Quills (2000) User Reviews

In Life All You Need Is A Quill And A Paper

[alexkolokotronis · 8/10 · 31 January 2009]

Quills is a movie about the man The Marquis De Sade. If you are not familiar with him watching the movie would be advisable even though your own research might be better. The film follows him played amazingly by Geoffrey Rush in a insane asylum. Michael Caine who is an expert at "curing" people of their madness wishes to take a new approach at solving the mental in-capacities of the inmates of the Charenton. This of course it that of more brutal methods than that of the Abbe played by Joaquin Phoenix. What does seem of the least cruel of the punishments in this movie turns out to be the most costly, Sade is no longer allowed to write. This had dramatic affects on him and his state of mind.

In the movie Geoffrey Rush simply shines. Here he proves once again how he has undoubtedly one of the most under appreciated actors around today. His performance is unique in that he plays a man considered perverse yet brilliant, a man of many self contradictions. As the film wears on Geoffrey Rush does not take the easy way out in making his performance extraordinary flashy, in fact it remains quite subtle. His subtly is what truly makes his performance great with the many underlying tones he carries. Michael Caine whenever in a film carries this great presence with him and continues to do so here. He is obviously a man of many secrets and I had wished he was given more screen time to study his more of his character motivations and actions. Kate Winslet and Joaquin Phoenix play well in this movie but have had better performances which is a true testament to their abilities.

The writing of the movie is very good in that the movie remains interesting throughout. What fails though is the directing. It was solid but refused took unnecessary turns in the film. The romantic tension between Winslet and Phoenix was pushed upon the story a bit too hard and at times dragged away from what was a compelling enough of a theme: freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is something that we all have to have in our lives. If we do not have it we will go crazy like many of the inmates of the Charenton. Our ideas is what keeps us going and when that right is taken away from us our problem do not disappear they erupt. For example some people express their ideas through writing such as the Sade in this film. If that is taken away not only do we lose our sanity but along with it our very humanity. We can no longer differentiate between fantasy and reality as Geoffrey Rush so perfectly illustrates. That is what this film showed but unfortunately did not show enough of. If it had stayed more consistent with this theme and picked it apart in other aspects it would have reached at the height of greatness. Yet it did not and is very good recommendable film but not what it could have been.

Geoffrey Rush brilliant

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 11 February 2016]

The Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) is locked up in the Charenton Insane Asylum run by Abbé du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix). Laundress Madeline LeClerc (Kate Winslet) falls for the lascivious Marquis de Sade and helps him smuggle out his writings. Emperor Napoléon Bonaparte wants him stopped and sends Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) with his tortuous treatments. Royer-Collard marries the young Simone (Amelia Warner) who lived in a convent.

Geoffrey Rush is absolutely brilliant as the Marquis de Sade. The acting in this is first rate. I wish Rush get more screen time as the lead character. He's nominated for the Oscar as lead actor but he's more as one of the cast. Royer-Collard's hypocrisy is interesting but the movie spends a little too much time on him. I would rather the movie stay with Geoffrey Rush from start to finish and more Kate Winslet.

Let's allow for some pleasure...

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 17 January 2006]

As someone who doesn't know too much about the Marquis De Sade, I guess that I'll have to rely on "Quills". Played by Geoffrey Rush, De Sade comes across as sort of a misunderstood man with a perverted mind. Of course, if he was a "pervert", then one might interpret him as the bane of society. Certainly here he's the bane of the people running the mental institution. Even if he's just a "pervert", then he's not the only one: watch what the Abbe du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix) does to Madeleine LeClerc (Kate Winslet) in one scene.

Overall, I don't know how accurate this movie is, but you're sure to like it nonetheless. Don't blame Geoffrey Rush if you feel a little sadistic after watching it.

provocative, daring study of sexuality

[Buddy-51 · 4 November 2001]

It's post-revolutionary France. Napoleon is in power. The Age of Enlightenment is in full swing, yet the remnants of the Dark Ages still linger to restrain the thinking of many a powerful monarch, religious leader and rank-and-file common citizen. In all areas of life, the barriers to freedom and self-expression are rapidly giving way, leaving traditional institutions and values fighting for their very survival. And this includes that most sensitive of all areas, the one that has, perhaps, caused more consternation for the race than any other in our history – determining the role that sexuality plays in defining who we are physically, emotionally and spiritually. Long thought of as little more than a necessary evil, sexuality is suddenly starting to be reexamined in the light of other scientific and academic reassessments. Small wonder that at such a crucial moment in mankind's sexual awakening, a figure like the Marquis De Sade would emerge, a man whose name has since become synonymous with perversion, deviancy and licentiousness. It is this epic struggle between religion and nature for the soul of humanity that Philip Kaufman captures so brilliantly in his wickedly perverse, mordantly witty and brilliantly acted film, `Quills.'

Director Kaufman, working from a screenplay by Doug Wright (based on his play of the same name), chooses to start his tale almost at its end – at the period when De Sade was already wasting away in an insane asylum, considered too perverted and dangerous in his ideas to be allowed to run loose among the general populace. Yet, it's hard to keep a creative genius down – and De Sade has, unbeknownst to the priest who runs the facility, been regularly smuggling out manuscripts to publishers on the outside, much to the chagrin and delight of many elements of the French public. One of those least amused is Napoleon himself, who decides that he must take action in silencing this reprobate once and for all. He decides to send a `specialist' in mental health – one Dr. Royer-Collard, a man more in tune with the techniques of the Spanish Inquisition than of modern medicine – to take charge and bring De Sade to his senses. Wright's and Kaufman's other two main characters include the priest, The Abbe du Coulmier, who is keeper of the institution, and Madeleine LeClerc, a beautiful young devotee of De Sade's work who serves both as laundress and chief smuggler for the author and his works.

