It was a shame to learn that Dangerous Liaisons was more successful than Valmont. After getting acquainted with the original work, I decided to watch the film adaptation, and the second film was awarded great sympathy. “Maybe Valmont would have recouped the cost if the film had come out before or well after Dangerous Liaisons.” Who knows?
Yes, the creators allowed themselves a more free interpretation, but this did not harm the story itself. Both the scenes of the Marquis with Gercourt, and the grotesque date of Cecil with Dunsany, which were not in the novel, only enriched the plot and made the characters even more voluminous.
Casting is a delight. Annette Benning as Marquis made a great impression. That's how I imagined her. The actress perfectly coped with the role of the devil under the mask of an angel. Compared to Dangerous Liaisons, Glenn Close disappointed even with her brilliant performance, because her type immediately betrayed the villain. Colin Firth didn’t quite fit into my idea of the hero, but he also looked more organic in the role of Valmont than Malkovich. Same reason. Viscount is a crook who can disguise himself as romantic. Firth in this role believe more. In the case of Malkovich, it was difficult to imagine how the president managed to fall into the bait of his hero, because he did not hide his true nature.
I can’t help but praise the charming picture. The eye was happy. All in all, it's a cool adaptation. You won't regret it.
If you do a comparison, the youth version of the picture “Cruel Games”, as well as “Dangerous Liaisons” Frears, clearly lose the film adaptation of Foreman. This picture turned out to be more chaste, without vulgarities, with the necessary dose of romance, where all these intrigues carried a more curious, idle character, without sexual anger, all for pleasure.
Also, the picture can boast of a more successful casting, especially for Valmont himself. Malkovich in the role of seducer looks, to put it mildly, not convincing. His appearance is far from pretty, when as she plays the first violin, there is no question of depth. He exudes only the lustfulness and baseless confidence of the male. Firth, on the contrary, is pretty, pleasantly presents his vices, which causes only sympathy. Frears of the characters made scum, and Foreman easily forgave them promiscuity and gave a human appearance. This is what makes for a more enjoyable viewing. Of course, the moralizing side suffers from such an easy approach, but the ending will still put everything in its place - albeit not so sharply, but very ironic.
I will recommend the film for viewing, this is a kind of, but still ideal film adaptation, which was able to convey the mood of the author, especially contributed to the excellent acting work and overall atmosphericity, which was rich in historical details.
Valmont is a young, handsome, charming and knowledgeable young man who uses it unscrupulously. The marquise, in principle, not far from him left, but, as a lady befits, she carefully hides all her adventures. These two stage real games, woven of intrigue and deception, using young and innocent people as their puppets.
Very beautiful, sensual, elegant film. The plot, although it is the most ordinary drama, but it is very interesting and fresh, there is at least plenty of intrigue here. The acting is amazing: the inimitable Colin Firth and the chic Annette Bening created a magnificent tandem, the attitude to which I changed throughout the film depending on the situation. The scenery and music added sophistication and grandeur to the film. With all this in the film a lot of enthusiasm and humor, which successfully dilute the drama, but do not underestimate it.
Of course, I did not like the ending, but there is nothing surprising, I think no one will like it, I would like it to be a little different ... But that's also the beauty of the movie.
All lovers of historical dramas, Colin Firth, Annette Bening and simply beautiful in every sense of cinema.
8 out of 10
Last week I had Colin Firth, who I love very much. There was a good "Genius" in the movie with his participation, I finally watched "The King's Speech" (which everyone seems to have seen except me), and decided to watch something from the early days. Since I have repeatedly convinced that watching a mediocre film only for the sake of playing a favorite actor is a sad event, I chose the director and eventually settled on good old Milos Forman.
Now I’m going to break the chronology a bit and tell you what the director himself said about this film. De Laclo's candid, sensual and witty novel made a "strong impression on the uncouth twenty-year-old" who was once Foreman. Many years later, he went to the theater to stage Dangerous Liaisons, a play by K. Hampton based on the novel of the same name. “I was appalled by the liberties Hampton allowed himself in bringing the novel to the stage. I always believed that the literary source should be treated as carefully as possible, but Hampton completely distorted the plot that I remembered. I was so intrigued that I decided to re-read the book.
