Marat/Sade (1967) User Reviews (36)

Demanding, Stimulating, But Excessively Dry In Execution

[gftbiloxi · 7/10 · 28 July 2005]

MARAT/SADE is the film version of a play that arose from an actor's workshop exploring various theatrical theories expressed by French actor-director-writer Antoine Artard, who extolled a style of performance he described as "theatre of cruelty"--which, broadly speaking, consists of an assault upon the audience's senses by every means possible. Ultimately, and although it makes effective use of its setting and the cinematography mirrors the chaos expected of such a situation, the film version of MARAT/SADE is less a motion picture than a record of a justly famous stage play that offers a complex statement re man's savagery.

The story of MARAT/SADE concerns the performance of a play by inmates of an early 1800s insane asylum, with script and direction by the infamous Marquis de Sade. (While this may sound a bit far-fetched, it is based on fact: de Sade was known to have written plays for performance by inmates during his own incarceration in an asylum.) The story of the play concerns the assassination of the revolutionary Marat by Charotte Corday, but the play itself becomes a debate between various characters, all of which may be read as in some way intrinsically destructive and evil. Since all the characters are played by mentally-ill inmates of the asylum (the actor playing Marat, for example, is described as a paranoid, and the actress playing Corday suffers from sleeping sickness and melancholia), the debate is further fueled by their insanity, unpredictability as performers, and the staff's reactions to both their behavior and the often subversive nature of the script they play out.

Patrick Magee as de Sade, Glenda Jackson as the inmate playing Corday (it was her breakout performance), and Ian Richardson as the inmate playing Marat offering impressive performances; indeed, the ensemble cast as a whole is incredibly impressive, and they keep the extremely wordy script moving along with considerable interest. Even so, it will be obvious that the material works better as a live performance than as a film, and I do not recommend it to a casual viewer; its appeal will be largely limited to the literary and theatrical intelligentsia. The DVD includes the original theatrical trailer, but beyond this there are no extras of any kind.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Strange History

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 30 June 2017]

In an insane asylum, the Marquis de Sade directs Jean Paul Marat's last days through a theater play. The actors are the patients.

Did something like this actually happen? I could imagine the Maquis de Sade putting this sort of thing together, because what else is he going to do with his time? But did they actually allow this? And, of course, the real inmates could not possibly have been such good actors and singers... could they? As others have noted, this film can be enjoyed by anyone but probably has much more significance for those who grasp the politics and philosophy of the French Revolution. To try to fully comprehend the class distinctions and other angles without some background would be a challenge. To say I fully grasped the competing views of the inmates, Sade and the warden would be a lie.

A very unusual movie, but French Revolution buffs most likely will have a better understanding of this ultra intellectual movie than most people!

[macpherr · 6/10 · 8 May 1999]

Patrick Magee (A Clockwork Orange) plays the Marquis de Sade (the founder of sadism), who directs a play performed by people in an insane asylum as a form of a therapeutic psychodrama. The theory behind this approach is that the patient by acting can understand his or her psychiatric disorder and through acting out their traumas they are supposed to get cured. It a method still used today by psychiatrists. The Marquis de Sade is there as a political prisoner and traces the history of the French Revolution in the play he has written.

The viewer sits outside the bars of a large bathroom cell, where the play is performed, as part of the gentry who watch the play for entertainment. Charlotte Corday, played by Glenda Jackson (Lost and Found) in her starring film debut, has narcolepsy, a condition characterized by brief attacks of deep sleep. Corday wants to kill Marat because of something that happened to her mother. Marat was one the leaders of the French Revolution and contacted a skin disease while hiding in the sewers of Paris. He had to remain in the bath tub to keep his skin moist and had a nurse to care for him. Marat controlled the revolution by writing orders in his bathtub and then sending them out. Corday at the end of the play murders Jean Paul Marat in his bath tub with a dagger.

