was Definitely Not Dumas, or I lost it all in the English translations! Like many others I've always been fascinated by this episode in French history, a turbulent and savagely intolerant period and not only in France, but 1572 is yet another year that went down in infamy. This film portrays the complicated machinations performed by Catherine de Medici and her cohorts in furthering her Catholic ambitions for her country and debauched family against the perceived threat of dour Protestantism, and centred around the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre.

It's the rather beautiful Isabelle Adjani's stunning performance as Queen Margot that can leave you as breathless as she often is in the film, without her it would have been a much poorer film. She seemed to live the part, with every emotion imaginable on display. Would French breathlessness, or those huge rustling dresses sound as good dubbed into English?! On the other hand the rest of the cast are superb in their roles too, but especially Daniel Auteuil as Henri de Navarre and Jean Hugues Anglade as Charles IX, making them both extremely believable sympathetic characters when they weren't. The bloodbath and the anarchy of the Massacre and aftermath is vividly presented – we are not spared a single thing in the entire film, all manner of violence and depravity is non-gratuitously displayed. It's impossible to convey a part of what happens in this film – the same as it must have been impossible for the film to convey a fraction of what happened in that era too: it really is a must-see. I've seen it a number of times now since 1994 and I find something new I hadn't spotted before every time. It's a film that can make you realise (if you didn't before) that millions of ordinary folk all around the world could and still can believe in such arrant religious nonsense to the point of committing multiple ghastly murders in the name of empty air.

Apart from all that, it's a beautifully crafted film, the best of its kind there's ever been.

French dynastic history in the late 16th century does not seem a promising subject for a film, but Patrice Chereau, a prominent French stage director, has teased out some personal drama out of the larger historical picture, and provided a vivid and absorbing tale. The story itself is adapted from Alexandre Dumas' novel, which is a pretty highly colored piece to begin with. Chereau theatrically plasters the set with blood and gore, and we are left in no doubt that an atrocity has occurred (the St Bartholomew's day massacre of the Hugenots.) The mendacious Queen Mother, Catherine di Medici, and her weak-minded son, Charles IX, seem to have set it off to deal with the protestant problem without realizing how bad it might get.

In all this horror is the rather cute tale of the relationship between two disparate personalities thrown together in marriage, Catherine's daughter Margo and Henry of Navarre (later Henry IV of France, and one of its better kings). Margo is repulsed at first sight by Henry `the peasant' while Henry rightly regards her as about as loving as a trapped tiger. Yet they reach an accommodation and finish up friends. Both have other lovers (and both respect that) but neither can prevent the lovers from coming to sticky ends.

It's always a bit hard to assess the acting when you are relying on sub-titles (if only the French didn't speak so fast) but Isabella Adjani at the age of 40 pulled off a remarkable job and had me convinced she really was a spoilt, willful little nymphomaniac in her early 20's. She looked as young as she did in the `Story of Adele H' 20 years earlier. Daniel Auteuil was also excellent as the unprepossessing but very intense and quick-thinking Henry. Virna Lisi, a sex symbol in her earlier film career, made a good villainess as Catherine. Most of the other principals seem to have been chosen for their looks by rent-an-ego casting though Jean-Huges Anglade was suitably pathetic as the doomed King Charles.

The rather claustrophobic sets brought home the medieval lack of privacy, even (perhaps especially) in royal palaces – the old Louvre was about as spacious as the ‘loo. The film fades a bit in the second half, but it's still not a bad story, if at times a bit difficult to follow. I have to say I found `Elizabeth' more interesting and a lot less bloody. Anyway, `Margo' is very French, and not to be judged by Hollywood standards (whatever they are).

"Queen Margot" is a French epic drama which tells of the political forces at work in France at the time of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre which signaled the beginning of the end of the "religious wars" raging in France in the early to mid 16th century. Queen Margot (Adjani) is at the center of this maelstrom of wickedness and treachery which looks at everything from poison lip rouge to a bloody holocaust. An elaborate award winning production, "Queen Margot" presents its history realistically with no clear sense of good or evil - unlike "Braveheart", for example - with countless extras, spectacular costuming, and artistry in cinematography. Well worth its 2.5 hour run, this dark film, based on the novel by A. Dumas, is lacking in the didactic and will be difficult to follow for all but those with historical knowledge of the place and time. A little research prior to watching the film can go a long way toward understanding the complexities of the story.