The Lady and the Duke

Amazon.com

Seeing a film by the great Eric Rohmer was once notoriously likened to "watching paint dry"; in the haunting The Lady and the Duke, it's as if paint has come to life. To re-create France in the 1790s, Rohmer staged his intimate scenes against blue screens where his digital footage would be blended with backgrounds from Romantic paintings and eerily pure perspective drawings of 18th-century streets, rooflines, and landscapes. This cost-effective technique pays rich dividends, creating a Masterpiece Theatre-type world of such quaintness, it seems impervious to the bloody Reign of Terror crowding in ever more insistently from just offscreen. That's a rough analogue for the precariously privileged existence of our sympathetic main characters: Grace Elliott (Lucy Russell), a Scotswoman relocated to France, and Philippe, duc d'Orléans (Jean-Claude Dreyfus), her close friend and former lover, who's also King Louis XVI's cousin. As in so many Rohmer works, much of the film consists of conversations marking milestones in this pair's now-platonic, yet still intellectually passionate, relationship. But this time the issues truly are life-and-death. --Richard T. Jameson

Customer Reviews:

Rohmer's take on the French Revolution.......2007-01-01

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.

The Reign of Terror Had Never Been So Dull.......2006-05-13

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.

A Gorgeous film about a terrifying time.......2005-10-05

I loved this film and I highly recommend this beautiful work.

Murder, violence and destruction of all that has been and existed for centuries is taking place. One can watch this film and feel as if one is actually there with the heroine. There are scenes of great courage displayed by Grace Elliot as her world disintegrates in the violence of a revolution that has lost its way and has degraded into murder and a reign of terror that was surely instructive to another cadre of revolutionaries in 1917 and culminating in the purges of a self proclaimed "man of steel" in the twentieth century.

I would acknowledge that is a challenging watch for fans of the fast-paced films that employ gritty realism. It is not a film that would appeal to the action film crowd. "Like watching paint drying" would be an understandable complaint if one expected the Governor of California to roar onto the stage.

This film is not fast paced and its realism is in the faces and body language of the actors -- not in the use of camera angles and close ups. This is a movie where the emotions of the heroine and the other characters build suspense or convey grief, despair or fear. It is a very different form of cinematic expression than say, "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Passion of Christ".

The acting was superb. Indeed, the aristocrats are highly aloof but that was their way and it is not usual for us moderns to encounter this type of aloofness even in the face of catastrophe. To perceive the range of emotions and expressions manifest in this work one should also listen to the tone of voice and watch the gestures of the lower classes -- including the voices of women who are given voice in this work -- the revolutionary militiamen and their officers and political representatives. There are powerful emotions revealed in these faces and the body language is expressive of so much of the feelings being expressed by the characters.

Some criticism is made of the outdoor scenery but I would suggest that the scenery gave one an impression of a world that was both serene and surreal. Revolutionary violence was intruding upon the landscape of a dying rococo world of Fragonard that will give way to the severe and clear neo-classical of David. The revolution is spreading outward upon the old world with the effect of dark ink from a squid into clear water. The interior scenes give one a chance to see the furnishing and appointments of the aristocracy at home in Paris. The revolution was an intrusion upon their privileged lives and their heretofore inviolate dwellings too. The Lady and the Duke conveys this sense of intrusion and violation in a very powerful way.

It is certainly not a film to appeal to the sensibilities of the worlds dwindling numbers of social revolutionary radicals. I doubt this film has too many fans at Communist Party USA headquarters. By the same token, one needn't be a Royalist to empathize with the heroine. To employ ones' Empathy is what is key to the enjoyment of this film. Set aside politics and tune into listening and hearing the characters as they come to life in their era.

It is a film that would appeal to students of history and culture from the unique perspective of the last gasping remnants of the ancient regime. Students of the French language might also find value in this film because the language is crisp and clear

A Bit of Background Helps.......2005-03-03

After viewing this film, my initial impression was that Rhomer & Company failed to quite hit the mark. Rhomer and CGI effects just seemed like too incongruous a combo and the acting, particularly from Lucy Russell, appeared to be wooden and contrived to a great extent. The little figures of actors moving around in front of the CGI sets indeed do like choppily handled puppets. If I was to have written a review after just seeing the DVD, I would have assigned it 3 or, at most, five stars.

Then I thought about Hippolyte Taine. He is a largely forgotten early 20th C historian who wrote a huge chronicle on French History, with a large section devoted to the French Revolution and its causes. The more I compared my mental notes of Taine's depiction of Ancienne Regime France with Rhomer's vision, the more sense the movie made to me. In fact, I now consider The Lady and the Duke (the title sounds silly in English, like a movie about Audrey Hepburn and John Wayne) a work of genius. All my initial objections were no doubt the result of misinterpreting Rhomer's intent.