In many ways, the most interesting conflict turns out to be the one between De Sade and the Abbe, two men seemingly antipodes apart yet somehow able to find a common ground of mutual respect and understanding. On the one hand, we have a man who has completely thrown away all sexual inhibitions and indeed lives to not only experience every possible sexual pleasure but to encourage others to do so as well. On the other hand, we have a man who has chosen a life of chastity and celibacy, opting to completely shut down the sexual aspect of his life as a pious sublimation to God – and yet neither extreme seems normal, healthy or practicable. In fact, near the end, De Sade suffers the torment of realizing that someone he cares for very deeply has become a tragic victim of one of his `ideas' run amuck, just as the Abbe, after years of repression, finds himself inching ever closer to the insanity that he is supposed to be curing in others.

Interestingly, the Abbe, the representative of the church that held the world in the grip of the Dark Ages for so long, is actually a beacon of enlightened reason compared to Dr. Royer-Collard, the self-ascribed `Man of Science.' Here is an individual actually aligned with the Church's Medieval methods, inflicting any form of excruciating physical and psychological torture on his patients to achieve their ultimate `cure' – though we can see by the way he subtly abuses his own sixteen year old wife that `power' is, as always, the world's strongest aphrodisiac.

Special not must be taken of the superb performances by Geoffrey Rush, Joaquin Phoenix, Michael Caine and Kate Winslet. Each does a superb job in bringing these diverse and complex characters to vivid life.

In terms of art direction, costume design and cinematography, the filmmakers do a fantastic job in recreating this strange world of the past - capturing that startling admixture of piety and licentiousness that bespeaks the `dual nature in Man,' which has forever served as the basis for the epic struggle between religion and nature. In a world like the one we live in now - in which explicit pornography has found a comfortable and, indeed, quite lucrative niche - De Sade seems ever more a man ahead of his time. It was his misfortune to be born into a world not quite ready to accept the ideas he had to offer. Yet, had he been living in this century, perhaps we would never even have heard of the name De Sade at all. Perhaps he would be just another anonymous pornographer, using the camera rather than the written word to graphically illustrate his darkest sexual longings. Then again, who knows? Perhaps it would be he who founded a world famous magazine and set up a mansion dedicated solely to the propagation of male sexual pleasure. It is, in the face of `Quills,' a thought worth pondering.

excruciatingly close to brilliance

[nayadonis · 6/10 · 29 November 2000]

I haven't written a review on here in a while, but I felt as though I should write a few comments on this particular picture as I have always been fascinated by the Marquis De Sade. Perhaps my expectations were too high going into the theater to watch this film with an kind of unbiased mind, because I was let down. I went expecting what could have been a break-through film, that really could have said a lot about the society we are living in today, but it did not even come near to fulfilling those expectations. As just an ordinary film it was good. The writing was top notch. The performances were all very good, especially Geoffrey Rush who I believe is one of the most under appreciated actors out there today. I can't think of many film stars that can compare to his talent as an actor. The way he plays a character is similar to Peter Sellers, yet much deeper somehow. Geoffrey Rush did not disappoint at all and if anything is going to win an Oscar in this film it will be his performance. The other actors put in adequate performances, with Phoenix, Winslet and Caine seemingly going through the motions of putting in good, but hardly Oscar worthy performances. I should be fair and say that Caine had a couple of scenes that were gems. Also, cheers to newcomer Amelia Warner, I suspect there's going to be a bright future ahead for this young beauty. However, the writing and performances were not enough to make this a great film. What I think was most aggravating was how little we really learned about the Marquis De Sade, at certain points it seemed like he was hated just for being a wicked gossip, while at other times he came off as a dirty old man. The Marquis De Sade was an amazingly complex figure because his ideas were so perverse to the absolute extreme and yet his expression of those ideas was utterly brilliant. We did not see many of those qualities in this film at all. The story of the laundry maid was twisted and changed around, as were a few other characters in this story who were real figures. This made me ask, why couldn't this film simply have told the life of the Marquis De Sade as it was, rather than changing the true story into a fictional one that is far less interesting? At times I almost felt like I was watching "Disney Does De Sade" it was light and fluffy when it should have been provocative and erotic. I don't usually complain about how a film should have been made, but this one could have been much better.

Interesting...

[thechosen1 · 9/10 · 16 April 2005]

This was a good movie, but I thought it had somewhat of an unsatisfsying ending (well, to me anyway). Sad too. It moves nicely, though and you don't want to be interrupted. It can get rather graphic at times, but that's mainly because of the subject material, I guess. Geoffrey Rush is brilliant.He has a real knack for bringing strange and twisted characters to life. Michael Caine is doing his usual job of being superb as well. Every new role Kate Winslet performs is different from the previous and she excels every time. She expresses emotion very well. And my goodness, Joaquin Phoenix. I wouldn't say that I was ever a *fan* of his, but damn, now I am. If there was ever a performance that just made me melt, this was it. The restrained emotions and frustration of unfulfilled desires of his character were just performed brilliantly. This guy's an amazing actor.

Amazing Geoffrey Rush...

[Thanos_Alfie · 7/10 · 8 February 2021]

"Quills" is a Biography - Drama movie in which we watch the life story of Marquis De Sade when he was inmate on an insane asylum. A new doctor arrives in the asylum with the reputation of a tyrant, and changes the routine and withdraw all the privileges of Marquis De Sade.