Interwoven throughout the play is the Marquis the Sade's interpretation of the French Revolution. The asylum warden, his wife, and his daughter are inside the bathroom cell with the inmates. The warden is constantly trying to maintain order and objecting to what the Marquis de Sade has put in the play. The inmates also interact with the warden's wife and daughter in many funny ways. There is one scene where the inmates pretend to be using a guillotine to cut off heads. When they cut commoners heads off they pour something red in a bucket, but when they cut the king's head off they pour blue blood in the bucket. Three of my favorite characters in the movie are a trio of people (two men, Kokol and Cucurucu, and a woman) in clown makeup who act as narrators and comic relief.

This movie is rated R, but there is nothing really in the movie that justifies the rating. The only "sexy" scene is when Corday whips the Marquis de Sade with her hair. One other character is a sex maniac who can't keep his hands off Corday.

This is a very interesting movie, but is hard to follow. I have the tape and a copy of the screenplay but I am under the impression that historians who specialize in the French Revolution should have a better understanding of this ultra intellectual plot. It is a screenplay that is very hard to understand. Perhaps because those people are crazy and are showing their perception of a reality that in my view would be different in the eyes of an average person. By the way the actual title of this movie is The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. A quote: "There is no revolution without general copulation, copulation, copulation."

An Intellectual's Rocky Horror Picture Show

[TheCostumer · 10/10 · 23 March 2002]

The film is essentially a filmed record of the live theatre production by the Royal Shakespeare Co. that toured to New York in the late 1960's and was filmed for Art House distribution by Universal.

This is one of my all-time favorite films because of the sheer density of meaning in it. The story is set in an asylum in 1808 in the Napoleonic era, and the play within it is set in 1793 during the most violent part of the French Revolutionary era. Most of the dialogue has relevance to political criticism in both eras. If that were not enough, it also has levels that are clearly evoking the era that the playwright Weiss was writing in (the 1960's) and also Germany's recent (Holocaust/WWII) past. Some passages in the play, most notably those relating to war, manage to have a level of meaning for ALL FOUR eras at once! Because I show this film to classes, I've seen it dozens of times and I'm continually intrigued by it because each viewing reveals new meanings as it seems to weirdly comment on the current day's events that occurred long after it was written and filmed. The first viewing is often disorienting because it piles so much historic-socio-sexual-political content up with so much odd directing and extreme acting style that it is hard to grasp at first, but repeated viewings suck you in like an intellectual's Rocky Horror Picture Show, and some theatre junkies learn to sing along.

The Film of the Royal Shakespeare Company production of Marat/Sade (1967) is considered a classic avant garde 1960's drama in the style known as "Theatre of Cruelty". It is often shown to university level theatre classes because it has wonderful examples of both Artaud and Brecht theatre styles in it. I show it to my classes and it never fails to blow their undergraduate minds. It stars Glenda Jackson as Charlotte Corday (now Dame Glenda Jackson, MP), Ian Richardson (of "House of Cards" fame) as Marat, and Patrick Magee (Clockwork Orange) as de Sade.

As the title implies, the film is entirely a play-within-a-play where most cast members depict both a character from the French Revolution as well as an insane asylum inmate playing that character. While the film (like the later comedy-drama about deSade, "Quills") addresses censorship, it is primarily concerned with a debate between Marat as a sort of representative of revolutionary radical communism, and de Sade as a nihilistic existentialist frustrated with his own, and society's, violently cruel urges, as well as the futility of revolutionary action to improve mankind.

Despite this very heavy and multi-layered topic, the film also manages to be both sexy and funny in regular intervals. Great moments include a comic "orgy" scene where the inmates sing "What's the point of a revolution without general copulation?" in a round like "row-row-row your boat" and mime a vigorously improbable group sex event fully clothed, Magee's various speeches on the nature of man: "What we do, is but a shadow of what we want to do...", Richardson's unblinking intensity as he waits for the knife to "kill" him, and Jackson, doing a little dance trying to capture the knife from de Sade while he teases her with it in an effort to get her in his arms. Add to this the delightful theatricality and musical numbers (yes there are many musical numbers!) and it is little wonder that the play on which the film is based has regularly been performed all around the world ever since it was written.

