The Libertine

If you really like Johnny Depp, you will probably like this movie. I am always amazed at his depth of acting ability and the diversity of his roles. This is a very "racy" movie which takes place in the 17th century. Depp plays John Wilmot who was a play-wright and poet who takes a beautiful young actress under his wing and develops her into a great actress. Of course, predictably, he falls in love with her. He is cast out of society when he scandalizes King Charles II (played by John Malkovich). Great acting and based on Wilmot's life.

the actors are good at telling a story, something I can't do.

SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS...but that doesn't mean he isn't spectacular in it. But the way he delivered many of his lines got to be annoying. I've decided that that was his idea of Wilmot as a most-of-the-time-halfway-to-drunk person. But he delivered his lines the same way in scenes where I wasn't sure Wilmot was supposed to be drunk. But at the end of the film, Wilmot claims to his wife that he has been drunk for most of the previous 5 years -- roughly about the span of time covered in the film -- sooooo, OK, he was drunk all the time and so slurred his words like that all the time. Fair enough.But I didn't come back to watch this time and again for Johnny, but to watch nearly everybody else in their parts. This is just about the best supporting cast I've ever seen. I already loved Rosamund Pike and Tom Hollander and knew they were both capable of excellent work and they absolutely live up to their talents. This is the only thing I've ever seen Samantha Morton do (except for watching "Max and Ruby" with my preschoolers; she was the original voice of Ruby) and she is SO breathtaking. I could watch her "Lizzie acting" scenes forever and never get tired of them. It made me feel sad that I can't actually go to a theater and SEE her play the roles her character was acting in the film. I wanted even more of her; there's just not enough of Lizzie in this film. And Johnny Vegas! Who knew??? He was fantastic as Charles Sackville and I will forever wonder what "the full wibbly-wobbly" is. ;-) And, of course, John Malkovich, like Pike and Hollander, is ALWAYS good and he is here SO good yet again. I barely recognized Kelly Reilly; it was too big a change from her Mary Morstan Watson or Caroline Bingley characters for me to even recognize her until about the 3rd time I saw it. Rupert Friend was fine; he had such a small part here that I didn't get much of an impression. He's got some amazing cheekbones, and he DID do an EXCELLENT dying scene.I don't think the prologue/epilogue does much for the film. I just don't see why the audience needs either one. We are charged with deciding whether or not we'll "like" John Wilmot, even though that's not something the audience needs to be reminded to do. It's jarring and doesn't add anything meaningful to the film. Perhaps it played better on stage; I wouldn't know.Did this film get the promotion it deserved when it came out and I just wasn't paying attention? Because I never heard of it until just a couple of years ago. Sandwiched in between the first 2 "Pirates" films maybe it just got lost in the kerfuffle.This is "R" for a very good reason. I normally don't pay much attention to a film's ratings, (it's not how I judge a film's merits) but in this case I would really recommend the kids under 17 (or at least under 12) not be awake or at home when you're watching. I kept wondering what they had to cut OUT to keep it from being NC-17! Because I'll bet there are even raunchier scenes that went under the guillotine in order to get that R.

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.

I think this is the number one movie that Johnny Depp has ever made . And I think it was either a sleeper or highly under rated as so few people know of this movie . I own the cd of this after seeing it ages ago when it first came out . The acting , casting , direction and story line are fabulous as well as the costuming . It has everything combined to make for a great movie . He has made some fabulous movies in his lifetime but I always come back to this one as my favorite. It is also nice to to see his face without a ton of makeup in this movie . He has the capacity to make so many classic remakes and he suits period movies so well. I wish he would do more of them . . My second choice would be Edward scissor hands, Gilbert grape .