Quills
(2000)
Even in the year 2000, it's nearly impossible to market
a film with a NC-17 rating. Many local newspapers won't
run ads for such films and many multiplexes refuse to
book such fare. An "NR" (not rated) film is subject
to equal if not greater problems. This is why the MPAA
and it's president Jack Valenti often offer up explanations
of "R" rated films as hard "R's" and soft "R's," leaving
most film goers and parents understandably confused.
A film about the historical degenerate and author
Marquis de Sade needs to be far more outrageous than
even the hardest "R" would allow. The film would need
to be near pornographic to truly capture the erotic
and violent themes expressed in the source material's
life and work. The Marquis' work, even by today's standards,
is nothing short of perverse and lubricous. Yet it's
endurance decrees that it must have at least some "redeeming
social value."
"Quills" attempts to do justice to this man of history
with a hard "R." It succeeds somewhat but leaves the
viewer wishing it had become even more smutty and more
wicked. Sure, there is masturbation, fornication, violence
and blood, rape, necrophilia, homosexuality, and even
religious types engaged in sexual thoughts and feelings
(there's gotta be a name for that)... theological eroticism?
(Isn't there a newsgroup for this?) but in the final
analysis it still doesn't seem to add up to contain
enough for the more adventurous viewer. We've seen far
more vile and raunchy stuff on the internet and in pornographic
videos. And those who are uninitiated to this sort of
thing (or repulsed, or disinterested) probably have
no desire to see a film about the Marquis de Sade anyway.
This is indeed a paradox. Still, it's one that won't
keep the intended audience away from the film, I presume.
"Quills," it's script by Doug Wright based on his
own stage play, stars Geoffrey Rush as the historical
reprobate. Overblown and extravagant, as he should be,
Rush delivers a character loaded with bravura. Taking
him from lovable instigator to out-of-control madman
allows Rush to wallow in a performance that will have
critics wailing. His overt fanaticism in the portrayal
of his character also rubs off on Michael Caine who
is, at least, subdued when compared with many of the
actor's previous roles. But Caine's sneering, lip-licking
bad guy often corrupts what might be an otherwise delightful
film.
"Quills" really wins us over whenever the more understated
roles in the film, those of Kate Winslet and Jaoquin
Phoenix, are exposed. Phoenix is much more impressive
than he ever has been before, allowing his thoughtful
and compassionate Coulmier several conflictions that
leave us wondering what he will do next. Winslet, likewise,
is just charming and wispy enough with her role to take
it to the perfect level, not exaggerated but not overly
subdued either.
But, alas, "Quills" should be much more erotic and
perverse and wicked than it is. We don't get a true
glimpse into de Sade but rather a twisted glimpse of
history done up in the predictable good vs. evil frills
which we've come to expect from lackluster Hollywood
tripe. There is a missed opportunity here to be extravagant
and wretched, to explore the perversity of the thin
line between pleasure and pain which is all but ignored
in the script. "Quills," like a timid torturer, only
scratches at the surface leaving us far too hungry for
more.
Note: Directed by Philip Kaufman.
More
of Lodger's reviews indexed alphabetically! Just click
your favorite letter to go there.
a
b c
d e
f g
h i
j k
l m
n o
p q
r s
t u
v w
x y
z
HOME
|
In
Association with:
|
Posters From!
|
|
Please Visit 
|
|
