Movie "The Libertine"
Jul. 21st, 2006 08:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thalia_seawoodI just watched "The Libertine" at the Munich film festival. The director said at the premiere two days ago that viewers either hate or love the film which is probably true.
The movie plays in the realm of King Charles II. (It's rather amusing that this is the third film I've seen in a short time that takes place during that period.) The main character is John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester. He's a person that should be difficult to like - after all, he spends his days drinking, sleeping around and being cynical. Eventually he gets extremely sick and loses his good looks completely. And yet, he's curiously likable.
One of the movies strengths is an excellent cast of actors. Johnny Depp plays John Wilmot and he's absolutely brilliant in this part. It took me a while to recognize John Malkovich behind the mask of Prince George II. What was very amusing for me was that the movie also starred Jack Davenport and Tom Hollander who also have parts in POTC II alongside Johnny Depp. And I nearly whooped with joy when I recognized Richard Coyle who plays Jeff in Coupling. *g*
The cinematography of the movie is interesting. Sometimes the camera moves around too much, but all in all I was pleased. The movie is drained of colour which is a fascinating choice. I think it's symbolic for how John Wilmot views the world: Since he goes so overboard with drinking and fornicating, his contempararies seem to assume that he enjoys life. But it's much more likely that he despises it.
The movie provides a rich layer of themes and so rewatching it should be rewarding. Some of the themes are:
How important are the opinions of others in your life? How independent of them can you be?
What does love mean? What does friendship mean? How much responsibility do you have to the people who care for you?
And what does life make worth living?
Yes, this was definitely an inspiring movie with an absolutely brilliant Johnny Depp.
Side note:
Before the movie started, we were warned that we should not expect a second Jack Sparrow in Johnny Depp's performance.
That's very true. Johnny Depp is an excellent actor and of course he created a completely different character here.
However, John Wilmot can in some way be seen as the dark side of Jack Sparrow. Both characters act as fools to their surrounding world. Even when they appear to be funny, there are a lot of deeper meanings to what they say. Yep, there a definitely some similarities there.
Some links:
About the movie
About the historical background
The movie plays in the realm of King Charles II. (It's rather amusing that this is the third film I've seen in a short time that takes place during that period.) The main character is John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester. He's a person that should be difficult to like - after all, he spends his days drinking, sleeping around and being cynical. Eventually he gets extremely sick and loses his good looks completely. And yet, he's curiously likable.
One of the movies strengths is an excellent cast of actors. Johnny Depp plays John Wilmot and he's absolutely brilliant in this part. It took me a while to recognize John Malkovich behind the mask of Prince George II. What was very amusing for me was that the movie also starred Jack Davenport and Tom Hollander who also have parts in POTC II alongside Johnny Depp. And I nearly whooped with joy when I recognized Richard Coyle who plays Jeff in Coupling. *g*
The cinematography of the movie is interesting. Sometimes the camera moves around too much, but all in all I was pleased. The movie is drained of colour which is a fascinating choice. I think it's symbolic for how John Wilmot views the world: Since he goes so overboard with drinking and fornicating, his contempararies seem to assume that he enjoys life. But it's much more likely that he despises it.
The movie provides a rich layer of themes and so rewatching it should be rewarding. Some of the themes are:
How important are the opinions of others in your life? How independent of them can you be?
What does love mean? What does friendship mean? How much responsibility do you have to the people who care for you?
And what does life make worth living?
Yes, this was definitely an inspiring movie with an absolutely brilliant Johnny Depp.
Side note:
Before the movie started, we were warned that we should not expect a second Jack Sparrow in Johnny Depp's performance.
That's very true. Johnny Depp is an excellent actor and of course he created a completely different character here.
However, John Wilmot can in some way be seen as the dark side of Jack Sparrow. Both characters act as fools to their surrounding world. Even when they appear to be funny, there are a lot of deeper meanings to what they say. Yep, there a definitely some similarities there.
Some links:
About the movie
About the historical background
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 08:57 pm (UTC)As for the cinemotography, I've read some reviews of people complaining about how dreary and 'dirty' the movie comes off, but I thought it was a smart move. I agree with you; it seems like Wilmot's view of the world around him. I'm recalling the scene where he's walking in the park and just looks disgusted with all the people around him. XD
You make an interesting point about John Wilmot and Jack Sparrow's similarities. They both have a way of being silly/sarcastic/foolish and fooling those around them into thinking that there isn't anything deeper than that, when there is.
Anyway, I'm rambling because I love this movie, but you're right. You either love it or hate it. I was very disappointed that it didn't get as much credit as it deserved because I thought it was fantastic.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 11:02 pm (UTC)As soon as I read the name of the main character, I thought about your LJ name. Wasn't sure, though, if you had been influenced by the movie or read about the character beforehand.
What I also loved about the movie, was that all the female characters were so strong.
