The Triumph of Love
Tags: romantic, philosophical

Plot synopsis:
Léonide, Princess of Sparta, disguises as a man called Phocion to enter the household of her enemy, Hermocrates, an old philosopher. Léonide does so because she has seen and fallen in love with a young man who lives in the household, Agis. Learning that he is the rightful heir of the late Cléomènes, King of Sparta (usurped by Léonide's own uncle in revenge for Cléomènes' kidnapping of his mistress), Léonide has determined to restore him to power.
Léonide and her servant Corine (also disguised as a man) arrives at Hermocrates' house, pretending to be philosophy students. As they discuss their plans, they are overheard by Hermocrates' servant, Arlequin, but they pay him to co-operate with them. Léonide then meets Agis by chance, but the gardener, Dimas, becomes suspicious and calls Hermocrates' spinster sister, Léontine, to expel the two 'men'. In order to stay on the premises, Léonide pretends to fall in love with Léontine, and seduces her into supporting her.
Léonide then meets Hermocrates himself, who sees through her disguise and accuses her of coming to seduce Agis. Léonide admits that she is a woman (calling herself by the false name of Aspasie), but successfully convinces Hermocrates that she has come to seduce him, not Agis. He allows her to stay. Hermocrates tells "Aspasie" that he is plotting to overthrow the Princess of Sparta and place Agis on the throne.
Léonide finally has a conversation with Agis himself. Agis, it transpires, has sworn against love, because it was love that destroyed his parents. Léonide therefore tells him that she is disguised as a man because she is a young woman fleeing persecution from the Princess of Sparta (herself, in reality), and Agis promises to help.
Léonide is now juggling three contradictory relationships: both Léontine and Hermocrates are in love with her, while she has only a passionate friendship with Agis. Over the course of the rest of the play, she works things to her advantage, while Agis falls in love with her. In the play's climax, Hermocrates, Léontine and Agis realize they are all in love with the same person. Léonide reveals she is the princess and wishes to marry Agis, thus restoring him to the throne. Hermocrates and Léontine are left disappointed in love. A royal retinue then arrives to bring the Princess and her Prince back to the palace.

Review: You simply have to accept the conventions of this type of story, just as you do when you read/watch Shakespeare's plays.
I thoroughly enjoyed it; it was witty, fast paced, sexy, the acting was fantastic (especially Kingsley though Sorvino is no slouch)etc.
An entertaining movie if you like classical French theater.
Mira Sorvino is, of course, lovely in the starring role(s)..
the play was first performed in 1732 but i think the plot meets (and excels) today's standards.
Mira Sorvino did a great job as did all of the other cast members.if you liked Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" or any Shakespearean style plots of mistaken identity, deception, lies, love, comedic betrayal, and that sort of thing, you will enjoy this movie.(of course it is supposed to take place in France, but as everyone knows, they apparently all speak with English accents there.
"Triumph of Love" is proof that not every Comédie-Française author who uses cross-dressing disguised courtship like Shakespeare is worth seeing.
Or maybe something was lost in the translation of this adaptation of Marivaux, a Commedia Dell Arte-inspired playwright of whom Brittannica says: "His nuanced feeling and clever wordplay became known as marivaudage." While Mira Sorvino has fun dangling three mixed-up romances, her pants role wasn't even up to Cherubino in "Marriage of Figaro."The herky-jerky editing is annoying and just seems to indicate that a lot of takes were needed for each long speech.Best was Fiona Shaw as the fooled spinster, as well as the costumes.The glimpses of audience we see and the closing curtain call to wink that this is all artifice doesn't really help.(originally written 5/29/2002).
fiona shaw and ben kingsley both falling hard for mira is enough for anyone!
This movie is about a princess simultaneously seducing a prince, his protégé and the protégé's sister, portraying herself as either a man or woman, all in the name of undoing a wrong that her family has done to the prince's a long time ago.
This film just didn't have that, although it did produce some laughs when the protégé and his sister both come out dressed in clothes they otherwise would never be caught wearing.
The camerawork plays a bit with its jump cuts, trying to impose some sense of realism to this otherwise lack of stagey feeling film.
The sudden revelation of the audience did not occur frequently enough to signify anything beyond an aberration of the plot.Still, an interesting film with good interaction between characters, and a little insight to French plays of that period..
Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy.
Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists.
For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming.
When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.-Matthew McGuire.
While the film has it's slow moments it's still beautifully made and true to the original play.
Better than Shakespeare in Love, but with awful editing.
This is a very light period piece, in the spirit of plays like a midsummer night's dream, based on a 17th century farce.
In the spirit of the movie and of older plays it's all perfectly normal and acceptable, because these kind of stories sacrifice believability in favor of good fun.