Here Foreman was waiting for another shock: Hampton's play was as close as possible to the text of Laclo, but Foreman's memories of him ... These were his memories of the story. Over the years, they came to the forefront of events that seemed important to Foreman; the characters became what he thought they were, not the people about whom Laclo wrote. And Milos Forman decided to film his memories based on the novel of the distant XVIII century. This nuance should be kept in mind and not be offended by the director for the distortion of the original source. After all, these are just his memories.
In the epistolary novel de Laclos two main characters - the Marquis de Mertey and the Viscount de Valmont. Burnt schemers and cold-blooded seducers - they are worth each other. Before they were bound by love, now they are bound by friendship and rivalry. Each yearns to surpass the other in the “danger” of connections. The main lines of the novel are the seduction by Valmont of the President de Tourvel and the joint intrigue of the Marquise and the Viscount, aimed at corrupting the young and innocent Cecily Volange and the Chevalier Dunseny. In the end, everyone gets what they deserve. Accumulates and innocent victims (however, innocence by the end remains little.)
In Foreman's film, one main character is Viscount de Valmont. The Marquise has not gone anywhere and takes an active part, remaining, as before, cynical, hypocritical and cruel. Still, the director makes the central figure of Valmont, who still seduces women left and right, but he does it so lightly, as if wondering how it works. He still weaves intrigues, but he does it so rudely and ineptly that he invariably finds himself fooled. As a result, it is he who gets from fate - the most dissolute and stupid. Marquise's intrigues are upset, but it is unlikely to prevent her from starting new ones. The worn-out innocence begins to understand the intricacies of the “dangerous ties” of high society.
According to Foreman’s plan, Valmont was simply looking for true love, and finding it – Madame de Tourvel – was afraid and died. In my opinion, he is one of the few characters who are capable of genuine feeling, oddly enough. It is striking that the touching Cecile and Dunsany quickly recover from mutual disappointments and betrayals, and, raising their heads high, go to meet new “dangers”. Valmont, having met his true love and not knowing what to do with it and not knowing how to be happy, behaves boyishly stupid. Maybe wisely.
P. S. Although the film failed at the box office, coming out simultaneously with the exact following letter of the original magnificent adaptation of Stephen Frears on the play of the same K. Hampton, in my opinion, the tape of M. Foreman is absolutely independent and intrinsic.
By a strange coincidence of time and circumstances, this film befell an unhappy fate during its release, since almost simultaneously with him Stephen Frears shot his version of “Dangerous Liaisons” – a very English, heavy, smelling through with musty crumpled sheets and smeared whitewash, where Valmon John Malkovich with a frozen face of satire waited for such an obvious retribution for all his cynical sins (a kind of an ax version of Mozart’s Don Juan), only a stone gum in the vision of fate. And this pseudo-demonic straight-line version of the “punished lecher” for some reason completely eclipsed the amazing in its truly French subtlety and sophistication in terms of the ability to weave lace of Valmont Foreman’s love games.
The recent production of Dangerous Liaisons by London’s Donmar Theatre once again confirmed how good, accurate and insightful Milos Forman was twenty-five years ago when he made his film focusing not on “crime and punishment”, but on the fact that “Dangerous Liaisons” are still relevant, and that no matter what, in the male world, women will always lead the battlefield where reason and feeling converge.
Of course, the main intrigue of this story is the intellectual-sensual confrontation between Valmont and Madame de Mertay, but when the feelings of other people become cards in the game, it is always extremely difficult to predict how a stealthy word can then ricochet.
There is not a single character who came out of the story unchanged or not shot at the most vulnerable point of his nature. Annette Benning as Marquis de Mertey in all the splendor of her beauty and grace so flawlessly and actorly intelligently conducts the whole game from the moment of her female triumph to the realization that when you make a bet to break someone’s heart, you can get your own broken as a win. But there is no remorse or longing in Madame, she is just waiting for the next victim! (This, of course, does not match the original novel, but the film does not involve excessive dramatization.)
Charming in its childish naivety Cecil Fayruza Balk on the fly catches all the wisdom of women's insidiousness and quickly learns not only the art of manipulation, but also the ability to benefit from the situation for himself, perfectly realizing that each is a blacksmith of his fate.
However, Madame de Tourvel Meg Tilly, a gentle violet with eyes wide open in childhood naivety, turns out to be the wisest and thinnest female character in the film, because she is the only one who loves for the sake of love itself.
