Talk:Quills

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
	A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Films WikiProject.

I think the entire analysis section needs to be removed or significantly edited. It seems to only criticize the movie and the motives behind it but brings little in actual "analysis". --Hammy 10:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

This entire article is in dire need of a clean-up. The summary is spotty at best and there is a definite bias against the movie. There should be mentions of its innaccuracies in regards to the historical figures it mentions, but it should also be discussed on the basis of its own artistic merit. I'd be willing to do it but I've never done a full-article clean up and would like assurance that others agree this needs help. Vaguely 17:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It definitely needs a rewrite. The lead is a mess, the plot redundant, and the analysis unsourced.--Supernumerary 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Dummies102 10:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that the analysis be removed until it can be properly sourced. It contains a bit of bias. Secretagentwang 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and with the suggestion to rewrite the article entirely. It's way too POV at the moment. Malerin 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I went through the plot and tried to cut out all the POV. I'll try to get around to that horrible Analysis section soon.--Supernumerary 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis section

I've cut the nearly the whole analysis section and pasted it here. I salvaged the image and the last paragraph. If this essay can be sourced, it could be included in a different form.--Supernumerary 07:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article or section may contain original research or unattributed claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Quills is essentially a historical fiction that draws on the life of Donatien Alphonse Francois Comte de Sade, or Marquis de Sade, the controversial literary figure whose popularity was dubious. The film as an independent work of art has but little in wanting but Wright’s liberties in subverting facts to make an exciting drama needs to be scrutinized. Firstly, the Marquis de Sade was imprisoned twice at Charenton and the period that Wright and Kaufmann are alluding to is the 1804 confinement. Owing to a lettre de cachet, the Marquis was subject to death. This was in accordance with Napoleon’s orders for de Sade was alleged to have written (it was a rumour) a novel Zoloe that blatantly criticized Napoleon’s wife. To make matters worse, Justine also was published and Napoleon chanced upon it.

The Marquis de Sade's family intervened and pleaded that the sentence be averted and the Marquis was restored to the asylum. Within the asylum the Marquis was allowed to write and even publish his works though under the supervision of the Abbé. The Abbé du Coulmier, played by Joaquin Phoenix is not at all a reflection or even a shadow of the actual Abbé. The real du Coulmier was a man nearly as old as de Sade (two years his junior), and his friend, perhaps because he may have shared the Marquis’ penchant for debauchery and fondness for women. The chambermaid, Madeleine is based on the real life Madeleine who was only a teenager and not a twenty-five year old lady. Her full name was Madeleine le Clerc.

Interestingly the villainous Royer-Collard who is shown to introduce such instruments of torture as the ‘wicker-cage’, ‘terror–bath’ and straight jackets was a man who actually abolished the use of these. Instead Coulmier was the one who indulged in these practices. Moreover, the laundry maid was not killed by inmates. That seems to have been inspired by Weiss’ play Marat/Sade. Also Charenton did not suffer a fire-breakout.

These deviations are possibly pardonable, but the death that the Marquis is provided with in this plot is a defying of history and fact. Not only did the Marquis not have his tongue cut out but he did not die of swallowing a cross. De Sade died in his sleep aged seventy four. In fact, the Marquis was at this time not a slim and handsome man with an admirable physique, but rather a ‘very big, very fat, very cold, very heavy, a large mass, a vulgar, short man whose head seemed a shameful ruin.' Even the dancing and singing with other inmates that indicates a camaraderie and a warm-hearted person is not a true depiction, for the Marquis was known for his haughtiness and generally disliked by almost all the inmates. Quills is therefore necessarily a fiction with very little factual content.

Despite the criticism against its factual digression it is a movie that raises several relevant questions and attempts to answer them. De Sade even in this century remains a controversial figure: one sect argues that he was a revolutionary who adopted a method very different and unique, while others consider his work to be outright evidence of unabated libertinage. Post-Freudian critics believe that de Sade was an intricate writer who wanted to explore and exploit the human psyche laying it bare, simultaneously questioning religious and political hypocrisy.

