The Libertine

[kafka]

I know I'm a day late, and a dollar short, but I'm dying to discuss this film which I rented over the weekend. Johnny Depp was unquestioningly the best thing about it and, watching it, you can only be amazed at his massive talent. Simply brilliant. But the film itself? I don't know what to think. I normally *love* historical bio-pics but this one.... meh.

In all honesty, it was rather a disappointment. I wish they had attempted to explain why Wilmot/Rochester was the way he was. It would have made the rest of the movie have more sense and meaning. They hinted at it in his hostile relationship with his mother but it was so fleeting as to be nonexistent. And I still don't think that explains his incredibly self-destructive, cynical attitude. I've always thought Wilmot was a precursor to the Marquis de Sade in terms of both political philosophy and social attitude but I've never understood *why* when it came to Wilmot. Filming his life story without explaining it even briefly seems to be a big failing, imo, especially as Wilmot isn't so well known that audiences could watch with built-in, pre-existing knowledge.

The same thing applies to his conflicted response to the king. Or was there no conflict, merely pure contempt, loathing and hatred? No, I have to go with contempt....

On another point, how accurate was it to say that Wilmot's father was responsible for saving Charles II? I always thought the Duke of Buckingham's family was more integral to Charles' escape and safety, not the Rochesters....

Other aspects of the film: I couldn't stand "Lizzie Barry" in this film. It may be because Samantha Morton irritates me in general. And I have to say, All-Cock (typo and pun intended) was a real scene-stealer.

So, what did you all think of the film?

[ahenobarbus]

Buckingham fought at the battle of Worcester, but he took off in a different direction after it was over. Charles made all of his retainers leave him so he could travel incognito, but Wilmot disguised himself and tailed along. Wilmot came up with the idea that Charles should disguise himself as a servant of the Lane family and head for the ports along the Southern coast, and Charles and Wilmot sailed out together.

I've always thought Wilmot was a precursor to the Marquis de Sade in terms of both political philosophy and social attitude but I've never understood *why* when it came to Wilmot.

I don't see why it requires much explanation. Rochester was not all that different from many of the young noblemen who came of age during the Interregnum or after the Restoration. De Sade was a public menace, whereas Rochester attended Parliament and and generally supported the King's position.

[kafka]

Ahenobarbus, thank you for the story behind Wilmot, the King and the escape.

ahenobarbus said:

I don't see why it requires much explanation. Rochester was not all that different from many of the young noblemen who came of age during the Interregnum or after the Restoration. De Sade was a public menace, whereas Rochester attended Parliament and and generally supported the King's position.

I don't believe much of the Sade=Public Menace theory. At least not how it's generally spun in terms of the overall public perception. De Sade may have been sick but I think a large part of his problems stemmed from the establishment party line. Not because he was so shocking or did anything so hugely different (although they were by our standards); the same things happened regularly in private among the aristocracy or at court. De Sade was dangerous mostly because he drew attention to the aristocrats' degenerate practices and because it happened at a particularly dangerous political time. Again, he actually never did anything which others didn't do in loads, and in private. He just made things public and raised a stench. Does that excuse his actions? No, but, for the most part, he didn't exactly rape and pillage against the hapless and poor, shanghai'ing them into his ventures against their will. Quite a few of the women, including those who testified against him, were willing participants. And a few joined in his orgies not just once or twice, not just for money, but for long stretches of time, freely and of their own accord. If they testified later, it's not because they were victimised, abused victims (although one could argue otherwise from an economic, power-based, sociological perspective).

Still, I don't buy the common public perception on De Sade. And, if I'm not the only one; I can give you the names of several books from experts analysing De Sade and placing him in a historical context. BTW, none of that means I share his views. On anything.

By the same token, I wonder if there is more behind Wilmot's reputation. Even if there isn't, I think it's too facile to dismiss De Sade or Wilmot as mere youths who came of age at a licentious time. Yes, that was part of it, but (imo) it's hardly the dispositive or driving force behind their demons. My question pertained to WHY exactly Wilmot was the way he was, from a psychological perspective, and beyond just the superficial impact of the ages.

Perhaps you "don't see why it requires much explanation," but I happen to think there might be slightly more to it than that flippantly contemptous, dismissive response. IMO, Wilmot's life was far too extreme to be easily explaned away as the result of a disillusioned youth who had everything too soon, or boy who lived through the Interregnum/Restoration.

