Quills (2000)

When I think of the Marquis De Sade, I think of sadism, pure and simple (heck, the word comes from his name). Others may see him as a pornographer, a brutally harsh man, bestial, etc. It is a surprise therefore to see that director Philip Kaufman ("The Unbearable Lightness of Being") has sanitized the grand old Marquis somewhat, making him less the dangerously lecherous man and more the swooning, almost sympathetic writer dying to write his devilishly seductive prose with his needful quills.

Geoffrey Rush is De Sade, shown living in a dank stone cell in a mental institution known as Charenton. De Sade delights in writing and in speaking in gentle, arousing tones, embellishing and enunciating each and every syllable as if the English language were his own. Though he is imprisoned, he continues to write his novels, particularly the controversial "Justine," with the help of a chambermaid (Kate Winslet), a secret courier who delivers his work to the nearest town to be published anonymously. Of course, most of the townspeople know it is De Sade's work, only he could publish such scandalous writings.

Naturally such published works cause controversy and so the institution sends Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), a brutish, callous man to cure De Sade of his fiendish talent by way of torture. De Sade's work gets so out of hand and causes such scandals everywhere, including one involving Collard's own youthful wife, a former nun who reads De Sade's work with relish, that the writer is stripped of his talents, physically and emotionally. His quills are taken away, as are his clothes. You can't censor a good writer for too long since he uses any available means of writing his prose, including his own blood (by pricking his fingers) and his feces. This lunatic cannot live without writing, and never before have I seen such a slowly developed emotional catharsis for an artist intent on making his work come to fruition in any way possible.

"Quills" is quite prescient in its look at censorship, and how the writer of what some have described as pornography can be used as a scapegoat for the ills of society - certainly such lascivious prose would not cause women to act lustful now would it? And what about the other patients in the institution who act out his plays regularly - are they capable of misinterpreting his work and using it as an excuse to commit violent acts?

The centerpiece of the film is the naive young priest (Joaquin Phoenix), who believes that De Sade's work is immoral yet still admires the man for his tenacity. Still, the priest does manage to read some of the man's work and it may be possible that it causes him to develop feelings for the beautiful, buxom chambermaid.

"Quills" works mainly because of Geoffrey Rush's magnificent, fully alive performance - he wretches, he cavorts, he has a devilish laugh and smile, and basically, he is irresistible. I think the real De Sade must have been too, and his work shone with equal engagement. The chambermaid may find De Sade too intensely passionate for her blood, but she is nevertheless intrigued by him and sexually connected to him. De Sade turns out to bring out the best and worst in everybody close to him, including his long-suffering wife and, in a couple of startling scenes, the hypocritical Dr. Royer-Collard.

Exquisitely acted and often hauntingly beautiful in its bleached, murky look, "Quills" is about a madman who writes such erotic, violent words that it causes trouble not only for him, but for everyone around him. We can't stand to bear his pain or his enclosed surroundings yet we are unable to turn away and that, in the end, was the beauty of De Sade's art.

For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at http://moviething.com/buffs/faust/

E-mail me with any questions, comments or general complaints at Faust667@aol.com