Valmont, the 1989 adaptation of the book Dangerous Liaisons, was directed by MiloÅ¡ Forman with costumes designed by Theodor PiÅ¡tÄ›k, the same team who brought you Amadeus (1984). I thought I had seen this movie back in the day, and maybe I had but forgotten, because it all seemed new to me. And you guys — I was disappointed! Trystan led me to believe that this was going to be a total shit-show. And compared to 1988’s Dangerous Liaisons, okay, yes it is. But compared to Amadeus? It’s waaaay better.
I know the voting has been hot and heavy today over Braveheart vs. Valmont, and you may have already voted. But I just got done rewatching (and screencapping) Valmont, and I gotta run it down for you! So apologies if this seems last minute, because it is.
Director Forman started on Valmont before Dangerous Liaisons was announced, but he (and the studio) decided to persevere. According to Roger Ebert’s review/interview with the director, Valmont‘s difference was going to be the fact that it would have “elaborate interior and exterior sets that could not be rushed.” Poor Forman hadn’t seen DL when he was doing press for Valmont, which is good. Because while you can tell that money was spent on Valmont, DL has it beat, hands down, in the costume department, both in terms of quality and accuracy.
You can’t help comparing the two films. Dangerous Liaisons has stunning performances from all of the actors, amazing locations, and jaw-dropping costumes. It takes the story very seriously and darkly. Meanwhile, Valmont has some good performances (Annette Bening as Mme de Merteuil, Fairuza Balk as Cécile, and Sian Phillips as Mme de Volanges) and some not-so-great (Colin Firth as Valmont is sometimes good, sometimes embarrassing). This makes the story much lighter and frothier and changes the ending to be less tragic. The costumes are a mixed bag, with a few nice ones and a lot of “the hell?,” while the hair is Not Good.
But I think the other thing to compare this movie to is Amadeus, and Valmont is light years better than that one! Amadeus has practically no redeeming costumes and TRAGIC hair, while at least Valmont has a few decent things!
But, onwards. Let’s look at Valmont‘s costumes in-depth:
Madame de Merteuil
Played by Annette Bening, Madame de Merteuil is a scheming seductress who won’t stop laughing. It mostly works, giving the character a lighter feel than Glenn Close’s version in DL.
Her first costume is her traveling outfit: a pink satin double-breasted jacket with a dusty pink brocade-y petticoat. I thought the satin was pretty, I liked the double-breasted effect and all the buttons. And I love pink accessorized with black!
Next she has a weird stripey number for Cécile’s music recital:
The pink, white, and grey stripes aren’t bad themselves, and I think the puffy sleeves are going for something like this painting of Madame de Pompadour (which Dangerous Liaisons also referenced):
But the execution isn’t good:
Next we have this brownish or purpleish number, which I think is supposed to be Her Best Dress, because she wears it for some key, fancy scenes. It’s actually pretty shitty:
I admit I liked this stripey purple number, just because the fabric was really pretty. Clearly a very 18th-century-esque brocaded floral stripe:
Next we go back to pink for a super theatrical sort-of-robe à la française costume:
Then there’s the weird, super flat-front dress:
A quickie française worn at the opera:
Then there’s her randomly hanging out at home in an 1890s cheongsam. Clearly trying to reference 18th-century Orientalist lounging robes, like banyans. But, so wrong for this era. Especially with the hair, which we’ll talk about in a minute.
Finally, she wears some kind of black dresses to Valmont’s funeral and Cécile’s wedding, but you can’t really see them:
Valmont
Poor, poor Colin Firth. Apparently he was young and new in his career. I’m sure he thought, “Yes! The director of Amadeus! This film is going to ROCK!” Little did he know…
I’m not going to go through all of Valmont’s costumes, just give you some general thoughts:
SADLY WE LOST SOME THE IMAGES FROM THIS POST IN A SERVER MOVE. I’M LEAVING THE CAPTIONS HERE TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THEY INCLUDED.
He has some shitty cravats.
Why the sash?
Cécile de Volanges
Played quite well by Fairuza Balk. She’s younger than Uma Thurman (same role in Dangerous Liaisons), so while the whole seduction by Valmont is played more lightly, it’s actually more creepy.
