When I saw this film at the theaters years ago, I walked out after a half hour. I had no idea what was going on or who was who...totally lost. I heard people in the theater chuckling during certain scenes, but I don't know why. I hate not understand what is going on, so I gave up and left, one of the very few times in my life I have ever done this. I've never tried watching this film again....maybe I should give it another go?
shareTry Valmont. Same story. I find it much better maybe because I just can't stand John Malkovich. Glenn Close is very - how should I put it - pale and colourless - in this movie. In Valmont it's Colin Firth and Annette Bening that plays those characters - much much better.
Giv it a try.
What did you find hard to follow? It seemed pretty straightforward to me. I think you should give it another go.
shareIt's been a long time now...isn't this from the late 80's? But anyway, I may have stayed for up to 45 min. but definitely no longer. I had no idea what the movie was about before entering the theater and when I left, I still had absolutely no idea. From reading some of the comments, I take it it's a seduction/revenge film, but I couldn't follow it and it's pretty bad when you have no idea what the plot is and who the characters are in the "I don't know what the plot is". I did feel rather stupid when I left because it was obvious everyone in the theater was enjoying it and getting a good chuckle. I really hate that feeling, but I was totally lost. Don't know why because when you're in a movie theater, there's nothing around to distract your attention. Shoot, I'm a university graduate, so why in the world wouldn't I understand what was happening in this film? Oh well, maybe I'll try and hunt down a DVD copy to rent. We'll see what happens this time around!
shareOk, I found this movie online and have watched the first half. I understand a little more, but not too much. There's still a lot of confusion. I'm at the part where Valmont (Malkovich)is in bed with Cecile (Uma Thurman) and Uma has just taken off her nightgown and reveals her breasts. In the previous scene Glen Close's character convinces Cecile to continue to allow Valmont to be with her. I can't understand why Cecile agrees. I just find the little nuances and intricacies in the "deceit" too difficult to follow. This type of complexity confuses me. I just don't follow why the characters are doing what they are doing. And the way they speak to each other and telling each other things, without really saying it directly confuses me. Just very hard to understand, hard to pick up on things. Get my drift? I'm not really enjoying this film, but may go ahead and watch the rest.
sharehave you seen cruel intentions???
cruel intentions is the modern remake of the same story (novel) that this movie was based on. A lot of the lines in both films are exactly the same too lol
if you could follow that movie, then you can understand this one lol
hope you managed to enjoy it if u did finish watching =)
No, I haven't seen Cruel Intentions, but I intend to. The more I think about it, I believe the problem lies in the dialogue of Dangerous Liasions. You basically have to "decipher" everything that is said to find the true meaning and I find this very difficult to do. In fact, I've always had problems with this in film and on tv.
During the first half, here are some things I don't understand:
Malkovich finds a family that he helps (Armand?). Don't know why he is doing this and what it has to do with the story.
In a sitting room, Malkovich tries to get Uma Thurman to notice a note and get her to take it. Then Michelle Pfeiffer feels sick and they insist she go outside for fresh air. Don't know what's going on here.
Then, after Malkovich has his way with Uma Thurman in bed, in which she is terrified, Uma has a conversation with Glen Close. Somehow Glen explains things to Uma (which I don't understand) and now she is eager for Malkovich to be with her in the next semi-nude scene. Again, I'm confused here.
These are just a few of the scenes which confuse me. There are many more. It's hard to enjoy when you're confused. Again, I think the problem is understanding the true "meaning" of the words being said (dialogue).
Okay, let me see if I can help you with a couple of these scenes.
Valmont helps the family out because Marie de Tourvel's assistant is following her and he wants him to report back to her how good he has been. That's why in the next scene Tourvel says that her assistant just happened to pass by (a lie) and noticed him helping the family (so she thinks he is a good person deep down). He's trying to make her think that he is of good character and he can't do this simply by telling her so because of his bad reputation.
In the next scene you mention Tourvel isn't really feeling sick. Valmont has concocted a diversion so that he can give Cecile the note without everyone knowing it. That's why Tourvel looks surprised when he says that she looks sick.
In the final scene you mention, Cecile decides to keep sleeping with Valmont because she respects Merteuil and Merteuil has convinced her to continue her "education". Although Cecile originally knew it was wrong because she was saving herself and was in love with another, she still enjoyed the sexual experience (hence the "I was saying no all along but somehow that's not what I was doing" line), so all Merteuil had to do was convince her it wasn't a bad idea to keep doing it.
I think you're right about the dialogue needing to be deciphered. I never really had much of a problem with it myself but I can see where you're coming from. I think, for me, the acting helped me perceive what the characters meant. I hope I have helped clear up some of the confusion. Did you at least enjoy the movie the second time around?
