Review of Sade (2000) by Serge C — 28 May 2006

STANDARDIZED MOVIE EVALUATION.

(comments may contain spoilers).

I. CONTENT (out of 3 stars plus bonus, composite of sub-criteria bellow): --->3.5<---.

I. PHILOSOPHICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPTH (out of 2 stars, where very shallow = 0; shallow = 0.25 or 0.5; somewhat deep = 0.75 or 1.0; deep = 1.25 or 1.5; very deep = 1.75 or 2.0).

---> 2.0 <---.

It was not film's intention to depict accurately Marquis de Sade biography or even all of his philosophical ideas. It rather explored some very interesting, but unexplored in cinematography ideas and conclusions, that might had been derived from Sade and other nihilistic philosophers throughout history.

Of course by calling Sade a nihilist I don't imply that he was a depressed man who didn't see a meaning in his life. Oh, Sade had a very colorful rich life; he found a lot of meaning in life's food, sex, pleasure and even pain.

However Sade didn't see any meaning in afterlife, he didn't see any meaning in religion, he didn't see any meaning in God. Of course Sade didn't believe in any of these things (for example when he rhetorically asked whether God is solid or made of gas). However even if these things existed, Sade couldn't understand what exactly is meaningful in them.

Sade joyfully embraced his own mortality. He was excited by the mere idea that one day he'll die and perhaps the stuff that made him will made a worm and later a butterfly. He found his matter's organic "immortality" much more appealing than any spiritual immortality (in a "body of Christ" as he referred to it). Of course Sade didn't believe in any silly reincarnations, and he didn't hope or wish to preserve his consciousness after death (even if it is in the body of a worm or a butterfly). For Sade mind and body was inseparable, and once the body dies so does the mind.

Since Sade didn't believe in some ordained higher purpose in life, he didn't shun away from getting whipped if it sexually aroused him and produced gave him pleasure. Experience of pleasure and suffering is often so subjective, depending on so many variables (like whether somebody is paddled as part of Singapore judicial punishment or erotic interplay) , that only the subject himself/herself, not the society or deity, can determine what things in life produce him pleasure and pain, and seek them.

While sexual orgasm in both man and woman evolved as an incentive for reproduction, who's to say that we cannot induce sexual orgasm for the pleasure sake by masturbating ourselves or by receiving intense stimulation, in form of spanking or whipping, unto the pleasure centers located throughout our bodies (especially on buttocks) ?

For all purposes, natural evolution is a senseless blind process whose adaptations remained in the organisms due to their advantages in this meaningless physical universe. And if God exists he can senselessly create infinity of souls himself, while killing time in his meaningless eternal existence.

Of course experiencing pleasure by inflicting joyless suffering to others can be rarely fulfilling (unless one is truly anti-social, and since being anti-social is for the most part evolutionary detrimental, only less than 3% of the population are truly anti-social). While erotic games can be often played in which one merely pretends to suffer from joyless pain, genuine and gratuitous spousal abuses (and all abuses of young children) cannot genuinely fulfill either the victim or the abuser (unless he/she is genuinely anti-social). Thus while one of the commandants of the French Revolutionary Terror unwelcomely and gratuitously slaps and beats his girlfriend (Sade's wife) neither of them feel gratified.

Enough, about sexually obsessed sado-masochistic atheistic nihilists. Let's talk about French revolutionary fanatics now. Are they some psychopathic sadists? I don't think so. They don't kill on guillotine to get sexually aroused. Neither most of them are anti-social. They don't hate society, in fact they fanatically try to help society, and to help it they have to "cut deep into it to eliminate society's evil". Are they nihilists ? Oh, now they fear nihilism, since nihilistic ideas would invalidate any higher purpose into what they are doing. How could they justify to themselves killing millions of peoples while embracing nihilistic philosophy ? If at the end nothing matter, why go through so much psychological distress by shedding massive bloodshed.

In fact, while initially deeply anti-religious, French revolutionary fanatics eventually realize that their atheism is likely to lead to nihilism which will invalidate their entire revolutionary cause. Thus they declare atheism as a greater social evil than any bourgeois religion, and rather prefer to invent for themselves some quazi-religious deities, symbols and rituals. Or at least they try to remain theistically agnostic, by believing in afterlife if not a certain God, in order to postpone the answer about whether there is any ultimate meaning in what they do.