And though flawed, the film is much better than the hugely overrated Shakespeare in Love.What I did have a problem with, was the horrible jump-cut editing.
Now the acting is what saves the film, I was especially delighted with Mira Sorvino and Ben Kingsley who both skillfully display grotesque but pleasant, sympathetic personalities.
despite every comment, I like this movie.
Not a great movie, but I like it.
Love triumphs, but the film doesn't.
I really wanted to like "Triumph of Love;" several of the elements, in fact, might be organized into a film I could enjoy.
There's the elegant period sets and costumes, the gender-bending undertones, a couple comic servants, and Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw giving fine performances as a pair of emotion-disdaining intellectuals who become undone by their own vanity.
But "Triumph of Love," sadly, proves to be all promise and very little payoff.Mira Sorvino is the princess of an unspecified (and presumably fictitious) country, who infiltrates the house of her political enemies disguised as a man.
Her purpose is twofold: to right the wrongs wrought by her father on true heir to the throne Agis (Jay Rodan), and to win Agis' heart, which has been taught to disdain love by his guardians Hermocrates (Kingsley) and Leontine (Shaw).
Since nobody can do anything the easy way in a story like this, Sorvino's character works towards her ends by wooing Leontine (who thinks she's a guy), Hermocrates, and Agis (both of whom are in on her ruse) at the same time.
Images of a "modern-day" audience peeking in on the action add nothing to the procedings, and are introduced in such a way as to feel like an intrusion on the film, rather than a part of it.For a much richer experience in this genre, I recommend the recent adaptation of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night."  Like "Triumph of Love," it features a cross-dressing heroine, romantic entanglements and misunderstandings, comical servants, and a good turn by Ben Kingsley in a supporting role.
Also Imogen Stubbs, as the gender-defying central character, makes a much more convincing man than Mira Sorvino..
Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while.
Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie.
The movie  staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film).
The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material.
Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre.
Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's.
Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that.
Surely, I am not talking of sex when I say the main plot lacks shyness, but of a certain perversity of thought, a scheme for love.
"Triumph of Love" is a silly little comedy about a woman (Sorvino) who dresses like a man to woo a woman and reveals her true sex to two men to woo them.
"Triumph..." is theater on film; a fact of which we're reminded by shots of an audience cloistered among the garden shrubs...an annoying interjection.
A clumsy adaptation of theater for film, "Triumph..." will likely be of interest by only the most ardent aficionados of period plays.
I thought Mira Sorvino did a great job as did Ben Kingsley and all the others, however my real praise is for the woman who played the young man's patroness, Fiona Shaw, what a performance she produced, intense and perfect timing as well, absolutely great.
I recommend the film as good fairly clean fun and a pleasure to watch.
The author was of course well known in his day, and the play upon which this film was based was first performed we are told in 1732.
I thought the attempt to include an audience very clumsy and actually did not realize what they were trying to do as I watched the film, right up to the ending credits when the cast appeared for a bow wearing modern clothes it escaped me.
The ups are delightful (dialog, costuming, movement); the downs are simply awful (acting, timing, editing, concept).
The reference to the play as play by intercutting scenes of modern-day audience watching the play and the cast "curtain call" in modern day dress are distracting.
The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.Stupid, stupid story and horrible production.
It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw.
Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other.
Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play.
If I had seen this before I'd seen some of the movies based on Shakespeare, I might have felt that the dialogue was weird and the story contrived.
However, having seen filmed plays like Twelfth Night and read a few early modern plays makes me appreciate what's going on more.
What seems silly, stilted, and improbable to a modern audience is actually a very understandable play that follows traditional story beats and tropes.
When watched from the right point of view and state of mind, it's actually quite an amusing story with occasional moments of romance and heartbreak.
Perhaps the best thing about this movie for a modern audience is watching Ben Kingsley, Fiona Shaw, and the others enjoy their roles so thoroughly.
Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her.
She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters.
Who ever is responsible for the production editing of this film should be ashamed/sacked/run-out-of-town/laughed at/never used again.I liked this film for what it is; a play written in 1732 and brought to the screen.
Possible the story is a little outdated and not very plausible but it was fun and I think thats the point, it is a "farce" in the same style of a shakespearean play.
I also wondered if anyone has seen a film with a women playing a man's part and the audience actually believes that it is a man?
I have seen guys play women and be really convincing but I don't think I have seen a women "fool" me in a movie.
Surely Ben Kingsley deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here.
Mira Sorvino, a princess, falls for a young hunk who's been brought up by his bachelor uncle (Ben Kingsley) and spinster aunt (Fiona Shaw).
I'm not sure if the ending is morally justified for suitable enjoyment of the movie, even if all parties involved eventually benefit by learning about the power of love.
