Quills (2000)

Must See Movie...

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

"Quills" was a difficult movie for me to watch. I don't get enjoyment out of seeing people being hurt. I don't find it entertaining to watch someone manipulate others who do harm to others or themselves. I watched it though, to see what Hollywood would make of a story of the Marquis De Sade. I should have known from the promotional ballyhoo the direction the movie would take. The film seems to celebrate the deviant behavior of a madman – as some sort of genius or repressed artist. And, it intimates that he was unjustly oppressed at the hands of evil sources. The IMDb listing has a Hollywood tag line: "In a Napoleonic era insane asylum, an inmate, the irrepressible Marquis De Sade, fights a battle of wills against a tyrannically prudish doctor." The DVD cover quoted from a New York Times review of the film that said it was "wickedly funny and very sexy." And, on Amazon.com, an editorial review refers to De Sade as "history's most infamous sexual adventurer." Nowhere in the buildup of the film is there the slightest reference to De Sade as someone with a mental disorder, with deviant behavior or who is pathological. But those are all terms that psychology has applied to such a character. It even coined a new term, based on his behavior, that describes him and others like him – sadomasochist.So, the marquis is "irrepressible?" That's a term used as much positively as negatively, as in an example from Webster's online dictionary – "a great shout of irrepressible laughter." And the doctor at the asylum is "tyrannically prudish." Neither of those words alone is used in a favorable light. Together, they are outright condemning. And, the marquis as an "adventurer," implies that he is on an exciting journey of discovery. So, the film is about a battle of the wills between good and evil. Only here it implies that sadomasochism is "good," and that other, socially acceptable behavior must be "evil." Consider these definitions that have come down to us in psychology. We get sadism from the name of the marquis. It is intentional cruelty that finds pleasure by inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation on others. It is often associated with sexual gratification from such behavior. Masochism is the enjoyment of one's own pain or humiliation. Sadomasochism is both. This film clearly portrays all of this, especially in the character of the marquis. My three stars are for Geoffrey Rush and his performance as the marquis. He indeed seems to be a person who relishes and revels in the deviant, and enjoys the hurt to himself and others. He has a little shock at the end to find that his promiscuity and goading of other asylum inmates leads to the killing of a girl. From what is known about sadomasochism though, his shock is not to be believed. He would probably have laughed about it as well, or shrugged it off. The film is admittedly a big piece of fiction. We're to believe that so many others – the workers in the asylum, and the general public were spellbound by De Sade's lascivious behavior and writing. Well, all except the pompous clergy and prudes of civil authority. De Sade's time was during the French Revolution, when madness ruled for many years and society lost its bearing. Civilization regressed for a time in France. I don't see a study of sexuality here, that one reviewer saw. Nor do I see De Sade as a creative genius, as a few see him. The Marquis De Sade was of noble birth and a French aristocrat. He was highly educated, and a philosopher of sorts. He was a revolutionary politician. He was a writer who was known for his promiscuity and deviant behavior, which he put down on paper. He also was a madman.This film came out in 2000, and the start of a new century and millennium. If this film, indicated by the praise for it in some quarters, is a sign of the changing times, will we soon see a reversal of mores? Will rape, murder, pornography, sexual abuse, personal assault and pathological behavior become the norm and no longer be abhorred? Will we soon see the loss of all morality, with tyranny replacing civilization? Praise of such films as this tells me that civilization may have begun to regress. But then, this may reflect just a small portion of society. Society is made up of many minorities. But, it can also come to be ruled by a minority that is destructive. We should remember that from Nazi Germany. Let's hope that most of society won't want to shuck its mores for unbridled freedom that leads to tyranny. This was not an entertaining film for me. Of all my family and friends, I can't think of one who would enjoy this movie. The only reason I could see for watching it would be to get a glimpse of sadomasochism, from its namesake. And, or to see how Hollywood yet in the 21st century will glamorize, gloss over or greatly fictionalize a subject.

Certainly not the period piece one would think of when talking about, well, period pieces. It's very amazingly built. it has such a dark, ominous atmosphere that really sets it apart, that same atmosphere really building to what the film is trying to say and to the film's climax. The performances from the entire cast are exquisite. Kate Winslet shines in one of her lesser known roles, and it's so great to see Joaquin Phoenix, who even threatens and succeeds to steal the film away from his co-stars. What an immensely talented actor. Then, we have Geoffrey Rush who brings a lot of different shades and dynamics to his character in a way I'm not sure any just other could've done.

Quills was not the only film about Marquis de Sade in 2000. It was more of a theatrical experiment, though, whereas French movie Sade offered an almost philosophical discourse.The premise here was that Marquis de Sade had been a whimsical old man. Not sure why this was the case, since the historical figure was a mere pervert with homicidal tendencies.The premise, in turn, follows a trend in contemporary art and culture, where Marquis de Sade becomes almost a free speech activist in today's terms.We might argue whether the film should follow historical facts or author's vision, but for me Quills deserves two stars.

I saw this movie a few weeks ago and I finally decided to write my review.What a great movie it makes you have mixed feelings in almost every scene and like others said it gets darker and more dramatic as the films advances.All the performances were fantastic and the chemistry between Kate and Geoffrey its great. Their relationship in this film reminded me too much the relationship between Haniball Lecter and Clarice starling in the silence of the lambs So why do I understand the people who didn't like it. It's obvious this film and Geoffrey Rush with his fantastic performance make the Marquise look like a a very charming sexy(in a different way) smart and heroic character when the truth is the real marquise wasn't exactly that way.(especially not heroic or sexy)!In short is the right word is Guilt What It makes us feel so guilty for liking a bad guy like him? The answer is easy Marquise truly existed meanwhile when we like Antiheroes like Haniball or let's say John Milton( Al Pacino in The devils advocate) we don't care because we liking a fictional character, but in this case it's real person portrayed in a fictional and Romanticized way.