„Valmont” – Dangerous Liaisons according to Miloš Forman
Title: “Valmont”
Release Date: 1989
Director: Miloš Forman
Cast: Colin Firth, Annette Bening, Meg Tilly, Fairuza Balk and others
The premiere of “Valmont” came at an unfortunate time, as it was a year after the huge success of Stephen Frears’ Dangerous Liaisons. The three-time Oscar-winning film definitely overshadowed Miloš Forman’s adaptation of Laclos’ famous novel. The Czech director’s film lacks the dark atmosphere of an erotic thriller that Frears’ work has. On the surface, it is simply a colorful fresco of the era, borrowed from the Rococo boudoirs of worldly ladies. Forman reinterprets the novel, giving its message a slightly lighter, but not necessarily more optimistic, dimension. His view is full of bitter irony towards the world and characters depicted. In the frivolous atmosphere of afternoon tea gossip, the fashionably dressed bachelor Valmont loses the game of his own life.
Miloš Forman on the way to filming “Dangerous Liaisons”
Miloš Forman is one of the most original directors in world cinema, whose life has been marked by personal tragedy since childhood. Born in 1932 in Czechoslovakia, the filmmaker lost his mother in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp at the age of 11, and a year later his father died in the Buchenwald camp. After graduating from the Prague Film School, Forman began making comedy films using documentary techniques, with a grotesque and anti-totalitarian tone. “Black Peter” (1964), “Loves of a Blonde” (1965), and “The Firemen’s Ball” (1967) are the titles that paved the director’s way to Hollywood. After the events of the Prague Spring, Forman, who was in the US at the time, decided not to return to his country.
However, his specific, extremely revealing view of social issues in cinema did not initially bring him popularity. The comedy “Taking Off” (1971), despite its artistic success, did not appeal to American audiences. It was only the Oscar-winning “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” (1975), the musical “Hair” and the highly acclaimed “Amadeus” (1984) that established the director’s position. So when, after the great success of Christopher Hampton’s stage adaptation of Dangerous Liaisons, Hollywood became interested in a screen version of the play, Forman hoped that he would be the one behind the camera. However, Hampton, wanting to have a significant influence on the film, ultimately chose to work with Stephen Frears. And so, both film adaptations were made almost simultaneously in an atmosphere of mutual rivalry.
“Dangerous Liaisons” – the novel and Forman’s adaptation
Choderlos de Laclos’ “Dangerous Liaisons” occupies a unique position in world literature. This scandalous 18th-century novel is a rare gem – the writer’s only work, and one that has ensured his centuries-long fame. The book belongs to the epistolary novel genre, meaning it was written in the form of fictional letters exchanged between the characters in the story. The two main characters are the Marquise de Merteuil (played by Annette Bening in the film adaptation) and the Vicomte de Valmont (Colin Firth), former lovers who, for perverse amusement, correspond with each other, describing their romantic conquests.
One day, the lady confides in the gentleman that she has been unexpectedly abandoned by her wealthy lover, Gercourt (Jeffrey Jones), and plans to take revenge on him. Namely, she wants Valmont to seduce an innocent 15-year-old girl, Cecile de Volanges (Fairuza Balk), whom the unfaithful man has chosen as his future wife. Valmont, however, delays the implementation of his friend’s idea because he is indebted to a beautiful married woman, Madame de Tourvel, who is completely immune to his advances. The devious marquise therefore decides to add even more spice to the whole situation and promises Valmont that if he manages to seduce the woman, who is famous for her good behavior, she will spend one night with him. Thus begins an exciting erotic game, the stakes of which are constantly rising.
Frears’ “Dangerous Liaisons” was made in the style of a thriller, with a dark atmosphere and vivid drama. Glenn Close’s Marquise de Merteuil is a demonic femme fatale, John Malkovich’s Valmont is a tragic figure, and Madame de Tourvel is an innocent victim of schemers, caught like a fly in a deadly web. The dark frames of the film, lit only by candlelight, harmonize with the omnipresent atmosphere of danger and project the lowest instincts of the characters. Meanwhile, Miloš Forman’s Valmont is a colorful picture of 18th-century customs, full of bright and colorful images.