I liked this movie very much because it was based on true events and more specifically on the life of Marquis De Sade a very important person. The direction which was made by Philip Kaufman, it was great and he presented very well both the life and also the work of Marquis De Sad, and how important he was. Regarding the interpretations of the cast, I have to mention Geoffrey Rush's who played as Marquis de Sade and he was simply amazing. I also believe that his interpretation on this movie can be compared to his other interpretation on the movie "Shine" of 1996. Some other interpretations that worth mentioning are Kate Winslet's who played as Madeleine, Joaquin Phoenix's who played as Coulmier and Michael Caine's who played as Royer-Collard. Lastly, I have to say that "Quills" is a nice movie that I highly recommend everyone to watch it in order to learn more and better understand the life and the influence of Marquis De Sade

The first rule of politics: The man who orders the execution NEVER DROPS THE BLADE.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 10/10 · 17 December 2004]

Quills is the modernized story of the Marquis de Sade, whose steamy writings whipped France into a sexual fury in the late 18th Century. And by modernized I mean that it has been told through the experiences of a lot of French people who speak English and with British accents. But no matter, I'm willing to accept that everyone in France in 1800 spoke perfect British even if only because of Geoffrey Rush's brilliant performance. With every movie that he comes out with I become more and more convinced that there is nothing he can't do.

In order to know virtue, as the Marquis explains, one must first understand vice. In Philip Kaufman's Quills, the focus is on the Marquis de Sade after his writing has taken him beyond the artistic freedom generally accepted in the 18th and 19th centuries, even to elite aristocracy like himself. It is a detailed exploration of the events that led from him being a social elitist to living almost three decades in prison, writing things that caused his keepers to make it so difficult for him to write that he ultimately uses his own blood and excrement for ink, and his clothing, the walls of his cell, and his own skin as parchment.

Luckily for the Marquis, at first anyway, is that there is something of an understanding priest in the Abbe du Coulmier, another wonderful performance from Joaquin Phoenix. An intensely religious man, Coulmier believes that the Marquis should be allowed to write, if only to purge himself of the sadism with which his head is filled and which would later be named after him.

Kate Winslet plays Madeleine, a laundry maid who smuggles the Marquis' writing out of the asylum so that it can be published, for which many people are not happy, but many others are. The Marquis dips into the extensive world of the forbidden sexual taboos of the 18th and 19th centuries, writing extensively about them without a care in the world for propriety. One may wonder to what extent the Marquis' writings were such a hit because they were forbidden, or because of their lewd content, which may euphemistically be described as guilty pleasures for the masses. Indeed, Larry Flynt was not working, so graphic pornography was something of a rarity.

There is a curious relationship between the Marquis and a physician named Royer-Collard, played by Michael Caine, who is assigned to law down the law with the Marquis and prevent him from writing anymore. The glee with which the Marquis mocks and taunts him are some of the best parts of this outstanding film. There is a great parallel between the two characters, as well. Royer-Collard pretends to be a moral role model, at the same time taking a wife who is young enough to be his daughter, possibly even his granddaughter, and treats the Marquis with exactly the same sadistic (if I can again use the term for the behavior for which the Marquis would later be named) behavior that he condemns that Marquis for writing about. Both men engage in many of the same practices, it's just that the Marquis makes no attempt and has no interest in hiding his interests in the pleasures of the flesh.

I think that the most important thing to remember about this movie is that it is able to deal with a person who's beliefs are, I like to think, below the moral compasses of most of the people who will watch the movie, but it's not about what he was writing, it's about the fact that he was writing at all. It's about his defiance in the face of a corrupt moral authority, his insistence on maintaining an artistic expression that was not well received but that was certainly therapeutic to him. Sure, his sanity is in question, to say the least, but as they say, genius is often associated with madness.

What a great coincidence, too, because so is Geoffrey Rush.

The message is over shadowed by the film's mediocrity

[baumer · 6/10 · 23 February 2001]

I admire people that come out and tell it like it is. I may not always agree with them, but at least some people just come right out and tell you what you already know but seem to either forget or just conveniently over look. Take for example retired basketball star Charles Barkley who has always maintained that he is not a role model. That he is not responsible for raising your kids. Some people were outraged by this. He is an icon, he is a celebrity, he is a sports star that kids look up to and he has to act accordingly. He responded by saying, yes I am an athlete, yes I am in the public eye, but education and manners and morality starts at home. Not with a man that is being paid millions of dollars to put a ball through a hoop. No one ever annointed guys like Barkley or Jordan or Britney Spears or the President of the United States to raise your kids. That is up to the individual parent(s). Jim Carrey also made a similar point about Eminem at one of the award shows.

I start with this opening prelude to the review about Quills because although I thought the movie to be somewhat of a let down, I did appreciate it and respect it for what it was saying and trying to convey to us. Times haven't changed from the 1500's to the 1800's to the 2000's. Sure there is a greater thresh hold from the public about what will be tolerated and what won't but there is still that insistent fear that if a twelve year old hears the F-word or if an adult watches too much porn that they will act out some asinine, fatuous scenario based on what they have seen and or heard. Marquis de Sade, the man may have been a murdering, heinous man, but not because he wrote about it but because he had acted upon it. Words cannot kill you, that can only be accomplished by one person's hand.

"They're only words," he says at one point in the film.

Quills follows de Sade's final days in an insane asylum where he is at first allowed to write because the asylum's priest, Abe Coulmier, (played well by Joaquin Phoenix) has actually befriended him in some way. He believes that by letting Marquis continue his writings this will provide a cleansing of sorts from his noxious fantasies ( I guess his fantasies were so barbaric that they actually made a word after him, sadism--quite the achievement ). Once his privileges are taken away from his ( because they have developed a cult following outside the prison walls ) he uses any means possible and perseveres by using his clothes, melted wax, his own blood and excretement to get his message out. This ultimately spells imminent doom as Napolean sends in a hard nosed, sadist of a doctor named Royer Collard ( Michael Caine ). It is up to him to get Marquis to curve his insatiable desire to write such filth. Kate Winslet plays the maid who smuggles out his manuscripts.

