Tavernier hit one out of the park with this, his second At-Bat. With the not inconsiderable help of Jean Aurenche, his co-writer, he offers one of the most accurate and dazzling evocations of French History ever put on film. The trio of heavy-hitters, Philippe Noiret, Jean-Paul Marielle and Jean Rochefort are outstanding as Regent, Rebel and Abbe respectively and it's interesting to find Thierry Lhermitte making an early appearance as a Nobleman which is more or less casting against type. The Sun King is dead but the intrigues with which his Court was riddled lives on and it is the nuances which delight rather than any set-pieces. This is definitely one to savour and will surely stand up to repeat viewings.
13 Reviews
the French revolution didn't come out of the blue
myriamlenys10 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
History movie with considerable bite and edge, situated in an era a few generations before the French revolution. The least one can say is that the rot has already set in : the future king is but a minor child, raised and supervised by his great-uncle the Regent, who is a sensualist and voluptuary surrounded by a constellation of prostitutes, opportunists, golddiggers and nitwits. (Look up "decadent" in the dictionary and you will find a portrait of this man.) At the same time one of the minor nobles tries to drum up local support for an attempt at some kind of separatist revolt or seccession. None of this is particularly helpful to a France crippled by debt and overflowing with poor and disgruntled citizens.
The movie, which boasts a prize cast, contains a number of sharp, vivid, memorable scenes, quite a lot of which (as you may have guessed by now) involve debauchery, both of the merry and the tedious kind. There are also some memorable lines, although the quality of the dialogue is very uneven : witty gems alternate with nonsense so bizarre or tone-deaf that it seems to spoof itself. Sadly the movie, seen as a whole, does not impress. The various incidents and episodes may be intriguing, witty or macabre, but they do not become a harmonious whole. It all has an anecdotal, meandering quality.
Still, the movie is not to be dismissed lightly, because it can teach a number of lessons. One of these lessons concerns religion : the movie tells you exactly what to expect if faith allies itself closely with politics and power and then continues this alliance for several centuries. It pretty much kills the religion : everything related to love for God or man evaporates, until you are left with nothing else than empty formalism, weaponised sectarianism, senile tradition or self-mocking cynicism. It's a message to ponder.
The movie, which boasts a prize cast, contains a number of sharp, vivid, memorable scenes, quite a lot of which (as you may have guessed by now) involve debauchery, both of the merry and the tedious kind. There are also some memorable lines, although the quality of the dialogue is very uneven : witty gems alternate with nonsense so bizarre or tone-deaf that it seems to spoof itself. Sadly the movie, seen as a whole, does not impress. The various incidents and episodes may be intriguing, witty or macabre, but they do not become a harmonious whole. It all has an anecdotal, meandering quality.
Still, the movie is not to be dismissed lightly, because it can teach a number of lessons. One of these lessons concerns religion : the movie tells you exactly what to expect if faith allies itself closely with politics and power and then continues this alliance for several centuries. It pretty much kills the religion : everything related to love for God or man evaporates, until you are left with nothing else than empty formalism, weaponised sectarianism, senile tradition or self-mocking cynicism. It's a message to ponder.
debauchery and revolt
dromasca29 January 2020
If you think 2020 is a decadent historical period with dubious morality and opportunist, cynical leaders primarily concerned with satisfying their personal pleasures, then you should try to compare with the year 1719 as presented in the film 'Que la fête commence ...' made in 1975 by Bertrand Tavernier. The English title is 'Let Joy Reign Supreme'.
Louis XIV (the Sun King, 'the state is me', etc.) had died for several years. His great-grandson, the future Louis XV, being a child, the affairs of the state were run by his uncle, the regent Philippe II d'Orleans (played by Philippe Noiret). The rengent was a liberal who had introduced timid political reforms, but also a libertine, an amateur of ever-younger mistresses, procured by his chief adviser, abbot Dubois (Jean Rochefort), a thruster whose main aim was to reach the rank of bishop despite his modest origins. At the royal court and in the palaces of the nobility debauchery, greed and immorality were the norm, and only death, sometimes tragic, sometimes stupid, interrupted the series of parties. The rest of the country mirrored in other shades and colors the same political and moral decay - priesthood was concerned with the excommunication of rats, the small nobility with separatist plots, and the simple people caring for the bread of tomorrow. The story follows the Breton plot led by the picaresque Marquis de Pontcallec (Jean-Pierre Marielle) and the way the higher classes react (or ignore) the growing social fermenting. The seeds of the revolution had been thrown away, but the century was still young and 70 years would pass until the fall of the Bastille.