Direct and sincere boy Dunseny Thomas Henry, seeing how easily and irresponsibly broken any vows and promises, and killing, as it seems to him, the main Evil, turns into a young cynical scoundrel, and thereby puts an end to his corruption.
And, of course, the main culprit of the action – Valmont Colina Firth, perhaps the greatest advantage of the film. The adventures of the hoods he created give the film an incomparable charm and charisma, and one smile of Valmont - affectionate and sincere, without the oil plaque of an operetta debaucher in the spirit of Malkovich - is enough to understand why the mechanism launched by the Marquis de Mertey will never fail. Firth in the film is only 29 years old and he is never the legendary Mr. Darcy, so the ease and virtuosity of the character he played is especially striking when you look at him from the height of the past years and the roles he played.
For all two hours of screen time, the film never loses either pace or intrigue, sparkles like champagne, and at the end leaves a delightful feeling of light sadness, as if you lose something very sweet to your heart.
10 out of 10
Unfortunately for me, this movie was a waste of time. “Dangerous Liaisons” is a real screen adaptation, and this is a “movie based on motives”. For, may Milos Forman forgive me, he has ruined the whole point of the book.
The marquise from the brilliant Annette Bening does not shine at all, but only laughs like a young horse about and without, the face of the actress throughout the film expresses the same stupid smile. Glenn Close managed to show the heroine from absolutely all sides, this is a dangerous woman, a skillful puppeteer and a worthy opponent of the Viscount.
Colin Firth, for all his elegance and beauty, is just a suffering young seducer, also not matching his character. Where is the evil seducer with the look of the conqueror throwing himself at the victim?? Where is such an important transformation of the hero from a vanity soulless fatal seducer to a repentant man in love? There is no better John Malkovich Viscount.
In the main characters, neither the struggle nor the danger of such friendship is visible, there is a feeling that “the guys just have nothing to do, let them indulge.” Madame de Trouvel was out of her mind as soon as she left the picture. The only one who was happy was the young couple Cecil-Danseny. This is definitely better than Thurman Reeves.
And in general, boring, devoid of any emotion and colors "film based on"
Not yet had time to sound the fanfare about the admirably accepted picture "Dangerous Liaisons" with the outstanding game of Glenn Close and John Malkovich, staged on the novel of the same name by Shoderlo de Laclo, as the next year - in 1989 - Czech emigrant Milos Forman puts a new adaptation of the famous work, naming it in honor of the main male character - Viscount de Valmon, which this time played by British actor Colin Firth. The name has changed, but the essence is not, so do not think that Valmont will become the main character, and the cynical intriguer Marquis de Mertey will be forgotten. As if not, and Annette Bening, who played this role, shares with Firth the main plan of the film. In secondary, but very important roles will play Meg Tilly (Madame de Tourvel), Fayruza Balk (Cecile) and Henry Thomas (Danseny).
What can distinguish the films of Stephen Frears and Milos Forman is that the latter almost one in one conveyed the plot of the work of Choderlo de Laclo, while Frears allowed himself some deviations from the original. It makes no sense to talk about this story. First, many are familiar with the novel, and if someone is not familiar, it is strongly recommended to familiarize themselves with the classics of literature, and, secondly, many have seen films based on this work. Moreover, even a young audience can easily remember the drama “Cruel Games” with Sarah Michelle Gellar and Ryan Phillippe, because this film incorporated the main elements of the novel, only the action was transferred to the present. Returning to “Valmon”, I must say that this adaptation of the actor’s performance is not inferior in anything to “Dangerous Liaisons”, but still, no, no, and somewhere lacks the depth that was so magnificently shown by Close and Malkovich.
But that doesn’t mean Colin Firth or Annette Benning will disappoint. These are actors who, at any time, anywhere and in any movie, of course, cannot and will not play badly. And yet, I would like to say that with all my respect for Colin Firth, this true screen Briton, Annette Bening looks a little stronger and the role of the treacherous Marquis de Mertay undoubtedly succeeded. For her actions, more than once I wanted to break into the stage and give a good slap on her, and then also warn that if she does not stop playing with the fate of people, carrying scandals and trampled souls with broken hearts, then she will fly even more thoroughly. But to Viscount de Valmont, I did not experience such negative emotions. Most likely, this is due to the fact that I used to see Firth in the images of restrained and prim gentlemen, but the image of an inveterate egoist, just like playing with women in love, somehow did not stick to him. Although, it should be admitted, Firth did everything to make the viewer believe him and in places he clearly succeeded.