As vital and contemporary today as when it was first performed.

[monabe · 26 April 2000]

You do not need to know the details of French history to enjoy (?) this most astonishing and confrontational movie. Remember that this is a cinematic version of a play, and that Director Peter Brooks never loses sight of the physical presence and power that his original stage version was renowned for. Unlike many cinematic treatments of stage drama, this film is essentially theatre - the camera in fact intensifies the claustrophobic setting and puts the viewer in the front row. The performances are uniformly excellent : the intensity and conviction of the cast in their roles is exceptional. This is an emotionally draining, bravura movie that once seen, can not be forgotten.

The deepest questions of good and evil and free will

[steven-222 · 10/10 · 2 February 2007]

I just watched the MGM DVD, which is a fine letterboxed transfer. (I also saw the movie a few years after it was released.)

Marat/Sade is an amazingly original and stunningly powerful philosophical and psychological descent into one of the most complex periods of recorded history, the French Revolution, the Terror that ensued, and the rise of Napoleon and his empire. The multi-layered ideas come thick and fast; I had to watch the movie over two nights because there's so much to think about, and some of the words and images are so overwhelming.

Of the Royal Shakespeare Company actors in the film (little known at the time), Glenda Jackson had the most notable subsequent career, but Ian Richardson (Marat) has also done remarkable things (and he's so young here, you may not recognize him).

This is not a movie for casual entertainment, but if you care about history and the deepest questions of good and evil and free will, you'll find much of value here.

I haven't the slightest idea of what this is about but it works!

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 10 October 2008]

This takes place in 1808 in an insane asylum. The Marquis de Sade (Patrick Magee) puts on a play of an assassination for an audience. He uses the other inmates as actors. Things slowly get out of hand leading to a truly horrifying ending.

I first caught this way back in 1980 at a center for adult education. It was a video of the movie shown for free. The picture was murky and the sound was terrible. Still I sat through it. I just caught it again (over 20 years later) on cable. This time I could see and hear it clearly. I'm not going to pretend that I understand what this is about, aside from the basic premise about a bunch of inmates putting on a play, and I do know it was based on a stage play. Still, I watched all 2 hours. The acting is great across the board but Magee, Ian Richardson and Glenda Jackson (in her major film debut) are exceptional. The movie is disturbing--I realize these are all actors playing roles but they're so good that you believe everything you're seeing. The direction also is masterful--it opens up the play cinematically. It has an R rating but that's mostly for subject matter and a brief nude scene with Richardson. This isn't for everybody--some people will be bored silly by it--but for those who like challenging movies this fits the bill. The ending is very disturbing. I give it a 7.

Amazing Acting/Spectacular Film

[middleburg · 10/10 · 11 June 2004]

When Marat/Sade was first shown--those of us used to the traditional Hollywood film entertainments were just stunned. What a tour de force of acting, story, makeup, style, filming and music. We didn't know what to make of it. On the one hand it was the scariest, most disturbing film we had seen, on the other

hand it was a grand entertainment with absolutely intriguing characters. Was it historically accurate? Is it a dream? Was that really supposed to be the

Marquis de Sade up on the screen? The film has amazing bookends: The

opening film credits appearing in complete silence one word at a time and then disappearing one word at a time, has to be sort of a classic of film titles-- anticipating the minimalist art movements in the visual arts. Before the film even begins, we are off kilter, completely disoriented. The horrifying ending at the time was a shocker. One is really unprepared for this spectacular brutality--and the fact that it just ends in the midst of the chaos with zero resolution again is totally disorienting. This remains a great film--with some of the most amazing acting ever caught on screen. For most of us here in the U.S., it was the first time we saw Glenda Jackson. Her voice, her presence, her amazing acting

technique--she became instantaneously recognized as one of the great screen

actresses. And sure enough shortly thereafter, she won her two academy

awards. If you enjoy great theatre, and great film treatments of theatrical

material--this film is simply not to be missed.

