Welcome to JohnnyDeppReads! TRANSCENDENCE filming has begun! And it's almost Johnny's 50th birthday, Johnny's Angels is celebrating his birthday again, by supporting The Children's Hospice & Palliative Center with a birthday fundraiser. Please check the forum below for the link and how you can help wish Johnny a happy birthday! Registered members can see all new posts quickly and all areas of our community are open for all to see, you can also comment or share Depp news here on JDR! Why not register today! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:
JohnnyDeppReads - a place to discuss the news, books, plays, projects and materials relating to the works and interests of multi media artist Johnny Depp.
With respect to Mr. Depp we ask that no identifying images of his children be posted here.
Johnny Depp interview – we talk to "The Libertine"
He‘s one of Hollywood‘s biggest names and now he‘s starring as the scandelous 2nd Earl of Rochester in "The Libertine". We chat to Johnny Depp.
Johnny, thanks for taking the time to talk to us.
"Hey man, how are you?"
Can we start by asking you to tell us a bit about the 2nd Earl of Rochester?
"Oh yeah, John Wilmot. He was a contemporary of King Charles II, part of his court, at that heavy time of the Restoration. A beautiful poet – oft times written off as a satirist or a pornographer or a debauched madman – but a beautiful poet and someone who I think never really got a particularly fair shake through history."
You certainly seem to like playing real–life characters – this is the eighth time you‘ve done so. Is that something you specifically look for when considering scripts?
"Boy, I don‘t know. I have done it a few times. It depends you know on the person, on the character, on the historical figure. The weird thing is it kind of ups the stakes in the terms of your responsibility, because you want to do your best to serve their memory well."
Did you feel a certain connection with the Earl?
"Oh yeah, I‘ve felt a connection with all the characters I‘ve played, but doing the research and reading up and learning about John Wilmot gave me a beautiful opportunity to sort of educate myself. Yes he was to some degree a pornographer, yes he was to some degree debauched, yes he was to some degree a drunk – and yeah, he essentially killed him at the age of 33 by sex and liquor. But he was a very complicated man. He was a hyper–sensitive man who unfortunately self–medicated to a degree that ended up taking him out. And he was a great writer with a lot to offer; he wrote beautiful poems."
The role also gives you the chance to use some pretty industrial language too.
"(laughs) Yeah, industrial. That‘s a pretty good term for it."
The movie was filmed all over the UK. You seem to have spent quite a bit of time over here recently and you got to film in some rather historic locations. Was that enjoyable?
"Oh, it was incredible. Every day was like an incredible history lesson. You‘re in the kitchen at Blenheim Palace and it‘s like ‘What?‘ It‘s unbelievable."
Towards the end of the film you‘re pretty much buried beneath a layer of make–up. Do you find this a helpful tool as an actor?
"Very helpful, just as every sort of angle – in terms of the work – is helpful. The sets, being surrounded by period sets, and being wrapped up, bound up in period costume all adds to achieving the goal of finding that guy, as does the make–up. And luckily I‘ve got to work this amazing make–up girl Patty York who I‘ve done a great deal of movies with over the years. It was a real challenge in terms of taking Rochester through those various stages of disease and I think she did a beautiful job."
The film certainly illustrates that 17th Century England was a very violent and dirty place. How do you think you would have coped living back then?
"Oh man, you go back and you read Pepys Diaries and things like that and it‘s unbelievable how people lived. No one drank water; you couldn‘t drink water ‘cos it was contaminated, so you drank beer at breakfast! Maybe for a little while I‘d have done alright, but it might have gone underneath me a little too much. But I think I would have done better in the Restoration than I would have done under Cromwell."
We can‘t pass up the chance to ask you how work is going on the "Pirates Of The Caribbean" sequels…
"It‘s going beautifully. It has all the right sort of elements involved. It‘s got all the right levels of action, fun, absurdity, irreverence and humour. I think we‘ve taken it to a really nice place. It doesn‘t feel like a sequel at all, it feels just like another angle on the movie and those people. So yeah, it‘s really going well."
Does the third movie have a name yet?
"I don‘t know. I don‘t even know what the second film‘s name is yet, I just call them "Pirates 2" and "3"."
It‘s called "Pirates Of the Caribbean: Dead Man‘s Chest".
"Ah good, well thanks for telling me!"
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
I saw the film this morning at 11.15am, and I'm still reeling from it. WOW! I'll try to be coherent, but no guarantees, so please bear with me. I promise not to put in any spoilers, but I will mention a couple of things that have already been discussed in other reports.
Firstly, we have been hearing about how the film is grainy and dark, and that is true. BUT, it is also perfect!! You feel like you are in the filthy, violent, rat infested London of the 17th Century, and it sets a perfect backdrop to the whole story. I really think that if it had been filmed lighter, you wouldn't have got that effect, despite the mud.
I'll get my complaints out of the way first.
During the speech in the Lords, the picture goes fuzzy, and I went instantly from being fully immersed in the speech, to noticing the fuzziness. It was frustrating to say the least, as it ruined that crucial part of the film for me. A great shame, because, as many others have also said, that speech is so fantastically spoken by Johnny.
The other annoyance may well just be a personal thing. Remember how, in Finding Neverland, the camera circles around the theatre? Well, that sort of camera work always makes me feel sickly, and they do it twice in The Libertine. I had to look away.
OK, now for the good bits
EVERYTHING ELSE!!! I loved it!!
Every part was acted brilliantly. I was surprised by the amount of humour, I was distraught in one part, cried at the end, and astounded at Johnnys performance. It has to be seen to be believed. I know we are all aware that he is a fabulous actor, but he performs this role in such a way that you believe he really is Wilmot. I'm sorry, I don't have the words to describe his acting in this, they would all be understatements.
I have to agree with everybody else who has reported on this film. The scene in the House of Lords is fabulous, and I am doubly impressed since Mr Jeffreys informed us that Johnny did the whole thing in one take....which is probably the reason for the fuzzy image occassionally. And the fight with his wife is devastating, I didn't cry in that part, but possibly only because I was being battered with several emotions at the same time.
I can't remember the actresses name, but the woman who played Jane was brilliant. I would have been happy to see more of her and her interaction with Wilmot.
Yes there is some sex, but not as much as I expected. Yes, the language is a little ripe, but I didn't find it at all shocking. BUT, the emotions that you get slammed with are sometimes very disturbing. I felt shellshocked when I left the cinema. SO, be prepared.
As for 'Do you like me know?'....good question. If I am going to be honest, I was actually left with a feeling of pity for him, which is something the real John Wilmot would have hated, but that is the truth. As for liking or disliking him, I am really not sure. I will have to watch it again before I decide on that one.
I really can't tell you any more without giving spoilers. But this is a must see on the big screen, so if you get the chance, don't let it slip by you.
There were only six of us in the cinema...well, it was early. Apart from myself, there was a couple who looked in their thirties, a couple who looked in their late sixties and an old woman who could have been ninety. I was worried how the older people would take it, but there wasn't a single tut, huff or any other sound of disgust, so that was a good thing
The younger man laughed aloud at the funny bits, and so did I, but everybody else kept quiet. Nobody said anything as they were leaving, but I think that was because they were as stunned by what they had seen as I was.
Anne x who needs a large drink right now!
