The Lady and the Duke

Product Details

Product Reviews

(4 stars) - The Lady and the Duke
This is an excellent movie. It shows that History is very often better than Fiction. Also, showing the backgrounds or settings as paintings is very well done. I watched it once for this alone.

D.

(1 stars) - A Sow's Ear
I first saw this film when it came out, in my local Arts centre. Being a big fan of French cinema in general, I had high hopes of a rewarding experience. However...
The first annoying thing was an irritating technique employed by Rohmer whereby characters moved around as if coming to life in a water-colour wash from the period in which the film was set. This was all right to start with, but rapidly became irksome. Then there was the sound of heavy-heeled shoes banging on wooden floorboards (a la "Chalcon the Painter" amd "The Draughtsman's Contract"), something else that was meant to convey period atmosphere but which began to grate on the nerves along with the animated water-colour business. Worst of all, however, was the story itself. It was (I assume) meant to be a take on the Scarlet Pimpernel idea - virtuous aristos and their sympathisers outwitting the dastardly revolutionaries. However, the revolutionaries were far more sympathetic as characters than the putative heroes. Before long I was hoping the revolutionaries would hurry up, decapitate the aristos, and let us all go home. The titular heroine was played by Lucy Russell, who struggled bravely with an impossibly unsympathetic and poorly-written role - my heart went out to her when she was supposed to emote horror at the sight of an aristo's head on the end of a pike being waved in front of her face, but was only able to look as if she'd just seen the price of organic vegetables at Sainsbury's.
I tried valiantly to stay and use the awful experience to brush up my French aural comprehension skills, but about 30 minutes into it my legs declared independence and took themselves and the rest of me out of the cinema - only the second time I've walked out of a film I've paid full-price to see (the first time was with Hugh Hudson's execrable "Revolution"). Avoid at all costs and "Sauve qui peut" if anyone comes near you with it.

(4 stars) - Visually Mesmerizing
If you are interested in filmmaking as an art form, this is a must-see of modern film. The acting and production values here are all top notch, but it is the production itself which makes this film memorable and outstanding.

The story is the story of two aristrocrats during the French Revolution, one a royalist Englishwoman, one a revolutionist French Duke. This is the solid story of how the political became personal as they saw their friends and themselves enmeshed in the politics that became so bloody.

What is revolutionary in this film is that every outdoor scene appears to be a painting, so that the actors are acting, living, within beautiful paintings. This is mesmerizing and captivating effect. It has a bit of an unfortunate side effect of distancing you from the actors emotionally as you are enchanted by the scenery effect.

Because of this, and the structure of the majority of the scenes having only two to four people, this is much more like watching quality theatre. Really the BEST example of a play on film, because the script is very talky, and the whole outside world is painted backdrop. But all done so beautifully. But I do need to say that, like theatre, some film viewers will find it too talky and too slow. The revolution is primarily "over there" or "out there" not in here with us.

Lucy Russell's performance is a bit too restrained (but more attainable for a modern audience used to underacting), which can make her hard to "feel" for - but it becomes clear she herself is detatched from her emotions in general, fist because she is a creation of society, then because she can not allow herself to be attached to the horrors. Excellent performances throughout.

A mature and mesmerizing piece of art. (Then watch Rohmer's "The Marquise of O" - artistically literate, detail perfect, and a simple, but more compelling story.)

(4 stars) - Rohmer's take on the French Revolution
Rohmer returns to his historical dramas in this movie dealing with the real story of Grace Elliot, an Englishwoman (and fervent royalist) who stayed in France during the apex of the French Revolution. One always suspected that Rohmer was a conservative, but who knew he was such a red-blooded reactionary?. If you can put aside Rohmer's unabashed defense of the monarchy (and that is not an easy thing to do, given that, for instance, the French lower classes are portrayed here as hideous louts), this is actually an elegant, intelligent and polished movie. Lacking the money for a big cinematic recreation of 18th century France, Rohmer has instead the actors play against obvious painted cardboards. It is a blatantly artificial conceit, but it somehow works. And newcomer Lucy Russell succeeds in making sympathetic a character that shouldn't be.

(2 stars) - The Reign of Terror Had Never Been So Dull
Theres little need to give a synopsis of the story, as that has already been done in almost every other review shown here. I don't know why the director chose to use painted cityscapes, rather than actually make the movie on location. The artificial backdrop in front of which the characters parade make the movie seem dull and lifeless and I found myself watching the film with a certain amount of detachment, not really feeling involved wih the people or their lives. If you want to watch an exciting film about the French Revolution, buy A Tale of Two Cities instead.

Popular Searches in DVD