Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Review: Casanova (dir. Lasse Hallström, 2005)

Review: Casanova (dir. Lasse Hallström, 2005)

Last updated on: April 13, 2016 at 11:25 am by Peter T. Chattaway

Review: Casanova (dir. Lasse Hallström, 2005) 2016-04-13T11:25:28-07:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It’s probably unfair to compare and contrast two films just because they star the same actor and come out at the same time, but compare and contrast the two latest Heath Ledger movies I shall. Brokeback Mountain is a drama, even a tragedy, about two homosexual lovers that shows how secret affairs can inflame jealousy and destroy families. Casanova is a comedy about one of the most famous heterosexual lovers of all time, and it gleefully mocks the Catholic Church while celebrating the liberating power of brothels and the like. The former film, which shows some of the negative effects of sexual immorality, has provoked outrage among some Christians. But will the latter, also depicting illicit sex, prompt the same response?

Not that outrage would be a proper response. On closer examination, it turns out there is more to Casanova than a celebration of promiscuity — though there isn’t less. Giacomo Casanova (Ledger) is a notorious libertine who lives in Venice and, in one early scene, flees a convent full of admiring nuns because officers from the Inquisition have come to arrest him. “Eternal damnation for one night with Casanova,” says one official to a novice when he finds evidence that Casanova has been in her chamber. “Seems fair,” she shrugs.

Thanks to the intervention of the Doge (Tim McInnerney), or local magistrate, Casanova is spared a hanging, but the Doge tells Casanova he has become increasingly difficult to protect, so he can no longer stay in Venice — unless he marries and becomes a respectable citizen. Oh, and he has to do this before Carnivale, which takes place in just a few days. Casanova rises to the challenge and soon seems to be well on the way to beating this arbitrary deadline; he visits the pious Signor Donato (Stephen Greif) and asks for the hand of his daughter Victoria (Natalie Dormer), and since she is a frustrated virgin who really, really, really wants to have sex — she’s so full of pent-up energy, objects shatter in her hands — she persuades her father to allow her to be betrothed to Casanova.

But then, through a complex set of circumstances I won’t bother to get into here, Casanova meets Francesca Bruni (Alfie’s Sienna Miller), a smart feminist centuries ahead of her time, who mistakes Casanova for another man and tells him how much she loathes men who sleep around and the women who think so little of themselves that they let themselves be used by such men. Casanova is intrigued, even smitten, by her fierce independence, and so he begins to track down whatever information he can find about her, and to woo her in a way that she might like — though his efforts seem to backfire, at least at first.

And so, this is the story of a promiscuous man who falls in love with a woman — precisely because of her insistence that promiscuity is a negative thing — and thus implicitly commits himself to her. Thus, for all its bucking of traditional morality, the film is actually quite conventional, at its narrative core. Occasionally, the characters walk past plays or puppet shows that have bawdy fun with the Casanova legend, and the film itself has that same don’t-take-it-too-seriously feel. For the most part, this film supports the idea that a happy ending is one in which a man and a woman come together in a partnership for life.

Things are complicated even further when it is revealed that Francesca herself has a fiancé, though she has never met him; her father arranged the marriage before he died, and now Lord Papprizzio (Oliver Platt), a rotund lard merchant, is coming to Venice to claim his bride and to save the Bruni family from financial distress. Casanova intercepts him at the dock and takes him to his apartment before Papprizzio has had a chance to see Francesca for himself; at first, Papprizzio seems like little more than a fat fool, just another of the figures held up for our ridicule, though Platt soon allows us to see his sympathetic side. What follows is a complicated series of farcical plot twists and assumed and mistaken identities, and it’s all fairly entertaining, even if there are some plot holes here and there.

Nevertheless, the movie needs a villain, and director Lasse Hallström — who previously made the pro-abortion film The Cider House Rules and the anti-Lent film Chocolat — finds it in the Church. The fiendish Bishop Pucci (Jeremy Irons), incensed that Casanova has not yet been punished for his sins, arrives in Venice and banishes the Inquisition’s ineffectual local officers to a mission for cannibals, after which he embarks on his own plot to arrest and execute Casanova. Pucci is also mighty ticked at the writings of a local “heretic” named Bernardo Guardi (Phil Davies), though the only example of this “heresy” that we ever hear is the belief that women should have the right to full equality with men. Pucci cynically declares heresy is “whatever I say it is,” yet his beliefs do seem genuine; when he sees a hot-air balloon rise for the first time, he looks shocked and calls it “witchcraft.”

Some Christians will object to this caricature; others, perhaps especially non-Catholics, will find it easy to take in stride a character who clearly embodies the attitudes of another denomination and another era. I must confess I enjoyed Irons’s hamminess, and the fact that he never opposes any real heresies made it easier to laugh. (Composer Alexandre Desplat’s elegant adaptation of baroque music is also a delight.) On the other hand, the film does want to have its cake and eat it too, presenting permanent commitment as the happy ideal to which couples ought to aspire, while also keeping some randy lothario around simply to show the Christians how wrong they are about sexual propriety. Casanova is just a farce, true, but there’s a smugness to the proceedings that leaves a bad aftertaste.

2.5 stars (out of 4)

–

Talk About It
Discussion starters

1. Casanova describes his philandering as “the perfection of experience.” Does this make any sense? How can you “perfect an experience” such as sex if you are with a different partner every time? Is it possible to have a “perfect” experience?

2. Casanova says all love is “true” love because, “To say I love falsely is as contradictory as to say I believe falsely.” Do you agree with this statement? Is he confusing love and sex? Do love and belief ever change? How do you prevent them from changing? Should you?

3. Francesca says that what Casanova calls love “is self-love, and self-love is self-doubt,” and she says love does not “grow” with repeated conquests but “wastes away.” Do you agree? Is this a sufficient basis on which to oppose promiscuity? What do you make of the fact that the film portrays Francesca (and, implicitly, her beliefs) positively, while also portraying brothels and other forms of promiscuity positively?

4. Francesca’s mother says, “Marriage is a safe haven … Love is something else.” What is the relationship between marriage and love? Would it be wrong for Francesca to marry a man she’d never met, for financial security?

5. Francesca asks how Bishop Pucci defines heresy, and he says heresy is “whatever I say it is.” What do you think of this portrayal of church leadership? How do you define heresy? When can there be legitimate disagreements?

The Family Corner
For parents to consider

Casanova is rated R for some sexual content, including a few bed scenes and an act of oral sex performed under a table, though there is no nudity. Much of the story revolves around the Church’s opposition to feminism and fornication, with the Church and its Inquisition clearly portrayed as the bad guys. One or two mildly naughty words escape people’s lips, too.

— A version of this review was first published at Christianity Today Movies.

Previous Post

December 22, 2005

Rumour -- with a "u" please

Next Post

December 23, 2005 Review: Munich (dir. Steven Spielberg, 2005)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "seek first the kingdom of God" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Seek revenge Worry about clothing Ignore God Put God first