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
OK, I wrote my report after seeing The Libertine on Friday, and was as truthful as I could possibly be, but I am a Johnny fan, and although I admit to not liking all his films, I do like all his characters, so I may be just a tiny bit prejudice. So today, I took somebody with me who has seen a few of Johnnys films, and liked them, but can not be classed as a fan. She is an 18 year old drama student, who has been singing and acting in local plays for several years. She saw the Trailer, I explained the basics ie. based in the 17th century about a true person, but didn't discuss my views on the film, so that I would know that anything she said would be uninfluenced by me.
Helens Report
I was totally engrossed from start to finish. I loved the whole look of the film, the darkness, the grainy look and even the wobbly camera. It all fitted so beautifully into the feeling of being in the 1600s.
Johnnys English accent was perfect, and his acting was exceptional. I enjoyed everybodies performances, the casting was unexpected in some cases, but it worked.
Anne asked me for my two favourite scenes. The first was the speech in the House of Lords. I was amazed to learn later that it had been filmed in one take. Truly remarkable. My second was the last line in the film, repeated four times, in four different ways. Very poignant.
I haven't read the play, so although I understood the film, I did have some questions. For instances, why did Wilmot appear to dislike the king so much, and why was he hateful towards his mother? I was inquisitive, but the average film goer may just enjoy the film without questioning it.
I thought from the opening monologue that I would be sure to like Wilmot, but by the end, I just couldn't decide. He was angry and cruel, but dreadfully unhappy too. My main feeling for him was pity. I didn't dislike him, but I didn't truly like him either.
I will be recommending the film to all the other drama students and staff at the college. I am sure they would appreciate it as much as I do.
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
We take our Johnny Depp pretty seriously around here so when saucy minx Karen informed us about a Q & A she recently conducted with the screenwiter for Depp's upcoming THE LIBERTINE, Stephen Jeffreys, you bet your sweet tush we high-tailed it over to Karen's site to see what the scribe had to say. If you're interested in all things Depp and LIBERTINE then this is a must-read. However, as that fiesty hellion Karen pointed out to us, "there are some SERIOUS PLOT SPOILERS, so consider yourself warned". Part of the interview is below. Click on Depp's furrowed brow for the rest. THE LIBERTINE opens November 25th in limited release and January 13th in wide release.
1) THE LIBERTINE was first published and performed a bit over ten years ago. Did you ever see the property one day being turned into a film? And what was it like adapting your own play into a screen play?
I hadn’t thought about the play being a film until John Malkovich sidled up to me in the second week of rehearsals in Chicago and said “Do you want to make a movie out of this ?” It’s the sort of question which doesn’t require an answer, although if I’d known it would take almost ten years from that moment to get the film onto the screen I might have said no. Every single phase of the film seems to have been dogged by ill luck. We lost Johnny a couple of times and financial backers came and went. Worst of all, on the very day that we had the read through of the script, the UK government changed its laws on tax refunds for film financing. It looked to me as though we were dead in the water, just a few hours after hearing Johnny Depp reading my lines. Fortunately Malkovich, in his producer role, pulled some strings and we rescheduled to the Isle of Man which has different tax laws. The Isle of Man film people were incredibly responsive and helpful.
When you adapt a play into a screenplay you have to go back to what made you want to write the play in the first place and try to put the play out of your mind. But with a biographical subject, you are, to a certain extent, stuck with the key events in the life of the person you’re writing about and it’s hard to re-write them without being aware of what you did before. So I went through a process of trying to shed material and then finding it working its way back in.
2) Since you began the play with the "you will not like me" admonition, after all the research you did on Rochester, did you end up liking Rochester?
I was interested to read your discussion on the website about these lines. I’d been researching Rochester for a few months and working on the shape of the play and it suddenly occurred to me that audiences would be repelled by him and find him an unsympathetic companion for a journey through a play. So I decided on a strategy: I figured that if I told the audience they wouldn’t like him, then they would. Audiences don’t do what they’re told. They listen to Rochester giving them that line and say to themselves “Hell, I’m not going along with that.” That was the starting point. Then I realised I could keep this idea in play and bring it back, on (I hope) a deeper level at the end.
Of all the books I read on Rochester, the most useful was Jeremy Lamb’s book SO IDLE A ROGUE. I met Jeremy (who died around three years ago and was a complete Rochester fanatic) and talked with him about the Earl. Jeremy was a recovering alcoholic who saw Rochester’s behaviour as completely conditioned by his relationship with drink. Broadly I followed this line and recommended the book to Johnny. When I visited him in his trailer on set, the only object on his table was Jeremy’s book, worn through with constant re-reading. I bring this up in answer to your question because there are huge problems in ‘liking’ alcoholics. You can love them, but there are times when they will be very hard going indeed: a sudden mood swing will bring in its wake very unattractive and obnoxious behaviour. So with Rochester, I would have appreciated his company when he was being witty, but when he turned a corner and became dangerous I would want to be somewhere else. But you can’t pick and choose with alcoholics: you have to take the rough with the smooth.
Once again, the rest of the interview is over HERE.
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
In terms of movie-going, there are many things to be thankful for and high on my list is the existence of Johnny Depp: a gorgeous dude with precise, chiseled features who, despite the mainstream looks, has consistently chosen leftfield roles -- from the freakish ("Edward Scissorhands") to the lop-sided ("Ed Wood") to the difficult/nuanced ("Dead Man") to the downright campy ("Pirates of the Caribbean").
These roles have defined his career and he's matured into an actor who with a single glance or a flexing of his fingers, can change the entire ambience of the screen into something that is at once, more textured, meaningful, infinitely suggestive. To watch a Johnny Depp film is to understand his character (and, by implication, the story) more profoundly. It's to experience an impact on the senses that few of his contemporaries can deliver.
And now "The Libertine" shows him at his most snarky and audacious; the film opens with a monologue in which he ensnares the camera with a shifty gaze to assure us: "You will not like me."
Depp is John Willmot, second earl of Rochester, a brilliant but despicable rogue who drank and generally debauched himself to death at the age of 33 and in the process managed to offend most of the aristocracy of London during the Restoration. The earl had been a gallant soldier during his youth and helped King Charles II reclaim the throne from Oliver Cromwell, but from his late 20s onward, he repeatedly fell out of favor by authoring obscene verse that poked scathing, ribald fun at the crown. The movie suggests utter boredom and self-loathing drove the earl to depravity, and here Depp's performance suggests that the earl was how he was because he could be no other way.
Swilling drink, fondling whores and spewing obscenities came as naturally to him as breathing. In one scene he's riding in a carriage with his wife (Rosamund Pike) and he snakes his hand in between her legs. She sighs with rapture and then falls asleep -- he alights from the vehicle, telling the driver to take her home.
Then, with a gesture so simple and natural (almost like blowing his nose into a hankie) he brings his fingers up to his face, sniffs, smiles and walks across the muddy street and into an alley.
The alley street, by the way, is all muck and filth, with wooden planks placed down the middle that made it barely possible to navigate the quarter. But clearly the earl relished the stench, noise and bustle of backstreet London and in a short while he has joined his friends in a riotous drinking session, including poet George Etheredge (Tom Hollander) and an ardent protege Billy Downs (Rupert Blend). The earl warns Billy in an aside to stay away from them if he valued his life -- "You will die young," he says, perhaps in premonition of his own impending doom. And then the gravity is gone and The Earl goes back to his insidiously frivolous self, cavorting with his favorite whores and attending the theater where he spies the talents of actress Elizabeth Barry (a disciplined and unobtrusive Samantha Morton). She turns out to be the smartest and therefore most intriguing woman he has met; he offers to tutor her in her craft and reluctantly, she agrees. "Knowing your reputation, I thought you may have wanted to tutor me in something else," she says to him. "I have, I hope, many reputations," is his reply.
