The Monk [aka Le moine] (2011)

When I was preparing my Dark Hero unit (here) in 2010 I went looking for film versions of the books I included, like Christopher Marlowe’s Faustus, Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights and Matthew Lewis's The Monk (1796). I found a few versions of Faustus (I review one here) and The Monk, and lots of Wuthering Heights.

Unfortunately, none of the film versions of The Monk were available in 2010. The 1972 version directed by Ado Kyrou (Le Moine, aka The Monk) was issued on DVD in Spain in 2005 (here), but is "Currently unavailable" on Amazon. While the 1990 version directed by Francisco Lara Polop, The Monk, aka The Final Temptation or The Seduction of a Priest, is not on DVD at all. VHS tapes are “mega rarität” and expensive (see here for £46.25 and here for 36.99 Euros—in German).

Having another look now, I see that there are few vendors of the 1972 film on eBay, so I have just ordered one. According to "housefulofpaper" here, the 1972 film "was shown on UK terrestrial TV some time in the last ten years … whilst the 1990 version starring Paul McGann was on satellite TV (Rupert Murdoch's Sky) around 2005"—so it is surprising, and a bit disappointing, that neither are available on DVD-R from archival film services like Videoscreams.com.

Anyway, as soon as I discovered that a new film version of The Monk was available, I bought it (along with another film version of Wuthering Heights—the first to represent Heathcliffe as dark-skinned, as he is described in the book). I watched the film last week and loved it.

* * * * *

Dominik Moll is credited with the direction, screenplay, adaptation and dialogue. According to Rottentomatoes.com, reviews have been mixed, but average 5.6/10.

The Guardian: "this feverishly intense movie has a tablespoon of 1970s art-porn … not a story of great depth or passion, but there are intriguing and unsettling moments"; The Financial Times: a "super-fruity adaptation … a silly film—1970s soft-porny—but not without a certain ominousness."

I am not sure how a feverishly intense movie can not be a story of great depth or passion… and I didn’t get the 1970s "art-porn" or "soft-porny" vibe that Peter Bradshaw and Antonia Quirke detected. At all. And I have to admit to watching a lot of dodgy 70s films (including, I think, everything made in 1972), so I am a bit of an expert on the subject!

The Daily Mail is closer to the mark, but still exaggerates by describing it as "a lethally slow, stylistically confused tale … negligible character development means he fails to hold our interest." Better still, on the merits of the film, is the review of Matthew Turner for ViewLondon (here)

Vincent Cassel is perfectly cast and delivers a superb performance … Deborah Francois is equally good as Valerio (her intriguingly blank face is endlessly fascinating) and there's strong support from both Mouchet and Japy. 

The film is strikingly shot, with gorgeous, sun-bleached photography by Patrick Blossier and some stunning location work, particularly in the dream like final act. Moll also makes strong use of the colour red and creates an intense, cloying atmosphere that's highly effective.

Many of the reviewers are unfamiliar with the book, and offer either misguided or absurd criticisms of the film. The most idiotic review has to be that of Henry Fitzherbert in The Daily Express: "a dull B-movie with ideas above its station."

* * * * *

Dominik Moll has simplified the story—as a film must—focussing on Ambrosio, and attempting to build sympathy for him. Moll does this by spending time on Ambrosio’s back-story (abandoned, raised as an orphan), his intelligence, his development into a skilled preacher, his suffering (blinding headaches) and his isolation in the monastery, his close friendship with the abbot of his order and grief over his death. Rather than being proud, austere and judgemental, Ambrosio is devout and sincere. 

More importantly, Moll mitigates or removes Ambrosio’s responsibility for his "fall." When Valerio/Matilda sucks the poison from his wound, she rapes him—he is barely conscious at the time—and there is only the briefest montage to suggest that the sexual relationship continues. The audience does not see anything to suggest the extent of Ambrosio’s libidinous urges or that he takes an interest in Antonia only when he has tired of constant sex with Matilda. Ambrosio (and the audience) does not see any of Matilda’s dealings with infernal powers, eliding his indirect dealings with the devil. And the audience does not see how long he plots to abduct and rape Antonia.