As for the secondary characters, I must say that the casting masters did their job maybe not at the highest score, but still worked noblely. I vividly remember Fayrouza Balk as a breakaway in the comedy Mama's Son starring Adam Sandler and an adherent of far-right views in the drama American History X with Edward Norton, and in Valmont she plays such a sincere, kind, clean, open girl and plays convincingly, with all the dramatic moments of her heroine's fate. Well done, Fairusa, it's just a pity that there aren't many such films in her career. Henry Thomas was opened to the world by Steven Spielberg himself, filming him as a boy in the film Alien. But then Thomas began to quite often secondary roles and here in Valmont he is easily eclipsed not only by Firth and Bening, but also by Balk. But Madame de Tourvel, played by Meg Tilly, I fell more to my taste than Michelle Pfeiffer in the same role from Dangerous Liaisons, although the latter received an Oscar nomination for her. Meg Tilly, in my opinion, is much more like the real Madame de Tourvel, she is somehow more natural.
Milosh Forman won the sympathy of the audience after in 1975 he released the brilliant film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” with the equally brilliant game of Jack Nicholson, and in 1989 he ventured to put the tape “Valmon”, which referred to the novel by Choderlo de Laclo, released only a year after one of the Oscar winners “Dangerous Liaisons”, shot on the same book. I can say that Valmont is a very digestible film and for fans of not only the work of the French writer, but also costumed dramas, the film is definitely suitable for viewing, especially since the actors of the film did not pump up.
8 out of 10
He who first tries to seduce the heart that is still innocent and inexperienced, thereby becomes the first culprit of its corruption and is responsible for its further errors and sins all his life.
Subjective perception of art sometimes leads to the fact that a film based on a favorite novel and is good in every sense, does not satisfy as a screen adaptation, and this levelles all its advantages. It would seem that “Dangerous Liaisons” wandered through time and space, transferring now to America, then to Korea, then to China, and Foreman did not become sophisticated and left the scene of France about the same years as described in the book. It would seem that Foreman is a good director, and paired with Jean-Claude Career (a great screenwriter, behind whom a truly impressive list of works) he is able to make a chic adaptation that will appeal to both critics and ordinary viewers. I will try to explain why, in my opinion, he failed, albeit in the order of personal opinion, not claiming to be an expert assessment.
The highlight of the novel is a plot full of malicious intrigues that are not the most pleasant characters. De Mertey is devious, vindictive and inclined to manipulate everyone around her; Valmont is cynical, vindictive and ambitious. To become and victims: Cecil stupid and childish trusting; Dansini is indecisive and subject to foreign influences. Turvel is virtuous and impregnable ... until the first serious attack. If it were not for Madame Rosemond (whose role, however, is minimized), "Dangerous Liaisons" could be safely called, after "Vanity Fair", a novel without a hero. That’s just Madame de Mertay – not Becky Sharp: this is the type of absolutely stop at nothing woman, ready for any meanness to achieve their not distinguished by lofty goals. And in Foreman, Annette Bening portrayed Becky - a small intrigue, and part-time pimp.
Colin Firth looks better: looking at him, at least you believe that he can seduce almost any woman who, deep down, dreams of being seduced. However, the Valmont-Turvel line slides into such an indigestible Santa Barbara that it won't save even the most ingenious acting. Yes, the interiors are beautiful, and the costumes are authentic (not counting the disgusting outfit of Cecil in the dating scene), but behind the flow of consciousness that the script pours on the viewer, there is no great novel, and this is the main disadvantage of Valmont as a screen adaptation.
Awarding the film fifth place out of seven in its charts, however, I will make a reservation that as an independent film, Valmont is quite possibly good. It is definitely worth watching for all fans of Foreman’s signature handwriting and the charismatic Colin Firth. If it will cause violent rejection, it is only with ardent fans of de Laclos, who consider any shifting of accents vandalism in relation to a great book.