Both good and bad.

[ikonoklastik · 7/10 · 6 October 2005]

It has been a while since I have seen this film so I can't remember everything, but I'm going write a blurb based on how I remember feeling after viewing it. One aspect of the movie was brilliant and another was poor.

The movie was generally boring to me and I fault the director for that. It felt like a filmed play, which may have been the intention, as it was originally a play. But I don't think it worked. The most engaging performance was that of Patrick Magee, who was already a seasoned film actor at the time, and I truly believe he helped bring much of the cinematic qualities. The rest of the performances felt amateurish, relatively, since portraying those who are mentally disturbed allows for more suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. The pacing needed to be more dynamic but it wasn't. And I would have liked it to be more pleasant to the eye with better photography and set design -- some eye candy to keep the interest. I say that because what ends up happening is that words become the main focus. Focusing entirely on words takes away the essence of a film. You have the opportunity to include so much subtlety and such a unique perspective and to not have it seems a shame.

But now there is the other side. The screenplay, the story and the concepts are nothing short of phenomenal. It is highly academic but not arrogant and is very rewarding if the investment in understanding the history relied on is made. So interesting was the commentary and the philosophy it asserted and so clever was the manipulation and method by which it was illustrated. I give great credit to all of the writing involved.

Although, I was not impressed with this film either cinematically nor in the sense of a significant number of the performances, the rest was enough for me to award it a seven out of ten. I feel it was enough to make it worth viewing and I would love to see the play if directed as cleverly as the words deserve. It was smart and different... two commendable qualities that are in short supply.

expertly portrayed characters from the asylum at Charenton

[synzh · 10/10 · 4 March 2000]

I was hooked on this movie the minute I laid eyes upon it... bought the video and meticulously transcribed every word onto my copy of a transcript. I found the Shakespearean troupe to be excellent in their portrayals of madmen performing a play. The French Revolution being the main theme, echoed by various inmates' views of it, as well as several forays into philosophical thinking of man's condition. Plenty of symbolism, hard to draw a line where reality ends and madness begins (is it history, the play, the actor, the character, the madman, the script, etc.). Bears repeated watchings well, if one is interested in terrific character portrayal, philosophy, history, mental illness in general, etc. Asks that you pay close attention at all times, however... some of the extended debates between De Sade and Marat are absolutely riveting to watch. The interplay of several levels of perception is fascinating, and the overall effect is definitely one of a real insane asylum, disturbingly so at times. There is much humour here as well, again on multiple levels... this is definitely an intellectual movie, a thinking man's movie... all action takes place in the single bathouse of the asylum. Many aspects both of history and the philosophies of revolutionary leaders and their antagonists are explored. Highly recommended watching.

A Fascinating (and condemnatory?) Expose of the Revolution

[dylanfellows-08204 · 7/10 · 24 February 2022]

Brilliant, albeit your mileage may vary depending on how you interpret it. For my part, Brook seems most interested in documenting the maniacal, self-consuming character of the revolution and 'the point' seems to be something like 'with ideological friends like these, who needs enemies?' The 'debates' between de Sade and Marat are intellectually stimulating (I find both of their views abhorrent, but that does not mean they are uninteresting). The camera work is manic and unpredictable, fitting the setting perfectly.

Never before has a title been so self explanatory...

[FranktheRabbit · 10/10 · 19 December 2003]

The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade (1967/Peter Brook) **** out of ****

"He who kills without passion, is a machine."- Marquis de Sade (Patrick Magee)

What does one look for in a film? I suppose it has something to do with personal interest, but the reason why I was fascinated with the film mentioned above, was because of its abnormally large title. As I was strolling through Blockbuster today, I noticed that it carried this film on DVD. And I thought to myself, "Isn't it rare that my local Blockbuster is housing such a rare 60's arthouse film?". So I took advantage of it, and rented the movie. And this is what I found within it...