Also, rather than murder Elvire, then abduct her grieving daughter (Antonia), rape her (while she is wide awake) in a crypt, and subsequently murder her to escape capture (as occurs in the book), Ambrosio rapes the sleeping Antonia, then murders her mother (Elvire) when she finds him. He is identified by Elvire as her son as he is stabbing her, and is paralysed with remorse and horror immediately afterward, allowing himself to be captured by Antonia’s fiancé. Finally, when Matilda and the devil confront Ambrosio in prison (and offer him a pact), he sacrifices his soul to restore Antonia to sanity and health, rather than (as occurs in the book) selling his soul to evade punishment.

 Moll seems to think that, shorn of his pride, lust and violence, Ambrosio can be a sympathetic character. But to build sympathy for Ambrosio as a latter-day St Anthony tempted by the devil, we need to see more of the devil and his agent, more of Ambrosio’s temptation and fall into lust, and more of his descent from lust into every other species of sin if his "fall" is going to have any meaning.

 There are a number of ways Moll could have done this: he makes nothing of the resemblance of Valerio/Matilda to Ambrosio’s beloved Virgin Mary (specifically her portrait, which he adores), and by hiding the face of Valerio/Matilda—and by eliding the growing companionship, friendship and open adoration of Valerio/Matilda—there is no chance for his/her disturbing beauty and emotional bond to begin the work of seduction.

 (A low-brow comparison would be Zapp Brannigan, who becomes increasingly infatuated with "Leela Man" when Leela disguises herself as a man to join the military in Futurama (season 2, ep.17: War Is the H-Word). When the big reveal comes Zapp exclaims: "So it's you I've been attracted to! Oh, God, I've never been so happy to be beaten up by a woman!")

 He also does not suggest how trapped Ambrosio is once his senses and his passions have woken.

 What Moll does do—or rather, what Emmanuelle Prévost does, who deserves full credit for the casting—is make Ambrosio’s two female temptations (Deborah Francois as Valerio/Matilda and Josephine Japy as Antonia) gorgeous enough to truly test the celibacy of a saint (as Chris Tookey observes). Superb acting, fabulous costumes, sets, lighting and photography combine to accentuate the beauty of Japy, but the same could be said of a number of actors and the presentation of the film as a whole.

 So, while the film is a little slow to get started, and it is a little confused in its presentation of Ambrosio, whose character does not "develop" (descend into debauchery as we might expect) it is not "soft-porny" or "stylistically confused"!

Burton and Taylor in Doctor Faustus (1967)

Last night I watched the 1967 film adaptation of Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, featuring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. I wasn't very impressed. The lame special effects and studio sets are mostly dated without being cheesy-fun (as they are in some Hammer and low-budget films.)

Also, neither of the lead actors were really at their best. Burton was simply unconvincing at the start and by the time his performance improved, particularly in his depiction of Faust's growing world weariness and desperation, the constant presence of Elizabeth Taylor had become so distracting and aggravating that it was hard to enjoy the rest.

I must say I have never really understood the appeal of Elizabeth Taylor. She plays about a dozen different parts in the film, including Helen of Troy, constantly popping up like a jack in the box. In fact, just about every woman turn out to be Taylor. It would take someone of extraordinary beauty and charisma to carry this off, and Taylor doesn't.

Also, there was simply no chemistry between Burton and Taylor, who had been married for four years when the film was made and simply appear bored with each other.

I was surprised by how much of Marlowe's text was retained, and how little of the text was changed. Although, when changes were made they were rarely for the better. The scene depicting the Seven Deadly Sins was simply deadly boring (and it omitted one of the sins: lechery); the Pope scene came after the Emperor scene instead of before it, which is neither here nor there, but neither scene offered the light relief it ought to have had.

