Ridicule (1996)
*REVISED* NETFLIX SYNOPSIS (it’s off) – Nominated for a 1996 Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, Ridicule stars Charles Berling as Marquis de Malavoy, a nobleman in Versailles during the reign of Louis XVI. His village has been invaded by mosquitoes, and he needs the king’s help to drain the swamps. But how to get an audience with the king when he’s just another of the countless nobility? Louis XVI reveres “wit” above all else, as do the courtiers in Versailles, which luckily de Malavoy has in large doses, but he still needs the help of a countess even while he truly loves another.
DIRECTOR: Patrice Leconte
CAST: Charles Berling, Jean Rochefort, Fanny Ardant, Judith Godreche,
Bernard Giraudeau, Bernard Dheran, Carlo Brandt, Jacques Mathou,
Urbain Cancelier, Albert Delpy, Bruno Zanardi, Marie Pillet, Jacques
Roman, Philippe Magnan, Maurice Chevit, Jacques-Francois Zeller
AWARDS/ACCOLADES (per NF): 1997 Academy Award®: Best Foreign Language Film nominee, 1997 BAFTA®: Best Foreign Language Film
REVIEW: What a nice charmer of a film. I imagine that “Ridicule” is
symbolic of Miramax in its “golden age,” what it was known for during
its heyday when the Weinsteins still ruled the studio – the foreign
and indie films that were the diametrical opposite of the fare being
released by Hollywood mainstream studios, but which ruled come Oscar
time (Il Postino, Life Is Beautiful, Shakespeare in Love etc.).
While that description is almost a parody in itself, when I revisit
these films, I find they still very much hold water a decade or more
later. No exception with this one.
This is a great, ungeneralized look at the French aristocracy at its
zenith – right before the French revolution. Specifically, it’s a
look at a man (with an engineering background) who was born into
aristocracy, but unlike the typical portrayal of the apathetic
privileged and pampered, his estate is covered in swamp, and as a
result, the peasants who work his land are dying from infection
caused by mosquitoes. It’s a real problem, and we sense that our
hero truly cares for these people. To solve the problem, he realizes
that the only person who can truly help him (drain the swamps, build
a system of locks etc.) is the King, Louis XVI at the time.
The film is all about this nobleman bumpkin’s journey to Versailles
and his endeavors to get a one-on-one audience with the King. Of
course he’s dismayed by the corruption and complete insensitivity of
members of the Versailles court to his plight, much less to the
peasants, and he’s very much looked down upon by the other
courtiers. As he becomes more involved in and familiar with the
court scene, he realizes that what is more important than anything to
these people is “wit.” The ability to engage in quick-on-your-feet
verbal repartee, the gift of the guilded tongue. The viewer gets to
see some examples of great French smack-downs, equally affecting in
English subtitles. 
The notion that a modern movie could have “wit” as its central theme
is a unique one and it’s entertaining throughout. It must have been
a daunting script to write. It’s refreshing to see not strength, not
power, not money, and not continued (but ill-focused) diligence as
what lifts one man up over another, but the gift of quick wit.
There’s no explanation of where his gift came from, and no apologies
for it. Some people are just swifter on their feet and much wittier
than others. I appreciate films where intelligence is what gives a
man his lot in life, as well as the means to shape it and guide it,
but in American films, it’s not really celebrated. For example, in
American films intelligence is often conveyed through the abnormal,
brooding, socially challenged genius who needs to go through some
catharsis to be normal (A Beautiful Mind, Good Will Hunting, Shine,
Pi), or if the person is self-assured and confident in his
intelligence, it’s conveyed as arrogant and he has to get his
comeuppance in the end (Amadeus). This film clearly celebrates
intelligence for intelligence’s sake, and doesn’t punish de Malavoy’s
confidence in himself in being quick-witted and being able to make
the right moral choices. It’s intelligence with compassion.
I also like the fact that Versailles isn’t portrayed as the seamlessly glittering, gilded, city of nobility, but rather is shown more realistically. We see members of the nobility both before and after getting dolled up and powdered; we see the arrogance and corruption along with the intricate decorations of civilized elegance. The scene where the deaf kids are trotted out before the condescending courtiers is tight!
The performances were solid, and I actually really liked the scheming
Countess played by Fanny Ardant the most. While she’s not a
sympathetic figure here, she has very striking, beautiful features
(see her in 8 Women also) and is very confident in her role. I
thought they could have a done lot more with the other leading
actress (the girl who de Malavoy is in love with) – for someone who’s
supposed to be so intelligent and free-spirited, she seemed a bit
lily-livered.
Final Rating: 4 stars. Audrey