Her first real dress, worn to the opera:
At the music recital, she wears a stripey pink robe a l’anglaise with the skirts looped up:
Later she hangs with Merteuil in this light blue dress with red bows:
Then there’s her music lesson jacket, in which we can see some of the construction problems underlying many of these dresses:
Madame de Merteuil attempts to get Cécile and Danceny into bed by putting Cécile into a whooooore outfit:
Merteuil takes Cécile to the country to hang with Valmont and company. Cécile wears this:
Cécile wears this dusty pink taffeta française for a few scenes:
At Valmont’s funeral, she wears a dark blue moire jacket with a super Victorian capelet:
And finally, Cécile’s wedding dress:
Madame de Tourvel
Super sweet, super kind, very chaste and virtuous. Meg Tilly does a fine job with the role, nothing to complain about, although Michelle Pfeiffer has a special spark in Dangerous Liaisons that gives her the win.
When we first meet her, she’s wearing a dress very clearly inspired by another of Pompadour’s gowns:
For evenings, she wears this robe à la française:
She also has this dress, which she wears to a picnic with Valmont. I SHOULD love the fabric, but it’s so boring that not only did I refuse to screencap the back, I almost forgot to post it here:
In this version, Tourvel gets to live, so she visits Valmont’s grave in a nice black jacket with fur trim:
SADLY WE LOST SOME THE IMAGES FROM THIS POST IN A SERVER MOVE.Â
Madame de Volanges
Cécile’s mother is much less ditzy in this film version, although why she hangs with Merteuil, I have no idea.
She wears this grey pet-en-l’air in a few scenes:
For Cécile’s music recital, she wears a burgundy damask in a VERY 16th-century pattern with gold lace:
SADLY WE LOST SOME THE IMAGES FROM THIS POST IN A SERVER MOVE. I’M LEAVING THE CAPTIONS HERE TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THEY INCLUDED.
Nice color combo.
Pretty! Also, actual separate stomacher??!!
She worries about her daughter in this number, which is the best example I have of the weirdest fact: Madame de Volanges either has amazing boobs or is wearing proper stays. WHY is she the only character to 1) get proper underwear and 2) have her boobs out? Wouldn’t you want Merteuil, of all people, to look all hot and cleavage-y? I DON’T UNDERSTAND.
SADLY WE LOST SOME THE IMAGES FROM THIS POST IN A SERVER MOVE. I’M LEAVING THE CAPTIONS HERE TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THEY INCLUDED.
Sewn-in stomacher with piping, but who cares, because HER TITS AREN’T AT HER WAIST! Hallelujah!
Okay, that’s an unnecessary amount of chemise showing on her arms. But, nice fabric, lovely pleats in back — NO BACK CLOSURE!!
She gets pissy about Danceny in this stripey burgundy number:
Again, actual stomacher worn UNDER the gown! Miracle of miracles!
Unnecessary back waist piping, but hey, no back closure!
She freaks out about her daughter, oh and goes to the opera, in this “bizarre” (as in pattern, not as in judgement) damask:
And finally, she Shows Merteuil at Cécile’s wedding in this blue and gold damask with lots of gold lace number:
Madame de Rosemonde
Valmont’s elderly aunt draws the short stick, as all of her costumes are DIRE.
First, you’ve got shitty acetate moire with unnecessary lace placement:
She goes to dinner in this monstrosity:
She lounges around the estate in this semi-decent stripey number:
Her mourning dress is acceptable, because you can’t really see it:
And she rocks a jewel-toned tricorn at Cécile’s wedding:
The Maid
Finally, let’s talk hair/wigs:
But poor, POOR Colin Firth. He doesn’t get a “wig,” no doubt because the filmmakers thought we wouldn’t find him attractive. But he does wear a WIG, and it’s a doozy:
1) IT HAS BANGS:
SADLY WE LOST SOME THE IMAGES FROM THIS POST IN A SERVER MOVE. I’M LEAVING THE CAPTIONS HERE TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THEY INCLUDED.
Sometimes they’re combed, feathered, and arranged to one side. NOT 18TH CENTURY.
SADLY WE LOST SOME THE IMAGES FROM THIS POST IN A SERVER MOVE. I’M LEAVING THE CAPTIONS HERE TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THEY INCLUDED.
Tourvel’s hair is in an acceptable low crown bun.
Volanges’s hair is a good shape, even if it misses the details and should be powdered.
Oh, and I thought you’d like to see:
Gercourt and Cécile get married in front of “The King” and “The Queen.” I thought you’d like to see them:
JEEZUZ DO I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING HERE??!?!?!?! WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE??!?!?!! DID YOU SHOOT YOUR WAD ON ‘FAREWELL TO THE QUEEN’?!??!?!!!
