!!!Spoilers aplenty!!!
Since Frears' "Dangerous Liaisons" is set in the time of de Laclos' Text, unlike e.g. "Cruel Intentions," it is important to note that the novel as a thinly disguised attack on the Ancien Regime - hence no redemption is possible, the end in death a necessity.
The narrative relying far more on dialogue than action, I think Stephen Frears made the right choice in not "speeding up" the piece by frequent cutting. The pace at which the cabal develops is leisurely going towards slow, but I think that is advantageous. This is because its very slowness allows us to appreciate the atmosphere in which Merteuil and Valmont plan the ruination of innocents: boredom, really. They have nothing better to do, so destroying others is a pastime to them.
The settings, costumes, and makeup reinforce this atmosphere - they are splendidly done, and one may well talk of oppressive opulence. The opening of the film actually puts costume and make-up to symbolic use; it is inspired: we follow Merteuil and Valmont through their morning toilette, getting dressed and made up, foreshadowing the masquerade they put on and in which they both are actors, but Merteuil is eventually revealed to be the director.
The casting I thought superb. Malkovich is in my opinion perfectly suited to play Valmont precisely because he is not conventionally attractive. The character relies on his powers of manipulation and the occasional subterfuge for his `conquests,' and Malkovich achieves an accomplished embodiment of both - impossible to say no to, with just that necessary element of ruthlessness. There have been complaints that Glenn Close is not attractive enough to be the Marquise, but I disagree. Her character is motivated by a will to control and dominate. As she says herself: `I was born to dominate your sex and to avenge my own' or words to that effect. Her sexuality similarly is not driven purely by pleasure, hence her refusal to give Valmont his reward. She sees him not conforming to the part she has `written' for him and re-establishes herself as unattainable unless he brings the ultimate sacrifice. And Glenn Close delivers this calculating woman so convincingly that it is easy for me at least to understand why Valmont would go to any length to bed her. Just as he wants Tourvel to betray everything she ever believed in, he wants the controlling Merteuil to submit to him - hence the repeated reminders of their past love. Merteuil at one point says that he was the only one she (almost? I'm not entirely sure) lost control with.
The supporting actors I also find well chosen. Reeves may seem a strange choice, but the character is a bit of a wet blanket to start with, and he gives the docile creature easily manipulated by Valmont and Merteuil quite well. But better are Pfeiffer and Thurman, who both undergo convincing changes from innocents abroad to someone well on the way to a willing pupil of the Marquise and Vicomte (in Thurman's case) and to someone genuinely suffering from the opposing demands of morals and love (Pfeiffer).
If you only watch one dialogue-driven costume drama set in the eighteenth century this year, make it this one (though if you can take more, give `The Madness of King George' a look-in, too).
Since Frears' "Dangerous Liaisons" is set in the time of de Laclos' Text, unlike e.g. "Cruel Intentions," it is important to note that the novel as a thinly disguised attack on the Ancien Regime - hence no redemption is possible, the end in death a necessity.
The narrative relying far more on dialogue than action, I think Stephen Frears made the right choice in not "speeding up" the piece by frequent cutting. The pace at which the cabal develops is leisurely going towards slow, but I think that is advantageous. This is because its very slowness allows us to appreciate the atmosphere in which Merteuil and Valmont plan the ruination of innocents: boredom, really. They have nothing better to do, so destroying others is a pastime to them.
The settings, costumes, and makeup reinforce this atmosphere - they are splendidly done, and one may well talk of oppressive opulence. The opening of the film actually puts costume and make-up to symbolic use; it is inspired: we follow Merteuil and Valmont through their morning toilette, getting dressed and made up, foreshadowing the masquerade they put on and in which they both are actors, but Merteuil is eventually revealed to be the director.
The casting I thought superb. Malkovich is in my opinion perfectly suited to play Valmont precisely because he is not conventionally attractive. The character relies on his powers of manipulation and the occasional subterfuge for his `conquests,' and Malkovich achieves an accomplished embodiment of both - impossible to say no to, with just that necessary element of ruthlessness. There have been complaints that Glenn Close is not attractive enough to be the Marquise, but I disagree. Her character is motivated by a will to control and dominate. As she says herself: `I was born to dominate your sex and to avenge my own' or words to that effect. Her sexuality similarly is not driven purely by pleasure, hence her refusal to give Valmont his reward. She sees him not conforming to the part she has `written' for him and re-establishes herself as unattainable unless he brings the ultimate sacrifice. And Glenn Close delivers this calculating woman so convincingly that it is easy for me at least to understand why Valmont would go to any length to bed her. Just as he wants Tourvel to betray everything she ever believed in, he wants the controlling Merteuil to submit to him - hence the repeated reminders of their past love. Merteuil at one point says that he was the only one she (almost? I'm not entirely sure) lost control with.
The supporting actors I also find well chosen. Reeves may seem a strange choice, but the character is a bit of a wet blanket to start with, and he gives the docile creature easily manipulated by Valmont and Merteuil quite well. But better are Pfeiffer and Thurman, who both undergo convincing changes from innocents abroad to someone well on the way to a willing pupil of the Marquise and Vicomte (in Thurman's case) and to someone genuinely suffering from the opposing demands of morals and love (Pfeiffer).
If you only watch one dialogue-driven costume drama set in the eighteenth century this year, make it this one (though if you can take more, give `The Madness of King George' a look-in, too).