Yes, there is nudity, sex and perversion here -- just as with most modern blockbuster movies! However, there is much more to see than Joaquin Phoenix's bare chest or the endowments of Geoffrey Rush and Kate Winslet. Witty quips keep us laughing through all but the most horrifying of moments, while ironic twists and deep themes give much to think about after the movie is long over. Quills is a true work of art, well crafted in both prose and performance.
Within the walls of Charenton, a French asylum for the insane, the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) is locked away in a prison of luxury. The Abbe de Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), a very positive reflection on the loving nature of his God, seeks to treat the Marquis through the therapy of writing. Madeleine (Kate Winslet), the beautiful and pure laundry maid, is the woman that they both care for, each in his own extreme way. Into this precarious, but comfortable triangle, arrives the tyrannical Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine). Sent by the self-described despot, Napoleon, to calm the Marquis' exciting, yet embarrassing quill, the doctor is versed in such "modern" medical techniques as leeches, the iron maiden, and a "calming" chair which is used to repeated dunk and almost drown patients.
Soon we are asking ourselves who the true sadist is here:
It is interesting that a movie based on the man after whom "sadism" was named -- a sexual orientation that in actual practice is often concerned with the consensual disciplining of another -- reflects so much on the subject of disciplining oneself. We are shown the extremes of this: - the facade of outer discipline in the Doctor, and the way he tries to impose it on others, - the maddening work of inner discipline on the Abbot, and
As the Marquis literally uses a mirror to create words, his words seek to mirror life. His real "sin" a deep-seated *need* to open to the light of day the darkness that lies deep within the soul of man. He has the power, strength and insight of a man who knows his own madness, something that the Abbe later comes to understand all too well. Again and again, we see the theme of a man driven mad by the truth that burns within his soul, for whom writing is his only redemption. The questions of whether art can be used as therapy and whether such productions can be blamed as something so evil that it incites others to "immoral acts" is central to the movie. But the biggest question of all is who has the right to judge the artistic expressions of another, what drives those who would set themselves up to do this, and what hatred and immorality is stirred up when we start doing so.
As a last note, I should point out that this movie is not necessarily true to historical accounts of the Marquis' life, especially in the manner of his death and in the nature of his relationship with Madeleine. Based on the out-of-print play by Doug Wright, I feel like much like "The Crucible", this piece is meant to be more of a statement on the insanity that is created by the judgements of society, than it is to be a historically accurate treatise. I also believe that historical accounts of any person or event are only one viewpoint that has been filtered and changed through time, and therefore it does no harm to to entertain alternative interpretations and possibilities.
Within the walls of Charenton, a French asylum for the insane, the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) is locked away in a prison of luxury. The Abbe de Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), a very positive reflection on the loving nature of his God, seeks to treat the Marquis through the therapy of writing. Madeleine (Kate Winslet), the beautiful and pure laundry maid, is the woman that they both care for, each in his own extreme way. Into this precarious, but comfortable triangle, arrives the tyrannical Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine). Sent by the self-described despot, Napoleon, to calm the Marquis' exciting, yet embarrassing quill, the doctor is versed in such "modern" medical techniques as leeches, the iron maiden, and a "calming" chair which is used to repeated dunk and almost drown patients.
Soon we are asking ourselves who the true sadist is here:
- the man who writes of prostitution, necrophilia and murder, or the man who forces himself upon a woman half his age, keeping her caged as a gilded bird? -the man who welds restraints and floggers via the hands of others or the one who shares it all with the world via his pen? And is the one who imposes such floggers and restraint upon himself a masochist, or simply a man true to his beliefs?
It is interesting that a movie based on the man after whom "sadism" was named -- a sexual orientation that in actual practice is often concerned with the consensual disciplining of another -- reflects so much on the subject of disciplining oneself. We are shown the extremes of this: - the facade of outer discipline in the Doctor, and the way he tries to impose it on others, - the maddening work of inner discipline on the Abbot, and
- the desire to slip beyond discipline of the Marquis. The effect of each is shown on psyche of the man who lives it. All the while, Madeleine retains a reflection of simple, straightforward, acceptance of oneself, reminding us that "Some things belong on paper, others in life. It's a blessed fool who can't tell the difference."
As the Marquis literally uses a mirror to create words, his words seek to mirror life. His real "sin" a deep-seated *need* to open to the light of day the darkness that lies deep within the soul of man. He has the power, strength and insight of a man who knows his own madness, something that the Abbe later comes to understand all too well. Again and again, we see the theme of a man driven mad by the truth that burns within his soul, for whom writing is his only redemption. The questions of whether art can be used as therapy and whether such productions can be blamed as something so evil that it incites others to "immoral acts" is central to the movie. But the biggest question of all is who has the right to judge the artistic expressions of another, what drives those who would set themselves up to do this, and what hatred and immorality is stirred up when we start doing so.
As a last note, I should point out that this movie is not necessarily true to historical accounts of the Marquis' life, especially in the manner of his death and in the nature of his relationship with Madeleine. Based on the out-of-print play by Doug Wright, I feel like much like "The Crucible", this piece is meant to be more of a statement on the insanity that is created by the judgements of society, than it is to be a historically accurate treatise. I also believe that historical accounts of any person or event are only one viewpoint that has been filtered and changed through time, and therefore it does no harm to to entertain alternative interpretations and possibilities.