Phillip Kaufman is the man at the helm of Quills and I have to admit that I am not a huge fan of his work. I found Rising Sun to be a boring thriller and The Unbearable Lightness of Being to be quite slow as well. I did however admire 1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers but there was no innovativeness with Quills the way there was in Body Snatchers. Perhaps Kaufman's strength lies with great character development and action is not really his forte. And if that sounds acceptable to you, then Quills works well. I however, wanted to know more. I wanted to know how it is that he became so driven, so sadistic, so thirsty for his indelible taste for violent and perverse sexual practices. I didn't get any of that here. And seeing as this is a film that has such an interesting message about the dangers of sensored sex, sensored writing and sensored living, I am surprised that it didn't offer more.

The acting by Phoenix and Winslet and especially Michael Caine is wonderful. I was however a little surprised with Rush's performance. To me, he was good but he didn't seem any different than he was in The House On Haunted Hill. The two characters could have been reincarnations of one another. To agree with Roger Ebert, Christopher Walken and Willem Dafoe or an aged and makeup enhanced Steve Buschemi would have been quite interesting in the film in the lead role.

Quills is interesting if not a little slow. I admire it for all that it says about us as human beings. Life is deranged enough as it is with real instances of violence and rape and sodomy. To blame that all on what we read and watch is taking the easy way out. We have to lay the blame on us

as parents in some way or another. I grew up listening to NWA telling me to f*** the police and to country and western songs ( my parents listened to WCXI, all country, when I was 7 )about cheating spouses and that doesn't mean that I am going to gun down an officer of the law or have sex with someone other than my wife. I understand right and wrong, so do most other people. If they do these things it is because they wanted to not because they were influenced or compelled to because of a song or a movie or a book. On that level Quills is excellent. It just falters in other avenues. Still, it is a good effort.

6.5 out of 10

Something very special

[MightyTiny · 10/10 · 22 November 2005]

I originally went to see this one in a movie theater on a whim - I was feeling spontaneous, so I bought a ticket for a movie I knew nothing about, and went in free of preconceptions or expectations.

The cleverness of the very first scenes brought a smile to my face, and I knew I was in for a rare treat; off the top of my head, I can't think of a movie with a better conceived, audience grabbing opening sequence.

And the impression lasted throughout this great film. Quills is a passionate (and entertaining!) cry in defense of artistic freedom, and the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion; and it is a deliciously clever movie, both in dialog and in plot. It is actually a movie that has something to say, and does it in an entertaining, engaging way that doesn't leave the audience feeling that they are being lectured to or talked down to.

A few scenes are gruesome and unpleasant, but they, I think, are a necessary evil for the telling of the story, not a gratuitous shock-tactic.

The performances are excellent throughout, and the storyline is will firmly claim and keep your attention. Quills is the sort of movie that you don't forget, and that'll linger on in your mind long after you've seen it.

I would heartily recommend this movie to anyone - even if it doesn't sound like the type of movie you'd normally go for. I for one am very glad that I happened to be feeling spontaneous the day I went to see it, because otherwise I would most likely have missed it. So give your spontaneity a chance if you happen upon Quills in your local movie rental place.

Gives costume drama a good name. (possible spoilers)

[the red duchess · 6/10 · 19 February 2001]

'Quills' is subversive in at least one way. With its archly quaint title, its literary and historical subject matter, directed by a renowned adapter of books, and featuring a cast of heritage/theatre luminaries, 'Quills' seems like it might be the perfect night out for those bourgeoisie normally antipathetic to the mind-numbing populism of the cinema. Such a pedigree might suggest lavish country houses, costumes and decor; large-scale set-pieces; ripe, theatrical acting and choice lines of dialogue; in a word, CULTURE.

And 'Quills' dutifully provides all these pleasures. Except the country houses, costumes and decor all all dirty, shabby, dilapidated; the set-pieces are as full of unrestrained bodily functions, noise and gaudy cruelty as the grossest gross-out comedy; the acting is a little too collusive in the general poor taste, and the clever lines are not averse to 'Carry On'-style singles entendres.

I look at some of these scenes - the glorious, shocking opening, where a typically Sadean fantasy of sexual deviance is revealed to be a historically verifiable orgy of legally- and politically-sanctioned execution; or the wonderful satire put on by de Sade and the inmates of Charenton mocking Royer-Collard, the scientific 'expert'/sadist sent to cure the writer, full of a disturbing, forthright vigour that easily crosses 'low' comedy with 'high' art, connecting it with Moliere, up to films like 'Les Bronzes' in French culture, but not what one would find in a heritage movie like 'Jean de Florette'; or the magnificent faecal mural in which de sade finally bridges the mind/body divide that has bothered philosophers for centuries; I look at scenes like these and I think of the merchantivory admirer who had expected an evening of literary tastefulness, and I thrill.

'Quills'' pleasures are not purely negative. One of its motifs is that of circulation, the way a work of art is produced and disseminated in a certain culture in a particular historical period - a series of Chinese whispers from cell to furtive bookselling in the case of 'Justine'; or the spontaneous creation of a short story transmitted by intermediary prisoners from author to amanuensis, a process that distorts the 'purity' of the work, as lines are misheard by the messengers, but also embodying its spirit (sic), its impulse of freedom in the most oppressive imprisonment (literal and spiritual); as well as the transformation of aristocratic authority by the people.

Barthes once proclaimed the death of the author, and this is exemplified in the film's most horrific scene, where Madeleine is murdered by a madman brought to a pitch by de Sade's story; the latter's work is literally out of his hands; his authority, as well as authoriality, is seized in a grotesque perversion of the Revolution, a revolution itself perverted into a condition of which Charenton is only a heightened symptom.

