Clever comedy exposes enduring moral attitudes

Press, 12 June 1989, Page 6

Clever comedy exposes enduring moral attitudes

‘DANGEROUS LIAISONS’ Directed by Stephen Frears Screenplay by Christopher Hampton “Dangerous Liaisons” (Regent) proves, with a sardonic twist, that moral attitudes have not changed all that much during the passage from the world of pre-Revolu-tionary France to the institutionalised selfishness that is encouraged today. Possibly, that is why the heartlessness of the characters’ behaviour in this intelligent comedy seems to strike a chord today, and why Christopher Hampton’s stage and screen adaptations of Choderlos de Laclos’s novel, “Les x Liaisons Dangereuses” have proved so popular. “People today recognise the greed — not for money, since the characters are unbelievably rich — but for power,” says Hampton.

The battle of the sexes is played as a boudoir game — a kind of Machiavellian Monopoly — in the amoral upper-class world of the late eighteenth century. The main protagonists are the exquisitely coiffed Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) and her companion in intrigue, the roguish Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich), who contrive a labyrinthine plot of seduction and revenge on those around them.

As an act of revenge,

the treacherous Merteuil would like Valmont to deflower the beautiful and innocent Cecile de Volanges (Uma Thurman). But she soon learns that Valmont has other plans. He has set his sights upon the much more challenging seduction of a beautiful married woman, Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer), a member of the bourgeoisie who believe deeply in the sanctity of marriage. For Valmond to succeed with the virtuous Tourvel would be his most prestigious seduction ever. The conspirators manage to get both Cecile and Madam Tourvel to stay at the country estate of Valmont’s aunt at the same time, thus allowing him to wage carnal battle on two fronts.

When Valmont is spurned by the unassailable Tourvel, he turns his insatiable desire upon the inexperienced Cecile, who is easily manipulated by him. This achievement is quickly surpassed, however, when Valmont finally manages to batter down the resistance of the more mature Tourvel.

But along with Valmont’s triumph there

comes an unexpected complication: he violates the strict code of the dedicated seducer, committing the ultimate sin of actually falling in love with his victim. This emotional weakness can only result in tragedy for all. This elegant black comedy is set in a totally artificial world of powdered perukes and restrictive corsets, as fastidiously manicured as the bushes and lawns of the estate gardens, set apart from the harsh realities' of the outside world. De Laclos’s erotic and psychological masterpiece was first published in 1782, only seven years before the climax of the French Revolution, and although there is never a hint at the outer unrest, the moral decadence of the aristocracy indicates that it is not far from a fall.

What is unusual is that the English director of the film, Stephen Frears, who has made such politically conscious films in recent years as “My Beautiful Laundrette,” “Prick Up Your Ears” and “Sammy And Rosy Get Laid,” resists making any social comment. This is a wise decision, however, for the story is timeless and does not need to be seen within a broader context.

Equally unusual is the choice of American-ac-cented actors in the leading roles, with the servants speaking with a touch of Irish or Scottish. But the days when French aristocrats talked with Oxford accents in English-

speaking films seem to have gone since Tom Hulce flaunted his American giggle in “Amadeus.” (Speaking of “Amadeus” reminds me that its director, Milos Forman, also has recently completed his version of “Les Liaisons Dangereuses.”) In spite of the accents, the cast is superb, with Close (last seen in "Fatal Attraction”) regally icy in her contempt, and Malkovich (obviously preparing to play the role of Boris Karloff in the next version of “Son of Frankenstein”) viperish and liz-ard-eyed in his scheming. A special word must also be said for the delicious Pfeiffer, whose contemporary beauty perfectly suits the role of Tourvel, a woman whose special grace is her lack of artifice.

There are moments when one feels that Hampton’s adaptation goes out of its way for touches of modern feminism, as when Merteuil says: “Our sex has few enough advantages. You may as well make the best of the ones you have.”

But Malkovich bitchily retorts at another time: “There is nothing a woman enjoys so much as victory over another woman.”

However, it is timeless — and sexless — statements, such as “Like most intellectuals, he is intensely stupid,” that prove the everlasting, non-politi-cal relevancy of what turns out to be a highly moral story.