Never before has a title been so self explanatory. It serves as the film's plot description. It is basically a filmed play about the French Revolution and the last days of Jean-Paul Marat (Ian Richardson). The catch is: It is performed by patients of a mental hospital in France (in 1808). And it is directed and acted in by a famous patient at the hospital: The Marquis de Sade. It is performed to the Administrator and his family, and many local citizens who care to watch. The point of the show is to prove that the hospital's rehabilitation methods are working, but de Sade has a far more ambitious goal than that. And the play is constantly interrupted by the administrator, who feels it should be more "politically correct" for the recent times. But after the second act, the inmates have secretly taken over, and he is forced just to watch in horror, as are we...the audience.

It is very hard to classify this film. At some points, it is a drama. At other points, it is a thriller, mystery, horror, comedy, and even musical (the musical numbers are very strange). But for the most part, it is a two hour history lesson. All the performances are excellent, and haunting (especially Glenda Jackson's performance). The film has a bizarre tone about it, and is easily the most eerie film I have ever scene. When I called it a history lesson, you might have lost interest right then. But, all the actors (especially the narrator who speaks only in rhymes), looks directly into the camera as they speak. It is as if they are talking to you, and as if you are the only one watching. This gives you the feeling that you must sit up and listen, or they will be angry with you.

"Marat/Sade" is the most unique, and most ghostly film I have ever scene. I only recommend it to fans of theater, and of course film buffs. Though the film requires your greatest attention, it is oddly rewarding.

-30-

Dreary, threadbare, shrill & nasty

[LCShackley · 3/10 · 3 September 2005]

This film and play were especially popular in the 60s, because at that time you could get an audience by promising lots of violence and sex on stage (although this movie is mild compared to the current crop). Marat/Sade became one of those things that the "in crowd" had to claim to have seen. The actors in the original production (look for Glenda Jackson's comments) hated the play because it was so harrowing and demanding; it grates upon the audience, too. If you enjoy lots of pretentious posing, shouting, and gratuitous rudeness, then submit yourself to this agonizing bit of cinema.

One good thing: watching this film finally clarified for me where the Bonzo Dog Band got the song line: "We are normal and we want our freedom!" Which is what I began to shout about 20 minutes in...

freedom versus captivity - the seminal story

[moutona · 10/10 · 24 January 2004]

One must read the play and see the background of Peter Weiss in order to get the full feel of this movie. It is absolutely the best presentation of the politics of man and our inability to ever resolve the major issues of our existence. Peter Weiss has fully captured the unending struggle between the politics necessary to obtain freedom versus that which enslaves. The best parts are the discussions between Sade and Marat as to the results of freedom versus dictatorship and capitalism versus socialism. The entire story provides a voyage through the human comedy and shows the inability of humanity to ever figure out the real truth of our existence and relationship to each other and our socitey. The result is a better understanding of the sinusoidal flow of the give an take of our history.

"But love meant one thing to you, I see and something quite different to me..."

[Sunflower64 · 10/10 · 18 August 2009]

The date is July 13, 1808, exactly 15 years after the revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat was stabbed to death in his bathtub by 24 year old Charlotte Corday. To commemorate the anniversary (and to show off the hospital's own special brand of art therapy) a group of inmates at Charenton Asylum perform a play recreating Marat's last days, written and directed by the infamous Marquis de Sade. The players include a recovering paranoiac, a narcoleptic also suffering from "melancholia," a sex maniac, a former priest, a former prostitute, and a patient so incensed by his role that he is confined to a straight-jacket the entire time. As the play progresses, delving into the political and social unrest of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, the players discuss and debate the purpose of revolution, the horrors of war, the futility of activism, the need for equality, the impossibility of equality, the desire for freedom, the importance of individuality, and the relationship between murder and sexual passion. To start with.

Oh, and it's a musical too.

