Sunday, March 12, 2006
The Libertine
Cindy and I went out to the local movie house to see Johnny Depp's latest, 'The Libertine.' We are both fans of Mr. Depp, and the Idea of a film based on libertinism just sounded too good to miss. I read a few reviews that were only so-so, but we went and saw it anyway.
I believe the movie delivered, based on three characteristics. The remarkable attention to filthy detail that was invested in the setting, Johnny Depp's performance, and the few scenes whereby some hints of the libertine philosophy shown through.
In a way this movie was not a movie at all. Instead of telling a story or resolving some conflict, this is more of just a dreamlike peak into a lost world. Did people really have orgies in the fog wrapped parks of London? Did the King of England really season his royal statements with the word 'fucking?' Was all of England completely fixated on sex? In a way this was similar to the libertine philosophy of doing/saying whatever one desires without reservation or thought of consequences.
In another scene Rochester informs a character that 'Life is not a series of important nows, it is a long dribble of why-should-I's. The motive force for living and enjoying life seems to be dead in him.
The movie barely touches on the atheism of Libertinism, cutting short a deathbed scene that left the protagonist's position undefined. He makes references to a diety in a few examples of his flowery speech, but one cannot really infer much about his atheism; either what drives it or how the majority of society deals with it. Still the darkest of taboos.
In a way, the movie's rather unpleasant lesson on the fate of such a man becomes lost as a morality tale because he is so unique. Libertinism, as protrayed here, is a variety of depression or boredom with life that only the spoiled child of aristocracy can afford to indulge in. In fact, the movie and the Earl's life are only brought to the levels of debauchery that might hold our attention because he was even more rarely endowed. As the historical character and Johnny Depp's portrayal merge, we have a being who not only possess social rank - he also enjoys talent, frighteningly good looks, and the affections of Charles II. We cannot learn from the mistakes of the Libertine's over indulgences because we could not make such errors ourselves even if we wanted to. It is like watching a film about a tragic man who dies from some incredibly rare heriditary illness. It can't possibly happen to us, so identifying with the character can be difficult.
Finally, the movie does give us a glimpse of the lives of noblemen in the 1600's. In the area of setting, the film's right on. From the nastiness of the muddy streets and unpleasantness of a ride in a horse-drawn carraige, to the beating a servent with a cane or the surprising willingness for virtually every female character to barter for her slit; these images are repeated enough to become normative. Particularily the females, every one of them seemed to considered prostitution as their part-time job. This was the theatre, and the priviledges of the ruling class were plentiful.
All in all, the movie got me thinking and has eluded my capacity to neatly summarize. I guess that means it's art.
I believe the movie delivered, based on three characteristics. The remarkable attention to filthy detail that was invested in the setting, Johnny Depp's performance, and the few scenes whereby some hints of the libertine philosophy shown through.
In a way this movie was not a movie at all. Instead of telling a story or resolving some conflict, this is more of just a dreamlike peak into a lost world. Did people really have orgies in the fog wrapped parks of London? Did the King of England really season his royal statements with the word 'fucking?' Was all of England completely fixated on sex? In a way this was similar to the libertine philosophy of doing/saying whatever one desires without reservation or thought of consequences.
In another scene Rochester informs a character that 'Life is not a series of important nows, it is a long dribble of why-should-I's. The motive force for living and enjoying life seems to be dead in him.
The movie barely touches on the atheism of Libertinism, cutting short a deathbed scene that left the protagonist's position undefined. He makes references to a diety in a few examples of his flowery speech, but one cannot really infer much about his atheism; either what drives it or how the majority of society deals with it. Still the darkest of taboos.
In a way, the movie's rather unpleasant lesson on the fate of such a man becomes lost as a morality tale because he is so unique. Libertinism, as protrayed here, is a variety of depression or boredom with life that only the spoiled child of aristocracy can afford to indulge in. In fact, the movie and the Earl's life are only brought to the levels of debauchery that might hold our attention because he was even more rarely endowed. As the historical character and Johnny Depp's portrayal merge, we have a being who not only possess social rank - he also enjoys talent, frighteningly good looks, and the affections of Charles II. We cannot learn from the mistakes of the Libertine's over indulgences because we could not make such errors ourselves even if we wanted to. It is like watching a film about a tragic man who dies from some incredibly rare heriditary illness. It can't possibly happen to us, so identifying with the character can be difficult.
Finally, the movie does give us a glimpse of the lives of noblemen in the 1600's. In the area of setting, the film's right on. From the nastiness of the muddy streets and unpleasantness of a ride in a horse-drawn carraige, to the beating a servent with a cane or the surprising willingness for virtually every female character to barter for her slit; these images are repeated enough to become normative. Particularily the females, every one of them seemed to considered prostitution as their part-time job. This was the theatre, and the priviledges of the ruling class were plentiful.
All in all, the movie got me thinking and has eluded my capacity to neatly summarize. I guess that means it's art.
Comments:
<< Home
wait.. Depp is involved in orgies in this movie?? Hmmm... wonder if it will be at the $1.25 theater soon...
Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP » » »
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:29:00 AM
: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:29:00 AM<< Home