These channels of dissemination and information are like the arteries of the body, de Sade's words the lifeblood that keeps his society from becoming stagnant - so that writing with his own blood and worse is a logical conclusion. These systems offer a distorting mirror to the more stagnant channels of power, the body politic, which run from petty Emperor (in the film's funniest scene) to brutal cell warder, crushing spirit, individuality, creation, subversion, the latter celebrated in the escape of Simone; if we think this is too simplistic, than it is balanced by Madeleine's fate.

A script run on clever dialogue and eye-catching acting alone can't sustain itself for very long, and the pace flags about halfway through. Fans of 'The Right Stuff', one of the great movies of the 1980s, will be pleased to note that Kauffman has recaptured that film's cartoon style, its lurches of tone between comedy and horror, frivolity and seriousness; but the frequent breaks for didactic dialogues (about, snore, art, censorship, liberty etc.) and unsubtle ironies don't help. The vision of this kind of France, grinding towards inertia, is rarely shown in heritage cinema, usually explored by left-fielders like Rollin and Borowczyk. Some people dismiss them as pornographers as well.

Geoffrey Rush in a brave, Oscar-worthy performance, and a story an interesting as most anything this year; one of the year's best. ***1/2 (out of four)

[Movie-12 · 9/10 · 8 January 2001]

QUILLS / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)

By Blake French:

"To know virtue we must aquatint ourselves with vice."

Marquis de Sade

Philip Kaufman's "Quills" will leave some audiences cheering and others disappointed and disgusted; there are good logical arguments from both sides. One of the most controversial movie of the year, "Quills, " based on the play by Douglas Wright, doesn't entirely examine the torpid mind of the disreputable 18th century French author, the Marquis de Sade, but instead indicates the impact his sexually and sadistically explicit literary work influenced the public. The biggest argument could be made with the sanity of Marquis de Sade himself, as whether he was a perverted, sex-obsessed psychopath or simply a spirited aristocrat who only stood for artistic expression and freedom of speech. The movie's characters take their own sides; after becoming aware of the authors material, Napoleon wants de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) shot dead at the insane asylum he is being held at, but instead a sadistic torturer named Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) is assigned to take charge of the patient; the virginal laundress Madeleine (Kate Winslet) , thinks de Sade is a writer, not a madman, and helps to smuggle his erotic stories out of the institution for public publication; the asylum priest, Adde Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), first befriends de Sade and grants him special privileges, but once he discovers the extremity of his subversive ideas, he reluctantly changes opinions. De Sade inarguably had some fanatical fantasies, but the film leaves it up to us to realize his lustful imagination captured on paper are transpired due to his inability to experience them in the real world outside of his chambers. The subject is carnal and a bit unsettling, and the movie exploits the eroticism clearly on screen; the film is strictly intended for mature audiences. But director Philip Kaufman ("The Right Stuff") does not portray the likes of de Sade in a disturbing manner, but keeps the story engaging. The atmosphere feels accurate and convincing, and the movie is not without humor and the expected material found within the mental institution, like the patient who thinks he is a bird, a pyromaniac, and the hulking horny guy who has his mind set out on raping any human with two legs with no external organs between them. There are a few scenes that could have captured the audience a bit more exclusively. However the entirely convincing, intense, brave, Oscar worthy performances by Michael Caine and Geoffrey Rush make up for that. The Marquis was an extremely complex individual, and Rush captures that through a character without heart or compassion, but with spirit and zest; even though de Sade went through each day with suffering, he still approached life with insight, ambition and curiosity. He is so determined to fulfill his need to write his perverse ideas, after forbidden and when his quills are taken away he still prevails by using blood, wine, and feces in the place of ink, and his clothes, sheets, and walls as paper. De Sade stands as an example that society is most successfully established when people understand that we are all simply expressions of our own nature, that it is most healthy to declare our motives and passions to ourselves. He is also a prime example of self-control, and that freedom of speech only carries us so far. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Marquis de Sade was to live in present times and if he was to exploit his ideas on screen or in novels. I think he would push the envelope to yet another level and have quite an influence on today's society. I hope people who see the artful "Quills" share their opinions with one another, after all, that is the reason why filmmakers make movies like these.

Both exquisite and grotesque...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 30 September 2005]

"Quills" is probably best described as "a dark romp". Director Philip Kaufman, possibly pulling a Ken Russell, guides screenwriter Doug Wright's adaptation of his play to a near comic-book raunch--and, for the first hour anyway, his film is a playful assault. Wright fashions the Marquis de Sade as a prolific, erotic-minded writer pent up in a French insane asylum in 1790s Paris, and the movie begins like a sinister burlesque (reminiscent of Russell's "The Devils"). Unfortunately, both men seem to lose themselves (and us) along the way, their efforts becoming more gruesome and daunting than tasty. Geoffrey Rush as the Marquis gives a brazen, brave performance and the supporting cast is also solid, which helps to deflect from some of the demented weirdness in the third act. Three Oscar nominations, including Rush as Best Actor, Best Costume Design, and Best Art Direction. **1/2 from ****

What where they thinking?

[Jazmataz1980 · 2/10 · 28 August 2009]

A lot of people might have been allured to see this movie for the huge bundle of superb actors and actresses who participated. But what puzzles me is how so many great people incl. the filmmakers could go on such a bizarre project. To portray de Sade as a liberal free-thinker who is punished (because he unfortunately happens to not care about society's standards of that time) is outrageous.

Only a few hints about the true Marquis de Sade are given here and there: for instance, that he violated women against their will, or that his writing was far from outstanding - he became so well known only for his sexually explicit contents. And just as the fake excerpts from his writings in the movie, the content was cruel and inhumane at times.

