The
"theme", of course, is the epistolary novel Les liaisons dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos first published in
1782. The "variations" are four movie adaptations that could not have
been more different. But first a few words about the literary original,
because, reportedly, it has had an enormous influence and is still relatively
widely read, no matter that the vogue of the epistolary novel, not to mention
the high-flown language, has long become history.
Spoilers ahead.
 |
| A 1976 Bulgarian translation of the novel, coupled with Manon Lescaut by Abbe Prevost |
I admit this
is the only epistolary novel I have read so far. I really didn't know what to
expect, but I was rather pleasantly surprised to find something very readable
and highly entertaining. Certainly, it is far from perfect. It is often long-winded
and verbose, partly due to the peculiar form and partly due to those leisurely
times when conversation and letter writing were carefully cultivated forms of
art. It is very difficult, I imagine, to tell convincingly a story only through
letters without now and then slipping into somewhat excessive detail. Another
thing one has to be patient with is the elaborate formality of the style. I
suppose it was typical for the eighteenth century, but today the vast and florid
vocabulary that fills those wordy and oh, so long sentences does tend to become
tedious.
On the whole,
however, the novel is a spectacular achievement of story-telling and characterisation.
Granted for some superfluous or tedious pages, it is compelling from start to
finish. Most of the post-reading complaints one may have are usually reduced to
minor quibbles while reading. Somehow Laclos not just transports you into
another and greatly different times, but he makes you care for his characters,
no matter how cruel and malicious they may look at first glance. What more can
you ask of fiction?
One drawback
I was prepared for, but which never materialised, was disjointed and incoherent
plot. Not at all. There always are at least two separate trends going on, but there
never are any sprawling digressions. In fact, the plot is very
tightly organised, logical almost to the point of a mathematical equation, and
entirely believable. It proceeds at a leisurely pace, to be sure, but it works
inexorably towards a bold, audacious climax. Only towards the very end, after
Valmont's
death, is there some rushing and pushing. But this is to be expected. Without
the Vicomte, the very existence of the Marquise makes no sense at all.
The epistolary form may be awkward
and it may need some time to get used to, but it does have its own advantages
as well. Telling the whole story with letters adds precious verisimilitude,
variety and vividness. One cannot but admire Laclos for his nearly perfect ''keeping
in character''. There are at least six persons who play critical roles in the
story, and they all write remarkably different letters. The stylistic diversity
is exhilarating; it keeps at bay the monotony that sooner or later settles in
the correspondence even of the two wittiest human beings. Most of the time the illusion
that you are the addressee is nearly perfect. This adds a special kind of
intimacy not so often achieved in fiction. It draws you inside the minds of the
characters with a vengeance.
When it comes to rococo decadence, naughty
games of sexual innuendo with serious consequences, seduction and betrayal on
the grand scale but in exquisite style, I don't think it
would be easy to beat, to give its most popular English title, Dangerous Liaisons. What more can you
ask of fiction, I repeat? Well, you are right to ask some timeless substance,
some insight into the human condition that never quite becomes dated. You will
find it here. Much of the novel is a high comedy, but don't be fooled by the
glittering surface. Just below there is a good deal of relentless probing into the dark
depths of human nature.
What I have
to say about Dangerous Liaisons
(1988) I have already said it somewhere else. Suffice it to stress here that
this is by far the best adaptation
among the four discussed here. It is the closest one to the novel in every way.
The dialogue is fabulous and flawless, striking the perfect balance between
light-hearted humour full of double entendres and intensely dramatic episodes that
contain a fair share of profound observations about human nature. The
sets and the costumes are sumptuous historical affairs that recreate
Interestingly
enough, this movie was not based on
the novel itself but on a play of the same name adapted from the original by
Christopher Hampton. He also wrote the screenplay, and if this is anything to
go by, then his play, which opened in 1985 with Alan Rickman as Valmont, must
definitely be worth checking out. Mr Hampton certainly knew his Laclos very
well indeed. He has stripped away much of the verbiage, yet he has managed to
preserve the complexity of the characters and intricacies of the plot virtually
intact. It is only fair to say that he is one of main reasons why this movie is
so outstanding. As we shall see right away, the art of adaptation, for it is an art, can easily let down an otherwise
fine production.
Valmont (1989) does at first glance look
terribly promising. There is a lot to recommend it. Annette Bening as the
Marquise and Colin Firth as Valmont, lavish and historically accurate
production design, a fine director like Milos Forman. Could it go wrong? Well,
it certainly did. And I think the main reason is the script. I don't mind it is
''freely adapted'', as honestly admitted in the opening credits, but I am
convinced that the final result is much, much weaker than the original. The
characters have all but been reduced to caricatures, the dialogue has been
clipped and simplified almost to the point of banality, some characters are
superbly superfluous (Gercourt being the prime example), several elements of
the plot are either unnecessarily expanded (the romance between Cecile and
Danceny) or frustratingly left incomplete (Valmont's affair with Madame de
Tourvel). In short, it's a mess.
Had it been
released at some other time, that is before Dangerous
Liaisons or at least several years after it, Valmont would have fared better. It does have some merit. Visually
it is beautiful, often stunningly so, for example in the many night scenes
where the dim light of candles creates a very special, almost surreal
atmosphere, or in the splendid outdoor scenes most of which are literally
breathtaking. The acting is generally superb, all the more so when one
considers the indifferent dialogue, and there are several wonderfully effective
original scenes (for instance, when the Marquise wrote a letter from Danceny's
name).