This is a great movie. One of the most intellectually challenging and rewarding movies I've ever seen. Directed by Peter Brook and performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company, it's a filmed version of Peter Weiss' play of the same name. It demands a lot of a viewer. Once it starts, it doesn't give you much room to breathe. It just takes off running and you are forced to keep up with it. It's one of the few movies I've ever seen where I was agreeing and disagreeing with every main character at various points. It's almost too much to take in in one sitting. I've seen it several times and I still feel like there's more to get out of it. I knew next to nothing about the French Revolution going in, but I still felt like I understood the issues at hand. They can just as easily apply to modern American society.

The acting is uniformly excellent. The three main players--Patrick Magee (de Sade), Ian Richardson (Marat), and Glenda Jackson (Corday)--are all outstanding. Magee brings a unique humanity to a man largely considered by history to be a savage pervert. Richardson's Marat is heartbreaking. Endlessly staring ahead, he knows his cause is probably lost but can't give up on it. Jackson is stunning as both the impassioned Corday and the patient desperately trying to spit out her lines before she falls asleep again. There isn't a note out of place in the whole cast. What I can't get over is that these actors had already performed these roles on stage umpteen times before they made the film. That they performed such a challenging play night after night with the same kind of talent, intensity and passion you see on the screen is remarkable.

Marat/Sade is definitely a polarizing film. I wasn't sure I liked it until the second time I watched it. But I couldn't stop thinking about it after the first. It's disturbing, frightening, funny and demanding (sometimes all at the same time), but in my opinion, it's worth seeing at least once.

see it!

[drthomas · 10/10 · 7 October 1999]

I know little or nothing about the French Revolution, but I have seen this movie several times. (Perhaps all I know about the French Rev. is from this movie!) However, I do know superb drama when I see it. I know masterful performances. I know artful, excellent directing and scripts that make actors drool with anticipation. This movie is one of the ten best ever.

The nature of existence, religion, politics, and everything.

[bs1 · 10/10 · 5 December 1999]

Marat/Sade is quite simply one of the best movies I have ever seen. The movie asks the eternal questions regarding the nature of being and the definitions that are agreed to and imposed by society, in all of its forms. Everything is described in this movie, including censorship and propaganda which are all delivered under the guise of benevolent tyranny. The fact that a good portion of events described in the movie aren't historically accurate, doesn't mar the precise and razor sharp script (an English translation of a German Play). It is hard to distill or summarize this movie with any acuity, except to say that the ideas that are described are exactly what is required and nothing more. I'll end with a quote from the beginning of the movie, "...see Marat debating with De Sade, each one wrestling with each other's views. Who's the winner? You must choose...".

Brilliant!

[zetes · 10/10 · 9 July 2003]

Brilliant in every way. A film of a play about a play put on by the inmates of the Asylum of Charenton in France, 1808, as directed by the Marquis de Sade (played by Patrick Magee). Filmed plays are often criticized for their staginess, but this one quite requires that feeling. The actors are separated from the audience, which appears from time to time, by metal bars, which also appear from time to time. Most of the film takes place in the middle of the play, with the lunatics seeming dangerously in our faces. The man who runs the asylum sits on the side (behind the bars) and occasionally walks out onto the stage to calm his residents down, or to castigate the Marquis for including certain undesirable notions in his play. The subject of the play is the nature and importance of human cruelty as demonstrated by the French Revolution (which ended some 15 years earlier), but which continues on, even to the present, far beyond the actual setting of the play. About a thousand ideas are thrown out throughout the film, and it's difficult to catch them all. It's the kind of movie that sets the head reeling, and it made me want to watch it again ASAP. The actors are all brilliant. Besides Magee, Glenda Jackson deserves special praise for her performance as the narcoleptic inmate who plays the executioner of Marat. I didn't mention that other name in the title because I am unfamiliar with the historical character. I understood the gist of his role in the Revolution, but I'd like to learn more before I rewatch the film. Peter Brook's direction is fantastic; he kept my heart rate up throught the entire film. I'm thinking about getting the DVD, especially if it has subtitles. It is sometimes difficult to understand the dialogue, and almost impossible to understand the song lyrics. Oh, did I mention it was a musical? 10/10.