The highlights? Faust's study (above picture) and Mephistopheles as a black cat (but them I am fond of black cats).

* * * * *

BTW: While looking for the above photo I happened on this list of ten Demonic Pact films—of which, I have only watched five (marked *). I don't think I could watch another Nicholas Cage film (marked †) but I will hunt out the other four.

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus (2009)
Ghost Rider (2007)†
Shortcut To Happiness (2004)
Bedazzled (2000)*
Deal Of A Lifetime (1999)
The Devil's Advocate (1997)*
Angel Heart (1987)*
Spawn (1997)*
Doctor Faustus (1967)*
Damn Yankees (1958)

The Byronic Heroine

I finished reading Atara Stein's The Byronic Hero in Film, Fiction, and Television last night. And, well, I have to say I was very disappointed in the book. So disappointed I went looking for other reviews and—having not found one—wrote my own for Amazon (here and below). I wanted to be able to direct my students to a recent account of some pop-culture Byronic Heroes, but I am going to have to keep searching.

The main problem with this book is probably the inability of essentialist feminism to deal with characters who disrupt gender stereotypes, but the most obvious problem is the fact that Stein is never clear about who is responsible for either the characters and actions or responses she is making observations about.

Stein tends not to talk about authorial or directorial intention, she criticises characters and plots as if they came into being independent of authors, publishers, producers, studios etc and there is no discussion of genre expectations in cinema even, though the book is about genre expectation in literature. Stein also tends to be silent about reader/viewer response, though the essentialist arguments she quotes depend on this.

If a female character uses violence to protect herself, is she necessarily masculinised/de-feminised? If a character is briefly depicted in her underwear, is she necessarily feminised/sexualised/weakened? The critics quoted here believe, yes necessarily, and that the female character briefly depicted in her underwear is thereby shown to be vulnerable: that a (male) viewer cannot help but have a sexual response to this depiction, and that his response re-inscribes the character's position as object/victim of the viewing male.

The possibility is not considered that a female viewer may have a sexual response, a male may not have one, or that such a response from either a male or a female does not necessarily inscribe the character in a position as object/victim, that the fictional female concerned may be indifferent—in her fictional universe—to the response of others, seeks, welcomes or is empowered by the response or is perfectly capable of defending herself from any form of unwanted attention or aggression. In the context, some of these are even more implausible than the arguments that Stein presents, but the fact is that only one possibility is considered.

If we are not talking about the character's fictional universe, then the argument must be articulated that briefly depicting a female in her underwear cannot help but lead to a sexual response in viewing males, and that this response re-inscribes the position of all real women as object/victim. Again, the possibility is not considered that a female cinema-goer may be indifferent to the response of others, seeks, welcomes or is empowered by the response, or is perfectly capable of defending herself from any form of unwanted attention or aggression.

When I read this sort of criticism I find myself wanting to ask the writer: how is a fictional female to protect herself—as a female and in a way that does not inscribe her in a position as either object/victim or masculinised/de-feminised? In fact, how is a powerful fictional female to be depicted at all?

And how can any sort of feminist criticism value the male response (assumed to be sexual, and assumed to be violent and predatory) over the female one? Do a few seconds of (hetro-male) "fan service" negate the overwhelming Grrl-power message of a film? In the case of the Alien franchise, a Grrl-power message that was enthusiastically embraced and has subsequently reappeared many times over. Is the ultimate argument, that the good these film do over-balanced by the evil that they perpetrate?

Stein's answer seems to be yes, the good is over-balanced. Which brings me to Stein's broader argument: that escapist cinema makes film-viewers into drones who are more obedient and accepting of their lot, that escapist cinema drains our collective bile. That the portrayal of characters like Ripley is intended to re-inscribe conventional gender roles and keep women passive/weakened.