But the movie
did appear on the very next year after Dangerous
Liaisons, thus inviting numerous comparisons none of which is in its
favour. Just
a couple of examples.
Despite
strenuous efforts from the sweet Annette and the gorgeous Colin, a flippant Marquise
who takes nothing seriously and a Valmont
who is never tormented by his love
for Madame de Tourvel are duds. Both come off as dull, glib and shallow creatures,
very far removed from the subtle, intriguing and, most important of all, affecting
characters in the other movie as well as in the novel. Meg Tilly as Madame de
Tourvel and Fairuza Balk as Cecile are at best mediocre, although it is hard to
say how much of this is due to their own incapacity and how much to the lame
writing. The very few scenes which both movies share are embarrassing – for Valmont. The ''declaration
of war'', often put on the DVD cover, is puerile stuff worthy of the inmates of a prep
school. The ending is hilariously inept. What a contrast indeed! Just compare
the ludicrous duel and the blatantly sentimental funeral here with the fight in
which Valmont willingly sacrificed himself and the following destruction of
Merteuil, and you will know how far Milos Forman and co. went into their
misunderstanding of the original.
All in all, an interesting curiosity
to spend 130 minutes of your time, especially if you like the novel and are
curious about ''free adaptations''. But it's magnificently forgettable
all the same. Of course if you prefer light and superficial comedy to tense drama that delves
deep into the psychology of the human animal, you are perfectly right to like Valmont better than Dangerous Liaisons. I don't.
Les liaisons dangereuses (1959)
transfers the story to  |
| Gérard Philipe and Jeanne Moreau in Les liaisons dangereuses (1959) |
The best about this movie is the
direction of Roger Vadim. The man is a visual poet. Most of the story is set in
a French ski resort and that gives him ample opportunity to use glorious snow
vistas to a great effect. It is quite often that the imaginative and audacious
direction saves the movie from being a total disappointment. For example, the
opening scene contains some painfully blatant explanations about the marital
arrangement between the protagonists: an unforgivable dramatic mistake in a
movie where so much is, or should be, based on concealment. Yet the scene is so
masterfully shot, with a meandering camera through an expensive party, that you
are willing to forgive the screenwriter's total lack
of subtlety and foresight. The erotic scenes are stylishly shot, and though
prudish by modern standards, you can still appreciate the lovely curves of Annette
Vadim (Marianne
Tourvel) or the perfect legs of Jeanne Valérie (Cecile) from some
unusual visual angles.
Taken on its
own there is something sleek and cool about this French movie, a certain
cynical charm that is quite captivating. But as an adaptation it is a nearly
complete failure. Perhaps future viewings without the benefit of comparisons, if such a thing
is possible, may yield better results. Perhaps not.
Cruel Intentions (1999) is the most radical, but
also the most successful, departure from the original novel. The plot is ripped
off and set in modern day
Oddly enough,
this version is the second closest – in spirit and on a lower plane, of course!
– to the original novel after the one from 1988. The opening credits do mention
Laclos of course (with one timid ''suggested by''), but writer and director
Roger Kumble must have benefited from Christopher Hampton's play as well. But
this is, again, missing the point. The adaptation is a minor masterpiece, highly
original and totally convincing. It is a peculiar kind of pleasure to
observe the cleverness, the sheer genius even, employed to ''update'' the
common scenes and characters to the utterly alien setting. The first meeting
between Valmont and Cecile, in the presence of her mother and his sister, is a
case in point. So is his introduction to the virtuous Annette (the equivalent
of Madame de Tourvel) or the near-rape of Cecile. The ending is not quite up to
the original one, but neither is it grossly sentimentalized; and
it contains a funeral scene vastly superior to that in Valmont. The dialogue is marvellously smart, pointed and effective,
sometimes almost salacious but never vulgar for vulgarity's sake. To complain
it is less profound than Laclos and Hampton
Likewise,
complaints that Ryan Philippe and Sarah Michelle Gellar are no match for John
Malkovich and Glenn Close, respectively, are pathetic. Of course they aren't.
They are not meant to be, remember? That said, both are fantastic, not least in
the steamy scenes between them. Both of them cover the whole range between
farcical fun and cruel brutality with impressive skill. Reese Whiterspoon also gives a
convincing, varied and moving performance as Annette, the virtuous subject of
the bet. The supporting cast is top-notch, too. Selma Blair as the
simple-minded (but not stupid!) Cecile, Christine Baranski as her
preposterously snobbish mother, and especially Joshua Jackson as Blain Tuttle,
the gay guy who helps Valmont (somewhat akin to Azolan in other versions), are all
excellent.
Altogether this is a very fine movie,
a serious comedy par excellence. Quite often it is unjustly underrated by silly
folk who are prejudiced against teen movies or too keen on comparisons with Dangerous Liaisons. Speaking of
comparisons, however, Cruel Intentions,
despite its modern setting, is much
truer to the spirit of the original, both in terms of plot and characters, than
the historically spot-on Valmont. Strange
but true. Give it a try. Teen movies can teach us truths, too. This one does.
