Absolutely Fantastic

A Masterpiece!

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

France is one of those few film making nations where the tradition of making films based on best selling as well as famous books continues to flourish as there is a huge cinema literate public which is always willing to welcome such films. This phenomenon has also a lot to do with the fact that a lot of French writers have transformed themselves into directors after having started their careers as writers. One can cite the names of writers such as Michel Houellebecq, Virginie Despentes, Yann Moix and Vincent Ravalec who have also worked behind the camera. By directing 'The Duchess of Langeais'/'Ne Touchez Pas La Hache' in 2006, it is after a long period of 41 years that French director Jacques Rivette has made a film based on a famous classic of French literature. Famous French writer of 'enlightenment period' Denis Diderot was the first person whose name was included in Rivette's Filmography as in 1965 when he chose to direct "La Religieuse" based on Diderot's famous novel about the tough live of a young nun. For the film 'The Duchess of Langeais', Jacques Rivette decided to film one of Honoré De Balzac's famous novels "La Duchesse De Langeais" which appeared in 1834 under the title 'Ne Touchez Pas La Hache". By making this film, Rivette has done an excellent job of faithfully adapting Balzac in order to give his actors Jeanne Balibar & Guillaume Depardieu a chance to render some true to life performances. There are also good performances by some big names of French cinema namely Bulle Ogier, Marc Barbé, Michel Piccoli and Barbet Schroeder. Rivette's film is about the cunning games of love and seduction which noble men and women played in olden times. Those were brilliant times when duels were fought on amazingly simple pretexts to protect one's honor in love. This is a film for those who enjoy good cinema as well as for all admirers of French culture, civilization and language.

A crumbling cloister perched high on a cliff on the Spanish coast, a wounded and rather pathetic general attempting to see a particular nun in the order living therein, who shun the outside world. This might seem an unusual beginning for a film by Jacques Rivette, who has more often traversed a fantasy-land of sorts in modern Paris, but those familiar with the byways of his filmography will remember several period films over the course of his long career, most notably the early The Nun which in many ways foreshadows this late film. An adaptation of a story by Rivette's favorite writer, Balzac, this story of thwarted love and societal repression also at various points recalls the director's obsession with theater, with performance as a daily part of life, and an ambiguous relationship with Catholicism.After a short introductory scene where we find that the general's object of longing has indeed joined the convent, a curtain closes as if to suggest that the principals are indeed play-acting, and opens again on a scene 5 years earlier in the drawing rooms of Napoleanic Paris. The eventual nun is Antoinette, the Duchess of Langeais (Jeanne Balibar), and it is she who begins the cat-and-mouse game that occupies most of the film, spying the limping Marquis de Montriveau (Guillaume Depardieu) at a party and immediately commanding him to call upon her. He does so and from then on a tug of war between the obvious passions, and the duties and strictures of the formal and unforgiving society around them takes over both of their lives with ultimately tragic consequences.The unattainable or impossible love affair has been a major theme in many of Rivette's works, most obviously "L'Amour fou", "Hurlevent" and "The Story of Marie and Julien". Duchess is cooler, more detached, and has an aura of inevitability or fatalism about it, and it lacks the carnality of those earlier films also, being almost entirely a talky mood-piece - though there is one extraordinary "kidnapping" scene which brings briefly to mind the conspiracy-world of many earlier works. And yet Rivette's always remarkable and thoughtful mise-en-scene, his slow camera movements punctuated by title cards (often at unpredictable points) does develop an aura of suspense and growing fascination. Will Montriveau's eventual finding of his lost Antoinette ultimately result in happiness? In death? In scandal? The film is too honest and stripped of inessentials to allow us an easy guess - its only foreshadowing lies in whatever we bring to it of our own knowledge of human nature.As usual in Rivette's late work the period detail is exceptional, William Lubtchansky's camera-work is as fine as ever, and the acting is committed. It's nice to see Bulle Ogier again, still beautiful and mysterious in her late 60s, now playing a supporting role (the wise and imperious aunt) but still dominating the screen in her couple of scenes. The production design (by Emmanuel de Chauvigny, who has worked with the director for years) is also wonderful - one of the things I love so much about Rivette is that he pays so much attention to texture, to the look and feel of doors and wallpaper, lamps and tables. Only David Lynch comes to mind as a contemporary director so consistently committed to these kinds of details and the "feel" of objects.Overall this doesn't feel quite like major Rivette to me, but like his previous "Marie and Julien" I'm still thinking about it, and liking it more the more I reflect. Canadian-release DVD watched.

I walked out. My date fell asleep. Badly acted, badly directed and I can't figure out how this got made. Who would fund such crap? I realize that this is a style of movie-making but it's a really bad style. No music, not transitional shots. Do we need text telling us that the next scene is "the following day"? My guess would be if the two are meeting tomorrow and he's wearing a different outfit that it indeed is THE FOLLOWING DAY! I really can't imagine what the vision of this movie was. I saw the good reviews on the poster and thought well, it must be good otherwise why would it be distributed in this country and playing at a theater that books great films? Boy was I duped. Run, do not walk, away from this one.

Rivette has already shown he is a master in directing movies in historical settings, as in Jeanne la pucelle or Suzanne Simonin. But in this one he actually surpassed himself. I find it incredible how he recreates the atmosphere of the early 19th century, how everything comes naturally and how details that probably took a lot of time to research are presented "en passant" rather than pointing out how different the world was back then, which is a frequent flaw in historic movies. Also the pictures are are incredibly dense and of rare beauty. If you want to get an idea what bored aristocrats in the early 19th century felt like and how they killed their time, this is the movie for you.If you are looking for action, a simple plot or references to current issues, stay away from it. Actually I think it is one of the greatest strengths of the movie that Rivette leaves the story in its time and does not try to adapt it to the taste of today's audience (also a very common flaw in historic movies - and a reason why I generally hate them).As for the story itself, I find it quite plausible and the actors get it across very credibly. However, if you are a sane person with no neurotic traits (I admit I have some) you might find it difficult to understand why the main characters torture each other that way. On the other hand, much of this is also rooted in the time in which the book was written.And yes, it is artificial, but it is so intently and I don't see anything wrong with that...