With this film Bertrand Tavernier approaches a popular and successful genre of French cinema of the 50s and 60s - the cape and sword films, but his heroes are far from being gallant musketeers. The director seems to have not yet mastered the fluidity of the cinematic narrative, very visible in his next films, or he may have been more concerned with the elements of historical satire, the glove-less portrayal of the villains of the time hidden behind their carnival masks, of sarcastic criticism of the decay that rages behind the luxurious decorations and beneath the tables of copious banquets. The historical reconstruction is frothy, with many moments of cynical and extreme humor. Today's viewers who appreciate French cinema and its actors are offered the opportunity to see Philippe Noiret in one of his many notable roles and with Jean Rochefort who camouflages his inborn nobility to embody the role of the Machiavellian abbot who sets in motion political intrigues. The acting revelation, however, is Jean-Pierre Marielle, a lesser-known actor, who builds a memorable character, a kind of late and disturbed Don Quixote, a victim of his own ambitions. The film has a modern look and the 45 years since its creation only contribute to amplifying its effect on the viewers. Paradoxically, or perhaps not, the historical comparison seems even more actual today than it was then.
Louis XIV (the Sun King, 'the state is me', etc.) had died for several years. His great-grandson, the future Louis XV, being a child, the affairs of the state were run by his uncle, the regent Philippe II d'Orleans (played by Philippe Noiret). The rengent was a liberal who had introduced timid political reforms, but also a libertine, an amateur of ever-younger mistresses, procured by his chief adviser, abbot Dubois (Jean Rochefort), a thruster whose main aim was to reach the rank of bishop despite his modest origins. At the royal court and in the palaces of the nobility debauchery, greed and immorality were the norm, and only death, sometimes tragic, sometimes stupid, interrupted the series of parties. The rest of the country mirrored in other shades and colors the same political and moral decay - priesthood was concerned with the excommunication of rats, the small nobility with separatist plots, and the simple people caring for the bread of tomorrow. The story follows the Breton plot led by the picaresque Marquis de Pontcallec (Jean-Pierre Marielle) and the way the higher classes react (or ignore) the growing social fermenting. The seeds of the revolution had been thrown away, but the century was still young and 70 years would pass until the fall of the Bastille.
With this film Bertrand Tavernier approaches a popular and successful genre of French cinema of the 50s and 60s - the cape and sword films, but his heroes are far from being gallant musketeers. The director seems to have not yet mastered the fluidity of the cinematic narrative, very visible in his next films, or he may have been more concerned with the elements of historical satire, the glove-less portrayal of the villains of the time hidden behind their carnival masks, of sarcastic criticism of the decay that rages behind the luxurious decorations and beneath the tables of copious banquets. The historical reconstruction is frothy, with many moments of cynical and extreme humor. Today's viewers who appreciate French cinema and its actors are offered the opportunity to see Philippe Noiret in one of his many notable roles and with Jean Rochefort who camouflages his inborn nobility to embody the role of the Machiavellian abbot who sets in motion political intrigues. The acting revelation, however, is Jean-Pierre Marielle, a lesser-known actor, who builds a memorable character, a kind of late and disturbed Don Quixote, a victim of his own ambitions. The film has a modern look and the 45 years since its creation only contribute to amplifying its effect on the viewers. Paradoxically, or perhaps not, the historical comparison seems even more actual today than it was then.
ironic perspective
Kirpianuscus19 August 2017
a page from French modern history. impressive cast. bitter story about power, desire and sins, good intentions and the reality behind appearances. a bitter show , using in wise manner the clichés about the period, the large sort of humor and the splendid atmosphere of a France reduced at the life of elite, în which the ordinary people is reduced at status of silhouettes. short, an ironic perspective about a time who, în too many aspects, seems more than familiar.
great story, bad direction
Barbouzes10 August 2015
This movie tackles heads-on a very interesting period in French history, when the nephew of Louis XIV , Philippe d'Orleans, was made regent for 10 years while Louis XV, a 5-year old child, waited for his majority. Its strength: the angle chosen by the scriptwriters, who encapsulate in 90 mn a sharp evaluation of the character of the Regent in the context of the era he lived in. The director makes the choice to shows us a man eager and able to do good for the country, while jaded in every other part of his life. The story is cynical and bawdy, but there is great wit in the dialogs, and very sharp moments of political observations relevant to the period (as well as to our modern period, frankly). We see the Powerful, the Entitled, the greedy, the ambitious and the scruple-free, and we occasionally glimpse at the rest: the Poor, brutalized and hopeless. I liked how the figure of Philippe d'Orleans, a libertine and miscreant who notoriously managed to govern France wisely against all odds, is humanized here by his keen intelligence of the facts around him, and how he grabs the viewers' empathy thanks to his self-awareness -and inherent compassion-while steeped in widespread decay. Whether, as a ruler, he deepened that general decay with his own turpitudes, or whether despair in front of its extent prevented him from fighting it is the question the film poses.