Yes, the actors, and Mme Elliot (Russell), in particular, appear stilted and overly formal in many scenes. Yet this is precisely the way the aristocracy behaved in that era. It is one of the factors that Taine points out as leading to their downfall. Mannerism and ritual had become a way of life and further alienated them from "the common people." Every word, every movement of every waking hour spent in society was predicated on a strict code of conduct that descended directly from the King and Queen down to the Court, and then onto the rest of the aristocracy. To veer from any of these set standards was to invite ostracism from the caste. Whenever the duke calls upon his former lover, the Scottish born, but Royally connected Mme Elliot, these rituals are carefully maintained. Rhomer does an excellent job of balancing the banal, formal dance these characters must charade through, with the genuine human emotion simmering beneath the surface. The tragedy of the situation is that, like the little figures lurching in front of the painted backdrops of 18th C Paris, these two are puppets as well. He, the Duc D'Orleans (Dreyfus), though cousin to the King, is trying his best to keep in step with the new generation of revolutionaries. She (Mme Elliot) is a Royalist to the core. They are victims of political machinations and of fate. Both are playing with fire, and in the end, both are fatally burned by it.

I wouldn't say it's absolutely necessary to read a history of the French Revolution, in order to enjoy this film, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some background in order to see where Rhomer is going here. It's a very insightful look into an era that was properly described as "The Reign of Terror." Also keep an ear open for some rather playful literary references tossed in here and there, as in when the Duc refers derisively to Laclos (author of "Dangerous Liasons," which in some ways mirrors the affair between the two lead characters). This is a very artful, in many ways subtle film and I can, after grappling with it for a bit, recommend it highly.

BEK

Revolution Come to Life.......2004-11-29

This is a superb movie that grips from the beginning. Based on fact, it deals with revolutionary France so that the viewer feels, "You are there". The clever ruses used then to get around guards, laws, inspections etc. are fascinating. Highly recommended for those interested in this era.

Average customer rating:

An intriguing, pessimistic tale by Robert Bresson, though not entirely successful
Pretentious Rubbish
French rubbish
A masterpiece, though not for everyone
a very purposeful film

Lancelot of the Lake
Starring: Luc Simon , Laura Duke Condominas , Humbert Balsan , Vladimir Antolek-Oresek , and Patrick Bernhard
Director: Robert Bresson
Manufacturer: New Yorker Video
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Art House & International | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Drama | Genres | DVD | Video

Period Piece | Drama | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Foreign & International | Stores | DVD | Video

DVDs Under $14.99 | Today's Deals in DVD | Special Features | DVD | Video

( L ) | Titles | Features | DVD | Video
Similar Items:

ASIN: B0001Y4LEG
Release Date: 2004-05-25

Amazon.com

This 1974 masterpiece by the late Robert Bresson (Mouchette) is a remarkable act of mythic revisionism. Stripped bare of its enduring romance, the Arthurian legend in Bresson's hands becomes an ugly and uncomfortably familiar vision of powerful men capable of cruelty, rivalry, disillusionment, and self-destruction. Lancelot (Luc Simon) is portrayed as a ruthless and ignoble opportunist who returns from his impossibly futile mission to locate the Holy Grail, only to callously rekindle his affair with Guinevere (Laura Duke Condominas). The emotional impact of the film is that of pure shock: the Arthurian ideal turns out to have little chance in the real world, and as there may be nothing worse than a hollow dream, the Knights of the Round Table descend into selfishness. Known as the great minimalist of French cinema, Bresson uses his trademark repression of energy--editing action sequences so that the visual emphasis is on tiny details--to create a tension that finally snaps with the mucky dissipation of the dream on unhallowed ground: Camelot ending not with a bang or a whimper but with the last clank of armor in a deluded cause. --Tom Keogh

Customer Reviews:

An intriguing, pessimistic tale by Robert Bresson, though not entirely successful.......2006-09-17

What to make of this movie? Blood squirts and drips from severed heads and sliced groins like thick cherry juice. Lancelot says "J'taime' to Guinevere with all the passion of a piece of cheese. As in most of Bresson's films, the acting is expressionless, but here it is emotionless. "You are alone in your pride," says Guinevere to Lancelot, while she stares at him without a trace of feeling. "Pride in what is not yours is a falsehood." "I was to bring back the Grail," he tells her. "It was not the Grail," she says, "it was God you all wanted. God is no trophy to bring home. You were all implacable. You killed, pillaged, burned. Then you turned blindly on each other. Now you blame our love for this disaster...I do not ask to love you. Is it my fault I cannot live without you? I do not live for Arthur." Guinevere is austere and relentless. And Lancelot? "Poor Lancelot," one character says, "trying to stand his ground in a shrinking world."