Nor do I think it's a wholly ridiculous, nonsensical question, even if you disagree.

Furthermore, from the standpoint of marketing and success, most films dealing with historical figures of numerous centuries ago don't do well unless:
a) the person is question is well known like Elizabeth I, Cleopatra or the like; or
b) the character, his past and his motivations are elaborated upon: like the faux-William Wallace of Braveheart, or Gladiator's Maximus.

So, if you're going to choose someone obscure by the standards of contemporary society, you better go into detail about their character. Even "Quills" about the relatively well known De Sade failed commercially, and that was despite some explanation of why he thought the way he did. If you're going to chose someone relatively unknown like Wilmot, then you'd better explain some things purely for the sake of marketability and commercialism.

JMO. YMMV.

[girlnamedcarl]

That nose thing fucked with me.[/color]

[kafka]

<Shuddering at the memory of the nose>

From the article linked by GNC:

We're still not sure whether or not to recommend The Libertine. If you get off on the history of the Restoration era, you're in luck. If you want to watch an actor plumb the depths of depravity, Yahtzee! If you want a taut, coherent plot with sympathetic characters...sorry. The story on this film is as crumbly as...well, as a syphilitic's nose. No, we really can't get past that.

Heh. That sums it up pretty well. Except, even if you are interested in Restoration history, it still might leave you a bit unsatisfied.

Thanks for the link, GNC.

[girlnamedcarl]

My pleasure, Kafka! That's actually my review of the film; I write for a little-but-fun site[/color] under the nom de net of gadgetgirl.

Edited to add: I figured for sure the Darkness reference would give it away!

[kafka]

Wow, GNC, I like the article even more now. Impressive. Or, as my Aussie friend would say, "Good on ya." It's also nice to know that a movie critic felt the same level of ambivalence or disappointment in the film. It offered so much potential, particularly given Depp's huge talents, but it being totally shallow.

On a tangential note, I think I'm going to steal "crumbly as a syphilitic's nose" as my new expresssion. ;D

[Deleted]

If he had a truly deep motivation to be the way he was, the movie didn't show it. But perhaps there isn't one. Maybe it was just his nature. He just seemed immature to me. The king gave him a chance to write a masterpiece and he squandered it.

Samantha Morton turned in a really good performance, but it didn't strike me as realistic her speech to Johnny at the end of the movie. It seemed too rehearsed and too perfect to be totally off-the-cuff. I wish I could tell somebody off that restrainedly and that eloquently on the spot! But that's the writing, not her acting.

Rosamund Pike is very beautiful. I'd never seen her in anything before. I would like to see more of her acting.

[Hamatron]

Well put, Kafka and GirlnamedCarl. I just rented this this weekend and found it to be frusterating at times. The Restoration period is a time in history I'm not as "up" on as others, and was disappointed to not find the film more enlightening. And not that I needed things tied up in a neat bow, or that Wilmot needed a convenient yet unnatural character arch, but I just wanted something... more.

And I totally agree about the Lizzie (Samantha Morton) part. Her character just seemed so... scripted. And I never felt like her performances on stage were anything to freak over either.

Oh, and Rosamund Pike-- she's also in the recent Pride and Prejudice (the Kyra Knightly one). I enjoy her as well.

[Deleted]

I saw this last night and all I could think halfway through and to the end was: "What a pretentious get."

If you have a very wordy and expository script, you might think that you can make up for it by having the camera in constant motion. Well, that's an interesting idea, but it doesn't work here. Shut up and have the actors DO things and follow their actions with the camera. I watched the Special Features and discovered that the script was adapted from a play---that script needed to go through a few more revisions.

Mr. Depp was good and almost fun. In that scene at the end in the House of Lords, I thought he was going to burst out laughing at the very hamminess of it all, but he perservered. The man has discipline.

Mr. Malkovich was good as Charles II. I didn't recognize him at first and I am not a fan, too much artifice in his screen acting. But here, he put all of his fakery into his nose and made the character real.

Samantha Morton was perhaps miscast. I didn't get much of anything from her or her character. I hated the wife's character, but liked the actress playing her. Jane, the moll sack, was also very good.

As were Jack Davenport and Tom Hollander, hell, I thought that I was watching an episode of Pirates of the Caribbean. Only instead of plying the seven seas, the boys were ploshing in the British Muck and Mud. And Captain Jack's nose fell off and his face got whacked and scarred by all the beads in his hair which then fell off into the muck.