The Libertine

Rochester, who died at the age of 33, spent his early years pursuing pleasure and circulating (though not publishing) satiric verse and his latter years suffering the consequences of these pursuits. When the film begins Rochester is already suffering the effects of a syphillis that is rapidly devouring his body and will eventually devour his face. The opening and closing monologues (that cleverly mimic the stage conventions of the day) are delivered not to a Restoration audience but to us. Despite his brilliant beginning as a satirist of the first rank in a moment in time when satiric verse was the mode of choice for cultivated libertines and wits, as the film opens, Rochester, who is apparently speaking from the grave of the dark, dank and putridly-hued London of the 1670's, is not interested in offereing us his verse but his very soul and this film, like its main character, dares you to turn away.For the libertines the London social world of the 1670's was an endless round of drinking, theatre going, debauchery and riot. Some libertines like Rochester were nobles who served the King in whatever capacity the King chose (Rochester served in the navy, as well as waited on the King); in this the court, however, the King himself was, privately, a libertine as well and so it was very difficult for him to discipline those around him. Rochester, with his lightening quick and profane wit, was this dissolute world's biggest celebrity. What Rochester did in real life became the stuff of Restoration theatre. His friends included the dramatists William Wycherley and George Etherege whose most famous character, Dorimant, was based upon his manners, habits, and appetites. He was also friends with his employer the King who regularly banished him for his misdeeds (though usually not for long).A look at Rochester's poems will show that he was seemingly interested in only two things: drinking and swiving. But this is somewhat deceptive. Rochester seemed to pride himself on the insatiability of his appetite for both but he was also very interested in writing from a variety of perspectives(sometimes adopting a female persona) and though on the surface his verse seems like just a bunch of bawdy limericks, it actually offers a penetrating glimpse into the workings of a fascinating mind that is complex and conflicted about his own and other's social, sexual and spiritual identities. The film really only scratches the surface and gives you that part of Rochester that lends itself to film, that is to dramatization/visualization. In some respects, however, the vulgar exploitative nature of cinema in many ways seems like the perfect vehicle with which to tell this story which is about salacious scandal, the art of maintaining and/or destroying reputations (which are usually just facades anyway), and the public's fascination with the private lives (the more corrupt the better) of public figures. Rochester fascinates because he seems to see through the vice and folly of power and though he is never quite above it, he seems capable of distancing himself from it (at times he would disappear from court and spend weeks writing in the country). He seems to be aroused by the juxtaposition of high society's penchant for glamourous excess/decadence and the equally potent and seductive allure of the lewd and brutal underworld. His own poetry seems to speak simultaneously from the upper and lower echelons of London (and his favorite location in which to set his poetry was St. James Park, a notorious site of carnivalesque intrigue and sexual liberty). Depp, with that eternally boyish glint in his eye, who charms with every grin, seems like someone who probably knows more about the former world, but he is someone that we believe may be sympathetic and therefore receptive (at least imaginatively) to the seductive force of the latter world.Malkovich also offers a convincing portrait of a troubled King who wants to be perceived as a leader but who cannot seem to ween himself from his own appetite for young girls. The public knows the King is weak and they suspect him of secretly being a Catholic. What the King really wants from his friend Rochester is a piece of theatrical propaganda that will transform his reputation if not his actual person. But Rochester is not one to blush in the face of facts and his talent is to tell things like they are so he not only refuses to lie but he will tell the truth in as theatrical and bawdy a fashion as possible. And instead of offering the public a respectable version of their "protestant" King, Rochester offers them a portrait of a lascivious fool and his equally lascivious court of hangers on. His play, Sodom (which involves onstage nudity and live lewd acts), does not amuse the King. It does amuse the visiting French ambassador however!What we get in the film is Rochester's lifestyle most of all--the drinking, whoring, and cavorting. We also get glimpses of the inner life--the ennui, the despair, the boredom of one who is trapped in a society (and humanity as he perceives it) that he, sometimes, views as insipid and ridiculous. But what makes the film watchable is that we also get Rochester's humor and feel for common humanity: the scene where Rochester is having his portrait painted (replete with monkey companion) is splendid comedy and his friendship with his servant, Allcock, seems genuine. There are just enough moments of light humor that we find that we do like him after all and even might feel like we kind of understand him as well. As Rochester well knew those surrounding the court and occupying high social positions often feign superiority and comfort themselves with decorous public masks while living debauched lives, but, to his credit Rochester is who he is in private and in public. It is not quite clear why his very Christian wife loves him, however, and that is one weakness of the film. His wife was the wealthier of the two and Rochester's idea of courtship was to kidnap her. This caused a scandal and did not immediately result in their marriage (they would marry two years later)but they both liked to relive that intitial encounter when they rode in their carriage between London and their country estate. Ultimately we know very little of her, and his children, who he apparently was very affectionate with, are entirely absent from the film. Instead the film focuses on his many mistresses, one of which was the stage actress Elizabeth Barry.Rochester's interest in the theatre was genuine (he loved disguises his whole life; Dr. Bendo being his most elaborate) and even though he could not apparently write a succesful drama his service to the King required him to play many roles (including flatterer, sycophant, cynic, satirist). He also trained an actress who would eventually become one of his mistresses. Apparently he took on the task of training a talentless actress on a bet. Just what the training of this actress might mean in the larger scheme of things is not exactly clear. Perhaps his empathy with women was genuine (even though much of his verse seems to be misogynistic) and he wished to do at least one productive thing in his otherwise destructive life. He seems to have been drawn to the actress Elizabeth Barry's youth perhaps because he had none left of his own. The stage was a place of transformation and perhaps the attraction to both stage and Elizabeth Barry was an attraction to the possibility that he could somehow transform and/or reform himself. Actresses at this time were considered to be little more than prostitutes and often Rochester considered authors to be little more than prostitutes as well and so perhaps the mutual attraction was also a mutual understanding and identification (at least on Rochester's part).In the end, according to the film, Rochester repented of his sins and made his peace with God as well as with his King and country. But no one really knows what Rochester's last thoughts were. The accounts of the death bed conversion were circulated by the priest and Rochester's very devout wife (ironically she converted to Catholicism at Rochester's request soon after they wed) who also took it upon herself to burn many of his drawings and writings so whether this version of her husbands's final moments was the real version or her own fictional account of things as she would like them to have been (and as she would like him to appear in historical accounts) is anyone's guess.As period films go this is not your usual fare. And as character portraits go this one is not going to be displayed in a public cinema for all to see (if it came to a theatre near you at all it probably did not stay long or garner much attention). If you are a person who likes to hear subversive sides of history, and you do not shy away from the unconventional character study, this just might be your period and character sketch.