Their love affair blossoms, and then fades as the earl is blacklisted by the king (John Malkovich) and falls prey to venereal diseases that corrode his limbs and destroy his nose. The latter half of the film is agonizing to see as the earl sinks into screaming pain (he bathes in a tub of melted mercury that was deemed a cure for syphilis) and terrible physical decay, but he remains staunchly himself. Even as he appears in public with a silver "nose" strung across his face in lieu of the real thing, he persists in talking dirty, glugging wine and pissing off anyone who comes within range, including his uptight and long-suffering mother (Francesca Annes, who spends the entire film with her lips in a grim purse).
"The Libertine" belongs mostly to Johnny Depp, but it's also director Laurence Dunmore's eye for period detail and skill in re-enacting the overripe, sweaty fervor of 1660's London that define the film's strange, tangy taste. Drenched in hellish, dark tones and dedicated to authenticity down to the obscure -- rusty pegs on a pub wall -- the overall tone recalls the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch.
Dunmore is led astray, however, during the scenes that laud illicit sex and debauchery as a wild, fantastical adventure. While the earl reveled in sex, he clearly didn't see it as some exotic, other-world pleasure that promised to turn his life into a nether-dream. For the life of the earl was a nether-dream to begin with, and sex a constant but mere appendage -- one that rarely assuaged his colossal boredom.
Yes, I have the lyrics to "Rochester's Farewell". I couldn't understand all the words either so I emailed Michael Nyman at his website and a very kind lady typed the lyrics out and emailed them back to me. So, here they are:
If, underneath death's cold wing, his restless sould should fly, away. Beyond the grasp of fools t'would meet with the bliss they deny. So stand for him, kneel for him As he lies low in kneaded clay. Pray for him who prayed too late that he might shine on judgment day.
Kyrie Eleison. Christe Eleison. Kyrie Eleison. Christe Eleison. O Domine Deus dona nobis pacem. O Domine Deus dona nobis pacem.
Once you see the words, the lyrics are really clear.
Then Karen added: Thanks Gwennie for sharing this with us
...and the English translation of the Latin is
Kyrie Eleison. Christe Eleison. Kyrie Eleison. Christe Eleison. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy,
O Domine Deus dona nobis pacem. O Domine Deus dona nobis pacem.
O Lord God grant us peace. O Lord God grant us peace.
All those years with nuns taught me something...oh Sister Gemma would be proud!
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
Johnny Depp's 'Libertine' lives up to promises By Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
Rosamund Pike plays Elizabeth Malet, and Johnny Depp is her husband, the second Earl of Rochester, in "The Libertine."
"THE LIBERTINE"
Directed by Laurence Dunmore. Starring Johnny Depp, Samantha Morton, John Malkovich, Rosamund Pike, Tom Hollander, and Johnny Vegas. Running time: 114 minutes. Classified: R (for strong sexuality including dialogue, violence and language). "You will not like me," the Earl of Rochester assures us, staring fiercely out of darkness. "You will not like me now, and you will like me a good deal less as we go on." These are the opening words of Stephen Jeffreys' play "The Libertine," where in Scene 2 we find Rochester in conversation with the actress Elizabeth Barry: "In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. The stupid will like you in five years' time, the envious never." So there's our choice: stupid, or envious. I think I would choose stupid. To be envious of John Wilmot, the second Earl of Rochester (1647-1680), would be difficult; he died at 33 of venereal diseases that ate away his nose, so that he attended Parliament wearing a silver replacement. One of those who did like Rochester was his king, Charles II, restored to the throne after the death of Cromwell. One of Charles' first acts was to allow women back on the English stage, which is why Elizabeth Barry can be an actress in the first place, although one gathers that if her role had been played by a boy, the second earl might have been no less interested. "The Libertine," a film by Laurence Dunmore, is based on Jeffreys' play, which opened in 1994 at the Royal Court in London and was brought to Chicago's Steppenwolf Theater with John Malkovich as Rochester. Here Malkovich plays Charles, and Rochester is played by Johnny Depp as the kind of decaying rogue and licentious voluptuary who reaches such an alarming state that it is not a matter of liking or disliking him, but hoping not to catch something from him. Depp has an affection for outrageous roles, and Rochester is not as far removed as you might imagine from Jack Sparrow, the hero of "The Pirates of the Caribbean," especially in personal hygiene and dental care. Rochester was in youth a hero of British naval engagements, a gifted and mercurial man, whose father had helped protect young Charles during the years of his exile. Now Charles has returned, and is amused by Rochester's audacity and impudence: The earl composes poetry of startling obscenity, writes reckless satires, is not afraid to lampoon the king to his face. Sometimes Charles banishes Rochester to the country, but then he relents and invites him back to London, because for all his sins the earl is one of the smartest and most entertaining men of his time: good value for money. All Charles asks is that Rochester keep the lid on, cool it a little. Alas, discretion does not come easily to Rochester. The film doesn't follow the earl's rise and fall so much as his fall and fall. As a sex addict, he equals Casanova in willingness: "Now, ladies, an announcement," Depp's character says in his opening monologue. "I am up for it. All the time." He is up for gentlemen as well, although the movie is not as interested in that side of his activities. We see him offering Elizabeth Barry (Samantha Morton) lessons on acting, and then falling in love with her; she is the smartest woman he has ever met, although that must be tempered with the observation that a smart woman would stay away from him. He welcomes his good wife, Elizabeth Malet (Rosamund Pike), when she comes up from the country, yet does not curtail his visits to the fleshpots and bordellos. She has a touching scene observing that when he returns after an evening with the harlots, she might not mind so much if he were happy — but no, he is sad, and will complain to her, and wish that he had been with her. These sentiments are not as consoling as he imagines. Rochester crawls in and out of countless embraces, engages in an orgy of remarkable ingenuity, and writes, produces and performs in a play that Charles commissions for the entertainment of the French king. This play is so outrageous that the Kings Are Not Amused, as we say in capital letters. The movie is pretty much downhill after that, but of course it is. There is no way the story can end happily, as Rochester descends into wine, women and the pox. There comes a time when a comely wench no longer makes his eye sparkle, and the second earl is no longer up for it all the time. Watching the earl conquer one erotic target after another, I was reminded of a lecture I once attended by the authors of "The 60-Minute Orgasm." An attentive older woman in the front row asked, "Do you have anything at around five minutes?" I admire Depp's performance, which plays fair with his opening comment and contains nothing that would inspire us to like him. I was engaged by the patience of Charles II, played by Malkovich as a man smart enough to prefer amusement to flattery; when he cautions Rochester to dial down, it isn't that he's personally offended, but that it's a bad idea for the king to be seen giving license to offense. Samantha Morton's character bewitches Rochester by out-thinking him, which he finds more intriguing than any sexual favor. And Rosamund Pike, as Rochester's wife, is touching as a woman who will put up with almost anything, but not, finally, with everything. Libertines are not built for third acts. No self-respecting libertine lives that long. Johnny Depp finds sadness in the earl's descent, and a desire to be loved even as he makes himself unlovable. What a brave actor Depp is, to take on a role like this. Still, at the screenplay stage, "The Libertine" might have seemed a safer bet than "The Pirates of the Caribbean," a movie studio executives reportedly thought was unreleasable. In both cases, Depp accepts the character and all of its baggage, and works without a net. He is capable of subtle nuances, but the pirate and the earl are not, and Depp gamely follows them into wretched excess. You will not like the second Earl of Rochester. But you will not be able to take your eyes from him. Having made his bed, he does not hesitate to sleep in it.