Unfortunately, this sharp attention to the character of Philippe is not given to the rest of the production. There is a feel of 'made for TV" movie about both the production and the casting. The main parts (Rochefort, Marielle and Noiret, Vlady) are wonderfully acted and utterly believable; but the rest of the cast feels like a bunch of extras hired on the run, thrown a costume and told to look and act "peasant", "soldier", "nun", "nude prostitute", "blind musician". I noted for instance that all the "starving" peasants look in fact well fed, and that the château's staff is forever statically sweeping the floor or pouring liquids in glasses. It seems no one cared to give them real directions, and that flaw distracted my attention too often. As a historical or political pamphlet, Let Joy Reign Supreme is truly a compelling movie to watch. But as a work of art, it left me wanting.
Unfortunately, this sharp attention to the character of Philippe is not given to the rest of the production. There is a feel of 'made for TV" movie about both the production and the casting. The main parts (Rochefort, Marielle and Noiret, Vlady) are wonderfully acted and utterly believable; but the rest of the cast feels like a bunch of extras hired on the run, thrown a costume and told to look and act "peasant", "soldier", "nun", "nude prostitute", "blind musician". I noted for instance that all the "starving" peasants look in fact well fed, and that the château's staff is forever statically sweeping the floor or pouring liquids in glasses. It seems no one cared to give them real directions, and that flaw distracted my attention too often. As a historical or political pamphlet, Let Joy Reign Supreme is truly a compelling movie to watch. But as a work of art, it left me wanting.
Very accurate historical movie
jos-destrooper8 January 2004
It is unbelievable how the director Tavernier could recapture the mentality of this beginning of the 18th century which would lead to the French revolution. The wars of Louis XIV had ruined the country and the best thing the regent (an excellent Philippe Noiret but all the actors are excellent) could do was to avoid war, so they spend their time with feasts, manipulation, fraud and speculation. The mentality of the Noble of France is well described. There is (among others) an interesting dialogue between the regent and his nephew about the way the comte de Horn should be executed: it had never happened before (in this way: rouer) in France, and he only killed a speculator!. All those pretty details and the funny but accurate dialogues make of -this movie an unique historical document and at the same time it is a pleasure to see the movie again and again.
like teacher like student
didiermustntdie14 April 2007
well, the film directed by auteur Bertrand Tavernier did win 3 awards at cesar, Tavernier who a former assistant to french crime master Jean Pierre Melville who died 2 years before the cesar award came out(1975)(so obviously unable to make his name into the cesar history) now could be touched in his grave since his prestigious student did it for him or in his name
well, the man who directed this decent film----Bertrand Tavernier, suddenly became a director after his master's death in 1973 and who I admit is a good director all the way , deserves his wins , but that doesn't mean the film is superior to those films made before 1975 when there were no awards to honor them. after all from today's point of view, 1975 is sorta the weakest year in all time french cinema, so we hope if cesar could have been launched much earlier than 1975
I also noticed that some people,Michel Blanc ,Christian Clavier,Thierry Lhermitte,Gérard Jugnot who later became very famous here were all under the direction of tavernier who i actually didn't consider a star maker at all before this time
could have won more cesars if Tavernier was a better student
well, the man who directed this decent film----Bertrand Tavernier, suddenly became a director after his master's death in 1973 and who I admit is a good director all the way , deserves his wins , but that doesn't mean the film is superior to those films made before 1975 when there were no awards to honor them. after all from today's point of view, 1975 is sorta the weakest year in all time french cinema, so we hope if cesar could have been launched much earlier than 1975
I also noticed that some people,Michel Blanc ,Christian Clavier,Thierry Lhermitte,Gérard Jugnot who later became very famous here were all under the direction of tavernier who i actually didn't consider a star maker at all before this time
could have won more cesars if Tavernier was a better student
One of the greatest historical movie.
real_satanique27 January 2002
This is one of my all time favorite movie and probably the best historical movie ever. One of the few movies featuring 3 of the best french actors (in leading roles): Philippe Noiret, Jean Richefort and Jean-Pierre Marielle. This movie is about how cynical France was ruled after the death of Louis XIV and while the new (Louis XV) was just a child. Don't expect a spectacular movie with great action and bloody violence (like Gladiator or Brave Heart). The pleasure with this movie is somewhere else: dialogs (brilliant), description of cynicism of the nobility and the actors performances (Jean Rochefort, playing L'Abbé Dubois, stoled the show).