This film captures the atmosphere of 17th Century London during the Restoration of Charles II. Filmed in mist and candle light and fog, the film transports you to the 1680s. John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester, played wonderfully by Johnny Depp, is the subject of a dark play driven by the Nihilism and atheism of the poet and playwright. Wilmot demonstrates his skills in a wild orgy satire equating the sexual appetite of Charles II with political power. We are also treated to his sarcastic and sadistic iconoclastic personality that provides the entertainment in this bleak world-view of a highly self-destructive and talented man. With his exceptional intelligence, wit, and verbal skills, Wilmot can cut through any joy or inspiration to find the base and futile.John Wilmot, as a young man, abducts a beautiful and rich 18 year old heiress as his wife. He is pardoned and their life together becomes one of extreme frustration for his wife. Nothing she can do will impact his actions and nothing she can say will penetrate his thoughts. This part of the film is very good and his elegant and caring wife is in many ways the moral compass or anchor for the film by which we can see the pain Wilmot brings to him and to others. His Nihilism is insightfully self centered and egotistical, which may be a subtle commentary on those who adopt this philosophy of existence and social order (or lack thereof). To some degree Wilmot acts as a spoiled child trying to find the limits of his own behavior. He writes an outlandish and obscene play for the court of Charles II and whereas Charles II could have inflicted great punishment on Wilmot, he doesn't and notes that he is condemning Wilmot to be Wilmot.Wilmot has around him artists of a wild streak who are his fair weather and back-stabbing literary companions. Into this group comes a handsome young 18 year old man who is drawn to this dark group and especially to John Wilmot. Gradually during the film you see that Wilmot is bi-sexual and this young man becomes a boy-toy who pays a tragic price for being a handsome moth circling a heartless flame.However it is Wilmot's relationship to a young ambitious actress that provides wonderful dialogue around the theme of artifice and reality as Wilmot becomes her acting coach. Samantha Morton plays actress Lizzy Barry, who becomes a great actress through her emotional encounters with John Wilmot. It is Wilmot's gift to cut to the quick whenever he sees vulnerability or false illusions, a skill that an acting coach could put to great use. He cuts through Lizzy's self protective veneer which she uses when acting to spear her pain and vulnerability. It is to her credit that she allows the veil to fall and for her vulnerability to emerge, and yet to have the strength of the artist to use this insight to apply to her art. As he gradually disintegrates and self destructs, she emerges triumphant through her self-control and burning ambition to succeed. He has chosen to mock success and she has chosen to embrace it. He sees worldly success as a joke at best and an illusion. She sees his cynicism as fruitless and self-defeating.The film is full of beautifully designed scenes such as the Earl and Countess having a portrait painted in her palatial home and the mad-house atmosphere of the London theater crowd.Wilmot's wild life catches up with him as the symptoms of syphilis begin to destroy his features and his nose begins to rot off. He loses control of his legs and must walk on crutches. In this sorry state he enters the house of Parliament and argues for the right for Charles II to name his brother, James, as the future king. Yet history tells us that James II was a disastrous king, forced to abdicate to his son-in-law and daughter, William and Mary. Maybe this support for the king in the eleventh hour was a last effort to instill chaos and create a legacy of confusion, something that Wilmot would have greatly enjoyed.