What was the intention behind making him a far more likable character in the movie? So people would identify more? To prove their point that the stupid public never understood artists and prematurely judge anything apart from their standards as perverse? The only reason this movie deserves two instead of one star is that the actors deliver great performances, especially Rush (as usual), Winslet and Phoenix.

But as for the rest of the movie: BOO HOO. What a waste.

The Play within the Play

[tedg · 1 January 2001]

Spoilers herein.

When writers are in charge, the film is about writing. The device here is to weave and overlap three tried and true conventions:

-The play within the play. Here, most everything deSade writes comes true, underscored by his actually producing a play in the film. As the writing deteriorates, so does the stability of the world.

-The question of whether the inmates or their keepers are insane, here amplified by the cruel and ignorant techniques of the doctor.

-The issue of whether writing is a compulsion on both parts (writer and reader), and whether it is intrinsically noble.

Two layers are created. The Battle Royale is fought between two method actors (Caine and Rush) wound so tight their acting is obvious. But this just underscores their roles in the play-within-the-play. Caine plays the smarmy, hypocritical, sanctimonious Republican senator (a role that might not work as the film ages); and Rush an equally uncomplicated compulsive. Between them on a different more `real' level are the continually tempted and confused Winslett and Phoenix. Their acting is more `natural,' as their world requires.

Nothing about sex really IS, you know; rather always something deeper is involved. And so with this, the point to be made is that convention always stifles art, and art will always harness our natural energies and flourish. Despite lots of talk, the sex, and particularly the depravity are only window dressing here, and are actually less present than in your average film. The one exception is a necrophiliac encounter at the end, but whoops, it's only a dream folks so forget it. Even `Romeo and Juliet' is riskier in this regard than `Quills.'

So unless you have problems with male nudity, this is pretty pale stuff. A much more interesting point is made, with more complexity and with much more disturbing obsession and depravity in the remarkable `The Pillow Book" (with Ewan McGregor after he spotted trains and before he walked skies). See that first.

I'm a fan of Winslett's. Her character is written as the center of this film, but she handily captures it anyway. She is very internal, perhaps too intelligent in projection for today's mass audience. Where Phoenix has the job of playing someone not in control, she has the relatively more difficult job of actually being in control, which makes her undoing more mysterious. Her role is worth seeing - the others are first class actors too, but she really charms. I will see anything with her in it and look forward to her maturity.

Notable are two minor female roles, whose identity I cannot tease out from the credits. A woman is beheaded in the beginning. Later the doctor's young wife awakens sexually. These are simple but amazingly effective moments of passion and alone provide the patina of sex. (There's some groping among servants, but it has little projection.)

Horrible and creepy ...

[Irishchatter · 6/10 · 16 August 2015]

I found this film to have been really horrible because of the way it gave us a feel of an instituted asylum. It just show you how those poor people were put into a box and isolated. The most shocking scene in this film was when the patients were putting on a show for the high class people and it was just awful to look at! Also leaving a seriously mentally ill man to kill a laundrette, how dare the nurses or any health care professional weren't looking after their patients! That made me mad!

I had to skip some scenes because some of them weren't appealing and upsetting.

The only scene I loved but nearly cried was when the priest and the laundrette made love in the church. Although sadly,it didn't last too long as it was only a dream. I really felt sorry for him especially that he was put into the Nuthouse for trying to commit suicide because of his grief over Madeleine. I just wish it didn't have to happen for him but it did.

Quills inspires a seemingly improper sense of affinity and a terrifying new definition of sin.

[jltredinnick · 9/10 · 28 May 2005]

Quills is a delightfully unsettling account of the demise of the Marquis de Sade and those he brings down with him. The film presents viewers with all the evidence they need to identify the fallacies of society's separation of "good" from "evil" and "moralists" from "sinners." It subtly asserts that the values traditionally used to pass judgment are compromised by convention and religion, and that there is moral danger in accepting these values without question.

During the film, one form of sin is only replaced by another, which defeats its resistors and beguiles the rest by hiding behind a pretentious shroud of religion and convention.

Viewers are horrified to discover that they can actually identify with the marquis, whose name inspired the word "sadist" to describe those who derive sexual pleasure from violence. Most viewers' senses of morality are sullied by the realization that they are hanging on every twist of the plot, desperate to know what will next beset these wretched characters.

Based on historical fact, Quills catches up with the Marquis (Geoffrey Rush) during the twilight of his life, when he has already been sentenced to life imprisonment in the Charenton Asylum. No longer able to pursue the perverse sexual escapades that had landed him in the madhouse after decades of unspeakable offenses, he now purges his demons by writing. At the urging of the saintly, ever-tolerant and even-tempered Abbe Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), the marquis describes his imagination's disturbing scenes on paper.

Trouble arises when one of his books, smuggled to a publisher by a sympathetic admirer - innocent laundry maid Madeleine (Kate Winslet) - catch the disapproving eye of Emperor Napoleon.

There is no escape from sin when the man sent to purify the Charenton, Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), only seeks to replace it with intolerance and unimaginable cruelty.

True to the spirit of the film, the sets are imbued befittingly with gloom and grime, and the inhabitants of the Charenton are realistically ragged.

Rush and Winslet's performances as the marquis and Madeleine are stunning. The film's delicious impropriety is heightened by their chemistry, which is so potent as to be communicable to viewers.

The super-intelligent plot is unexpectedly circular, leaving viewers feeling as though they may well be next in line for the madness bred at the Charenton. Their fears are seemingly verified by he change they know the film has already inspired in them.

Far from resolutive, the only solace the ending holds for viewers is a sense of, "Aha, now I know," and a new way to evaluate the good in evil in themselves and others.

Good, not Great!