It's not like that
irimia-tudor7 May 2020
This movie IT'S DEFINITELY NOT "probably the best historical movie ever" or "one of the few movies featuring 3 of the best French actors (in leading roles)",as someone SO WRONGLY says in a review!THESE ARE SIMPLY HUGE NONSENSES!First of all,this movie IT'S NOT AT ALL "probably the best historical movie ever"!To say something like this means that YOU DON'T KNOW ALMOST ANYTHING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL MOVIES!This film is pretty nice,but THERE ARE A LOT OF HISTORICAL MOVIES which are MUCH BETTER and which DEAL WITH MUCH MORE IMPORTANT HISTORICAL THEMES!Then,THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT "one of the few movies featuring 3 of the best French actors (in leading roles)"!THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER MOVIES featuring 3 OR MORE of the best French actors in leading roles(obviously because such actors WILL ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE THE LEADING ROLES)!So,some people SHOULD REALLY STOP WRITING all kind of BIG NONSENSES like this in here!
amazing historical and psychological drama
kalala4 May 2005
This is a film that has haunted me for thirty years. I just re-viewed it on DVD and it was every bit as good as I remembered. I don't know why it doesn't show up in festivals and best-of-all-times list; it is on mine. It is satisfyingly densely textured and the acting is flawless. It is rich in every way-- historically fascinating as it shows the tugging at the fibers of France that would eventually (but not quite yet) culminate in revolution, the many nuances of class resentment from the top down -- tension between royalty and nobility, generals and (would-be) clergy, and provincial gentry and their peasantry.
Luxurious scenes and costumes and cinematography. Psychologically rich, terrific dialog, in the closely twined relationship between jaded nobility and ambitious bourgeois that plays out in a tug-of-war over the fate of Bretons. Philippe Noiret as the jaded regent is the ambiguous moral center, stoic yet decadent, embodying la patrie yet carving a private erotic niche apart from a world where his decision can tip the balance of European powers.
Luxurious scenes and costumes and cinematography. Psychologically rich, terrific dialog, in the closely twined relationship between jaded nobility and ambitious bourgeois that plays out in a tug-of-war over the fate of Bretons. Philippe Noiret as the jaded regent is the ambiguous moral center, stoic yet decadent, embodying la patrie yet carving a private erotic niche apart from a world where his decision can tip the balance of European powers.
Correct historical account
jos-destrooper14 January 2004
This majestic movie reveals everything of that contrasting period after the reign of the "Roi Soleil". France was empty-blooded by the wars and de best thing the Régent of that moment could was to make peace with England. A Breton upraising supported by Spain was the worst case scenario. L'abbé Dubois is eager to become archbishop and everything he does, even the national politics is supported by his dream. We see the speculations about Missisipi and the first bank notes by the state. The Régent, Philippe Noiret, is a person who enjoys life and tries to avoid all problems. Against this, l'abbé Dubois and the nephew of the Régent seem to be the human beasts fueled by their ambition. The church is all powerful and the High Nobility without scruples. The state tries to populate la Louisiane by embarking prostitutes. The Régent seem to be the only good person of his time. This movie is a joy to watch again because of the sharp dialogue and the historical details.
only mildly interesting
planktonrules29 April 2006
Considering that there have been very few films made about the regency period of the rule of Louis XV, this is an important film. However, as nothing of any particular significance takes place, the film itself seems to have very little to say. Yes, it makes clear that the Regent was a sexually obsessed guy and the courtiers were all pretty worthless. As a result, there is a lot of nudity in the film. It's rare to see a historical drama with so many small-breasted nymphs running about the sets. And, it implies that the young Louis is a depraved little kid--but it never follows through with this most interesting aspect of the film. I really think they should have either tried to make the movie MORE significant and involving or just thrown in the towel, so to speak, and made it a porno film. I half expected to see Sylvia Kristel as one of the extras. As it was, the movie just didn't seem to have much of an audience.
On the way to the Revolution
tils420 May 2005
This banquet, unlike one of foodstuffs, can be savored again and again to discover its parts. A political tale, a moral tale, an aesthetic breadth that rewards repeated viewing. The casual brutality of the palace: children playing darts against a painting; nobles and servants tossing around a dead rat; and, of course, the walking latrine! As above, so below: brutish soldiers, "shanghai-ers" for the colonies, provincial nobles who live in squalid houses barely above hovels. Noiret, Rochefort, Marielle so perfectly embody their characters; wise yet inconstant Orleans, conscienceless striver Dubois, impetuous, foolish yet gentlemanly Pontcallac. It would be rewarding to view this en suite with Etore Scola's brilliant "La Nuit de Varennes" to bracket the themes.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
