gahnsuksah This movie allows the French to give their own version of Sade and is historically accurate to the extent that it contains references to Sade's actual beliefs, as they appeared in print, and events in his life that have been corroborated. Sade turns out to be a thoughtful, philosophical man who looks at life head-on without illusions about the supernatural; moreover, the Sade of this movie is remarkably free from malice, cruelty and resentment.The script is well thought out, offering every point of view, and depicts some wonderful tender moments when he bids farewell to his protégé who similarly returns his affections with substance and sincerity, for she has undergone 'a learning experience'. No sign of wanton cruelty or mindless prurience there.Splendid acting, thoroughly believable characters, each individual a depiction of concord or dissent, the film shows every opinion circulating during the Revolution. The story does not portray 'the seduction of a young girl' for she is totally willing to accede to Sade's predilections and simply wants to experience life - that which her class and religion has denied her - before joining her ex-nobles at the guillotine.There are very few pictures of Sade that remain and it is difficult to assess how his physiognomy was representative of his disposition. Was he a besotted blockhead or just an unusual philosopher? Anyone who looks into the history of Sade's life is surprised by just how un-monstrous he turns out to be. Generous, tolerant and life-affirming, Sade was more simply a libertine - one who regards freedom of sexual expression a desirable thing and encourages people to get acquainted with their animal passions. His matter-of-fact atheism and his love of nature make him a very likable man - far preferable to the unhealthy vengeful Christianity that loves sending unbelievers to hell and eternal torment - for there be another version of sadism, indeed.And concerning sado-masochism, who amongst us has not enjoyed a massage that was a bit too strong, or a little spanky-panky in their sex life? Sade does not advocate thoughtless cruelty and his sex acts are strictly consensual among those with eclectic tastes. Hm-mm.

lazarillo This semi-biographical/semi-fictional account of the Marquis of de Sade (the great Daniel Autiel) is set during the "reign of terror" period of the French Revolution. The Jacobin revolutionaries had no idea what to do with Sade, who had been freed from the Bastile in 1789, but was also a symbol of the decadence of the noble class with his undisguised atheism, his sex crimes that had scandalized even the other decadent nobles, and above all his scandalous, decadent, and blasphemous plays and novels. So they put him into a "asylum"/prison on the estate of a hypocritical/opportunistic nobleman-doctor, along with a lot of other noble families hiding out from the terror (and paying financially for the privilege). There they reassert the old order, for instance, with wealthier noblemen taking liberty with the pretty young wives of poorer nobleman. Sade meanwhile tries to put on his scandalous plays under the aegis of the new regime and supposedly to preach AGAINST atheism. This movie covers roughly the same territory as "Marat/Sade" and "Quills", but drops any idea of Sade actually being insane. Here he is portrayed as quite sane--and even heroic--in comparison to the hypocrites surrounding him.This particular movie focuses less on his work though and more on two fictionalized (if not entirely fictional) subplots. One involves Sade's manipulation of the mother of his child, who is now the mistress of a high-ranking Jacobin, "Fournier", who she in turn manipulates to save Sade from the guillotine. "Fournier" is a sympathetic character, a child of the revolution who is doomed to be eaten by it, and Sade indirectly but skillfully manipulates him like a character in his one of his plays.The perhaps more interesting and certainly more sexy story involves Sade befriending the young daughter of a rich nobleman (Isild LeBesco), who he seems to simultaneously be sexually debauching for his own amusement while also saving her from the guillotine by getting her pregnant by other men (of lowlier social stations, of course). 17-year-old LeBesco is absolutely incredibly here. First off, is her truly unique looks--she is pale and blue-eyed, but actually part Asian, and is capable of looking both "ugly" and very beautiful. Second, is her voluptuous body which is just unambiguously beautiful (and not surprisingly, she shows it off a lot in her movies). Most significantly though is her ACTING. She goes toe-toe with Auteil as a precocious young girl who is intellectually Sade's equal, but still a virgin naïf in sexual matters. Her "deflowering" scene is absolutely incredible as once again Sade conducts a near-orgy like it's one of his plays.This probably isn't the most historically accurate account of the Marquis De Sade (having read of the truly appalling "120 Days of Sodom", I have trouble believing the real guy was this moral and NOT in some sense insane). But it's a very enjoyable movie.

dragokin I remember there has been another movie about de Sade in 2000. French Sade was more philosophically inclined, whereas international production Quills went for a theatrical experiment.The problems with Sade arise if you're informed about the main protagonist beyond the image of grumpy adventurer delivered in the movie. But this is also where we might ask ourselves whether movies about historical events should be based on facts or author's vision.Either way, Marquis de Sade is past his heyday and seemingly with some regrets. He needs some convincing in order to expose the youngsters to the pleasures of the flesh, eventually revealing just a fraction of his experience. I guess the historical figure wouldn't have hesitated from using and abusing everyone in sight, especially if there had been a possibility to get away with it.The movie paints de Sade's portrait as a disillusioned eccentric rather than a homicidal pervert he actually had been. Therefore only two stars.

alberich68 While there is much to admire in the performances, writing, and photography (especially the way the Marquis' sometimes greenish-black hue contrasts to Emilie's fair skin), the central thesis of the film is a little hard to swallow. Setting the story right at the nadir of revolutionary excess, where the nobility are being decapitated in the hundreds, the film-makers advance the notion that all the raping, maiming, and torturing in Sade's books are merely a joyous upwelling of the Life Forces amidst so much horror, like William Blake writing in a refugee camp. Yet this can only be made by transforming Sade from the bloodthirsty, all-screwing libertine that he was into a supercilious chattering class of one, a Cassandra who sees life even in the maggots swarming in his prison cell. Glimpses of his work are few and almost coy, while the sexual adventures of the other detainees get the full scan as neurotic and hypocritical. However they did recapture the dark wit that suffused Justine, and it that respect the Marquis is almost sympathetic.