The Marquis de Sade was a complex man who lived in interesting times. Normally this would make for some excellent drama. However, there is so much baggage that is attributed to this man and his writings that he is rarely viewed with a clear mind. Baggage usually put there by people who have not actually read him.
Baggage that is associated with him being a sexual outlaw. Or just an outlaw. An almost Jeffrey Dahmer/John Wayne Gacy level of lawlessness. As a gay man, I think being a sexual outlaw is fine and healthy. Unfortunately it means me and my kind frequently get lumped into the same general category as as those mentioned above.
Just exactly where is it O.K. to draw the line? Ultimately, I don't think there is a rational answer to this question. Certainly short of actual murder and torture where the "victim" is not a willing participant. But what about torture where the "victim" is a willing participant?
I happened to have actually read de Sade. I didn't particularly like it but I feel it was good for me. Just like watching Passolini's "Salo". Not enjoyable, but certainly edifying.
And because of that comparison, "Quills" suffers. Passolini put de Sade in the context of Fascism and true political repression. As a gay man who suffered much from societal reprobation and political repression, Passolini certainly had a nuanced understanding of de Sade. And a visceral understanding of de Sade.
"Quills" has flashes of brilliance but overall, it was a very unsuccessful film. Telling the story of de Sade as almost a madcap love triangle somehow feels cheap and trite. The baudy play performed for the Michael Caine character was filmed marvellously but was placed in a really melodramatic context where the villian was cartoonish. The only thing missing was a handlebar mustache on Michael Caine.
Even if Geoffrey Rush captured the whimsey and capriciousness that deSade may have had, I just didn't feel the profound anguish that the man must also have had in order to envision and write the things he did.
The whole theme of censorship vs. artistic expression was just handled awfully with sledgehammer to head as almost all the critics noted.
The whole deSade/laundress/priest love triangle (and a true triangle where the priest and deSade also have an intersecting point) was just melodramatic and had no real weight to it.
Passolini got it right. Phillip Kaufman did not.
It was just easier to say that "Quills" would have been a lot better film if Joaquin Phoenix had been more naked.
Well maybe not a better film, but certainly more enjoyable.