The problem is, this argument really only works if you can establish that characters like Ripley are either intended to be, or are perceived to be, unappealing, or that their fate is either intended to be, or are perceived to be, an object lesson in how not to behave. Since neither the intentions of the film-makers (broadly considered) nor the response of the film goers (broadly considered) are considered at all then Stein's argument simply cannot be successful. She does not even articulated her argument this clearly.

* * * * *

My Amazon review:

First up: this book is *full* of typos, outrageous ones, ones that every text-editing program (like Word) would pick up. This suggests that nobody at SIUP was paying any attention when this book went to press … which may explain how this book got published at all in its present form.

I am intensely interested in this topic, so I found the first couple of chapters useful, even though I disagreed with many of the arguments and claims.

However, I was simply bored by the sections on The Crow and Anne Rice’s vampires, and bored to tears by the sections on Neil Gailmon's Dream and Star Trek's Q. The chapters on these characters do not have a clear over-arching argument and there is no over-view of the characters and plot-lines, just an endless series of observations, some of which are contradictory, some of which are implausible or wrong-headed, and many of which are simply repetitive.

The wost section is undoubtedly the one I was most interested in -- the one I bought the book for -- on the Byronic Heroine. Stein wants to mount a feminist argument against the Terminator and Alien films, but seems unsure how to do it, so she simply attacks the film from every direction and quotes -- approvingly -- some of the asinine arguments I have ever read.

The nadir is reached on pages 199 and 200 where Sarah Connor, from the Terminator films, is criticised because she "emulat[s] her culture's icon of heroic behaviour: the violent male outlaw …. It does not occur to her to adopt a creed of nonviolence." (199) [Well, *that* would be a short action film!] And when Ellen Ripley, from the Alien films, returns to her hyper-sleep-bed-thing at the end of one film, we are informed that this brief glimpse of her in her underwear:

[1] re-feminises her;
[2] makes her “a vulnerable sex object”;
[3] and therefore “a potential victim for men”; a potential realised in the mind of one critic
[4] who fantasises “sexual violence can bring the uppity Ripley down” and therefore concludes
[5] that the scene is intended as “a warning to female viewers.”

That’s right: simply show that you have legs and you inscribe yourself as an inevitable rape victim. Apparently this message is so loud and clear that the simple act of showing Ripley’s legs drowns out the you-go-girl message implicit in depicting a woman who has saved herself (and human kind) by single-handedly annihilating a nest of the most terrifying aliens ever imagined.

Oh, and note that these two films are related (thematically?) to Catherine from Wuthering Heights and Eustacia from The Return of the Native. I believe the phrase is “drawing a long bow.”

Whatever merit some of these arguments have—and as a card-carrying feminist I do agree with some of the observations on inscribing gender—it annoys me to see such sloppy thinking, contradictory, implausible or wrong-headed arguments, masquerading as “feminism.”

I will not be recommending this book to my students.

The Eighteenth Century on Film

In the same way that I am gathering links to works by Eliza Haywood (here), William Hatchett (here) and eighteenth-century erotica (here), I thought I'd gather details of films set in the long eighteenth century, and links to IMDB, Wikipedia or any discussions of the same on blogs by eighteenth-centurists.

I have been meaning to do this for a while, but was finally set in motion by a link that a colleague sent me concerning a discussion of eighteenth-century fashion (here). The link is to a site has a heavy emphasis on eighteenth-century fashion, but does contains some film reviews which I wanted to link to somehow.

Like my other link-posts, I expect this post to grow slowly, but unlike the others I do not aim at a comprehensive list. My aim is to bring together information on films that I—and my students—might like to watch out of interest in the period, or out of interest in the works of fiction written in the period. The selection criteria is not entirely clear yet, but my preference is for recent films over older ones on the same subject, unless the older version is particularly good, and for films that are easy to get on DVD.

