Originally Posted by Karen 8th November 2005


We find Rochester rehearsing his newly commissioned piece, a pornographic representation of the court of Charles II, and every bit a satire of the King and his court. Another example of Rochester pushing that envelope.

Of course the King arrives early to see the rehearsal and words are exchanged. To say the least.

Were you surprised that it was Lizzie who warned the king? Had you thought it might be someone else? Who? Why?

Rochester knew what he was doing when he wrote this scathing play. He knew what the King would do. Why did he go forward with this? Did he just not care?

Remember everyone's opinion is welcome, and that's all we are looking for is your opinion. There is no right or wrong opinion, thought or idea. So, please don't be shy about joining in..everyone's welcome at JDR!

Hibblette


Actually to me it made sense that it was Lizzie. Her career for one. It could have been something that she never played down.

This is another fine example of Rochester pushing the limits.

Some of this has to do with the fact that Charles was not a prude and he was pretty much out there about things. He openly flaunted his mistresses. Heck Rochester was actually the official deflowerer of the Virgins that Charles wanted as mistresses.

So this was a push and he went too far.

Deppraved

well isn't THAT interesting!

Hibblette

It had to do with his charm and good looks.

But to tell you the truth I use to look at the portraits of Wilmot and think, "Good Looks"

Johnny is way more good looking then this guy-in my opinion.

Of course back then pasty faced was so "in".

Lufirel


Well it might have had to do with the style of portrait painting in fashion as well. I'm no expert on art history, but I do know that there were different artistic styles in favor at various periods of time.

I'm not surprised that it was Lizzy who informed the King either. Hibblette brings up an interesting point on the effect such a perfomance could have on her future career. She also might have wanted to protect Rochester as well, however. It was one thing that the king found out about the play and stopped it before it could ever be put on, but it probably would have been a different matter if the play had actually gotten performed. In other words I'm not sure Rochester would have gotten away with mere banishment.

Mairimaih


Yes, the tower again, if not more .. though of course in real life, it didn't happen that way, he didn't put on that play, I believe

Hibblette

So can I bring up the fact that from what I'm hearing he does in fact put the play on?

Or is that for a discussion in January?

Karen


He does put the play on in the film. We can discuss it now and then. Whatever you'd like.

Hibblette

At this point being a History person...

I'm wondering why they went the way of blatantly misrepresenting history.

He didn't actually put the play on and I'm thinking it's even questionable if he even tried to.

Anyone?

Mairimaih


From the little I know.. some historians question its Rochesters writing even, but I think its generally taken as his writing , and that it was a 'chamber play'.. only destined for private performance.. I am talking from vague memories of what I read about a year ago.. not in the open theatre..

I think they messed with history a bit to condense events of four or five years, to give a taste of the man.. This is a play of some reputation.. and it was considered outrageous and obscene for an age, its in print now, and I have got it and read it. I think They did this to show to the modern audiences, just how dangerous and plain rude he was considered for the last few centuries, if that meant 'staging ' history a little to fit aspects in because of the limited format they had, suppose it makes a sense to it, but then his real life was so extraodinary, I don't think they really needed to

Hibblette


I like the way the play is handled in the play.

That Barry did betray him. Honestly I think that did say volumes about her. That she was totally smitten by him but that she did do it for his own good and maybe even her own.

Mairimaih


It also keeps her the active figure, rather than the more passive one. reacting in the film, in the play, she acted, as in she betrayed him, in the film, it seems more to suggest he is so far down his course of self destruction and hatred of the society he was part of in Court, that he destroyed it, and left her.. that he is active , and she was passive, it also seems to hint his unfaithfulness to her with Downs, and as she is with him as he hides as Dr Bendo Jane, making her in a sense betrayed, not him.. a subtle change in tone