10 thoughts on “Podcast: Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

  1. DL has been my favorite movie of all time since I saw it in the theatre. It’s absolutely perfect. Every tilt of the head, every moue of the lip, every outfit, every word, every set. I cannot get enough of it. I was terrified to listen to your review because (knowing nothing about this period) I was afraid you’d shred it and I would have my eyes opened to all matter of egregious errors. I am unspeakably happy to have my high opinion backed by your considerable knowledge. I even concur with the ethical problems of enjoying watching Valmont being rapey.

    Thank you so much! *hug*
    Northern Tullia

  2. I am so glad you guys reviewed this! Thank you! 18th Century is my weakness and this film is just stunning and done so, so well. I’m glad that you guys found very little wrong with it. I agree it holds up REALLY well.

  3. I was so happy to hear you guys say that her dress was based on the Madame du Pompadour one, because that sprung into my mind when I saw the picture.

  4. I was 13 when this movie came out and I thought it was just the sexiest thing ever! From the gowns, to the seductions, and all the decadent court drama I was captivated. My biggest complaint with the story was that Madam de Torvel wills herself to die in shame of a broken heart. At 13, I could not understand that part at all. Now I need to watch this movie again.

      1. I much prefer her character in the Korean version “Untold scandal” (2003) where she instead kills herself. As an aside, if you haven’t seen that movie, do so. I find it just as good as Dangerous liaisons.

  5. So, I have a master’s degree in French literature and Dangerous Liaisons is one of my favorite novels ever, of all time. It’s such a wondrous piece: it predates (by a lot) the age of the novel, it is the only good epistolary novel I’ve ever experienced, it is a page-turner like you wouldn’t believe, even 200+ years after publication. Just wanted to mention, since you point out that the novel was published in 1782 but the costumes are more 1760s, that the story is not contemporaneous with publication but presented as a collection of letters written some time ago — probably just about twenty years, actually, so the the 1760s would be perfect.

Comments are closed.