Looking online, the most prominent lists I could find were last updated in 1996 and 1999. Wikipedia has a category for Films set in the 18th century, but the list of films in this category is short. There is also this—very slow loading—list of "18th Century Costume Flicks" on The Costumer's Manifesto which I found useful, and the Period Movie Review, which has recently gone on hiatus . If anyone knows of any other lists, please let me know.

* * * * *

The Abduction Club (2002). ¶ Set, Ireland, 1780s. Irish noblemen woo and then abduct wealthy heiresses in order to marry into their fortune and avoid becoming priests or soldiers; starring Sophia Myles. ¶ Discussed, briefly here.

The Affair of the Necklace (2001). ¶ Set, France, 1780s. Based on a mysterious incident at the court of Louis XVI involving his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette; starring Hilary Swank, Joely Richardson and Simon Baker. ¶ Discussed here.

Amadeus (1984). ¶ Set, Vienna, 1780s. The life of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. ¶ Discussed here and here.

The Amorous Adventures of Moll Flanders (1965). ¶ Set, UK, 1710s. Based on Daniel Defoe's The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders (1722), this version starring Kim Novack.

Aristocrats (1999). ¶ Set, mid- to late 18C. The story about the four, aristocratic Lennox sisters; starring Anne-Marie Duff. ¶ Discussed, briefly here.

Barry Lyndon (1975) ¶ Set, Europe, 18C. Based on William Makepeace Thackeray's The Luck of Barry Lyndon (1844), this version starring Ryan O'Neal and Marisa Berenson. ¶ Discussed here—where it is compared to Tom Jones (1963)—and here.

The Bawdy Adventures of Tom Jones (1953). ¶ Set, UK, 1740s. Based on Henry Fielding's The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling (1749), this version starring Nicky Henson and Joan Collins.

Becoming Jane (2007). ¶ Set, UK, 1790s. Based on the early life of author Jane Austen (1775–1817); starring Anne Hathaway, Julie Walters and James McAvoy. ¶ Discussed here.

The Beggar's Opera (1976). ¶ Set, UK, 1720s. Based on John Gay's The Beggar's Opera (1728), this version starring Laurence Olivier and Dorothy Tutin.

The Beggar's Opera (1983). ¶ Set, UK, 1720s. Based on John Gay's The Beggar's Opera (1728), this version starring Roger Daltrey and Carol Hall.

The Bounty (1984). ¶ Set, The Pacific, 1789. One of several fillms based on the real-life mutiny that occurred aboard the British Royal Navy ship HMS Bounty on 28 April 1789; starring Mel Gibson, Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Olivier, Daniel Day-Lewis and Liam Neeson (what a cast!).

Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001). ¶ Set, France, 1760s. Loosely based on a the famous legend around the Beast of Gévaudan and the real-life series of killings that took place in the Margeride Mountains from 1764–67; starring Samuel Le Bihan and Monica Bellucci.

Casanova (2005). ¶ Set, Venice, 1750s. Loosely based on the life of Giacomo Casanova; starring Heath Ledger. ¶ Discussed here (and many other places no doubt).

Le Chevalier D’Eon (2006–7). ¶ Set, Europe, 1780s. An animated film loosely based on the life of Chevalier D’Eon de Beaumont. Although the events of the series are supposed to start in 1742 the historical figures and events are all from later in the century. ¶ See my discussion here.

The Clandestine Marriage (1999). ¶ Set, Ireland, 1760s. Loosely based on a play of the same name by Colman and Garrick (published 1766); starring Nigel Hawthorne and (sadly) Joan Collins. ¶ Discussed, briefly here.

Clarissa (1991). ¶ Set, UK, 1740s. Based on Samuel Richardson's Clarissa, or, the History of a Young Lady (1748), this version starring Saskia Wickham and Sean Bean.

A Cock and Bull Story (2005). ¶ Set, UK, 1760s. Based on the Laurence Sterne's "essentially unfilmable novel" The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (1759–67).

