gavin6942 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.

preppy-3 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.

wolfenzero Part of the reason what makes this movie so unique is the actors & actresses having to act like their in a asylum and from what conditions they (inmates/patients) have and to act with those conditions. this movie really moved me it was so realistic like i was there. the camera work played the eyes of what you saw as not all inmates had really a role they were the background sound effects or group to in-act the story as they were in a steamer room/wash room and the room was well used. once in a while as the actors inmates characters comes out of character and towards the end of the movie the inmates becomes out of control. you got to like it as De Sade plays as play director. DID they really have Woman and Men Together in a Insane Asylum back in the early 19th century? I didn't know there was piping like that in the steam room/washroom back in 1808.? OH by the way one of the three narrator's looks like gram-pa from the the TV series the Munsters as this movie was made in 1967 it could very well be if you like plays or poetry or a rhythmics acting this is a movie for you

Armel Patanian 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.