Thank you very much for taking the time and explaining these scenes for me and for understanding that some people can have a problem with interpreting the real meaning of some of the dialogue. I haven't yet watched the rest of the film but will do so at my earliest opportunity. I think I may watch Cruel Intentions first and see if I can understand that film. I've also found it online. I'll report back later...thanks again.
shareI think the reason a lot of people nowadays have trouble understanding movies is probably cultural.
With all the ipods, internet, hyper-fast information, etc. Many people have lost the skill of concentration. Many movies adapted from plays and novels require concentration; but our society is geared for short quick bursts of info. Not too mention the amount of stress we have in our lives now.
Back in the 70's and 80's, I read more book and had an easier time understanding wordy movies. Now I have to force myself to quiet my brain to concentrate enough to enjoy a slower paced movie.
One thing I've noticed is with every remake of a movie there's less emphasis on dialogue and more on action, colors, a faster pace, and, pop culture.
If you want to watch a movie that's dialogue and nuance driven, you'll enjoy it more if you plan for it. Watch it on a quiet day when you have nothing else to do, relax, and let the movie happen to you.
[deleted]
The current and rapidly expanding headlong cultural zig-zag away from anything that requires listening to dialog and developing characters is making adult movies a thing of the distant past. If a movie does not make more than it took to film in its first weekend it is considered a flop. Nothing is allowed to get "legs" or grow from "word of mouth". Art and "Indie" films may be the last refuge for the thoughtful viewer.
Texting, email, twitter, (you may insert the headlong squeal of your choice) all serve to hasten the plot and character development aspect of many entertainment mediums obsolete. No one is taught how to think or rewarded for concentrating. Therefore it is not likely that the skill needed to follow a meandering plot that has both conversation and silence as plot points is going to be understood as a possibility by some viewers.
When all mediums that want our money are deliberately directed toward the 18-24 year old audience it is not a surprise that anything made before the internet is going to be hard for certain groups to follow(assuming some may want to try). Society is not made up of slow calm times spent in thought or study. It is hardly a shock that a luscious beautiful film like DANGEROUS LIASONS is difficult to follow and understand. Consider this: What if it had been filmed in black and white as well......YIKES!
Wow. This is just... Anyway.
Here's my advice: if you don't have any critical thinking skills to speak of or an actual working thought process system, then you will never understand movies like Dangerous Liaisons. Ever.
Save yourself some time and frustration and go watch something like "Transformers". Not saying this to be mean - just being truthful. You're clearly out of your depth here.
[deleted]
Go watch a David Lynch movie, then you can talk about complexity.
You know what you are? You're the son of a thousand fathers. All bastards like you.
Ok, I ...have watched the first half. I[ understand a little more, but not too much. There's still a lot of confusion. I'm at the part where Valmont (Malkovich)is in bed with Cecile (Uma Thurman) and Uma has just taken off her nightgown and reveals her breasts.I know this post is some years old, but I feel compelled to comment. Just to state what I believe to be the obvious. Why not wait to see and reflect on the whole film before you post.
Just very hard to understand, hard to pick up on things. Get my drift?Yes and is it any wonder you had difficulties following the narrative. share
I don't know how old are you. But if this help you, the first time I saw Dangerous Liaisons I was 15 or 16 years old, and found it boring to death.
I watched it again in my mid 20's and found that this movie was actually pretty good. Years later (recently) saw it once again and I was completely captivated by its elegance and its glorious decadence. Besides I did understand much better the historical context of the film and its social and political implications. Something that I missed the 1st time I saw it.
Movies like Dangerous Liaisons and other period dramas are an acquired taste. I am not saying that teens cannot enjoy it, but certainly the older you are, the more you learn to appreciate this kind of films.
SeisCinemaSeis -
I was 27 when it came out & I thought it was the business.
Glenn Close never better.
John Malkovich hotter than July.
Incredibly decadent and stylish.
24 years later - Glenn Close never better.
John Malkovich older than the hills.
And I feel more than slightly mucky just thinking about the seduction scenes now.
You get older and your perceptions change about films.
Not all - some films I will always worship.
Also, a few bad relationships will kick you into touch about the truth about men & women.
You're right though - films like this are an acquired taste.
A French piece of literature translated by an Englishman into a hit play, then turns into a hit piece of US arthouse (albeit without the original English cast).
That was quite something then.
Can't see it happening now.
Actually there was a Brits in it, Peter Capaldi, Oscar-winning director and 12th Doctor, as Valmont's valet.
shareI was 15 when I saw this film back then and I understood everything.
What a waste. Oh, the humanity!
Umm, maybe the OP is just slowww.
Actually no maybe, THE OP IS SLOWWW
[deleted]
he is. How can you not understand??? Normal IQ but perhaps low EQ?
I saw it when i was 14, without subtitles, cause my native language is not english, and it was crystal clear.
I found the movie Valmont to be more confusing, because some things in the book have been left out, like Valmont's motivation to seduce Cecile and Dangerous Liaisons is very clear about everything.