Amazing thing: having watched both film adaptations in the same day, having read the criticism (so unfavorable for the Foreman tape), I could not help myself. Valmon Firth charmed, captivated, as, indeed, the whole film. Of course, the accents are shifted and the finale is changed, but the young, light, charming and absolutely unscrupulous Valmon is much prettier than the monumental, cold and not at all sexy character of Malkovich. In Frears' film, he is so unpleasant on the outside that he is disgusted. May I have mercy on anyone who can be seduced by such a womanizer? The acting in both films is great, but the video is paramount. That's what the movie is about.
The Marquise in Dangerous Liaisons is ten years (or more) older than the heroine de Laclo. It is strange to imagine portraying the passion of John Malkovich and Glenn Close. In general, the film is kind of heavy, giving theatrical. "Valmon" Foreman is lively, sparkling and optimistic. Completely captivated aunt, winking Cecile in the final.
In any case, it’s a good idea to watch several film adaptations, including the modernized version – “Cruel Games” to make your own judgment. But my sympathies are on Foreman's side... and
8 out of 10
' Valmont' is the film that will cause controversy between adherents of accurate adaptations of literary works and fans of light talented cinema. Conservatives will say: What are these ' dangerous connections? What kind of jester is that instead of an insidious burner of hearts! What is left of the original source? Did Mr. Foreman at least open the book?'
Yes, Milos Forman removed the entire tragic part of the finale of the novel, and generally changed the plot in his own way. But, tell me, did not this film acquire the airiness that is so characteristic of the paintings of this Czech director? His best dramas ('Amadeus','Flying Over the Cuckoo's Nest') have serious tragic lines, but look easy. Foreman has an extraordinary talent to make films in a manner that does not leave a heavy residue after watching, but, nevertheless, touches the soul.
Milos Forman, in his own way, revealed the images of villains to us. He brilliantly selected the actors for the main roles - Annette Benning and Colin Firth. Yes, they are villains, but so charming and charming, it is not surprising why all the characters are so attracted to them. This also emphasizes that evil can appear under any mask - including attractive and beautiful, hatred is hidden under a secular smile, and the desire to possess behind empty words of love.
Leaving the Valmont-Truvel line in the background, the director focused on the story of baby Cecily de Volange. To be honest, it is because of this that the story of Mrs. de Tourvel has not been fully disclosed. This is probably the director’s only mistake. The rest of his discoveries and inventions look charming: the viscount, who is beginning to sink all of a sudden, or who, as if by a magic wand, summoned a whole orchestra to lure Mrs. de Tourvel; the idea of seducing Cecil under the pretext of writing a letter to Dunseny, in my opinion, even better than that of Choderlo de Laclo. The taste of the picture can be tasted from the first scenes, when the Marquis de Mertey teaches his ward how to behave in the light. And how did the silent, but at the same time so much talking, characterizing each heroine, scene when Valmont alternately dances with Cecil, the Marquise and Madame de Tourvel! Music, dance and looks need no words.
And unlike 'Dangerous Liaisons' Stephen Frears, the images of all minor characters look more convex: Dunsany is so young, clumsy, but sincere and stubborn; Cecil is very sweet and naive, she is very angry when she is called small, but continues to behave like a child (take the same wonderful scene of playing with Valmont, also a great find of the director), just such Cecil I imagined; and what is the funny image of Aunt de Rosmond falling asleep right during tea!
This movie did not fully absorb the whole morally instructive essence of the novel, but nevertheless, I consider ' Valmon' the best film adaptation ' Dangerous Relationships'. Yes, it is made in its own way, with its own vision, but personally it is closer to me. Those who want a clean illustration of the novel from an untouched storyline are at their disposal the 1988 film.
And Milos Foreman -
Magnificent balls, beautiful marquises in luxurious dresses, beautiful gentlemen in elegant clothes, the ringing of swords crossed in duels, the rattling of spurs, the knocking of hooves of rapidly flying horses, ancient estates and their magnificent parks, courtesy and elegance of manners, and behind all this - the pristine, undisguised animal instinct to possess, conquer, primacy.
A beautiful and cruel film about passion, love, betrayal, deception and, of course, self-deception, subsequent awareness, fall and still rebirth, is crowned with extraordinary unforgettable music.
An incredibly beautiful film with the seductive Colin Firth in the title role is a real masterpiece that you want to review and the beauty of which unexpectedly powerfully blooms on the rather ungrateful soil of intrigue and base human vices.