It's been two years since Arthur sent his knights on a quest for the Holy Grail. Now, exhausted, defeated, at odds with each other, their numbers severely reduced by disease and fighting, the remnants have returned. Lancelot saw in a dream that he must renounce his love for Arthur's queen, but Guinevere will have none of that. Mordred lurks in the shadows, hinting and insinuating. Before long, the knights have chosen sides. A few will stand with Lancelot in defense of Guinevere. The rest will stand...not with Arthur, but with Mordred.

Bresson has taken the Arthurian legend and turned it into a tale of hopeless pessimism. If you don't care for spoilers, read no further. How hopeless? Nearly everyone dies except Guinevere. There is no Robert Goulet in paper mache armor singing "If Ever I Should Leave You," no Nicol Williamson urging Arthur to do the right thing. It's difficult to say who is the more pig-headed...Guinevere for adamantly refusing to release Lancelot from his vows of love, or Lancelot later deciding that love is all. By the time they realize that Guinevere must return to Arthur, it's far too late.

The legend of Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, and of Mordred and Gawain, is emotional and powerful. Bresson takes it and squeezes it down until it is nearly wrung dry. Loyalties are as much based on self-interest and delusion as on true fealty. Love is as selfish as it is consuming. There's no room for hope, or even noble tragedy, in Bresson's version of the myth. Making the movie even more difficult to access is the Bresson style. Even in the most charged moments, the characters speak in a monotone. Bresson's penchant for amateurs and a flat style of delivery can work wonders in some of his movies (just look at Au Hasard Balthazar), but here everything is just flat. The photography is fascinating -- particularly the tournament sequence; all close-ups of the sides of galloping horses, just the legs of the knights, the sound of lances crashing into armor -- but it also is self-conscious. More than once I caught myself thinking, "Wow, this shot is sure pure Bresson." That may do much for cineastes appreciating an auteur director; I'm not sure it does much, in this case, to advance the emotions of the story. And yet, the film picks up a lot of steam. The last half hour is a beautiful, powerful picture of pointlessness. Mordred and his followers are going to usurp Arthur. Lancelot and his followers will ride for Arthur. And we see a shot of a riderless horse galloping through the forest, then a cut to a knight on the ground bleeding to death, then yeoman in trees firing arrows, then the sequence again, and again, and again. No music, just the twang of arrows, the sound of hooves, the muted clanking of armor. And then we see a pile of dead and dying knights. There's no winsome little boy to carry the tale of Camelot this time.

On balance, I enjoyed the pessimism, the rhythm of the movie and some of the sequences. The film is worth seeing, but I just don't think this is one of Bresson's successes. The DVD has a fairly good film transfer. There are no extras.

Pretentious Rubbish.......2006-06-07

I'm not sure what to make of the reviews in praise of this film. They reviewers are clearly not fans of Arthurian mythos or historical films either. Where they talk about understatement, minimalist approach or stripping the storyline down... I see only poor plotting, poor writing, bad direction and cynicism. There's room in Arthurian Mythos for chivalry to sit quite comfortably alongside anti-war, new age and early feminist messages but the Director fails to take advantage of this.

The action is atrocious. We have monty pythonesque blood spurting scenes and zero fight choreography - we might as well have been watching Ator the Fighting Eagle for all its authenticity. The armour clanks around uncomfortably on their gaunt frames - cuisses worn directly over tights (I pity the poor actors) and helmets worn without straps, padding or gorgets.

The acting is not so much restrained as wooden. On occassion we get a glimpse of emotion out of Guinevere but she seems emotionally worn out. The writing for Lancelot indicates that his character is self-involved and arrogant, but the actor appears simply bored with the role and never shows anything resembling the frustration and anger that Lancelot must be feeling. Gawain is the only decent character in this mess and contrary to legend, he manages to get killed by Lancelot whilst avenging his brother.

Then there's the endless shots of people arming and disarming - shooting sequentially what should have been simultaneous. Not to mention the raucus bird cries, the incessant horse neighing, the truly awful musette (and I love bagpipes...), the local peasant actors (they look like Bretons), the gaudy pink and orange saddles, the castles without gates, the lack of characterisation and the linear plot.

It all combines to make this the greatest waste of money I've ever spent. I'd rather have picked up a copy of Dungeons and Dragons the movie. If I could give it zero stars I would.

French rubbish.......2006-01-01

Anyone who can call this piece of Fench rubbish a 'masterpiece' is obviously caught up in that delusional mindset of Art moives having to be stripped of everything to make them powerful; therefore it must be a masterpiece is a myth; so much so there's nothing left but a depressing mess. The actors say or do nothing more than clump around in their shiny armour which they never seem to take off, all the time brooding woodenly, and talking to each other like robots, stripped of emotion. The soundtrack is appalling; all through the movie the sound intrudes with the nonstop clancking of armour and a single horse neighing over and over and over again in the background, the same horse, the same neighs. The jousting scene is so boring and repetitious you fall into a mind-numbed trance and you wonder how any director could make such a scene so DULL - and like the neighing horse in the background, it's played over and over again until you feel like screaming, "Get on with it!" like that brilliant scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (a far better movie; buy that one instead).
How this film can be seen as a masterpiece can only be described as self-delusion; or is it just because it's French and therefore must be a masterpiece? Lancelot of the Lake is a borish waste of a story that is in essense powerful and passionate and full of human struggles; there's no passion in this - Let's not go to this Camelot; tis a silly place...