Anne x
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
Straight from England, Dunmore speaks with Intermission
By Silvia Sanchez Friday, March 10, 2006 last updated March 10, 2006 12:55 AM
Intermission catches Laurence Dunmore in England (i.e. imagine this in a British accent) on the cellular and asked him about his first film.
Intermission: How was your first directing experience?
Laurence Dunmore: It was a wonderful experience, not without blood, sweat and tear;, but one I wouldn’t trade for anything. I think conceiving this movie is somewhat akin to being a dad, which is my other pursuit that I am in love with. It was made incredible by the factor of having the trust and respect of some of the most incredible cast and crew to work with. That certainly empowered me to realize my vision. It allowed me to make something that transported everyone to another world which was mid-17th century England and the likes of John Wilmot.
INT: Do you have any funny anecdotes about the filming experience?
LD: Oh gee, that’s a tough one. Yes there are many funny anecdotes, but it’s actually remembering them. I remember it far more for the good humor of everybody. I mean in particular how the likes of Johnny [Depp], Samantha [Morton] and John [Malkovich] kind of inspired the other cast and crew with their, shall we say, good humor and good nature. I mean, Johnny was always one for being able to step into the role and step out of it in a way that sort of enabled him to finish the filming with the crew sort of cracked up with laughter — even if we had just filmed something sad a couple minutes earlier. It was full of a lot of emotion in that way, I mean there was one particular scene, not necessarily a funny anecdote, where he goes back home and he’s dying and he has an argument with his wife and it’s a very emotional scene where he’s literally falling apart in front of her and very angry and very depressed and she likewise is pleading for him to just be himself and to live and to stop destroying himself in that way. At the end of it, Johnny leaned over — having given this incredible performance and tapped me on the side. I was operating the camera and he just said, “Breathe” because I’d literally been holding my breath for the whole take. Another one with him doing the dance in the playhouse with Samantha Morton, I literally caught fire because I hit the chandelier with the camera, and to have Johnny and Samantha pull me out of the fire was an interesting experience, shall we say.
INT: While filming “Pirates of the Caribbean,” Johnny Depp wanted gold caps on his teeth, so for leverage with the directors, he put more caps on his teeth than he wanted. Did he pull any stunts like that with you?
LD: No he didn’t. The character of Rochester was one we had a very collaborative process on. I mean there was no need for anybody to be doing anything other than the vision that we had for the character and the film as a whole. I think we had decided with Peter Owen, who designed the makeup and the character’s deterioration for the latter half of the film, on a very specific timeline and structure and knowledge of what we were going to do in terms of Johnny’s physical appearance. Obviously, Johnny enjoyed and relished the opportunity not to be restricted by having to keep a beautiful face and a beautiful body. But it was more because of the character and the physical deterioration of that character that he relished the part more than the sensational element of doing something to himself just to create something.
INT: Johnny Depp said he had wanted to change people’s impression of John Wilmot. Do you think he achieved it?
LD: I think his performance is one that has a profound effect on people one way or another. It elevates Wilmot into a position of entering into the minds and thoughts of people. We wanted to do it for all kinds of reasons. One, we felt, because of Rochester and his life, a sense of modernity. In so many ways, aspects of his life and writing, and the betrayal of his talents relate to contemporary lives. So, I think he portrayed a very complex and deep character that had a surface that could be smelled and disliked, seen and disliked, but had a depth within him that really only Johnny, in my mind, could bring to that character. He allowed for the question of the possibility of love and redemption. I hope Rochester is at least now a more visible character and the recognized character that he deserved to be. He was one of the most incredible writers of his time and indeed anytime.
INT: How do you think the American public will react to film?
LD: That I couldn’t say. I’d say that like any public, they will judge it on the basis of the film. And, I hope it will be viewed within the context of the period, the man’s life and the story that we’re trying to tell. I want people to walk through a couple of years of mid 17th century English history. It’s the story of a man and his inner fight, the relationships between him and the people around him and the betrayal of his own abilities and talents. So it really depends, if it’s taken on a sensational level, it will have more impact. If it’s taken on the emotional, possibly sexual level, then it will have another.
INT: You keep mentioning the betrayal of his talents, could you explain that a little bit more?
LD: Well Rochester was a man who in my mind had a genius for his art and a passion for life. He was somebody who in the reality of his output and the nature of his work, often didn’t realize to leave for enough himself, the writer, the full extent of his abilities. I think he didn’t tie his work to cutting satire and ridicule of society — especially the court of Charles II. His most beautiful work is enclosed in his poetry and letters to his wife and his friends. It’s a little bit like seeing somebody with such incredible ability not fully realizing it. It’s hard for us — not being able to benefit from his full potential.
INT: Did you watch the play when John Malkovich was in it?
LD: I didn’t, I knew of Rochester at that time but I didn’t know about the play until John and I worked together and he told me about the play.
INT: Since he was in the play, did he help you in the development of John Wilmot’s character?
LD: No because luckily for me, back in its early days Johnny had seen the play and he knew of Rochester. One of the things I had to bring to the film was that I wasn’t encumbered with a preconception of what had come before. Neither was Johnny because when John asked him to originally be in the film and asked him if he could play the character he said, “Yes, but not like you did it.” Because they both have such tremendous presence and power, their interpretation of the role is so different. I think John’s contribution to the film was very much as someone who trusted and believed in the vision that I — and the rest of the crew — had. He contributed as much as he wanted. It was never an imposition of his thoughts or ideas on the film. He had tried for years to make the film himself and had decided when we met that he would pass that role on. I benefited from his experience and his contribution immensely but it wasn’t one that was interfering.
INT: How did you and John Malkovich meet?
LD: We worked together on a commercial about 5 years ago. We did a little film for a train company that runs between London and Paris and we worked together for a couple of days and we got on very well. I obviously let it slip that I was desperately looking to one day be moving away from commercials and into films and without forcing the point too much, said to John that I’d only unlock the dressing room door when he gave me a script, which he did. He left after we worked together and it was a wonderful experience — especially for me, because working with an actor of his caliber and abilities is kind of a dream for a director, especially one used to working with inanimate objects. So to have that sort of opportunity afforded me by working with John and then for him come through with a couple of scripts. It was one of those moments where you suddenly think, “Okay maybe this dream that I’d had could become a reality. If he thinks I can do it, maybe I can.” It was a very daunting project — “The Libertine” — because it was not an easy film. It was still a play when I read it, so it was something that had to develop into being a film. It was a complex film, it was a film with many of the things that I haven’t had the opportunity to do. I mean, work on an in-depth story, with characters, emotions and performance.
INT: Was working on a period piece like that different than you’d envisioned?
LD: I wouldn’t say a lot different, I mean each day brought along its own surprises and different experiences. When you spend so much time prepping a film and dreaming it and getting to that point where you first put the camera on your shoulder and stand knee deep in mud and smell the air and choke on the smoke, you’ve kind of been there so many times in dreams. The biggest difference I guess is the thrill that you get when you hear the film running through the camera and you see actors delivering the lines in costume and delivering the character. You get taken to a place where even dreams pale into insignificance because you’re transported into a whole other world.
INT: So is this something that you’d like to continue doing then?
LD: I would like to, yes — if anybody’s willing to give me another go. I will continue to make select films and I hope that they will be as varied as they are similar.
INT: Do you think you’ll get to work with Johnny Depp or John Malkovich again?
