Ridicule (1996)

Court of Louis XVI 6 years prior to the Bastille. A country Baron Gregoire Ponceludon de Malavoy wants to drain swamps on his land and needs help from the government he is turned down and appeals to the King. What trying to do that was like is the gist of the film.Wonderful portrayal of the decadent lives lived by courtesans at that time. Wit (Esprit) was an admired quality often leading to-- Ridicule--of the victim(s). There are too many wonderful scenes to count but here is where the movie messes up = it gets into womens lib (Matilde the scientist) and social justice themes (the deaf) too much they were not needed and extremely unlikely.Although life at Versailles was exaggerated that can go as an artistic point (to make things funnier and more outrageous)...but the odds of Ponceludon succeeding in his swamp work during the decade after the revolution are zero.If you can over look these story flaws it is an entertaining movie.Recommend

There is a lot to like about "Ridicule." Splendid costumes, gorgeous Versaillais architecture and painting, and a pretty historically accurate portrayal of the absurdity and the confusion playing out at the Versailles court on the eve of the Revolution (on the one hand, they will all maintain that they are devout Catholics; on the other hand, they court libertine philosophers and more or less openly engage in grotesquely immoral--often sexually charged--war games of wit). The premise is interesting, the acting is grand and the atmosphere is terrific.Where the movie loses points is in its philosophical moralizing. The film does not make it a point to distinguish the character of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette from that of their courtiers. Although the film does not actually portray them doing anything they would not actually have done (they were, indeed, deeply ingrained into the life of their court), by not holding them out the film does give us the impression that they were every bit as trashy and apathetic as the courtiers (in fact, they were most certainly not) and that they deserved their ultimate lot in the French Revolution (and any historian even slightly to the right of Karl Marx agrees that they most certainly did not).Near the end of the film the protagonist, the Marquis de Malavoy, countryside aristocrat who has learned the court games simply in an attempt to petition Louis XVI for help with his land and for his feudal tenants, castigates the courtiers for their hypocrisy. He cites their invocation of Voltaire, a man "filled with compassion!" as evidence. But anyone who knows anything about Voltaire knows that he was quite the snob himself.Moreover, the ending, which implies that Malavoy, the compassionate aristocrat, now lives well in Revolutionary France, gives the false impression that it was his openness to liberalism that had permitted him to stay rather than go into exile. In actuality, it was precisely in places such as Malavoy's holdings, where feudal ties were strongest and aristocrats remained landed rather than absentee, that resistance to the revolution was also the strongest--and most tragic. Anyone ever hear of a place called "Vendée"? The people there stood in defense of their patriarchs, their Church and the House of Bourbon--and hundreds of thousands paid the ultimate price for not wanting to recognize a Parisian regime they regarded as criminal as having the right to unilaterally redo the physiognomy of their socio-political landscape.And speaking of physiognomy, let me just comment on the... ugly faces. I don't know whether it's the makeup, but Fanny Ardent looks as though her face might kill as humiliatingly as ridicule does. The court of Versailles must have been teaming with fresh flesh, and I'm not at all convinced a priest would break his vow of celibacy for the likes of her. And, "My bedroom is known to lead to the throne room"? Uh... yeah, THAT line really makes up in charm what she lacks in looks. Uh-huh. And Judith Godrèche, who is normally quite lovely, is done up just horribly... her face and hairdo are so tomboyish that it's a wonder she survives at a place like Versailles. And while the makeup on the men may be historically accurate, it is not applied in a very charismatic fashion, as though the filmmakers were trying to give us something to laugh at.The ambiance is good, but the script is disappointing and nauseating. I think one can do better for a quiet evening alone.

An engineer just before French revolution is trying to find his way up in the court. He has wits and guts but the game is bigger than his assumption.The subject of the film is very good but the story line is very trite, banal, old, done a 100 times etc etc. Hope you know what i mean. Engineer falls in love with one girl and a countess fancy him as her next best ticket to court. Movie becomes a yawn because of this 4000000 years old plot and loses its novelty after 20 minutes. Except for a few scenes movie has nothing to offer. Technically even subject is not very original because if you get to see it 'Vanity Fair', 'Shree 420', 'Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman' are based on the same concept but its a period drama and talks directly about cartoons of french courts so its funny. First scene is very powerful. I hope all french people did that on Louis 17th and his maniac wife. Back to film. Film doesn't hold any water. It goes haywire and becomes boring after 20 minutes. I wonder what this hoopla about 2 thumbs up three thumbs? Still!! rent it for the first scene.There are very few international films in which you are distracted by technical mistakes. This is one of those. Editing is very bad. Childish mistakes like a man looking in two directions. Camera work is artsy and very distracting. For example Camera is moving from a man's point of view while he is riding a horse but the swiftness of the camera is of airplane. Its worse than amateurish. I couldn't identify characters even until the end of the film. Prettly lame. All the actors are also just OK. In my opinion its very passable. Rent it watch the first scene and send it back. Don't bother about the rest because you know everything already.By the way why 90% of the poster is Judith Godrèche? I think thats just another inconsistency. Its like putting Karen Alens pic on the raiders of the lost arc poster instead of Ford. 7/10.

This is a very fine movie clever and witty.If the morality of the French courtiers was the one that the film shows it to be then the Revolution did very well to destroy the Old Regime. The film is a good evocation of the epoch with lots of esprit and world-play but such callousness towards other people's problems deeply offended my moral sensibilities and made the character played superbly by Fanny Ardant, despite her beauty and wit, repugnant to me.The same applies to the smart alec Abbe and the callous military officer. The central hero is a responsible and progressive fellow whom I liked very much as well his scientifically inclined fiancée.The movie is about the clash of the mores of the courtiers and those seeking a more rationalistic order of things. I side with the second.It is a splendid movie which displays the moral climate of the privileged of the privileged, that means according to sources the tiny portion of 4.000 presentees, that is the cream of the nobility which was 2% of the population anyhow.How could the French people put up with such drones remains a mystery to me, there must be some historical explanation which eludes me, but this is a film, not a historical treatise. As such it must be judged and it comes out very well.