The Convent of Sinners (1986). ¶ Set, France, late 18C. One of a few films based on Denis Diderot's La Religieuse [aka The Nun] (ca. 1780), in which a nun describes her intolerable life in the convent. A nunsploitation flick starring nobody of note.

Dangerous Liaisons (1988). ¶ Set, France, ca. 1770s. Based on Choderlos de Laclos's Les Liaisons Dangereuses (1782), this version starring Glenn Close, John Malkovich and Michelle Pfeiffer. ¶ Discussed here.

The Duchess (2008) ¶ Set, UK, late 18C. Based on the life of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (1757–1806); starring Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes. ¶ Discussed here.

Fanny Hill (1983). ¶ Set, UK, 1740s. Based on John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1748–49), this version starring Lisa Foster and Oliver Reed.

Fanny Hill (2007). ¶ Set, UK, 1740s. Based on John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1748–49), this version starring Rebecca Night and Alex Robertson. ¶ Discussed, briefly, here (compared to other Andrew Davies films).

Frankenstein (1994). ¶ Set, Switzerland, ca. 1785. Based on Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein (1818); starring Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro and Helena Bonham Carter.

Gulliver's Travels (1996). ¶ Set, "abroad," 1720s. Based on Jonathan Swift's Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World (1726; 1735), this version—one of the few which is even remotely close to the text—starring Ted Danson.

The Harlot's Progress (2006). ¶ Set, London, early 18C. A fictional account of William Hogarth and his relationship with the prostitute that inspired his most famous series. ¶ Discussed here.

The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling (1997). ¶ Set, England, 1750s. An adaptation of the novel by Henry Fielding; starring Max Beesley. ¶ Discussed here.

The Incredible Journey of Mary Bryant (2005). ¶ Set, England, Australia, Timor, 1780s and 1790s. A young woman is transported to Botany Bay in 1788; she escapes to Timor and returns to London; starring Romola Garai and Sam Neill. ¶ Discussed here.

Jefferson in Paris (1995). ¶ Set, Paris, 1790s. Follows Jefferson (as the US ambassador to the court of Louis XVI), following the death of his wife ¶ Discussed here and here.

Joseph Andrews (1977). ¶ Set, UK, 1740s. Based on Henry Fielding's The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews (1742), this version starring Peter Firth and Natalie Ogle.

The Lady and the Duke (2001). ¶ Set, Paris, 1790s. Inspired by the memoirs of a Scottish courtesan (Grace Elliott) during the French Revolution. ¶ Discussed here.

The Libertine [aka Le Libertin] (2000). ¶ Set, France, 1750s. Based on a day in the life of Denis Diderot (1713–84).

The Libertine (2004). ¶ Set, UK, 1670s. Johnny Depp as John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester (1647–80).

The Madness of King George (1994). ¶ Set, UK, 1780s. Tells the true story of George III's deteriorating mental health. ¶ Discussed here and here.

Marie Antoinette (2006). ¶ Set, France, 1780s. Based on the life of Marie Antoinette (1755–93) in the years leading up to the French Revolution. Starring Kirsten Dunst, Judy Davis and Jason Schwartzman. ¶ Discussed here.

Mesmer (1994). ¶ Set, Vienna and Paris, 1770s. Based on the life of Franz Mesmer (1734–1815); starring Alan Rickman and Anna Thalbach.

Mistress Pamela (1974). ¶ Set, UK, 1740s. Based on Samuel Richardson's Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded (1740), this version starring Ann Michelle and Julian Barnes.

Moll Flanders (1996). ¶ Set, UK, 1710s. Based on Daniel Defoe's The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders (1722), this version starring Robin Wright Penn and Morgan Freeman. ¶ Discussed here (compared to He Knew He Was Right (2004)).

The Monk (2011). ¶ Set Madrid, late 17C. Based on Matthew Lewis's The Monk (1796); staring Vincent Cassel, Déborah François and Joséphine Japy . ¶ Discussed by me here. NEW

The Nun (1966). ¶ Set, France, late 18C. One of a few films based on Denis Diderot's La Religieuse [aka The Nun] (ca. 1780), in which a nun describes her intolerable life in the convent; starring Liselotte Pulver and Anna Karina.