His wife, Elizabeth Malet, is not just a pretty trophy wife, she loves him and stands by him even though she's aware of his weaknesses.
The actress, Elizabeth Barry, is very conscious of her self-worth. She's quite similar to Wilmot: Like him, she tries to be free of the opinions of others. In some ways, she's more successful in achieving this goal than Wilmot. After all, she doesn't self destruction. She uses her strenght of character in order to be creative. On the other hand, you can argue that by the end of the movie she does rely on the admiration of her audience and is therefore less independent them him.
Oh, and even the whore, Rose, knows what she wants and doesn't view herself as a victim.
After the movie, I was wondering if Wilmot could have been happy in life. Was he just born in the wrong century? Would he have been happier in a less shallow society? - Not sure about that. The way he comes across, he's incredibly intelligent and just plain bored because he lacks a true challenge. Perhaps people like him never fit him.
The movie hasn't been on in Germany yet. I think it's supposed to be shown in main stream cinemas now, but probably only a small percentage of people will watch it. However, Johnny Depp is a chick magnet - so maybe the movie will gain a greater audience after all.
Depp is so amazing: He truly transforms himself in every movie. And he's played so many fascinating parts already. He also doesn't seem to care about being popular. He plays straight characters and gay characters and bisexual characters and characters who like to dress like a woman and characters who faint like girls and characters who abuse drugs and all sorts of very unusual people. It's safe to say that he's my favorite actor.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-21 11:33 pm (UTC)I love his wife. I think she's gorgeous for one, but I love what a round character she is. She feels helpless and alone most of the time, and wants to be angry at him, but most of her still loves him, as much as she may not want to. I felt really bad for her. Elizabeth Barry...I liked her independence and her ambition to achieve what she wanted, but she also struck me as slightly haughty and manipulative. Unlike John Wilmot, she was willing to conform just a little in order to get ahead.
I think John Wilmot's character was so tragically cynical... it reminds me of the man that says "I hate knowing everything." Also it makes me think of Ghost World, don't know if you've seen that or not, but one of the characters has a similar attitude..."Only stupid people have good relationships." If you get my drift. :)
I know, he's so incredibly talented. He makes all of his characters seem like completely different people. Somehow he makes you like a character that you never thought you would.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 08:43 pm (UTC)I'm not sure it's officially out yet anyway. It was shown at the film festival in Toronto in 2004 and now had it's premiere in Germany at the Munich film festival. Not sure it will even make it to the usual movie theatres. But there are always DVDs...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-22 05:54 am (UTC)Whereas the scene in the play is very different, and in my mind more interesting. No speech in parliament etc, just an encounter in London at night. And Charles does manage to get Rochester to admit what is at the core of R.'s issues with Charles in particular, not just life in general, and it's not just the obvious figure of authority thing. It's two fold. a) Something which you can manage to miss in the film version, because most references have been cut, but Rochester really really resents that his father went off to exile with Charles. (To which we get a terse - paraphrasing now, because I don't have the text, and it's been years - "yes, he did it because he was loyal to me, but if you really want to know the truth, Johnny, even there had been no Cromwell, your father wouldn't have been around because he couldn't manage to live with his wife in the country any more than you can".) And b) Wasted potential. Charles', not Rochester's. That's the crux and really important in the play and completely out of the film - Rochester's cynism is idealism reversed, and in the play he says to Charles when they finally have it out, there was so much hope in the Restoration, and you're one of the smartest men to be on the English throne, and what did we get - pest, lost wars to the Dutch and selling out to the French. And then he says, I finally have that poetic summing up of your reign you asked me for, and recites his much-quoted doggerel about Charles (which the wiki entry you linked quotes - "here lies our wise and witty king/whose word no man relies on/ who never said a foolish thing/nor ever did a wise one".
(This btw is also quoted in the BBC series about Charles, complete with Charles' retort which isn't in the play but the wiki entry includes.)
So with that scene in the play, you have a very different connection between Rochester and Charles as characters than in the movie which replaces it with the Hollywoodian parliament appearance.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-22 08:31 am (UTC)Very interesting! Because there was one moment that made me cringe in the movie and that was Charles' "you did it" to Rochester and Rochester's reply. The movie became oddly patronising in this scene.
The speech in the Parliament didn't bother me at the time. I was too mesmerized by Depp's performance and by trying to remember how much historical truth the scene had. But with hindsight this scene is much too redemptory. It tries so hard to make Rochester a useful member of society after all - when he already is, however, in his own special way as society's dark mirror, as its fool.
I would have liked to have seen the scene from the play. Sounds much more intriguing than what we got. Point a) didn't come across in the movie, point b) did. I quite often got the vibe from Rochester 'I can waste my potential. After all, you wasted yours.' Which is why instead a magnum opus about Charles' reign, he writes a satyrical play with the major theme "debauchery".