[namashi_1 · 6/10 · 30 October 2010]

Inspired by the life and work of the Marquis de Sade, Quills re-imagines the last years of the Marquis' incarceration in the insane asylum at Charenton. 'Quills' is an efficient film, but at the same time, not great stuff.

To begin with, 'Quills' has some terrific moments and performances, and even takes you back in time, but the problem clearly lies in it's writing, which loses pace in the final 40-minutes. The violence goes over-board, the characters are put up selfishly and the nudity touches a new high.

Philip Kaufman's direction is excellent. He truly understands the subject, but the final 40-minutes play a spoilsport. Rogier Stoffers's Cinematography is satisfactory. Peter Boyle's editing is razor-sharp at times, and loose at times.

In the acting department, Geoffrey Rush as Marquis de Sade, is marvelous. Proving once again that he is amongst the best actors of Modern-Era. Joaquin Phoenix plays a commanding role, with restrain. Kate Winslet is very good, as expected. Surprisingly, Sir Michael Caine is over-the-top this time around, which disappoints you after a point.

On the whole, this ain't no path-breaking cinema, but surely, a good effort. Nearly, a Thumbs Up!

Philip Kaufmann has produced yet another amazing piece of work

[zetes · 10/10 · 14 May 2001]

Quills is one of the best films of 2000, in my reckoning, second best only to You Can Count on Me. It is one of the most brilliantly directed, acted, produced, and written films I've seen in a very long time. There is not a (major) character in this film that is not very complex, and the issues at stake are utterly important.

Perhaps the greatest success of the film is how well it works on commenting both on its own time and situations and our own world today. The issues of free speech, creativity, dementia, corporal punishment, religion, sexuality and especially politics are woven into the film in amazing ways. Yes, politics, for it works as an allegory to the recent presidential scandals.

There are two flaws, one major, one semi-major. The semi-major one involves the epilogue. It is not bad, but it is unnecessary. Perhaps the best way to describe it is superfluous and predictable. The major flaw would destroy any lesser film. Here, it is hardly noticable. Still, if one contemplates it, there is no getting around it. There is never a believable reason why Madeleine should be so helpful to the Marquis de Sade. They present a tiny one, but it is not good enough.

Still, with its successes elsewhere, these flaws do not weaken this film. Without them, it would have been perfect. With them, well, just because it is flawed, doesn't mean it isn't a masterpiece. 10/10

decent but watchable

[JasonSmithRoberts · 6/10 · 30 July 2021]

Quills is the modernized story of the Marquis de Sade, whose steamy writings whipped France into a sexual fury in the late 18th Century. And by modernized I mean that it has been told through the experiences of a lot of French people who speak English and with British accents. But no matter, I'm willing to accept that everyone in France in 1800 spoke perfect British even if only because of Geoffrey Rush's brilliant performance. With every movie that he comes out with I become more and more convinced that there is nothing he can't do.

Not Everything is Black and White!

[sexy_pisces_gal · 10/10 · 1 July 2005]

Geoffrey Rush, star of Pirates of the Caribbean, Elizabeth, and Shakespeare in love, Stars in this tale of the infamous and perverted Marquis de Sade. Imprisoned away from the world in the French asylum of Charenton. In a bid to silence the Marquis, famous for his lewd and pornographic writings which has made him infamous, The French ruler Napoleon sends the cold and reserved Dr Royer Collard (Michael Caine) to cure and prevent him from smuggling manuscripts to a publisher, secretly aided by the beautiful virginal chambermaid Madeleine (Kate Winslett) who often finds herself the object of his writing and affection. However along with the Marquis, Madeleine also finds herself the object of the affections of the young and handsome Abbe du Coulmier, (Joaquin Phoenix) the administrator at Charenton. His priestly vows prevent them from being together and conceals hi love fro her. The Marquis meanwhile is suffering at the hands of the repulsive doctor. Due to an indiscretion, at one of many of Charenton open nights when the French aristocracy gather to watch one of the Marquis plays. The play entitled "the crimes of love" makes exact and deliberate references to the doctor's personal life where he picked a penniless but beautiful young nun Simone (Amelia Warner) from a convent, a girl young enough to be his daughter- to be his wife and subjected her to hours of "nightly wife's duties". The doctor vows revenge on the Marquis and even more so when Simone runs away with an architect after reading one of his most lewd novels to date. The Marquis is stripped of all his privileges; first his paper, quills, and ink are taken but he refuses to be silenced. With tragic consequences. As the punishments grow more severe and each knew novels written b something disgusting objects the marquis and the doctor are locked in deadly battle over power and control, which sends the law and order of Charenton asylum downhill as the fight takes a twisted and unexpected turn. A thrilling story with many twists and turns where egos collide and love interferes where power and money speak and authority is threatened.

Perversity in Paris

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 10 November 2014]

Writer and director Philip Kaufman is an American with a continental European art-house sensibilities when it comes to films. Yet he also has a populist touch which tends to make his films accessible to the many. He is after all along with George Lucas the co-creator of the character Indiana Jones and co-wrote the story Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Quills is a bawdy and satirical romp. It is an adaptation of a stage play and features a fictionalised story of the Marquis De Sade. It is certainly not a bio-pic.

The Marquis (Geoffrey Rush) here is a morally dubious and depraved character living in relative luxury at an insane asylum. The asylum is run by a liberal priest Abbe du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix). The Marquis attacks his faith and celibacy by trying to put ideas in his head.

When Napoleon tires of the Marquis sexual tomes he puts Dr Royer- Collard (Michael Caine) to deal with the Marquis. The doctor is a man who uses torture to cure his mental patients. It is clear he will use extreme methods on the Marquis. The doctor is a hypocrite of the highest order. He marries a young convent girl who he imprisons in a large house and has rough sex with her without any tenderness.