LD: I would personally pay a lot of money to work with either again and even give various limbs. They both brought an awful lot and I’m sure that we’ll all work again either separately or together on various projects.
INT: I really liked Rosamund Pike’s portrayal of John’s wife. Did you have a favorite personality like that?
LD: It’s interesting because a lot of the actors were kind of first choice or first thoughts of either Mary Selway who cast the film, or myself. Rosamund was someone who I was particularly single-minded on because I believed, in the little that I’d seen of her which included a play that she was doing at the time, that there was something within her that naturally had the access to the character that I was looking for. I think that Rosamund really demonstrated that enormous talent and ability that she has. She was not afraid to put up in front of the likes of Johnny Depp, who, however warm and empowering he is with his contribution, is still a force that is quite something to be around and be put with. For me as a director and for anybody else, he has this incredible intensity and charisma, which carries or aids this talent that he has.
INT: So do you have any future work planned?
LD: I have a couple of projects that I’m working on at the moment one of which is an adaptation of this book from the 1950s by J.P. Dunleavy called “The Gingerman,” which will hopefully happen in the next couple of years. I am also working on a film based on the book by Jerry Stahl called “I, Fatty” about Roscoe Arbuckle.
INT: Well, thank you very much for your time.
LD: My pleasure and thank you.
INT: Good luck with your projects and say hello to Johnny Depp for me if you get the chance.
LD: Haha. I will.
Anne x
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
REVIEW Movie Review: The Libertine Written by Chris Beaumont Published March 13, 2006
"You will not like me now, and you will like me a good deal less as we go on."
The Libertine was made back in 2004, but only now is it seeing the big screen. Why it has taken so long to get there? I don't know. All I can really say, is that I am glad it did. It moves with a self-assured swagger, a confidence that borders on egotism. A slow, deliberate pace sets the stage for this tale of depravity and the downward spiral that was the fate of its subject.
The movie is an entertaining look into the life and times of 2nd Earl of Rochester, John Wilmot, who was known for being friends with King Charles II, as much as for his womanizing and drinking, and to another extent, his writing. His sad life and times are captured in a story that is at turns tragic and comic.
Johnny Depp stars as Wilmot, delivering another in a long line of excellent performances. He brings such a nuanced performance with a full range of emotions to a character who has rather reprehensible proclivities that you can at times find yourself on the precipice of actually caring for him. Those moments don't last long as he inevitably does something to bring the reality of his nature crashing back into your perceptions.
Wilmot, a man possessing an incredible intelligence, is drawn to the darker impulses of life. Rather than resist, he seeks them out, using them as a focused outlet for his creativity.He wrote perverse prose and promiscuous plays, using these baser elements to criticize society and the monarchy. The Libertine follows the rise and fall, and rise and fall of his creativity and personal life.
Recently returned from exile in the country, Wilmot goes with his wife to London, where he quickly falls into to his old ways of drinking with his fellow writers and spending many a night at the bordellos. Soon enough, however, two things come up which have a profound affect on his future.
First, he is charged with writing a play for the King, to be put on while entertaining the visiting French royalty. The other is the entrance of an actress, Elizabeth Barry, who is booed off the stage during a performance. Wilmot sees her as an opportunity and he vows to teach her to be a better actress. She seems to be a possible path of redemption, as he recognizes something in her and is not seeking outright sexual favors, as he does of other women. This is, of course, at the expense of his wife.
The combination of the play and the actress work, however, to assist his decline into drink and sexual depravity. He writes a play that acts as much as a celebration of carnal pursuits as it does an indictment of the monarchy. This doesn't go over well with King Charles II, who halts the performance and sends Wilmot into exile, once again. Meanwhile, his fascination with Elizabeth incites his feelings to a state of love. However, she was just using him to get ahead, and decides that it is time to distance herself from his influence. As he goes into exile he is stricken by venereal disease which destroys his body and ultimately leads to his downfall, at the ripe old age of 33.
The Libertine is dirty. I'm not referring to the content, although that is an apt description of a good portion. I am speaking of the movie itself. Mud and dirt abound in the images slung at the screen. This is not really a color movie, as everything is in shades of brown. Add to that monochromatic palette, a grainy film texture and you get an interesting looking film that doesn't look like everything else at the local cineplex.
The look sort of reminded my of Guy Maddin's work, where he tries to emulate past periods (see The Saddest Music in the World, which emulates films of the silent era). Director Laurence Dunmore and cinematographer Alexander Melman's work here is not quite that extreme, but it is reminiscent of that look.
The screenplay was written by Stephen Jeffreys, based on his play. It was originally brought to life in London back in 1994, before making its way to the theaters in Chicago. It was in Chicago where the lead was played by John Malkovich, who moves to the role of the King in the theatrical production. He has written a very self-assured screenplay, allowing the attitudes of his characters to flow unrestrained. It may not be the most well-rounded writing, but it has an attitude that rips through all pretense to get to the core of those he writes about in a script that is at times tragically dramatic and laugh out loud funny. He has found a perfect balance making you feel for the characters while making you laugh out loud at some of the wild antics that are portrayed. Of course, Johnny Depp's masterful timing doesn't hurt the proceedings.
The cast does an excellent job at creating interesting characters that you want to watch. Leading the cast is the brilliant Johnny Depp, who puts on an absolute acting clinic. He is incredible to watch as he plies his trade before us. The expressions, the little nuances, each facial tic all combining to create a character that goes beyond just acting, it is something to behold. Despite all of this, Depp is a generous actor, simultaneously commanding your attention yet equally adept at being generous with co-stars. His interplay with Samantha Morton's Elizabeth Barry is great. Their exchanges become more and more pointed as her confidence grows and his emotions change. Morton is fantastic, making her character grow and change. John Malkovich is, well, John Malkovich as the King of England. Rounding out our main characters is Rosamund Pike as Wilmot's wife, a woman who is willing to deal with her husband's eccentricities, but she can only go so far.
Bottomline. An intriguing film, not to all tastes, as proven by the walkouts during my screening. Depp gives a fascinating performance, and proves his willingness to un-glamorize himself as the character deteriorates from his disease riddled body. More than that, as much as you wanted to dislike the character, he was alluring, making this movie a must-see. If for nothing other than the lead performance, it is worth the time, but there is a lot to like here.
Recommended.
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
Movies Features Questions and Answers: John Malkovich By Angela Dawson Jan 13, 2006, 12:16 GMT
A leading figure of both stage and screen, John Malkovich has intrigued audiences for more than two decades.
His memorable film performances include 'Dangerous Liaisons,' 'Being John Malkovich' and last year`s 'The Hitchhiker`s Guide to the Galaxy.' He is also a two-time Oscar nominee for 'Places in the Heart' and 'In the Line of Fire.'
In 1996, Malkovich starred onstage as John Wilmot, the second Earl of Rochester, in 'The Libertine' at Chicago`s Steppenwolf Theatre. At his suggestion, playwright Stephen Jeffreys adapted the work into a screenplay. Now, a decade later, the film is hitting screens with Johnny Depp in the title role of Rochester, the Restoration-era party boy.
The historical drama probes the connections between Rochester`s sensually charged, morally corrupt era and our own times. Rochester`s downfall comes when he finds himself in love (for the first time) with Elizabeth (Samantha Morton), an unobtainable actress whose career he has fostered.
Malkovich, 52, encouraged Depp to get on board and tapped commercial director Laurence Dunmore to direct the film as his feature debut. The soft-spoken actor/producer gladly slipped into a supporting capacity on-screen as Rochester`s powerful, fun-loving and forgiving friend, King Charles II.
