Let Joy Reign Supreme (1975)

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This movie tackles heads-on a very interesting period in French history, when the nephew of Louis XIV , Philippe d'Orleans, was made regent for 10 years while Louis XV, a 5-year old child, waited for his majority. Its strength: the angle chosen by the scriptwriters, who encapsulate in 90 mn a sharp evaluation of the character of the Regent in the context of the era he lived in. The director makes the choice to shows us a man eager and able to do good for the country, while jaded in every other part of his life. The story is cynical and bawdy, but there is great wit in the dialogs, and very sharp moments of political observations relevant to the period (as well as to our modern period, frankly). We see the Powerful, the Entitled, the greedy, the ambitious and the scruple-free, and we occasionally glimpse at the rest: the Poor, brutalized and hopeless. I liked how the figure of Philippe d'Orleans, a libertine and miscreant who notoriously managed to govern France wisely against all odds, is humanized here by his keen intelligence of the facts around him, and how he grabs the viewers' empathy thanks to his self-awareness -and inherent compassion-while steeped in widespread decay. Whether, as a ruler, he deepened that general decay with his own turpitudes, or whether despair in front of its extent prevented him from fighting it is the question the film poses.Unfortunately, this sharp attention to the character of Philippe is not given to the rest of the production. There is a feel of 'made for TV" movie about both the production and the casting. The main parts (Rochefort, Marielle and Noiret, Vlady) are wonderfully acted and utterly believable; but the rest of the cast feels like a bunch of extras hired on the run, thrown a costume and told to look and act "peasant", "soldier", "nun", "nude prostitute", "blind musician". I noted for instance that all the "starving" peasants look in fact well fed, and that the château's staff is forever statically sweeping the floor or pouring liquids in glasses. It seems no one cared to give them real directions, and that flaw distracted my attention too often. As a historical or political pamphlet, Let Joy Reign Supreme is truly a compelling movie to watch. But as a work of art, it left me wanting.

well, the film directed by auteur Bertrand Tavernier did win 3 awards at cesar, Tavernier who a former assistant to french crime master Jean Pierre Melville who died 2 years before the cesar award came out(1975)(so obviously unable to make his name into the cesar history) now could be touched in his grave since his prestigious student did it for him or in his namewell, the man who directed this decent film----Bertrand Tavernier, suddenly became a director after his master's death in 1973 and who I admit is a good director all the way , deserves his wins , but that doesn't mean the film is superior to those films made before 1975 when there were no awards to honor them. after all from today's point of view, 1975 is sorta the weakest year in all time french cinema, so we hope if cesar could have been launched much earlier than 1975I also noticed that some people,Michel Blanc ,Christian Clavier,Thierry Lhermitte,Gérard Jugnot who later became very famous here were all under the direction of tavernier who i actually didn't consider a star maker at all before this timecould have won more cesars if Tavernier was a better student

Considering that there have been very few films made about the regency period of the rule of Louis XV, this is an important film. However, as nothing of any particular significance takes place, the film itself seems to have very little to say. Yes, it makes clear that the Regent was a sexually obsessed guy and the courtiers were all pretty worthless. As a result, there is a lot of nudity in the film. It's rare to see a historical drama with so many small-breasted nymphs running about the sets. And, it implies that the young Louis is a depraved little kid--but it never follows through with this most interesting aspect of the film. I really think they should have either tried to make the movie MORE significant and involving or just thrown in the towel, so to speak, and made it a porno film. I half expected to see Sylvia Kristel as one of the extras. As it was, the movie just didn't seem to have much of an audience.

It is unbelievable how the director Tavernier could recapture the mentality of this beginning of the 18th century which would lead to the French revolution. The wars of Louis XIV had ruined the country and the best thing the regent (an excellent Philippe Noiret but all the actors are excellent) could do was to avoid war, so they spend their time with feasts, manipulation, fraud and speculation. The mentality of the Noble of France is well described. There is (among others) an interesting dialogue between the regent and his nephew about the way the comte de Horn should be executed: it had never happened before (in this way: rouer) in France, and he only killed a speculator!. All those pretty details and the funny but accurate dialogues make of -this movie an unique historical document and at the same time it is a pleasure to see the movie again and again.