The Affair of the Necklace

This movie was so good I had to watch it again! Hilary Swank, as always, plays her character incredibly well. What I liked most about the movie (besides the intriguing plot, humor, action and mystery.. yes they are all there!) was that the characters were real. There was no pretense that people back then were more proper than they are today; they had the same desires, used what they had, and made the same mistakes, just in a different setting. Fans of Christopher Walken will be pleased to know that he has as unique a role as always, adding his special charm to the film where needed. There are also some great outtakes on the special features, which is also unusual but very refreshing for a period drama. I hope you rent it and enjoy it as much as I did!

Hilary Swank, Adrien Brody and Christopher Walken all lent their considerable talents to this somewhat confusing tale of lies, deceit, sex, murder, and a gaudy necklace that would have made Zsa Zsa Gabor consider poverty as an alternative. I watched it all and I understood what was going on, I think, but it didn't make me care enough to actually pay attention. I kind of can't believe that this all really happened. For one thing, it makes Marie Antoinette look like an idiot. Jonathan Pryce, Simon Baker and Brian Cox add their considerable talents to this strange movie. I did laugh a couple of times, such as when Brody gets shot in this rear, and when the doctor is removing the bullet, Adrien asks "are you digging for potatoes"? There was another amusing moment after that, when Pryce is about to take a sip of tea and finds that its still too hot, and orders his servant to blow on it. I would watch this again to make sure I got it all. I will say that Swank, who I like very much, made me long for Isabelle Adjani or Juliette Binoche in the female lead. Well shouldn't SOMEONE in the cast have SOME French blood? 5/10.

A great story was wasted by the trivialization of the real account of the theft of the necklace, based on a fictionalized mistreatment of Jeanne Remy de Valois. The woman was a fabulous schemer whose sense of entitlement is world-class. It would have been a great story if the writer had used the real one, instead of the weak screenplay composed using scant facts. The role of the fake Countess La Motte is a scenery chewer worthy of Faye Dunaway in her heydey and I would have loved to have seen Tim Curry assay the Cardinal Rohan character which is equal parts scoundrel and fool. The only victim in the real story is Marie Antoinette, in whose name the scheme is initiated, but who never had any part in the necklace theft - in fact turned it down three times when offered it by the foolhardy jewelers who designed it for the more audacious Madame du Barry, Marie Antoinette's godfather-in-law's mistress. The real interplay of ego and privilege ending in utter tragedy had all the stuff of a fascinating and lively movie. This wasn't it.

source: The Affair of the Necklace

This was a movie I had always had a slight interest in seeing and never gotten around to it, then I eventually forced myself to rent it and I must say I really did enjoy it. For all the history buffs this is not a movie for them, but if you really just sit down and watch without analyzing every detail it is very enjoyable. The plot is very interesting and interwoven and for the most part the cast does an excellent job. My only exception was unfortunately Hilary Swank. I have always loved Hilary Swank, but she didn't seem to have a clear understanding of what she wanted to portray with Jeanne. Jonathan Pryce was absolutely fantastic as the cardinal. He conveyed a danger that was very subtle yet frightening at the same time. The costumes were amazing, and I was very happy to see some scenes actually shot in "The Hall of Mirrors." Charles Shyer didn't blow me away with his directing style and some shots seemed uneven and out of place, but it was in no way distracting. Overall, it's a movie that doesn't necessarily require you to think very much, but it is still enjoyable. I'd recommend it for a lazy afternoon next chance you get.

The infamous,and evil Giuseppe Balsamo,aka Alessandro,Count of Cagliostro,was arguably the most notorious fraud,charlatan,and bunko artist of the 18th century.And,as reliably portrayed in this story,he fit in rather nicely with the rest of the corrupt opportunists and swindlers. Having worked for 8 years as a prison psychologist in Ohio,it's been my observation that there are no guilty persons incarcerated.Instead,it seems as though the legal profession must be among the most corrupt and incompetent in existence.All of these innocent persons being advised by their counsel to plead guilty.My own observations is,that if they're not guilty of the offense for which they're being currently incarcerated,they ought to think about all the evil things that they've done and for which they've escaped punishment.It all comes out even in the wash,so to speak. So it goes with Cagliostro.While perhaps not legally culpable,he was certainly involved in this morally.And he DID escape punishment from the French.yet,he eventually got his.He moved to Rome.and opened a Masonic Lodge.Now,in Europe,the Masons aren't a men's service organization;They happen to be viewed as heresy.So,Cagliostro was arrested,brought before the Inquisition,and received the capital sentence.The Pope commuted the sentence to life imprisonment,and he spent the rest of his life in prison. MORAL:WE really don't need anyone else to foul up our lives,now,do we?We usually do a great job on our own.