Based near Boston after living in France for several years, Malkovich is busy working on a wide range of theater and movie projects through his Mr. Mudd production company.
As a producer, how satisfying is it to see 'The Libertine' finally make it to the big screen?
Very satisfying. Usually with films like this, you`re just exhausted. It`s something we`ve worked on for a long time. Just to see it done is absolutely great.
Did you know Johnny Depp before working with him on this film?
I`ve known Johnny socially but not very well. I`ve been around him a few times over the years. We had the same agent. I ran into him a few times in Paris, and he came over to the house once or twice. I`d see him at film festivals. We didn`t live that far apart, but he works a lot and I work a lot.
Did he see you perform onstage as Rochester?
Yes. I`d invited him to the play and he came to see it. That`s where we first talked about him doing it, because I wanted him to see this piece rather than just read it. He saw it, we had a brief conversation afterwards and he said he`d love to do it.
Do you see his portrayal of the character as much different from the way you performed it on the stage?
Of course. But it`s always going to be different in a movie, and he and I are very different performers.
The relationship between your characters is unique in that the earl got away with pushing the king`s buttons. Did that relationship intrigue you?
Yeah. It`s well drawn because, in a way, they were like peers, and the king was like a father figure to Rochester. Rochester`s father, John Wilmot, the first Earl of Rochester, had been instrumental in helping reinstall the royal family to the throne of England, so he felt indebted to Rochester`s family.
Did 'The Libertine' remind you in any way of 'Dangerous Liaisons?'
In some ways. It`s witty, it`s cool, and it`s a period piece. But not so much beyond that.
There`s been much written about Johnny`s physical transformation for this role, but you too underwent extensive makeup and prosthetic application for Charles II. How tricky was it wearing the prosthetic nose?
It takes a while (to apply) but it was kind of fun. I felt I looked like a Toucan. (He laughs.)
You`re collaborating again with director Terry Zwigoff and writer Dan Clowes on 'Art School Confidential.' (Malkovich produced 'Ghost World' for them.) What do you play in that?
I play one of the art school teachers, an invariably failed painter who has painted triangles for 25 years. Actually, I should say a triangle. Then he eventually moves on to circles. That`s the extent of the arc of that character.
You`re also portraying Austrian artist Gustav Klimt. What can you say about that?
That`s a film of Raul Ruiz. It`s the third film I`ve worked on with him. It`s a story about Gustav Klimt the painter and life in Vienna at the turn of the century through the end of World War I.
You portray an evil king in the upcoming 'Eragon?'
Yeah. It`s in three parts. In this first one, though, it`s a small role.
And whom do you portray in Robert Zemeckis` 'Beowulf?'
I play Aeschere, the adviser to King Hrothgar, played by Anthony Hopkins. It involves motion-capture (special effects), so it`s a long process. I finished my part about a week ago.
Do you want to direct another play or movie again?
There are a couple of plays I`m looking at to direct perhaps in the next year or year and a half. We have a lot of things we`re producing that are in various stages of being released, finished or edited. When you direct a film you are really committing for two years so I`ve got to clear out some of the stuff I`ve already committed to first. But hopefully I`ll have an agreement (soon) with German producer Stefan Arndt ('Run Lola Run') to do a film called 'The Crime of Olga Arbulina.'
You performed in (Jeffreys`) 'Lost Land' earlier this year. Do you see potential for that to be adapted into a film?
No. I think it`s pretty much a theater piece.
Where did the name of your production company, Mr. Mudd, come from?
That was the name of my chauffeur in Thailand on 'The Killing Fields.'
What`s next for you?
I`ll go back home and then I go to France for the release of another film I did called 'Colour Me Kubrick,' which will be released in France first. We`re finishing editing a little film of ours called 'Drunkboat.' And then we may do this film called 'Texas Lullaby,' a kind-of white trash Hamlet.
Sounds like you`re busy.
Sometimes.
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
I think parts of this interview have appeared in bits in other wire service news items about TL. But I thought it was good to post it in what seems to be it's entirety.
With The Libertine, director Laurence Dunmore has faithfully committed to film one of the most colorful men in history, John Wilmot, the second Earl of Rochester [Johnny Depp]. The film follows the Earl's adventures in London, from his passionate romance with a young actress, Elizabeth Barry [Samantha Morton], to the writing of a scurrilous play which blisteringly and bawdily lampoons the very monarch who commissioned it, Charles II [John Malkovich], leading to the Earl's banishment and eventual downfall.
Check out the official site for The Libertine
Daniel Robert Epstein: How did The Libertine come together?
Laurence Dunmore: John Malkovich thrust a script into my hand after a very pleasurable couple of days working on a commercial together. I had a look at this unbelievable offer in front of me and decided that I would take the bit between my teeth try and give this a go.
DRE: What was the commercial you were doing with John?
Dunmore: We did a commercial for the wonderful train called the Eurostar that runs between the British mainland and France. John had promised a script at the end of it. I just thought that it was just John being a thoroughly decent bloke in saying that he’ll send something to me. But it did actually materialize and it was an incredible script. But as a British director I was primed and ready to do an East End gangster movie. Instead I got the portrayal of John Wilmot, the most brilliant and wonderful writer of recent history who betrayed his talents for debauchery, wine, women and song.
DRE: Which is not the worst thing in the world to betray your talents for.
Dunmore: No, if you’re going to betray it, you might as well do it for that rather than the pursuit of liberal education of fixing tires or something.
DRE: [laughs] Had you been looking for a screenplay or was it just that this one was so good?
Dunmore: I had been, I suppose. I’d found that the opportunity with John after being able to bend his ear towards my desire to make a film. It was a desire that had been festering for a while. The wonderful thing about John is that he’s an incredibly astute and very clever man who never gives away anything to anybody unless he believes they are deserving of it. Be that a good or a bad thing, it meant that he thought I was the right person to take on The Libertine as a project. It was one that was very close to his heart because he had spent five years prior to me becoming involved trying to make this movie himself. He’d played it onstage in Chicago with the Steppenwolf Theater Company. What we had together in those first couple of days was a complete commitment and passion for filmmaking that he found inspiring. Certainly I got that from him because John is one of these very contagious characters, who really does breed a lust for life. The Libertine script really ignited that fire and made me believe that this, even though it was my first script that I’d ever read, was one that I needed to make into film. We had this incredible script that Stephen Jeffries and I worked on for six months to a year after my becoming involved. It was this magnetism that seduced Johnny into playing this role and to work with me as a first time director.
DRE: Did John remind you of Rochester in terms of his lust for the work?
Dunmore: Both John and Johnny [Depp] are very passionate people in life and wonderful human beings. They both possess the quality that you need to make a project like this, which is a carefree abandon of what preconceptions are and what people would expect and decide to do something that will provoke and contrive to be its own individual voice. So we all very much bit upon the same apple that seduced us into another world.
DRE: Directors usually have to do something exciting and special in order to portray writers on screen. I think of movies like Barton Fink and Naked Lunch. But with this character you definitely didn’t have to make his life exciting.
Dunmore: [writer] Stephen Jeffries once said that the biggest problem that he had with the story that it wasn’t about what you could write about, it was about what you had to leave out. The reality of it was this was a man who lived a life far beyond the passion, the hurt, the betrayal, the lust, the vigor and all of the emotive qualities that life should be lived at. He took them to an excess. This was a time when Charles II and Rochester were living a life that was based on the idea that there was no consequence to action, that the pursuit of pleasure was one that would have no consequence. The truth was always going to be far more over the top than we could ever imagine. Rochester was a man who never suffered the criticism of life he led. He was a man who lived to excess and made his apologies for it, but never atoned to it. He was somebody who was a master of both the pathetic and the delusional. He was a man who could take us from one emotion to another in a heartbeat. He was a genius who could write a play when everybody else struggled for a word.
