Marquise (3½ Stars)

The 1997 film "Marquise", with Sophie Marceau in the title role, is based on the life of Thérèse du Parc, a French actress who lived from 1633 to 1668. It could be called a true story, except that in cases where the facts are uncertain the writer/director Véra Belmont makes an arbitrary decision as to what happened.

Thérèse, who used the stage name Marquise, was a dancer and prostitute who worked for her father. After performing erotic dances in marketplaces to inflame the male audience he would offer her sexual services to paying customers in a shabby little cart. The turning point in her life came when she danced in the same town as Molière's travelling theatre troupe. Recognising her talent, Molière bought Marquise from her father and used her as a dancer during and after performances of his plays.

Marquise wanted to be more than a dancer, she wanted to be an actress, but after she froze during her first performance he never offered her a second chance. While at the court of King Louis XIV Marquise was approached by Molière's main competitor, the playwright Jean Racine, who asked her to play the title role in his new tragedy, "Andromaque". It soon became obvious that Marquise was better suited to tragedies than Molière's comedies, so she remained with Racine, despite Molière's claims that he had kidnapped her.

I don't usually watch period pieces, especially not films set in the 19th century and earlier. The whole atmosphere, the clothing and the exaggerated mannerisms repulse me. More than anything, I hate the old royal dances, which to me lack any life. They're merely synchronised walking in groups and holding hands, similar to American line-dancing, but slower. I nevertheless decided to give the film a chance, and yes, it is a beautiful film, especially due to Sophie Marceau's performance, but not quite the sort of film I enjoy.

In the English language William Shakespeare is considered to be the greatest playwright. In the French language it is Molière, whose real name was Jean-Baptiste Poquelin. They're often put side by side as representatives of their respective languages, and some even go as far as to call Molière "France's Shakespeare", but this comparison is unfair to both writers. I am sure there are university theses contrasting the two, but I'll just name the main differences, from the standpoint of someone who knows the writings of both. (Curiously, I have read many plays by both, but never seen any performances of the plays of either. This is something I need to correct).

Shakespeare was an all-round playwright, Molière only wrote comedies. I would go as far as to say that Molière's comedies are far funnier than anything Shakespeare ever wrote.

Shakespeare respected royalty and the church in his plays, whereas Molière frequently mocked the kings and the bishops. It's possible that this difference isn't because they thought differently, it was only because of the different environments in which they lived. If Shakespeare had openly mocked the king in his plays he would have been executed. Modern critics still argue about Shakespeare's attitude towards organised religion, although they agree that he was opposed to the Catholic Church. Molière, on the other hand, lived at a time when free thought was acceptable in France, so it was possible for him to mock the figures of authority without fear of reprisals.

There are other playwrights in the French language who make up for the lack of tragedies in Molière's repertoire. The leading one is Jean Racine himself. There is also Pierre Corneille, who lived at the same time as Molière and Racine. During the 17th century he was probably the most popular of the three, but today critics differ in their opinions on the quality of his works. I shall abstain from commenting, since I have never read anything by him.