It's not that religion genuinely provides anyone the answer about the ultimate meaning of life, but it rather postpones any answers until afterlife. Of course having eternal meaningful existence is a logical impossibility since nothing can possibly remain meaningful for anyone for eternity. Finality creates meaning. In a finite life one can find meaning in selecting the things he does, places he sees, people he meets, thoughts he thinks. Life like a game is meaningful and exciting when you can select your moves and you know there is an end to it. An eternal life, like an eternal open-ended game, sooner or later ceases to be meaningful or exciting.

Watching the movie, most viewers will despise idealistic revolutionary fanatics while sympathizing with nihilist Sade. Unfortunately in real life nihilists are feared and despised more than lepers. Why should that be ? As Sade said "I might be libertine but I am not a murder", so a he could've said "I might be a nihilist but I am not destructive".

Fanaticism is what leads people to behave destructively, whether its religious (ex. Crusaders in Jerusalem or Salem Puritans) or non-religious (ex. French or Russian revolutionaries during terror). Nihilism actually cures destructive behaviors by depriving the core reason for such behaviors since at the end nothing matters.

Of course nihilists with anti-social personality disorder (as non-nihilists with anti-social personality disorder) may act destructively for its shear pleasure, however they will lack motivational energy to inflict as much damage as fanatics do (even if those fanatics are not anti-social). Thus to paraphrase a well known quote:

"Pro-social people (including nihilists) will primarily act constructively, anti-social people (including nihilists) will primarily act destructively, but for pro-social people to act destructively they need to be obsessed by some form of "ultimate idealistic ideas" (like "kingdom in heaven " or "international communism"). Since no pro-social nihilist holds any "ultimate idealistic ideas", no pro-social nihilist can ever act destructively".

Ii. SCREENPLAY ORIGINALITY (out of 1 star, where very banal = 0; banal = 0.25; somewhat original = 0.5; original = 0.75; very original = 1.0):

--->1.0<---.

The movie is highly original despite a happy ending, since it came unexpected.

+ BONUS FOR CONTAINING CONTROVERSIAL & UNPOPULAR TOPICS (up to 0.5 star, where controversial topics = 0.25; unpopular and taboo topics = 0.5).

.--->0.5<---.

What can be more controversial than Marquees de Sade ?

II. PRODUCTION (out of 2 stars plus bonus, composite of sub-criteria bellow):

---> 1.75<---.

Iii. ACTING (out of 1 star, where very ineffective = 0; ineffective = 0.25; somewhat effective = 0.5; effective = 0.75; very effective = 1.0):

---> 1.0 <---.

Acting is intensely very effective by the Sade and Maximilian.

Iv. PRESENTATION (out of 1 star, where very ineffective = 0; ineffective = 0.25; somewhat effective = 0.5; effective = 0.75; very effective = 1.0):

--->0.75 <---.

The presentation is less impressive than the rest of the movie, though it's an effective presentation overall.

+ BONUS FOR PRODUCING ON LOW BUDGET (up to 0.5 stars, where up to one million dollars budget = 0.25; up to half a million dollars budget = 0.5).

TOTAL STAR RATING:

--->5.25<---.

GRADE & RECOMMENDATION (above 5.0 = A+," Very Good Movie, Highly Recommend"; 5.0 & 4.75 = A," Very Good Movie, Highly Recommend"; 4.5 = A-, " Very Good Movie, Highly Recommend"; 4.25 = B+, "Good Movie, Recommend"; 4.0 & 3.75 = B, "Good Movie, Recommend"; 3.5 = B - "Good Movie, Recommend"; 3.25 = = C+, "Fair Movie" ; 3.0 & 2.75 = C, "Fair Movie"; 2.5 = C-, "Fair Movie"; 2.25 = D+, "Poor Movie"; 2.0 & 1.75 = D, "Poor Movie"; 1.5 = D-, "Poor Movie"; bellow 1.5 = F, "Very Poor Movie") :

---> A+," Very Good Movie, Highly Recommend" <---.

BALANCED MPAA RATING (not biased in favor of violence and against sexuality, where G = no violence, no sexuality; PG = OK slight violence, OK slight sexuality; PG-13 = OK moderate violence, OK moderate sexuality; R = OK explicit violence, OK explicit sexuality; NC-17 = OK extreme violence, OK extreme sexuality).

--->PG-13 for moderate violence and sexuality<---.