Madeline (Kate Winslet) is a laundry girl who helps smuggles out the writing of the Marquis. She is being pursued by one of the asylum patients and also desired by du Coulmier. Yet although she enjoys the salacious tales of the Marquis she has not acted on them.

Simone (Amelia Warner) the young wife of Dr Royer-Collard is the one person who acts on the tales of the Marquis by seducing and running off with the architect much to the fury of the doctor.

Of course the film wants to make a point about free speech and censorship. It wants to give the middle finger to the conservative shock jocks in the USA who want to censor left, right and centre and then espouse free speech when it is convenient for them.

However the Marquis de Sade as the standard bearer for freedom of speech, seriously? The real de Sade was a sadist. The word is named after him!

The film rather loses its way in the latter part of the film where the screenplay becomes rather blunt. Madeline wants a final story relayed to her by the Marquis which drives some of the inmates mad, including the one who has in the past assaulted her and is the person who relays it to her.

It is du Coulmier who takes extreme action against the Marquis when you know given the humiliations heaped on him by the Marquis and that his young wife betrayed him, it should had been the bad doctor.

The film is well acted. However Rush who we only glance at briefly here and there at the opening part of the film maybe plays him too nice and sympathetic.

I kept thinking how this film would have turned out if it got into the hands off a director such as Peter Greenaway, wayward he may be but it would had been a full on riot.

A dark film that is a bit long but pays off

[PersianPlaya408 · 9/10 · 18 August 2005]

This is the first Philip Kaufman film I have seen, and I was impressed. Although it isn't the most pleasant to watch, its great. A dark look at an insane erotic storywriter named Marquis De Sade (Rush) and his stay an asylum run by religious priest Abbe Du Coulmier (Phoenix). While there he befriends a laundrette named Madeleine (Winslet). The film has great performances, a brilliantly written script and great direction, although running a little over an hour the story is so rich and characters developed well enough for one to really enjoy it. Like I said it wasn't the most pleasant, however it is a bit exaggerated and satirical account. My favorite performance came from Joaquin Phoenix, who was great, however Geoffrey Rush was better than I have ever seen him, fully worthy of his Oscar nod. Michael Caine was decent in his role although i didn't feel his performance as much as i usually like him (hes a fine actor). Kate Winslet was great in her role, this is my favorite acting from her besides Eternal Sunshine. The script is very good in this film, which is what makes it work, because a lot of these films about medieval, napoleonic, etc.. times in europe are a bit boring, but this one is quite entertaining. Although I didn't think the ending was perfect (a bit flawed), i still enjoyed this film a lot. 9/10 #123 on my list of all time favorite films

Bodice ripper

[Amnes · 7/10 · 14 February 2005]

Not that different from any other reasonably good bodice ripper, and nowhere near the best of them.

Nice costumes, sets, nice 'play within a play'. The fact that it's a De Sade biopic seems easy to forget...somehow it just becomes yet another period piece. I think the lack of external world scenes detracts from the film (almost entirely set inside the asylum) and makes it seem like a filmed play.

Joachim Phoenix seems strangely wasted, miscast. Geoff Rush is alright, but lacks something... I suspect there are others who could make the role more believable. Michael Caine is ordinary, as is much of his late work. Kate Winslet is a standout and once she uh exits the film, it ceases to hold much interest.

Summary: Beware: Utterly fake history. Complete garbage.

[FargoFan · 1/10 · 5 January 2001]

I saw the movie. I liked it. I loved Michael Caine's performance. Michael Caine is always great. I was also stunned by the stomach-turning depravity of the French legal and medical system of the time. Then I read the book. The first half of the movie is typical Hollywood bad history: composite characters, events out of sequence, a devoted wife where there should have been a devoted mistress, etc. But the second half is fiction. In fact, De Sade (b. 1740) spent the last 10 years of his life, 1804 - 1814, living in relative comfort, with a mistress boarding in an adjacent room, at his family's expense, in the Charenton Asylum. By this time de Sade had spent a major part of his life in and out of prisons and asylums for sexually abusing prostitutes and servant-girls, and also for complicated reasons connected with prison escapes, bad debts, and the French Revolution. He had even been sentenced to death at one time (1772). The pretext for his final imprisonment (he was now 63) was publishing pornography. But the real reasons were complicated. He was notorious and infamous, both for his crimes and his pornography. Napoleon wanted him put away, because he believed de Sade had written a pamphlet defaming him and his family. The family wanted him put away to protect the family honor. The asylum was under the control of the French Ministry of the Interior. It was run, except for the last 7 months of de Sade's life, by an Abbe' Coulmier, and at one time a Dr. Royer-Collard was the medical director. There was also a 17-year-old worker in the asylum, Magdeleine Leclerc, with whom de Sade had (by his count) 57 sexual encounters during the last year of his life. The Abbe viewed himself as a humanitarian not a jailer and respected de Sade as an intellectual. The Abbe has been described as despotic but enlightened. While de Sade was in the asylum, he continued to write and publish (anonymously) pornography; but he also wrote and published ordinary plays, many of which were performed at the asylum, and choral pieces, some of which were performed at the asylum's church. There were sporadic attempts to curtail his writing activities. In 1807 police seized one of his pornographic works during a search of his room. It was dutifully returned to his family after his death. (They destroyed it.) In October 1809 he was briefly placed in solitary confinement and deprived of writing materials. In 1813 the Minister of the Interior banned the performance at the asylum of the plays. But all things considered, de Sade was pretty much left alone. He was in failing health during the last 4 months of his life and finally died of natural causes at age 74. His surviving son was visiting at the time, but missed the last moments. What is particularly troubling about this movie, is that it uses the correct names of people and places. >