Geoffrey Rush, Kate Winslet, Joaquin Phoenix, Michael Caine, Amelia Warner, Billie Whitelaw, Patrick Malahide, Jane Menelaus, Stephen Moyer. Written by Doug Wright. Directed by Philip Kaufman. The Marquis de Sade (Rush) has been committed to Charenton Asylum in Paris, 1794. Generously given excellent food and wine, books, quills and ink by the Abbe Coulmier (Phoenix), he has been encouraged to write to exorcize himself of his demons. He does so, and has a lusty chambermaid Madeleine (Winslet) smuggle out the freshly written pages for publication to an eagerly awaiting readership. Emperor Napoleon is revolted by the book Justine, and sends Dr. Royer-Collard (Caine) to inspect the Asylum and ensure de Sade does not publish again. But he does, and when his quills are taken, he uses a chicken bone and wine to write on the linen. And when all his possessions are confiscated, he uses his blood. When Madeleine is caught smuggling out some of linen writings, she is whipped until Coulmier comes to her rescue. He is forced to come to grips with his less than religious feelings towards her. And between Royer-Collard, Coulmier and de Sade, who will win the battle of wills? Based on a play by writer Doug Wright, the film re-orders facts, jumbles dates and offers composite characters. Indeed, Justine was written and published at least three years before the date in which the film is set, Madeleine is actually the name of one of his daughters, and while he did stay at Charenton Asylum five years before, he wrote much of his work from prison in which he spent close to thirty years of his life. Wright has said he has tried to capture the spirit of de Sade, his dark, venemous spirit. People through the ages have tried to decide who and what Sade was, vile pornographer or misunderstood genius (or both). His writings include bitingly funny passages and social satire but also dwell on necrophilia, bestiality, violent rape and mutilation. Unfortunately, the film can't seem to decide either. Over and over, de Sade in the film says he is just telling the ugly truths that are out there, but to which people are unwilling to admit. He exhibits an insatiable need to write his "truths", but often it seems it is just a way to get back at those who have incarcerated him. Often he comes across as an ancient shock jock, a Howard Stern who just likes to shock, with little of intelligence to say. The film does suggest de Sade was not insane, just twisted and mischievious. Because the story in the film is largely ficticious, I often felt it was contrived to manipulate me, even if I wasn't sure in what direction. What Wright has done is create a work staunchly supportive of artistic freedom, no matter how vile or disgusting it is, or whether someone reading it might be badly influenced by it. When the Abbe suggests de Sade's writings caused the death of someone close to both of them, de Sade asks it would be just as foolish to blame the Bible for the many evil things done in it's and God's name. Wright also satirizes the hypocrisy of those who would criticize his debauchery in prose while practicing similar acts in their daily lives. For example, the good doctor who loudly protests de Sade as a blight on decent society loves to torture his clients till they behave, and takes a 16-year-old wife less than half his age, forcing her to perform her often painful wifely duties. The film suggests the Abbe, a good and decent man, secretly lusts for Madeleine and is put through needless agony trying to deny his feelings because of church dictum. When the Abbe questions why Madeleine reads de Sade's work, she says reading about the bad in others allows her to be good in real life, justifying pornographic material as a healthy release. The performances are generally good. Rush revels in the chance to be as disgusting as he can, as well as uttering some choice lines about hypocrisy. There is a good chance an Oscar nomination awaits, but for my tastes, it is a bit overdone (although in some ways it is misguided to complaining about the Marquis being excessive). Better yet is Phoenix, excellent as the conflicted man of God who strives to control his urges and do good for his inmates. Winslet is solid as the good-natured chambermaid who craves stories to brighten her otherwise dreary life, although her character is a bit unbelievable in that she just laughs off the Marquis' excesses and is never fazed at all by him or his work. Considering his prior rape and sodomy convictions, it would have been more realistic for her to be at least a little wary of him. Because the film revels in the filth and sometimes unnecessarily jams it down our throats, many filmgoers might want to give this a pass, but if you're stomach is strong, the satirical and philosophical ideas may be enough to hold your interest. If you would like to respond, please click the E-Mail Press Here To Go To The Review List Page