My goodness the opening scene had me hooked , Johnny ‘s deliverance was something special. In fact the whole film was from the acting to capturing the essence of 17th century England . I have to say my heart swung towards him in the latter part of the film. My wish if I ever formed a bucket list is to meet Johnny Depp and also on that list would be saying ,“wake up Hollywood” what’s Johnny have to do to get an Oscar . POTC, Black Mass, Edward Scissorhands, Finding Neverland, Alice in Wonderland , Donnie Brasco the list just goes on , my advice buy it rent whatever , just don’t miss out

It's not often I say that a film is outstanding. Most of the stuff people rave about strikes me as reasonably good, three star stuff.Mind you, that's Hollywood (but it wasn't just because this was a joint British/Australian production that I think it's so imp0ressive, honestly).Outstanding performances all round, but particularly from Johnny Depp as the debauched and melancholy Rochester.This isn't entirely historically accurate - for instance, Rochester knew his child by Elizabeth Barry, and even took her out of her custody at one point, and it wasn't his speech that had such an effect over the succession crises in the time of anti Cahtholic hysteria - but these deviations from the less dramatic truth made for good impact in the structure of the play.I liked the way the squalid side of life in Restoration England was brought out; too often, the mud and cruelty are swept under the carpet (there could have been more emphasis on the general poverty of the population n this, but after all, it is about a aristocrat).My main objection was the colouring; the theme was so tragic that really, the effect of muted colours was as superfluous as it was with the old BBC production of King Lear. I would have liked to see some gorgeous colours. Was the lack of brilliance supposed to reflect Rochester's viewpoint?

“The royal finger is beckoning me.” Alas, I cannot venture further with this quotation from the film, as Amazon would not print it!I saw this film at the cinema when it was first released in 2005 and decided to get the DVD, not because of Mr Depp’s performance as the Earl of Rochester, but rather for that of John Malkovich as Charles II; how perfect he is for the role! Funnily enough, Malkovich played the role of Rochester when the play (from which the film derives) was staged in the US.There are two main stories in this film: the relationship between Rochester and his king, and that between Rochester and the up-and-coming actress Elizabeth Barry (played by Samantha Morton). In both cases, Rochester – against his own reputation – eventually comes up with a positive outcome.Both the music and the make-up call out for especial mention. Indeed, the superb make-up often led me to wonder if I was watching Depp at all. Despite the impressive production design and some very good acting, there is nevertheless a certain hollowness within the whole project. This is, after all, a paean to a lush: Rochester is no hero, his is a wasted life.Having said that, I particularly enjoyed the serious and erudite commentary on the DVD by director Laurence Dunmore. As well as the usual – casting, location, camera angles – he is good on the background to the main characters in the film, and we learn some tricks, such as the opening direct prologue by Depp to the audience is there to seduce us.The occasional graininess to the film is due to Dunmore choosing natural candlelight, which had the double benefit of making the actors look sickly. What we do not learn is where the theatre scenes were shot, although it’s likely it was all done on a studio stage. Nevertheless, there are some impressive long crane shots in the theatre.Apart from the director’s commentary, my DVD has no other extras.

Tells the story of rollicking poet and earl, John Wilmot. It's a very bawdy tale, brilliantly brought to life by Johnny Depp and John Malkovich (as Charles II). A must see bodice ripper. The Seller is outstanding, item arrived within 48 hours of ordering.

"Allow me to be frank at the commencement" says a wonderfully plummy english voice as the film opens ... and frank it certainly is! Not one to watch with young kids around (no matter how "mature" you think they are) and certainly a film with which to keep an open mind.As the gorgeous voice carries on, you are both suprised by the extreme frankness of the monologue and the fact dawning upon you that the actor speaking these words is american. Mr Depp has you enthralled.If you have waded through previous reviews, then you will have got the gist of the story (17th century rich boy's downfall through sex, drugs and wild living). I just wanted to add my small voice to the many who say this is a must-see film. If you have a hang-up on american actors playing englishmen, put them to one side. The casting is superb; the use of natural or candlelight to shoot it inspired; and Michael Nyman's soundtrack sublime. This is the best feast for eyes and ears that I have experienced for a very, very long time.