That aside, The Triumph of Love is a lovely display of fine actors having fun giving melodramatic performances.
I can't help but to compare her to the other period gender-bending actress, Gwyneth Paltrow, in Shakespeare in Love.
Paltrow undeniably gives the superior performance, but I can't say if it wasn't because Shakespeare was a better movie.
Surely he deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here than in his other movie of that title..
A quirky film based on a classic story.
I wasn't sure what to expect upon renting this movie, and as it began, my first thought was that I had wasted a good four dollars.
The plot is based on Pierre Marivaux's romantic comedy from the 1700s in which a princess will do practically anything to be with the man she loves...who happens to consider her his sworn enemy.
If you're looking for something a little different but entertaining, then look into "The Triumph of Love.".
If you are looking for a romantic comedy that borders on a fabulous farce, this film is for you.
It's an adaptation of an almost 300 year old French stage play that is full of fun and frolic.
An intellectually intriguing yet love-less film....
Triumph of Love' is a period piece that at times can be quite enchanting, and at other moments may seem like a droopy, overdramatic and mundane film.
Director Clare Peploe adapts a Marivaux play first performed in 1732 co-written by Marilyn Goldin and Bernardo Bertellucci into a fairytale.
Mira Sorvino stars as a Princess fixated on returning her homeland's throne to its' rightful heir who happens to be a prince under the protective custody of a deliciously uncovered Ben Kingsley who portrays a famous philosophist.
Little does Agis know that he is the rightful heir to the throne and the film's momentum slowly builds upon this tiny aspect.
Reminiscent of Shakespeare in Love', Sorvino plays a Princess who must disguise herself as a gentleman caller in order to penetrate the grounds Agis inhabits.
The film structures itself through a triangle of deceit, manipulation and false love as the Princess must first gain access into the grounds and then find a way of being welcomed as a guest.
Seduction of the sexes is a primary factor as the Princess eyes both man and woman in hopes of luring the young Agis who she is ultimately in love with.
Director Clare Peploe crafts a witty period piece that will appeal mostly to its' intended audience who appreciate and understand the manner in which these films unravel themselves.
Peploe uses her camera wisely and enjoys tracking the actors in their scenes as the play is removed from the film.
Furthermore, watch for an interesting musical finale lifted from the play that explains why throughout the film we see audience members dressed in current day clothing within a period piece.
While it is a clever and crafty little film, the film will not appeal beyond its' intended audience due to the fact that while it is an interesting piece at times, it tends to get bogged down in semantically torrid and comedic sequences that deter the picture.
It had the words stuck to the carriage wherein the characters are dressing as actors.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching..
Pretty Good Script/dialog Let Down by So-so Acting.
The script and dialog of "The Triumph of Love" is often first rate in this movie, directed by Claire Peploe.
Though I don't know how much the original story or script has been altered for modern tastes, the main problem of the movie is the uneven acting.
Lead Sorvino is good in some scenes but stilted and off in others as is curiously Ben Kingsley.
Anyway the movie features some very good scenes especially toward the beginning and end.
I Didn't care much for the liberty thrown in with touch of the modern play towards the end.
An 18th century princess(Miss M.Sorvino) wants to restore the rightful heir to the throne of her country.He is incommunicado,living with a famous philosopher and his sister deep in the countryside.She decides the only way to get close to him is to seduce the philosopher,his sister and the prince himself in no particular order.Miss Sorvino has all the knowing innocence required of a Comedy Francaise heroine.Of course she is not in the least believable,but that's the whole point."The Triumph of love" is,in its entirety,an exercise in deception.But it is not a deception that is meant to fool anybody but the play's characters.
None of the performances is particularly subtle,nor are they meant to be.This is not serious drama,nor serious anything else.We are seeing a filmed play,a comedy of the sort that was once popular all over Europe,Miss Peploe could not have made that much clearer short of putting the camera crew in the action.
A "free" DVD loan from the library, Kingsley and Sorvino are the reasons to see this film..
THE TRIUMPH OF LOVE is a film based on a 1732 story, and has a Shakespeare feel to it.
By today's standards the story is implausible, but the acting of Mira Sorvino as the young lady dressed up as a young man, and Ben Kingsley as the old philosopher, are reasons to see this film all the way through.
If one can get past the implausibility, and just watch it for the performances, it can be an entertaining 106 minutes.some SPOILERS follow ...The sole objective of Sorvino's character, the usurper of the crown, is to get accepted at the home of the philosopher and his spinster sister, to get close to Agis the rightful heir whose parents had been killed.
The whole film presents one of these stories where you wonder how she will get out of the current deception, and she always does.
In the end, "love triumphs", as the title indicates.