Louis, enfant roi (1993) - film review

France, 1648.  Whilst the nobility attempt to hold onto their power, the masses rise up in protest, and the country is torn by civil war and famine.  Barely ten years old, Louis, the prince regent, must learn to rule with wisdom and authority if he is to keep his country together.  After the death of his father, Louis XIII, the young prince looks to his mother, Anne of Austria, and loyal Cardinal Mazarin for support and direction.

This is a lavish period film which simultaneously manages to impress with its high production values and irritate with its complex morass of historical detail.  The film attempts to show how the events of the 1648-1653 civil war (known as The Fronde) influenced the young Louis XIV before his coronation in 1654.  It is credible effort but it is flawed by its naive assumption that its audience will know enough, or care enough, about French history to be able to follow it.

Whilst those who are intimately acquainted with this period of history will be able to follow the plot without too much difficulty, anyone else will struggle to make any sense of what is going on.  There is virtually no attempt to introduce the characters in the film or to develop anything resembling a coherent narrative, and for a film of this length (almost three hours), it must be considered something of an endurance test for most spectators.

To make matters worse, the characterisation generally appears rather weak and the portrayal of Prince Louis seems particularly artificial.  Is it reasonable to think that, aged 10, the young prince already saw himself as the Sun King, as the film repeatedly states?   There is little in Maxime Mansion’s performance to suggest that he is playing one of the greatest figures in French history and the young actor’s somewhat bland portrayal is one of the film’s weaker points.

On a positive note, the film is a visual treat, vividly capturing the essence of the period in which it is set (including beautiful music from Louis XIV’s favoured composer, Lully).  The extravagant sets and costumes, coupled with the somewhat obviously staged set pieces, suggest not so much a traditional historical film, but rather a living tapestry of a period of history.  Unfortunately, at a length of 160 minutes and with weak characterisation, that doesn’t make it any easier to watch.

© James Travers 2002

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?