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006) ¶ Set, France, 18C. A gifted apprentice in pursuit of the perfect perfume. Starring Ben Whishaw.

Pirates of the Caribbean (2003–6). ¶ Set, Caribbean, 1760s? Features the East India Trading Company, Port Royal, The Flying Dutchman, and Johnny Depp, what more could you want? (Depp uses a genuine pistol made in London in 1760.)

Plunkett & Macleane (1999). ¶ Set, London, mid-18C. Based on Will Plunkett and Captain James Macleane, Gentlemen Highwaymen; starring Robert Carlyle, Jonny Lee Miller and Liv Tyler.

Quills (2000). ¶ Set, France, ca. 1805. The Marquis De Sade fights a battle of wills against a tyrannically prudish doctor.

Restoration (1995). ¶ Set, London, 1680s. Based on the life of a doctor at the court of Charles II; starring Robert Downey Jr., Sam Neill, Hugh Grant and Meg Ryan.

Ridicule (1996). ¶ Set, France, late 18C. In the decadent court of Versailles social status can rise and fall based on one's ability to mete out witty insults and avoid ridicule. Starring Charles Berling, Jean Rochefort and Fanny Ardant.

Rob Roy (1995). ¶ Set, France, ca. 1805. Based on the life of Robert Roy MacGregor, the famous Scottish folk hero and outlaw of the early 18C; starring Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange and John Hurt.

The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982). ¶ Set, France, ca. 1792. One of many films based on a series of novels by Baroness Emmuska Orczy; starring Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. ¶ Discussed here.

Sleepy Hollow (1999). ¶ Set, New York State, USA, 1799. Based on Washington Irving's short story "Legend of Sleepy Hollow" (1820), this version starring Johnny Depp, Christina Ricci and Miranda Richardson.

The Triumph of Love (2001). Set, France, early 18C. Based on Pierre de Marivaux's play "Le Triomphe de l'amour" (1732); starring Ben Kingsley, Mira Sorvino and Rachael Stirling.

Valmont (1989). Set, France, ca. 1770s. Based on Choderlos de Laclos's Les Liaisons Dangereuses (1782), this version starring Colin Firth, Annette Bening and Meg Tilly.

Wuthering Heights (1992). Set, Yorkshire, late 18C. One of many films based on Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights (1847); starring Juliette Binoche, Ralph Fiennes, Janet McTeer, Jeremy Northam. ¶ Discussed here.

Young Catherine (1991). Set, Germany and Russai, mid- to late 18C. Based on the life of Catherine the Great, starring Julia Ormond and Vanessa Redgrave.

BTW: I was very tempted to use Kathy Brandt's characterisation of the eighteenth-century on film as "libertines, pirates, cleavage & costume drama." (See pdf here.)

[UPDATE 1 January 2013: new items marked NEW]

The Chevalier D'Eon, 2006–7

While I was on leave over the last few weeks I watched Le Chevalier D’Eon (2006–7), a twenty-four episode anime series.

The scriptwriter, Shotaro Suga, explains, "the intended atmosphere [was] of a cathartic drama of people who were and were not loyal to their country 'on the eve of the French Revolution'." Most of the action occurs in Versailles, Paris, Moscow and London and involves a range of historical figures appropriate to these locations: Louis XV, Robespierre, Cagliostro, Empress Elizabeth and Catherine II of Russia, Princess Caroline of Great Britain, Sir Francis Dashwood, Lord Sandwich etc.

The series begins in Paris, when the body of a woman named Lia de Beaumont is found in a casket floating along the Seine. The only clue regarding her death is the word "Psalms," which is written in blood on the lid of the casket. D'Eon de Beaumont, Lia's younger brother and a knight in service of King Louis XV, takes it upon himself to investigate his sister's mysterious death, along with the strange disappearances of a number of French women.