Good film adaptation of a brilliant play

[keshlam-cat-nospam · 1 September 2011]

The play absolutely deserves every award it has received. It's a serious but blackly humorous -- or humorously black -- discussion of politics, philosophy, and just what constitutes sanity, with enough madness to hold our attention and enough roots in the real world that we can't easily dismiss the points it makes.

In the film there are few directorial choice that I might quibble with, and there is one (not very important) change I definitely disagree with... but overall it's a surprisingly good job of translating the first Broadway production to the screen.

(I have both the Caedmon complete recording of the Broadway production and a copy of the film, and I've played de Sade, so I'm a bit more aware of the details than most viewers would be. Alas, I can't read German so I can't compare any of these to the "real" original.) If you can find a good live production of Marat/Sade, see it. If you can't, or if you want to revisit it, the film isn't too far behind.

Misguided

[jawi-916-6704 · 1/10 · 6 December 2010]

Read the Peter Weiss play, and you'll find it to be a brilliant, multilayered, and meaningful work of art. The Peter Brook movie of it is anything but, and it helps to explain the downturn in highbrow British film c. 1967-1974. Peter Brook's baleful influence had to have encouraged the nihilistic pretentiousness of "A Clockwork Orange," "The Ruling Class," and all of Ken Russell.

1. Grotesque ugliness for its own sake. Brook and his makeup artists have a field day with drooling "crazies" and perfectly elocuting clown-face choruses. If you've ever wanted to see Brad Pitt's performance in "Twelve Monkeys" multiplied by 20, by all means watch this movie.

2. Allegedly good actors horrendously overacting: Glenda Jackson, Patrick Magee, Freddie Jones, and Ian Richardson (he of the unblinking stare) are all terrible.

3. Maddening, gimmicky cinematography: fish-eye lens, blaring overexposed white light, blurriness.

4. The worst nightmare sequence ever, added by Brook.

5. A stupidly violent conclusion that also departs from Weiss.

Basically the movie is for pseudo-intellectuals who are looking for a way to slum it whilst still claiming highbrow credentials. Read the play instead.

Remarkable Glenda Jackson

[redheadedfool · 10/10 · 17 October 2008]

I was in college when PBS in the U.S. showed Marat/Sade. I was blown away by the remarkable performance of Glenda Jackson. I had never heard the name before, but I was certain she was a great actress who would have a brilliant career. With all the outrageousness on the screen, with the layers of her characterization -- a deeply disturbed woman putting in great effort to parrot her scripted lines in a staccato voice -- she truly disappeared into this "inmate" portraying the role of Charlotte Corday.

I've watched it again today for the first time in almost 40 years. And it still impresses me. Plus, I turned out to be right. Glenda Jackson proved herself to be one of the great actresses of her generation. Her decision to leave acting is a loss to all of us. I wish I could see what she would do with a new character at her present age.

Groundbreaking

[jturnbull-398-395794 · 9/10 · 3 July 2012]

This is one of a number of films that came out in the late 60s early 70s that challenged society at the time. Others I can think of include A Clockwork Orange, Women in Love and The Devils (the latter, almost impossible to get on DVD these days, but I have a copy!).

I had not seen Marat/Sade for decades until my daughter (doing a degree in drama production) found her university making a production of it with she cast in the Glenda Jackson role. I managed to find a copy of the DVD and we watched it several times together. She was so blown away she nearly quit the part because of the perceived difficulty.

This is not an easy production to watch and its intensity profound, its finale frightening. The acting, particularly Patrick Magee, is spell binding.

Others have commented on plot and substance but in my mind they are secondary to the sheer brilliance of concept, screenplay, and execution. This is a production for theatre people. The casual viewer will be bored. But IMHO one of the great works of all time.