“Valmont” – a colorful fresco of 18th-century customs
Instead of an aura of horror, we find a setting that is pleasing to the ear and eye, with beautiful gardens and boudoirs filled with the sounds of gentle music. Equally gentle and beautiful is the face of the Marquise de Merteuil, a sweet friend and confidante always ready to offer good advice. Her true motivations remain hidden even to a self-assured connoisseur of women such as Valmont. What is wrong with the marquise enjoying sophisticated entertainment and sophisticated salon games? Does this make her dangerous in Valmont’s eyes? Not at all – for the protagonist, she is a typical, experienced lady of her era, because, to give credit to de Laclos, it was an era of unprecedented erotic freedom. What may cause outrage today was the norm in the lives of the 18th-century elite. At a time when marriage had nothing to do with love but was a business and political act, infidelity was not treated as betrayal. Having multiple lovers was a mutual agreement between both parties and did not surprise anyone, as evidenced by the biographies of Polish Rococo ladies such as Izabela Czartoryska and Helena Radziwiłłowa.
In terms of customs, Miloš Forman’s “Valmont” therefore remains very faithful to reality. Skilled at perceiving social absurdities, the director manages to bring to the surface the essential features of the world of the 18th-century aristocracy just before its final collapse, the time of the Great Revolution, which was about to literally wipe sophisticated society off the face of history. But the ball is still going on, and the invited guests can enjoy themselves to their heart’s content, so they take every opportunity to spice up their lives.
The famous saying “après nous, le déluge” (after us, the flood), attributed to Madame de Pompadour, which became a slogan describing the mentality of the upper classes, reflected not only the arrogance of the elite, but also their fear and awareness of the impending catastrophe. In this deceptive atmosphere of constant entertainment, Valmont does not realize that by taking part in the salon game, he becomes not so much a partner as a passive puppet in the hands of the depraved marquise.
“Valmont” – a merciless blade of irony
Forman’s “Valmont” is a work saturated with irony – both in relation to 18th-century morality (perhaps there are some allusions to the hypocrisy of Hollywood here?) and to the characters of the world presented, especially the title character. The handsome viscount with impeccable manners, in his attempt to prove his proficiency in winning women’s hearts, is as ridiculous as he is in the final grotesque duel over nothing, in which he loses his life. His downfall is emphasized by the ending, which has been deliberately changed from the original.
Valmont is the only person in Forman’s film who suffers ultimate defeat. Both his victims and (horror of horrors) the main schemer, the marquise, emerge unscathed. Cecilia triumphantly walks down the aisle (rather than ending up in a convent, as in the novel), Madame de Tourvel does not die of despair, but returns to her husband, and the marquise does not lose her beauty, fortune, or social position. The only loser is Valmont himself, and his death, contrary to the expected lamentations (who can forget Glenn Close’s attack of despair in Frears’ version!), is barely noticed in the elite underworld, which quickly returns to its merrymaking. In the 18th-century novel, even a scandalous one, the guilty had to be punished, but in Forman’s vision, justice is no longer meted out by Providence; man himself becomes his own judge. Perhaps there is also an ironic allusion here to male-female relationships and women themselves, who, although considered the weaker sex, are in fact often stronger and able to endure more than men.
Forman refined “Valmont” in every respect. The film’s magnificent, tasteful cinematography, beautiful costumes, music, and locations are undoubtedly its strengths. The excellent cast, led by Colin Firth and Annette Bening, also deserves applause. Meg Tilly’s role is also wonderful, as, unlike her character’s literary counterpart, she breaks free from the pattern of a passive victim. Deceived, betrayed, and mocked, instead of hiding from the world in a convent, she goes to the home of her unfaithful lover, where, fully aware of the deception, she demands that he lie to her once more and say that he loves her.
If there were nothing else worth noting in the entire film, I would still love “Valmont” for this one scene, when Colin Firth takes Meg Tilly in his arms and whirls her around the burgundy room in the dim glow of candles. Because this is the only moment when he is not deceiving anyone, the only moment when he has the courage to be honest with himself, and the only moment when he truly triumphs over his own pride and corruption.