*eyerolls*
Ok, to recap:
The rampant abuse of crafter’s lace should get this movie listed in the Frock Flicks Hall of Shame, along with the shitty fabrics overall. Movies don’t have to used real silks, but just don’t use crap that LOOKS so gawd-awful shiny & thin & pathetic. Kendra, you’re the fiber snob, I shouldn’t have to manufacture indignation for you here!
And corsets! ‘Amadeus’ may have been about too much boob, but this movie is weirdly prudish in the costumes, but skeezy in the storyline. Kendra, I need more balanced disgust from you here. What’s your motivation?
Finally, that is all you can say about the Great Tragedy of the Valmont Hair? What about your reputation, girl? I want a wailing & gnashing of teeth over all that bad, bad hair. Instead, it feels like an afterthought.
I expect much more snark from you, young lady! Don’t make me tie you down & make you watch Braveheart.
BUT THAT’S THE PROBLEM! I wasn’t outraged! YOU promised that this was going to be a trainwreck. And sure, compared to Dangerous Liaisons, it was, costume-wise. But, I was entertained, and I actually LIKED some of the costumes, either aesthetically and/or historically.
Meanwhile, Amadeus, which you LURVE, didn’t have ANYTHING I liked. Maybe the “Turkish” dress on the opera singer, but that’s a maybe.
Also, I disagree that all of the fabrics were total crap! Okay yes, a few of them were (Merteuil’s brown dress, Tourvel’s white dress). But otherwise, they looked like quality to me!
Maybe I just haven’t gotten enough sleep lately to muster enough outrage?
FINE. I’M COMING OVER THERE WITH A BOLT FROM THE CASA COLLECTION & STRAPPING YOU DOWN.
NOOOOOOOOOO!!
Plus a ball gag made of crafters lace wrapped around Colin’s ponytail!!!!
I’m with Trystan too. The first time I ever saw Valmont, I had just seen DL so it was going to be hard to impress me, even at the tender age of 14. And Valmont really bored me. I expected something more… entertaining… from the guy who brought us Amadeus. In fact, Valmont bored me so much I couldn’t even remember a single thing about it, except that I saw it.
Many years later, I rewatched Valmont. Maybe it didn’t suck! Maybe it was actually good, I thought. But no. It was even duller than I remembered. They butchered the novel and everyone was miscast. And when is it supposed to be set? Is it the 1760s? The 1780s? WHERE ARE ALL THE PANNIERS?!
The costumes of Amadeus are pretty dreadful, but Amadeus is so well-acted, well-directed and well-scripted that the costumes fall into the “good-shitty” category for me (if that makes sense). Whereas the costumes of Valmont, IMO, are just mediocre.
Same! Same!
Although I have to admit to luuuving this flick when I was 14, must’ve watched it dozens of times. So the awakening in my older age was rough, to say the least.
You do have a VERY good point — Valmont is very unspecific, mushy, throw-all-the-18th-century-into-a-blender costume-wise!
weighing in here, MANY years late.
As someone who watched Valmont RIGHT AFTER I read this article (and A day after watching Dangerous Liasons AND the Korean Adaptation “Untold Scandal”) I was TWICE as disgusted by this film as I probably would have been anyway. I was NOT sufficiently prepared for the clusterfuck that was Firth’s hair. And the story? OMG the story. the Script was maybe the worst thing about it.
ON the Subject of Valmont vs. Amadeus i’m leaning in favour of Amadeus because it is very consciously a-historical and the issues there were (mainly) conscious artistic choices.
I donno, I’m with Trystan on this one. Even though they both suck Amadeus seems slightly more accurate because of the boobage being in the right place. And I still have a soft spot for the “It’s Turkish!” ensemble.
THANK YOU!!!
PFFFF. Clearly Trystan bribed you.
I don’t have to pay people to open their eyes, thankyouverymuch!
I was lucky and saw this ovie when I was 18 so A. had just a very basic knowledge of 18th Century fashion and B. hadn’t seen DL yet. I remember enjoyingit hugely. I probably wouldn’t today…
Oh, and I completely blame this film for all those ‘cute’, matchy-matchy tricorns that ladies make and wear even when it’s clear they’re not sporting either a riding/hunting habit or a masquerade piece. You’re allowed one pet peeve, no?
You’re allowed more than one with us, LOL!
Ugh! First time nor Anette Bening nor Colin Firth seem appealing to me I Would rather watch Meg Tilly’s (Tourvel) Carmilla from the same year a much better period entertaining piece (even if it’s a much shorter film)