This was a revelation because I didn’t think it would be possible to build beauty on anything other than pure and sincere love, and I didn’t expect it to be built on a banal animal passion. It turns out you can ...
Experienced throughout most of the film, a slight aversion to what is happening and to the main characters completely passes by its end.
Condemnation is replaced by forgiveness, contempt by some incredible regret for lost happiness, in the possibility of which, until recently so remote and unreal, one begins to sincerely believe.
The film resembles incredibly expensive and complex-beautiful spirits, which as they are revealed to the viewer, one or the other side of their mysterious essence.
The story of Valmont is essentially the story of Don Juan: countless love affairs, broken hearts, broken innocence, reproaches, rumors, gossip, condemnation generously adorns the path of a young womanizer.
How early could he have been hypocritical?
To be jealous, to be jealous,
Confide, make you believe,
Seems gloomy, grumpy,
Being proud and obedient,
Careful or indifferent.
How silent he was.
How eloquently eloquent,
In love letters as careless.
One breath, one loving,
How he could forget himself!
As his eyes were swift and tender,
Shameful and daring, and sometimes
It was a beautiful tear...
How he was able to appear new,
Innocence is a joke to amaze.
To be frightened of despair by the ready.
Innocent flattery to amuse...
In the description of A. S. Pushkin all Valmon. Having subordinated his life to the service of the devil of passion, he tramples with heels of fashionable boots his life and the lives of people around him, without looking back or thinking about the evil and disappointment brought to other people. But why did I not want someone to finally punish this notorious scoundrel? Maybe the point is that the evil he was carrying, he was not born on purpose, that obviously he was simply not able, maybe because of his age, or maybe because of his temperament, to understand how much pain he brings to others, and if suddenly there was someone who could show him this so that he understood why it seems that he himself would be the first to be horrified by himself.
Involuntarily it occurred to me to compare Valmont to fire. Yes, he burns, even kills, but is he to blame? Fire cannot be any other, but only this – dangerous, absorbing, cruel by its essence, determined by higher forces. You can escape from him only by your will, staying as far away from him as possible, and if you are already near, then you can only blame yourself for the wounds inflicted by him - well, you were warned ...
And yet, how can such a person exist and strive for love - an egoist and a scoundrel-Lovelas? Perhaps first of all, because he is capable of love himself - a short but incredibly strong one, forcing him to believe for that short period of time when he is alone with the object of his passion that there is no one on earth more desirable than his partner. He is able to dissolve in another person, forgetting about himself, his egoism and incredible self-admiration, and for this short time, when all his thoughts, previously directed only at himself, are directed to another person, which makes him feel the center of the universe.
This is the story of Valmont’s relationship with Madame de Tourvel: Are you married? - No, I'm in love. - Why aren't you with her? I'm with her, I'm talking to her now. I want to be in you to hear you say you don’t love me.
But by far the most notable is Valmont's relationship with the Marquis de Mertey. No matter how much I watch this film, I can not understand whether I see love, or just take for it the banal rivalry of two essentially identical people who feel themselves masters of life and position, confident that they certainly will never fall on the hook of passion or love.
- We should not be enemies, but friends, good friends. - Not only that. - Lovers? - Not only that. - You're not going to propose to me, are you? - What if I do?
So what was it? Another intrigue, a game of va-bank, where he expected to win, but just did not have time, as it turned out to be faster? Perhaps the fatigue of meaningless life made itself felt, the awareness of its emptiness, which frightened him so much that he, like a drowning man, grabbed a straw, grabbed hold of the person who was closest to him, who knew him, and, in fact, accepted him as he was?
Or maybe he really fell in love, no matter how naive and funny it sounds?
I can’t find the answer to this question in this film – one can only guess, trying to penetrate the stubborn look of beautiful eyes. But this unsolved mystery does not upset, but, on the contrary, leaves room for the imagination, forcing you to recall again and again the last scene of recognition that predetermined the fate of the beautiful handsome man and the people around him.
The world cannot exist without the likes of Valmont, without them it will be dull and too correct. Perhaps, therefore, it seemed to me for a moment that a bright sunny day had faded, and frowning clouds ran over the shining sky that covered the sun.
I want you to lie to me... I don't want anything so much.