Unlike Any Movie You Will Ever See

[[e-mail] · 10/10 · 3 May 2012]

Peter Brook, for many years the artistic director of the Royal Shakespeare Company, has more than once astounded the theater world with his interpretations of familiar plays by Shakespeare and others. Here's the chance for movie-goers to witness his transformative skills in action. Marat/Sade, which I'd seen previously on stage, is a Brechtian political drama about the French revolution performed in a madhouse under the direction of the notorious Marquis de Sade. Brook's retelling takes advantage of the setting by emphasizing the particular insanities of the major players. Marat, portrayed by Ian Richardson, is coldly rational except when he's not. Patrick Magee's de Sade reflects that personality's obsession with cruelty. But the real brilliance of Brook's choices is captured best by Glenda Jackson, who appears as a victim of narcolepsy cast in the role of Charlotte Corday, Marat's assassin. Jackson's character can barely rouse herself to perform. She's confused. Her diction is odd. She's not convincing as Corday, nor is she supposed to be. She's thoroughly convincing, however, an insane person playing someone who is obsessed with Marat. Other brilliant performances are turned in by Michael Williams as the Herald who announces key scenes; Robert Landon Lloyd as Roux a cleric turned revolutionary who is seen most of the time in a strait-jacket because of his violent behavior, John Steiner as Monsieur Depere, a sexual predator who lusts after Jackson's Corday and a quartet of three men and a woman in comedia del' arte garb who comment on the action in song and verse.

It is a bizarre film, difficult to watch at times, but brilliant in its execution. I do not believe there is another director alive or dead who could have done what Brooks did with this script and this talented group of actors. Too bad he didn't do more movies.

How Scary. But It's Awesome Cinema.

[johnstonjames · 9/10 · 15 February 2011]

i don't read Sade. i couldn't handle Pasolini's 'Salo'. in fact i hated 'Salo' and was repelled by it. i like this film though. it's not as gross or as shocking (although it is shocking), so it's a lot easier to take. it also has more edge and is much better cinema then the overrated 'Quills'.

i love everything in this film. it's superlative acting, it's superior photography and set design, and not to forget it's outrageously weird musical score of patter songs.

this movie is so ahead of it's time in terms of concept and technical achievement. the film intercuts long shots with extreme close-ups filmed with a hand-held camera. a technique that was revolutionary at the time this film was made in 1966.

this film was intense and disturbing. especially the overthrow of the asylum by the inmates. this film is also incredibly funny. aside from the dark moments, this is one of the funniest films i've ever seen. it also makes being crazy seem cool. when it's all over i still keep on wanting to sing the catchy little song tunes. REVOLUTION FOREVER!! YEAH!!

Challenging Material

[onepotato2 · 26 September 2004]

I'm surprised that this rated so high and receive such universal praise. It's virtually unwatchable in terms of mainstream entertainment and shouldn't have found any audience to appreciate it. It's shrill, endless and stagey.

But it's conceits (The context and meaning of the murder of French Revolutionary figure Marat by Charlotte Corday, enacted as a play by post-revolutionary mental patients & penned by the similarly imprisoned Marquis de Sade) are unique and provocative. The play within the play has musical numbers; a trifle given to Corday (Glenda Jackson) as de Sade supplies her with the murder weapon is really nice; "...but love meant something... to you, ...I see, and something much different to me..." The bench duet between Charlotte and her sex-crazed nemesis is memorable.

You will need a working understanding of the major players of the French Revolution and a willingness to listen to Marat expound on political theory at length. I own the DVD and even I can't sit through the damned thing. I also really hate some of the typical thespian casting (the all-clown Greek chorus giving it their all is excruciating) but I pop it in now and again to watch it in twenty-minute bursts. There's plenty to think about and though the Bourgeoisie are clearly portrayed as villainous swine, it still doesn't offer any easy answers to the long, painful aftermath of the French Revolution.

Sadly, Patrick McGhee (A Clockwork Orange) is the type of leading man who would never again be seen after the advent of focus-groups and the blockbuster. What teen wants to look at anyone over thirty on screen?

Les Miz is shallow cream pie compared to this.