DRE: As an artist yourself, have you ever had the chance to squander your talents the way that Rochester did?
Dunmore: Working in advertising, you squander that chance everyday. I love the medium of advertising, it’s been very good to me and it’s something I’d do just for the pure passion and adrenaline of working that subject. But it is a squandering of talent on every front because you’re selling something to the lowest common denominator. Everyone believes is that you’re actually creating something earth-shattering when ultimately you’re selling a piece of sheet metal with four rubber tires on it.
DRE: Did you connect with the screenplay through that idea?
Dunmore: The reality is that I’ve always been very obsessed with history and with the influence of history. The script that I was sent threw the logs onto a fire that was a quest to find the man who resonated through the centuries through to where we are now. He had so many parallels in the people that we admire and respect and hate throughout our recent history. Wilmot was someone who was able to surpass all of the rules and the regulations that defined society in the way that the average person would anticipate and regulate it. He was able to ignite the passionate side of life but with passion there’s always a danger. But it is a danger that is worth sacrificing for the sake of the integrity of belief in the unbridled approach to life.
DRE: How on board was everyone with not shying away from how dirty this film needed to be?
Dunmore: There was a total commitment throughout the cast and crew of this movie. Nobody at any stage turned around and said “Laurence, what the ###### are you thinking about?” It was the most enlightening and rewarding process to work with such great actors and crew across the board. Everybody bought into this vision and there isn’t anybody who can be blamed or ridiculed for what we produced because at the end of the day everybody realized a very personal vision. They made a fragile dream into an incredible reality and to have a group of people who can make that dream come alive and be something that is so personal is a very important move forward in terms of filmmaking and in terms of the way that people interpret films.
DRE: As a first time feature director, how do you direct someone like Johnny Depp?
Dunmore: Johnny just sat and listened to a bunch of dreams, thoughts and ideas. He bought into those dreams, ideas and thoughts and brought into it this character of John Wilmot who transformed everything that I thought about. Johnny empowered me with his belief in this project and it made it very easy for me to actually realize the filming the way we did because we were making a film that we all saw and understood.
DRE: What were the most difficult things directing wise?
Dunmore: That’s a hard one, because making the film was the hardest and the easiest thing. Sitting there with a camera on my shoulder filming Johnny performing with one of the most brilliant casts that surrounded him was in equal amounts the most inspired and the most difficult thing I’ve ever done. But it was a complete pleasure; it was like leaving the city and standing in the countryside and taking a breath of fresh air. It’s exciting, it’s invigorating, it’s heady, it takes you somewhere else that you haven’t been for such a long while. It’s so refreshing and yet the opportunities that it offers are so daunting at the same moment because there is such a cleanliness to it, there is such a passion and a vigor to it, that you don’t want to breathe again for a moment.
Johnny and everybody else brought such a fire into my life that was realized through making this film. That’s why it’s such a personal picture. It’s such an individual film because we didn’t have to suffer the compromise of anybody else on it.
DRE: Do you know what film you’re doing next?
Dunmore: No, I have several projects, of which Johnny’s a part of and I have other projects which I will hope will come through as well. I think I have to do something for my three boys who can’t always be sitting there wondering why I’m not doing Pirates of the Caribbean 20 with Johnny.
DRE: You can make the East End gangster film for your sons.
Dunmore: [laughs] No, they want me for more than that. They said, “Look Dad, why can’t you have a hobbit in a film or somebody with wings.” But I’ve worked with the most incredible bunch of people on the crew and the cast from the last movie that it makes it difficult to think about where the next movie goes. I just want to do something that has the same resonance, the same power, the same unashamed provocation of what the understanding of life and its interpretation is from one person to an audience. I just hope that people will sit with me and understand that it’s made with a desire to be truthful to emotion rather than to sensationalism.
by Daniel Robert Epstein
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
"The Libertine" world-premiered at the AFI Fest 2005 and marks the feature film debut of British advertising and music video director Laurence Dunmore based on the 1994 play by Stephen Jeffreys, who adapted it to the screen. Set against the extraordinary backdrop of The Restoration, the film offers a brilliant, brutal, tragically realistic, and witty look at 17th century England, perhaps the most authentic ever committed to film. The film follows the meteoric rise and fall of John Wilmot (Johnny Depp), the second Earl of Rochester, who was a gifted poet, a complicated genius, and a shameless rake. His short but wildly irreverent life reflected the growing new sensual freedom of the modern age that was filled with radical new ideas, heightened sexual permissiveness, and a festive exuberance in theater, parties and lifestyles. Famous for his irrepressible hedonism, rebellious personality, and daring, subversive wit, Rochester refused to obey any of the rules and dictates of his age and scandalized London society with his outrageous sexual escapades. He constructed a spectacular life for himself and then set about tragically destroying it, debauching his way to an early grave and squandering every advantage he had, only to earn posthumous critical acclaim for his life's work.
Depp’s portrayal of Rochester is powerful, intense, and compelling. The dark, mesmerizing, terrific to-camera opening prologue and closing epilogue, done in character as the scandalous libertine, epitomize the theatrical, larger than life nature of his tragically short existence. These scenes, along with his gut wrenchingly eloquent speech before Parliament and confrontation with his wife at the end of his life, exemplify his extraordinary artistry. He captures with impeccable finesse and naturalness the essence of a man who despised life, drank profusely, seduced women, insulted everyone from the King to his mother (Francesca Annis) to his servant, and preferred his portrait done with a monkey rather than his wife. Indeed, his contempt for everything that others respected was so profound as to almost amount to sublimity. Intertwined with his utter disrespect for life were his charm, esprit, irresistibility, and impulsive inclination to do whatever he pleased. As disease slowly ravages his body, Depp undergoes a haunting transformation into a character that is almost unbearable to watch, whose face is mutilated and scarred beyond recognition. And the more he becomes disfigured, the clearer our perception of the repulsive creature that exists within. His performance is riveting, heartrending, and played with tremendous range and depth. In what is an extraordinarily demanding role, Depp leaves the audience with strongly conflicted emotions of hatred, pity, love, admiration, and sympathy for his character that a lesser actor could not achieve.
The strong supporting cast includes Rosamund Pike, who turns in a powerful performance as Rochester’s devoted but neglected wife, Elizabeth, whose steadfast temperament helps her endure his unfaithfulness and indiscretions. Samantha Morton, in a bracing and mercurial performance, embodies the vulnerable, ambitious, talented, and fiercely independent actress Elizabeth Barry, who becomes Rochester’s alluring theatrical protégé. John Malkovich, in an atypically understated performance, plays the stately, restrained, sensual and decadent ruler, King Charles II, who values Rochester’s friendship, admires his ingenuity, but finds him a frequent thorn in his side. Johnny Vegas plays the historical rake and wit, Charles Sackville. Kelly Reilly plays Rochester’s prostitute friend, Jane. Rupert Friend plays Downs, who meets a tragic fate in Rochester’s company. Richard Coyle is Rochester’s aptly named servant, Alcock.