The central character is loosely based on the extraordinary historical figure Chevalier d'Eon (Charles-Geneviève-Louis-Auguste-André-Timothée d'Éon de Beaumont, 1728–1810), a French diplomat, spy, soldier etc who lived as a man until 1777, but as a woman thereafter. (See the Wikipedia entry here.)

The Chevalier d'Eon's lived in London from 1763–77 and from 1785–1810. Questions about the Chevalier's sex started circulating reasonably quickly. Not surprisingly, a number of works about the Chevalier appear in my Checklist of Eighteenth-Century Erotica:

An Elegy on the Lamented Death of the Electrical Eel … as placed on a Superb Erection, at the Expence of the Countes of H---------, and Chevalier-Madame d’Eon de Beaumont, by Lucretia Lovejoy, sister to Mr. Adam Strong, author of the Electrical Eel (London: Printed for Fielding and Walker, 1777).

An Epistle from Mademoiselle D'Eon to the Right Honourable L[or]d M[ansfiel]d, C[hie]f J[ustic]e of the C[our]t of K[in]g’s B[enc]h, on his determination in regard to her sex (London: Printed for M. Smith, 1778).

A Sapphick Epistle, from Jack Cavendish to the Honourable and most Beautiful Mrs D['Eon] ([London]: Printed for M. Smith, and sold by the booksellers near Temple-Bar, and in Paternoster-Row, [1778]).

When the Chevalier died in London in 1810, doctors examined the body and discovered that the Chevalier-Madame had been anatomically male (the Chevalier had previously stated that such an examination would be dishonouring, whatever the result). Whether the Chevalier had a hormonal condition that prevented the function of his sexual organs, or the development of other sexual characteristics, is unknown. Consequently, it is impossible to know whether the Chevalier was an intersex individual or a cross-dressing male. Given the lack of evidence, and the Chevalier's preference that the subject be left unexamined, the less said the better.

* * * * *

When I saw this DVD on the shelves—knowing what I did of the real Chevalier-Madame—I found it impossible to resist, even at the thumping price of $70.00. Having watched it, I am not sure I'd recommend the expense to anyone less interested in the real Chevalier-Madame than I am.

The animation is okay, in fact some of the backdrops and effects are great, but the plot is pretty confusing, most of the characters are not very appealing, and some of the few who appealing at the outset do not stay that way. The stand-out character, the Madame D'Eon, does not get anywhere near enough screen time. I liked the magics but there was no real exposition, or explanation, about them: the source of the power of the Psalms or the powers of those who wield the magic.

It is also obviously difficult to escape the depressive atmosphere that results from depicting a large number of frivolous, stupid, ambitious, duplicitous and disloyal characters who are "on the eve of destruction" (i.e. revolution).

Of course, now that I am clear about the plot-line and the motivations of the major characters I am tempted to watch the series again and see if I enjoy it any more, but there is so much else to watch and read and do … so it might have to wait at least until I reach my vampire movie target (two hundred. Forty to go.).

[UPDATED 22 July 2026]

The Eighteenth Century on Film: CFP

John H. O'Neill is accepting proposals—up to 15 September 2009—for the special session on "The Eighteenth Century on Film" at the 2010 Annual Meeting in Albuquerque. The session is sponsored by NEASECS, but participation is open to all members of ASECS.

John has said that he welcomes and encourages proposals for papers on any aspect of this topic, including film adaptations of eighteenth century narratives (e.g., Castaway, Tom Jones), films set in the period (e.g., Stage Beauty, The Libertine, Amazing Grace), and film explorations of eighteenth-century history (e.g., Peter Watkins' Culloden).

Please send proposals to John H. O'Neill, Dept. of English, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York 13323; Tel: 315/859-4463; Fax: 315/859-4390; E-Mail: joneill@hamilton.edu