The Affair Of The Necklace [DVD] [2002]

The leading jewelers of the day, Charles Boehmer and Paul Bassenge, had wanted Marie Antoinette to buy an elaborate and very expensive, multi-looped diamond necklace, weighing approximately 2800 carats. This necklace, which had six hundred and forty seven diamonds, had purportedly been designed for Madame Du Barry, the mistress of Marie Antoinette's father-in-law, the late King Louis XV, and a woman she despised. Marie Antoinette was not at all interested in this necklace and made herself quite clear to the somewhat desperate jewelers, who had invested much of their capital in this necklace.

In the film, a young woman, Jeanne St. Remy de Valois (Hilary Swank), who called herself a Countess by virtue of her marriage of convenience to a certain rake, Nicolas de La Motte (Adrien Brody), wanted to get back her father's estates, which had been taken by the crown after he had been, she believed, wrongfully executed for his perceived political beliefs. She was obsessed with righting this wrong and regaining her family's lost honor.

When she was unable to secure that which she so desired, she took up with a court gigolo, Retaux de Vilette (Simon Baker). With his assistance, she concocted an elaborate scheme, rife with political intrigues, and secured possession of the notorious diamond necklace under the ostensible color of Queen Marie Antoinette's authority. This theft ultimately came to light, and she and her cohorts were arrested in this matter, although the necklace was never recovered. This would lead to a sensational trial, because her accused accomplice in the matter was none other than Cardinal Louis Constantin de Rohan (Jonathan Pryce), a prince of France.

The film, woodenly directed by Charles Shyer, centers around the character, Jeanne. Unfortunately, Hilary Swank is unable to carry the day. Her portrayal of Jeanne is one dimensional. She also segues back and forth between her obvious American accent and a pseudo-British one. To sum up her performance in a nutshell, it is sub-par. An otherwise excellent actress, she is simply out her element in this period film, because she is unable to overcome her contemporary veneer.

Of course, as she is the centerpiece of the film and fails, so does the film, no matter how well meaning the endeavor. Of course, she had help, as the script has its problems. There is very little tension for a film that is about one of the greatest thefts ever conceived. Not even the delicious performance of Jonathan Pryce, as the dissolute Cardinal de Rohan, can overcome some of the fundamental flaws in this film. Still, there are some intriguing moments in the film, and those who enjoy period pieces and historical dramas may get a modicum of enjoyment viewing it.