Quills is a retrospective account of de Sade’s life, and Wright and Kaufmann seem to be members of the pro-deSade brigade who argue in favour of the intention de Sade might have had. Quills is therefore an interpretation of de Sade rather than a narration of biographical fact. De Sade is portrayed as the prolific writer who wishes to expose the libertinage of the nobility and the church. In the movie Geoffrey Rush tells Joaquin Phoenix that the nobility are ‘pin heads’ who deserve to rot on the streets. Even the play Crimes of Love, quintessentially mocks the tradition of the old man exploiting a poor young girl. In fact Wright seems to tacitly address the theme of power politics that is inherent in ‘sadism’. Kaufmann perhaps deliberately shows twice the saying: “Mort aux Tyranny” where tyranny becomes synonymous with ‘power’.

There is an intended critique of the power of the Royal party through the comical figure of Napoleon whose feet are shown dangling in the air: not just because the Emperor was of slight stature, but possibly to hint at the fact that the new Royalty was losing ground. The cinematic metaphor of colour is also aptly used: several times throughout the film the colour red seems to fill the screen. This is an allusion to the period known as the Reign of Terror. The significant cutting off of de Sade’s tongue could be a visual expression and commentary on the question of censorship.

De Sade is garbed as a social reformer with a touch of difference whose primary objective is the ‘freedom of thought and expression’ which became a byword during the French revolution. His sexuality is a secondary even a tertiary attribute. In fact de Sade in real life had had fifty seven sexual intercourses with Madaleine but in the movie the Abbé informs the audience that Madeleine died a virgin.

De Sade is eulogized and he becomes a martyred hero rather than a social aberrant. De Sade had been imprisoned several times and once in particular on account of having invited a prostitute, indulged in foreplay and then diverting into socially obscene actions: he masturbated into a chalice, called God a ‘mother fucker’.

The film analyses Sade’s anti-Christian tendencies. The Abbé deflates de Sade by telling him that he is not a potent ‘anti-Christ.’ Perhaps to afford dignity to de Sade and his scorn for the debased (as he thought) Christian religion de Sade is allowed that fictive ending in which he dies of swallowing a cross, refusing Last Rites.

According to this film, de Sade was committed to truth and the movie harps on his determination to voice the truth. “Men’s natural character is to imitate… It is only by imitating the vices of others that I have earned my misfortunes," Sade had said. Quills raises this fundamental question of imitation. The Freudian implications of trying to be copious in one’s conduct. It asks: does the act of reading, thinking, or seeing invoke in us a desire to do it ourselves? How related are the libertine’s hedonism and the conservative’s repression?

The denouement makes the final clinching statement. Joaquin Phoenix’s final insanity and his zealous almost insane urge to write out his thoughts reiterate the picture of Sade as in the early part of the movie. This seems to suggest that the legacy of Sade continues. From a historical figure whose literary fame is doubtful and often criticized Sade is transformed, rather magnified into a concept – immortal and legendary.

[edit] Moderate overhaul

Being bold here! I'm a "Quills" fan and interested in gaining some experience in the Wikipedia world. My earlier changes on the article are my first ever edits, so please, I won't be offended by changes, comments, criticism! It seems I wasn't the only one disappointed by the previous quality, but since I had time, I went for it! I used several featured articles, Jaws, in particular, as a foundation for a good layout and ideas for what to include. I left the Plot Summary alone for now, because it's a more serious project than something as source-able and straightforward as re-doing the Reception and Introductory sections. I deleted maybe a total of 2 paragraphs, but mostly shuffled things into their appropriate sections.

I've also added a to-do list on the talk page here as a starting-off point for myself and any others who'd like to be involved. Some further extrapolation.....

Obviously, there was some serious discussion over historical and biographical inaccuracy in the film. The Schaeffer criticism is a good example and some more research on the topic will likely uncover others.

Considering the film was nominated for its art, sets, and costuming, and if I remember correctly, there were some interesting extras on the topic on the DVD, some information about production and production values would be a nice addition.

I thought the bit about Kate Winslet's interest in the movie spurring production, if sourced, would be a good thing to keep and use it to expand on the casting of other actors. (Who saw Shine and nominated Rush? Any interviews?)

And finally, many reviewers mentioned the underlying themes of censorship, which could be interesting to expand upon? Also, creativity, art, sex, mental illness and its treatment, etc. etc.?

Looking forward to hearing your views! MFrog 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)