The story of the love adventures of Viscount de Valmont - the hero of an extensive list of seduced and abandoned young ladies, and the ambitious Marquise de Mertey - a brilliant puppeteer in the field of alcove relations, using the lust of a lover for her own selfish purposes, turned out to be alive and spicy, intriguing and to the extent moralizing: seduction, betrayal and duels exude the sharpest aroma of the era.
After reading unobtrusive morals about the dangers of promiscuous intimate relationships, Foreman once again proved himself to be a true "social artist." His choice will not seem strange in the age of AIDS as the inevitable payback for sexual promiscuity. Another thing is that he turned to the novel by Choderlo de Loclos with a delay of at least a year.
By this point, the version of the British Stephen Frears, which appeared in 1988, has removed a sufficiently weighty harvest of awards to prevent (at least the same scoffers) to re-mark the next “Dangerous Liaisons” – this is how the name of the novel itself sounds, and its previous interpretation.
However, Frears's "entrepreneurship" did not affect Foreman's choice, which surprised him on its own. It seemed that the central idea of the famous novel in the letters lies outside the main path and creative ideas of the director of “Flight over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and “Amadeus”. Although, it is possible that Foreman’s second attempt to plunge into the courtly era was due to the stunning success of the film about Mozart.
The film about love intrigues and hypocrisy of the high society of the XVIII century turned out to be worthy, both in comparison with the literary original and the version of Friers. And although "Valmon" did not receive special honors, did not cause audience excitement and controversy in the press, he once again confirmed the almost indisputable truth that Foreman still remains a skilled storyteller, able to actualize any story.
“You are the only one of my hobbies that has for a moment gained power over me.”
Schoderlo de Laclo in the preface to Dangerous Liaisons formulated the basic truths that underlie the novel, as follows: The first truth is that every woman who agrees to make acquaintance with an immoral man becomes his victim. The second is that every mother who allows her daughter to trust another woman more than herself is at best careless.”
Undoubtedly, these statements have not lost their relevance after several centuries. Therefore, it is not surprising that the novel built on them does not lose its relevance. "Dangerous connections" will for a long time excite the imagination of readers, because there is nothing more interesting than watching how naivety and purity fall into the sticky networks vices and intrigue .
But still let's talk about the film Miloš Forman. I know that this adaptation of the novel by Choderlo de Laclo is not the only one, but I have nothing to compare with – except the book, of course. Well, we'll compare it to her.
Let’s start with basic storylines. To my great regret, the relationship between Valmont and President de Tourvel has hardly been revealed. In the book, the author pays much attention to the image of her virtue, decency and purity of thoughts, in order to brightly indicate her uniqueness against the background of all other girls. In the film, we see it only casually - Tourvel is more like a shy simpleton than a severe untouchable. The development of their relationship with Valmont is also not shown in detail. I would like to ask: Is it really that simple?
As for the young Cecily Volange and her misadventures, this plot offshoot satisfied me to a greater extent. Here we must pay tribute to the performer of her role, charming Firuza Balk. Sweet naivety and childish clumsiness of her heroine succeeded in fame, and those few scenes in which the eyes of a young girl fill with tears, I was simply conquered! Almost the same can be said about the young music teacher Dunsany (Henry Thomas) - that's how I imagined him.
So, the main directions of the plot are consistent, but the details differ very much . Such a free approach to the retelling of this story would seem to me inexcusable familiarity, if it were not for the director’s impeccable taste. Many scenes are made really style and deserve the highest praise. I'll mention two that are particularly memorable.
The first - Dance Valmona alternately with each of the fair sex, in the company of which he is a suburban. Dance can tell you a lot, including characters and emotions. Very sensitive and beautiful scene turned out.
The second episode is duel. But it would be pointless to disclose details - it should be seen.
I would also like to say a few nice words about Fabia Drake, who played Madame de Rosemond. The image itself is somewhat different from what we see in the book: in the novel, this elderly person is undoubtedly more cheerful and intelligent. However, I like her as in the film: thanks to her, the picture acquired a lot of funny humorous moments.
Of course, speaking about actors and images, it would be impermissible not to mention Mrs. de Mertey. The image created by Annette Bening perfectly reflects the double personality and meanness of this woman, and at the same time her amazing attractiveness . I think she was most successful in her dialogues with Cecily Volange’s mother: she is very clearly depicted how attentively she listens to the interlocutor and how easily she adapts to him to achieve what she wants. This is how a real bitch should act!
