Another reviewer was mistaken when he wrote, "In order to understand the movie, one has to be quite familiar with French history ...." While it wouldn't hurt to know everybody's back story, it is NOT essential to appreciating this movie. Before I watched it, I had never heard of Lully or Cambert or Anne of Austria; I had heard of Molière and Conti but knew nothing about them except their names; but I had no trouble at all following the movie and enjoying it as much as I could with its substantial flaws.
The same reviewer complained that the actors playing Molière, Conti and Cambert were much too old, that all three were closer to Louis' age. What bothered me more than the wrong ages of some of the supporting characters was the fabulous gorgeousness of the actors who played Louis and Lully. Please! There are good portraits of both men, and both of them were as homely as my aunt Gertrude - especially Louis.
That a man who looked like a gargoyle dwarf (he was only a few inches over five feet tall), saddled at the age of four with a bankrupt, strife-torn, second-rate country, transformed himself into the Sun King and his country into a major world power, and by the force of his will completely dominated Western civilization for nearly a century - and STILL, more than 300 years later, and despite the horrific revolution that destroyed the world he created, is the single most significant person in the history of France (only Napoleon comes close, and he was a flash in the pan compared to Louis) - is a big part of what makes him so extraordinary. If he had looked like Benoît Magimel, what would be the big deal? Gorgeous people automatically control the world; they don't have to DO anything. Louis is fascinating because he was NOT gorgeous, and making him gorgeous wipes out 75% of what makes him interesting.
The answer to both that reviewer's and my beefs with this movie is that its makers had no intention of making an historically accurate quasi-documentary about this fascinating man and the almost equally fascinating people around him. They intended to make an overblown, potboiler soap opera based loosely on real people. They made the principals gorgeous because who cares what happens to ugly people? They made the villains grotesque and old because if they had been young we might not have known they were the villains.
This is a French movie, but it might as well have been made in Hollywood. It is cheap (and I'm not talking about money) melodrama, with gorgeous, dashing heroes and old, ugly, hunched-over, troll-like villains with grotesque birthmarks on their faces. It was NOT made for experts in French history or any other persons of intelligence and discernment.
It was made for an audience that neither knows nor cares how accurate it is or who the people in it are. That's how Hollywood does everything, by formula - the same formula they used in silent westerns, where you knew the good from the bad guys by the color of their hats - so audiences don't have to think, don't have to understand anything. They know by their looks which characters to cheer and which ones to boo, and that's all that matters.
The same reviewer complained that the actors playing Molière, Conti and Cambert were much too old, that all three were closer to Louis' age. What bothered me more than the wrong ages of some of the supporting characters was the fabulous gorgeousness of the actors who played Louis and Lully. Please! There are good portraits of both men, and both of them were as homely as my aunt Gertrude - especially Louis.
That a man who looked like a gargoyle dwarf (he was only a few inches over five feet tall), saddled at the age of four with a bankrupt, strife-torn, second-rate country, transformed himself into the Sun King and his country into a major world power, and by the force of his will completely dominated Western civilization for nearly a century - and STILL, more than 300 years later, and despite the horrific revolution that destroyed the world he created, is the single most significant person in the history of France (only Napoleon comes close, and he was a flash in the pan compared to Louis) - is a big part of what makes him so extraordinary. If he had looked like Benoît Magimel, what would be the big deal? Gorgeous people automatically control the world; they don't have to DO anything. Louis is fascinating because he was NOT gorgeous, and making him gorgeous wipes out 75% of what makes him interesting.
The answer to both that reviewer's and my beefs with this movie is that its makers had no intention of making an historically accurate quasi-documentary about this fascinating man and the almost equally fascinating people around him. They intended to make an overblown, potboiler soap opera based loosely on real people. They made the principals gorgeous because who cares what happens to ugly people? They made the villains grotesque and old because if they had been young we might not have known they were the villains.
This is a French movie, but it might as well have been made in Hollywood. It is cheap (and I'm not talking about money) melodrama, with gorgeous, dashing heroes and old, ugly, hunched-over, troll-like villains with grotesque birthmarks on their faces. It was NOT made for experts in French history or any other persons of intelligence and discernment.
It was made for an audience that neither knows nor cares how accurate it is or who the people in it are. That's how Hollywood does everything, by formula - the same formula they used in silent westerns, where you knew the good from the bad guys by the color of their hats - so audiences don't have to think, don't have to understand anything. They know by their looks which characters to cheer and which ones to boo, and that's all that matters.