I wanted to watch this film because of an interest in the period, and in that sense, I wasn't disappointed. For someone without a nitpicky, in-depth knowledge of the era, I thought the 'court' costumes were stunning, and the 'love scene' was made all the more interesting because of the layers of clothes Hilary Swank had to get through! I wasn't aware of the details of 'true story' beforehand, and so I didn't have any cause to object to the 'Hollywood interpretation', nor would I now. I can recognise the difference between a movie and a documentary, and don't think the former should necessarily sacrifice its magic for each and every fact of the latter. The opening flashback, recounting the events of Jeanne's childhood, however, was a little too formulaic - the hazy, sunset meadow setting, with the young Jeanne on a swing, and her father returning home to his pregnant wife, reminded me of the opening to the dire 'Musketeer', which I started to watch for similar reasons. More 'syrupy' than magical. I would prefer a film, particularly an adaptation, where French characters are played by French actors. A perfect 'experiment' would be a faithful portrayal of Orczy's 'Scarlet Pimpernel', with an English actor who can break into believable French! Until that ceiling-smashing film comes, however, I think English actors are less 'distracting' in such roles than their American counterparts. At least 'BBC English' can be mentally interpreted as aristocratic French, and (true) Cock-er-nies, or Northern English accents, taken as the language of the 'people'. Hilary Swank's American drawl sat awkwardly with the era and the setting. I know that an American film has every right to select an American actress, but if such a choice is perfectly fitting, then why was Hilary Swank desperately trying to clip her natural speech into a forced British accent? Her lines sounded like a high school recital. Adrien Brody suited the part physically, and I loved the scene with the doctor after he was accidentally shot, although it did seem slightly 'Carry On ..'-esque. The rest of the film seemed to demand he should have been fatally wounded. With the light-weight Simon Baker, I just kept wondering which Australian soap I recognised him from (Heartbreak High). There were a number of fade outs towards the end of the film where I thought the credits should have rolled - I agree with a previous review, in that there really wasn't enough story to sustain nearly two hours of film - but, in the style of Spielberg's 'A.I.', the bulk of the running time was easy enough to watch. A superficially well-dressed dramatisation.

If we do not like the American/English accents, the French should have made this movie. But they didn't. And if they would have -like they should have as it is their history- who would have seen it, apart from European audiences? But it is annoying that no choice was made of what 'accent' to perform it in. A clear decision was never made and that spoiled the movie for me (though the entrance of Christopher Walken was enough for me to hang on -and I loved the way he reacted to the guard before he was led into le Bastille). Historically: Mozart's Requiem was heard in one of the scenes -but that was not composed till 1791. And at that time the Affaire of the Necklace was over and the Royals were in deep merde...

When I first sat down to watch this movie, I thought it was positively brilliant. Hillary Swank is great in everything she does...hell, the whole cast did a bang up job! But mostly I liked it because I thought it was the truth. After all it matched all I had learned in high school. Then I found out what a big lie it all was. This whole 'Affair' was completely romanticized and history rewritten to show the world yet again how _terrible_ the Monarchy was. But since I'm armed with new information, I might as well inform everyone who thinks the same way I thought of some key facts. Fact 1: The Monarchy NEVER killed Jeanne's father. Her parents were LONG dead before this whole affair even took place. Her rage at the Monarchy stemmed from the pension she was suppose to receive from being a blood royal. Her rage at Marie stemmed her apathy, yes, but because she did not really sympathize with Jeanne's plight. Fact 2: Jeanne was not born a noble. True, she was illegitimately descended from royalty but all her nobility ties and titles came from her marriage to Nicolas. In fact, she was quite well off in her marriage, but that didn't stop her from sleeping around with the likes of both the Cardinal and Rétaux. Fact 3: Buying the necklace was all the CARDINAL'S idea. But Jeanne went along with it readily, but her greed got in the way. She ran to _sell_ the diamonds off the necklace in London and keep the profits for herself. Knowing what I know now, I'm infuriated at this movie not only for falsifying history but trying to tell us this is exactly what happened. Marie Antoinette was the true victim in all this (something Joely Richardson tried to convey in her performance) and Jeanne was exactly what the Monarchy said she was; a petty whorish thief. There was no honor in what those people did, they all had their own selfish reasons. I'm just sad with the pile of historical information we have at our disposal no one seems to want to use it.

Certainly the true story of "The Affair of the Necklace" is one of the most fascinating in all history, and despite a lot of problems, this 2001 film, deriving its name from said affair, is interesting if misguided. The director seemed to want a sexually-charged drama, though he didn't get one. The casting is odd, starring Hilary Swank as Comtesse Jeanne LaMotte. She doesn't have enough European sensibility. Adrien Brody plays her cavorting husband and doesn't seem to get the period either. As Cardinal Rohan, however, Jonathan Pryce is very good, as are some of the performances in the smaller roles. There are lots of complaints on this board about the accents, which goes to show you that this film failed on a few levels - people would probably not be mentioning accents if they'd really loved this movie. First of all, there isn't anything wrong with the accents, not the accents themselves or the variety of them. Films have mixed accents for years. For those who think everyone should have been speaking with a French accent, think again. The theatrical rule: if you are playing a foreigner living in his own country, say France, he is not speaking English with a French accent; he is speaking his native tongue; therefore, no accent is required. Were this not the case, all Chekov plays would be performed with the actors using thick Russian accents just as one example. Many actors use the more attractive British accent instead. Maybe there could have been more uniformity, but you can say that about any WWII propaganda film, where Hollywood hired actual foreigners to work among the Americans. I actually found the movie intriguing, as it's a great story, even if it wasn't told particularly well. It did deviate from the truth quite a bit, though. LaMotte was not as she was portrayed. She came from a poor family but was of royal blood, and what she wanted was a good-sized pension from the Queen (here Joely Richardson, no teen queen), who ignored her as in the film. Jeanne's plot consisted of the forged letters by Marie asking Cardinal Rohan, in actuality Jeanne's lover, to lend her the money, not just guarantee the payments. Louis and Marie wanted a public trial not just because the Affair of the Necklace had further destroyed Marie's reputation, but because France was abuzz with the rumor than Jeanne was Marie's lover. As in the film, Marie did wind up in England and write her memoirs, but they were filled with stories of a lesbian relationship between her and Marie Antoinette. In portraying Jeanne as somehow sympathetic - denied her place in society, as well as her home and her name, and watching her father (who was in reality a drunk) killed by soldiers - a lot of the teeth is taken out of the story. While 1938's "Marie Antoinette" makes Marie a heroine, this one portrays her as a cold bitch. Selfish and shallow she certainly was and like much of history's royalty, completely out of touch with her people - but Jeanne was no saint either. A more accurate telling of this story would make for a much better drama.