A masterpiece, though not for everyone.......2005-07-29

This is a sombre version of the Arthurian legend, and in my view very much in tone with Thomas Malory's 15th century version. The latter is dark and foreboding, and so is this film. The deeds of arms of the knights are represented in terms that undermine the ideals of chivalry. There is only death, blood and severed body parts everywhere. The heap of bodies on which the last shot of the film focuses is the climax of this violence.

At the centre of this film stands the love between Guinevere and Lancelot, sublimely represented in the film: Guinevere waits for Lancelot's return in silence, and suffers for her love of him. Lancelot has come to the point where he tries to resist this love, for the sake of chivalry, but it is interesting to see the way in which he fails in his attempt to relinquish Guinevere.

I dare say this film is essential for anyone seriously interested in the Arthurian legend, and for anyone who has a clear understanding that the latter is not romance Hollywood style, but much darker. This is definitely not a film for everyone. There is a lot of blood and violence in the film, its atmosphere is dark, the dialogue is designedly monotonous, to match the sombre mood of the film, and there is no musical score throughout, except a very little in the beginning and end. It is exquisite in that it tells the story of a great love, accompanied by great suffering, and in that it demystifies any romantic notions we might have had about Arthur and his knights, as seen in other films of the genre. The austerity of the interiors also does away with our romantic illusions.

The acting is amazing, and I identified with the actor playing Guinevere in particular. The last scene of the movie, in which Lancelot, dying, says only one word: "Guinevre" (French version of Guinevere), stays with the viewer forever.

a very purposeful film.......2005-04-13

Robert Bresson is one of the most methodic directors of French cinema. In a way like Godard, you will either love his movies or find them a bit too intellectual - sometimes lacking the qualities that make us just sit back and enjoy. I found that I both love and hate his version of the Arthurian legend. At times the claustrophobia of the camera work is very effective - at other times it makes it very absurd. One thing is for sure, there are shades of genius in this film, the shots in the forest, in particular, bring some very relieving shades of green in the film. You also do get a sense of what the characters are wrestling with inside - and it is a very disturbing portrait, to be sure. Though I rate most of Bresson's previous work 5 stars - I think for now I will rate this 4 - but I still would like to watch it again to see what other impressions I get from it.

L'Anglaise et le Duc (Original French Version)

Average customer rating:

L'Anglaise et le Duc (Original French Version)

ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Art House & International | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Foreign & International | Stores | DVD | Video
ASIN: B0002M8QRU

Product Description

(Original French Version) Sous la Revolution, la vie perilleuse de Grace Elliott, une belle Anglaise royaliste resident en France, et ses relations, a la fois tendres et orageuses, avec le duc d'Orleans, cousin de Louis XVI, acquis au idees revolutionnaires. Elle le persuade de l'aider a sauver un proscrit, mais ne parvient pas a dissuader de voter la mort du roi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ An episodic look at Grace Elliott (1760-1823) and Philippe, the Duke of Orleans, during the French Revolution. In 1790, they are friends, no longer lovers. He suggests she leave France, she warns him to quit the Revolution. In 1792, she must escape Paris on foot. Less than a month later, she returns on an errand of mercy and shows great courage saving the governor of Tuileries. The Duke in turn steps in to protect Grace. In early 1793, she demands a promise from the Duke that he vote to spare Louis's life; he does not, and Grace is furious. In April, he warns her of a search; she is arrested and brought before the committee. Orleans, too, is suspect. The guillotine awaits.

Average customer rating:

Rohmer's take on the French Revolution
The Reign of Terror Had Never Been So Dull
A Gorgeous film about a terrifying time
A Bit of Background Helps
Revolution Come to Life

The Lady and the Duke [Region 2]
Starring: Jean-Claude Dreyfus , Lucy Russell , Alain Libolt , Charlotte Véry , and Rosette
Director: Eric Rohmer
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Drama | Genres | DVD | Video

( L ) | Titles | Features | DVD | Video
Similar Items:

ASIN: B00006IIY0

Amazon.com

Customer Reviews:

Rohmer's take on the French Revolution.......2007-01-01

The Reign of Terror Had Never Been So Dull.......2006-05-13

A Gorgeous film about a terrifying time.......2005-10-05

A Bit of Background Helps.......2005-03-03

Revolution Come to Life.......2004-11-29

DVD:

DVD

DVD