And finally, Colin Firth. I think it is very difficult for me to evaluate him objectively in this role. It is one thing when he shows exceptional talent, giving fiery speeches as a lawyer (Hour of the Pig), or when he is a wounded soldier and writhing in a hospital bed. But it is quite another matter – the role of Valmont, because here besides talent Firth also uses all his charm and charisma, which cannot be resisted. And how natural is it in the frame!
To summarize the above, Summarize. Foreman's film "Valmont" has many disadvantages in the plot and composition, but a wonderful acting, excellent scenery and some especially successful scenes still outweigh.
Or not outweighed? It's your call. My own objectivity vanished around the middle of the film, to the sounds of a charmingly contagious laugh by Mrs. de Mertey.
8 out of 10
I watched Valmona and Dangerous Liaisons almost simultaneously, the first film was shot for very loose motives, the second clearly follows the plot of the novel.
Laclo does not have a hero, as his characters are carriers of certain vices of society, some follow them consciously, others fall under their influence due to weakness of character or lack of life experience, and both are somehow punished by the author at the end of the novel, each gets his own. Vice is punished, virtue triumphs.
In the modern view, the novel is heavy and moralizing, absolutely linear, no hidden meanings to look for. So the Frears movie turned out exactly the same. Heavyweight, illustrative, with a suffocating atmosphere, with every unpleasant characters that cause neither sympathy nor empathy. And besides, to put it mildly, unintelligent, when a forty-year-old uncle repeats, like a parrot, memorized "This is beyond my strength," you inevitably begin to doubt his mental abilities. Turvel is such a victim that, instead of empathy, he is irritating. Thurman is not attracted to a fifteen-year-old naive girl. With all due respect to Malkovich and Close, the cow seducers are the Queen of England, so asexual they are both here. There is no atmosphere of danger, intrigue, sexuality, seduction, only dry reasoning and a dive of two already very old, tired of life people. That’s all about dangerous relationships.
Let's go to Foreman. A person under the proposed circumstances of complete freedom (or non-freedom), which in fact results in the same thing. Valmont Foreman is a sybarite who receives from life everything he has the mind to claim. He perfected the art of seduction, since he did not have any other talents. From the young Firth just comes a wave of sexuality and vice, a brilliant choice of the actor for the role. His Valmont gives every woman exactly what she needs, his weapon is not blackmail and violence, but a subtle understanding of the female soul, which is especially evident in the scene of dancing with four women. So this man-boy would flit through life from woman to woman, if he did not encounter something real, which he cannot co-convene and cannot comprehend, and begins a break in the soul and discord with himself, attempts to change, attempts to fill the void and mental impoverishment, the collapse of these attempts and a duel, more like suicide. And this Valmont is sincerely sorry, he was the only victim in this story, and all his women are one way or another grateful to him and sincerely mourn his loss. Empathy and subtle irony flow through each shot, Foreman does not convict anyone, everyone is both an executioner and a victim of the Valmont-Merty relationship deserves a separate long conversation, so I will not stop there. The history of this Valmont is interesting to me, all the women who predetermined his fate in one way or another are interesting, all this brilliant, phantasmagoric and enchanting world is interesting, which has nothing left to live, since a great and terrible revolution looms ahead and a courtly society is living out the last days in the literal sense of the word.
When a director begins to rewrite the original, he must be a great master, equal to the talent of the original author. Foreman is a great artist who breathed new life and new meaning into the musty plot, reviving it to a new life.
European version The film “Valmon” is one of the adaptations of the novel by Choderlo de Laclo. He came out almost simultaneously with his Hollywood counterparts and therefore remained in his shadow. According to the fame of the actors, he is significantly inferior to the dangerous connections of Stephen Frears. Here you can only highlight the young Colin Firth, who was just starting his career. But overall, the film is good. Very well conveyed the era of that time - France of the 18th century, where all around weave continuous intrigue and the main intriguers here are the Marquis de Mertay and Valmont. These are two of the most striking characters, between which passion and rivalry occur. The result was a great costume film and not as vulgar as dangerous connections or cruel games. 7 out of 10 Original