Jeffrey’s adaptation of the play to screen is brilliant. His screenplay is witty, pungent, sexually forthright, and authentic in its representation of the historical period in a manner rarely seen in cinema. And it offers an exciting mix of shrewd humor and emotional truth as he courageously examines the place of moral values and extreme behavior in a free society. While focusing on the adventure, romance and ruin of Rochester’s final years, he explores the connections between genius and decadence, freedom and danger, lust and love, and in doing so, invites the audience to see the parallels between Rochester’s sensually charged, morally corrupt era and our own modern times. Indeed, the story of Rochester is about the darker side of human nature. In his examination of Rochester’s life, love, and genius, Jeffrey exposes Rochester’s subversive compulsion to betray his talent with his actions and destroy the things that mattered most to him. The dialogue is period appropriate and razor sharp, and the writing is smart as well as entertaining.
The film opens with Restoration-era intrigue as King Charles II confronts a hostile House of Lords. Then it shifts focus to the personal dilemmas of the Earl of Rochester as he splits his time between his home in the countryside and his roguish lifestyle in London. We see him plunge from the heights of social celebrity to the depths of ruin as he drowns his creative genius in alcohol, scurrilously lampoons England’s royals with sexually explicit poems, pursues his obsession with the struggling actress Elizabeth Barry, watches as his career is surpassed by friend and literary contemporary, George Etherege (Tom Hollander), and finally seeks a self-serving redemption before succumbing to syphilis. His short, but intensely colorful, life was filled with so many outrageous, often self-contained, incidents that it presents a daunting challenge to weave them into a coherent narrative. Indeed, in the final cut (as compared to the work-in-progress screened at the Toronto Film Festival), a couple of incidents (i.e. when Rochester disappears after a lethal street fight and reappears as the infamous Dr. Bendo) have been shortened at the expense of narrative continuity. In their abridged version, they fit awkwardly within the broader context of the story and disrupt the film’s otherwise smooth narrative flow. That said, these are minor imperfections in an otherwise exceptional film, and they are offset by Depp’s extraordinary performance, which provides cohesion to the occasionally choppy storyline.
Dunmore’s direction is strong and the film’s pace is tight. He captures the atmosphere of the period exquisitely with simplicity, a sharp eye for detail, and the use of compelling images that frame the flamboyant artifice of the period in close-up and reveal a society recovering from years of Cromwellian repression and post-Puritan excess. From fops and painted dandies slogging through London’s crowded streets congested with mud, muck and raw sewage to an amusing ‘family’ portrait of the Earl with a monkey bought spontaneously from a street vendor to enliven the boring formality of the occasion, Dunmore gives us scenes that are at once incongruous and entirely appropriate to the era and to the character of Rochester. He creates a very fluid style to capture the action by putting the camera on his shoulder and operating it himself rather than using the more traditional approach of putting it on a dolly or a crane. Using a hand-held camera allows him to move quickly and economically, not waste time trying to figure out tricky moves, and work more intimately with his actors by positioning himself next to the action while they are performing and watching the scenes unfold directly in front of him. In a scene between Rochester and his wife, for instance, Dunmore racks focus in a stack shot as they deliver their lines, allowing their performance to motivate the camera. When Rochester succumbs to the ravages of syphilis (which included progressive blindness) his point of view is shot almost entirely out of focus for large portions of one scene. In a compelling sequence that puts the audience in the middle of the action, the camera pans twice 360 degrees around the interior of a London theater as its balconies fill with spectators and the actors assume their positions on stage. The camera’s fluid, dynamic movement captures the raucous mood of the spectators and conveys the nervous anticipation of the performers.
Cinematographer Alexander Melman collaborated closely with Dunmore to create a unique 17th century look that does not reflect its 21st century origins. Together, they imbue the film with a dark, raw, grungy realism not seen before in period pieces. Nearly every interior shot is lit with candles while green filters are used to remove warmth and put a green pallor into all the flesh tones. Mud, mist, rain and smoke captured in grey-brown tones convey the film’s gritty look and mood perfectly. Melman contrasts the opulence and splendor of the court and of life inside the aristocratic realm against the grimy dynamism outside on the city streets of London where one can practically smell the noxious odors. He uses a variety of photographic techniques to draw a stark contrast between Rochester’s stately home life and the raw energy and excitement of his life in London. Rich colors convey the magic of the theatrical world while grainy realism reflects the filth, haze, and grime of the ordinary world. Melman collaborated closely with production designer Ben Van Os and costume designer Dien Van Straalen to create a detailed color palette that is woven throughout the film’s entire design and enhanced with primarily natural light. Dunmore also paid meticulous attention to choosing castles, estates, and locations that were authentic to the era.
Dunmore’s visionary approach challenges the established conventions of commercial filmmaking and reflects the innovative approach of a new generation of filmmaker. His ingenuous camera work, unique stylistic choices, and bold lighting and production design create a look and ambiance that draw upon his strong graphic design background to reveal the widely shifting moods of Rochester’s times, the elaborate decadence, and the seedier aspects of the Restoration. The dark, candlelit cinematography gives the film its voice and soul, infuses the action with extraordinary emotional depth, and captures eloquently the mood and spirit of its central character and his times. These are breathtaking, seductive images that make no apology for the film’s unremittingly dark subject matter or raunchy, pornographic irreverence, and they leave deep and lasting impressions in the minds of the audience. The layered, smoky interiors, especially those shot in the noisy, crowded theater with candlelight alone, imbue the dark scenes with a grainy, softly persistent flicker reminiscent of early silent cinema and diametrically opposed to the beautiful, glossy, overly art-directed look of Kubrick’s period piece, "Barry Lyndon." Some scenes are so underlit that the action is just barely discernable. Yet the film’s dark look does not distract from its compelling story. Instead, it infuses the film with a stark, absolute power and raw energy through which the performances shine brightly.
The hair and make-up design by Peter Owen is superb. The combination of prosthetic nose, enormous poodle wig, pale make-up, and reddened eyes transform Malkovich into King Charles II and give him a convincing, care-worn look. Owen takes Depp through an astonishing transformation in a carefully controlled sequence of progressive physical deterioration as his character succumbs to the ravages of syphilis and alcoholism. Michael Nyman’s insistent and haunting musical score captures eloquently the spirit of the times. Framestore CFC provides the film’s digital visual effects.
"The Libertine" is an extraordinary film that is not to be missed. Depp’s deep and well-reasoned performance confirms once again his stature as one of the great actors of his generation. His portrayal of the fascinating, tormented, and self-destructive Rochester is indeed one of the very strongest performances of any actor this year. And Dunmore’s exceptional direction succeeds in realizing the full cinematic potential of the story based on the play of the same name, expertly adapted to screen by its author, Jeffreys.
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
As the man who coined the term "minimalism" to describe a burgeoning new music movement of the '60s and '70s, film composer Michael Nyman has left a maximal imprint of his own. Beginning with his scores for the beguiling English director Peter Greenaway to his signature score for Jane CampionJane Campion's "The Piano," Nyman has crafted a distinct voice that is as informed by the baroque master Henry Purcell as it is by the 20th century's serial abstractions.
It is a heady pastiche leavened by grace notes of human fancy and folly. And it spoke powerfully to director Laurence Dunmore as he prepared to shoot his first feature, "The Libertine," a raucous depiction of the life and times of that Restoration-era reprobate Lord Rochester.
"He told me that it was his fondest desire that if he ever got to make a feature film, I would score it," recalls Nyman over the phone from his new digs in Barcelona. "You can't say no when someone says that to you. He came round to my place and told me what he had in mind. He had very strong ideas, very clear about the look of the movie and suggested that I just go wild, take all the liberties I want."
As a composer whose music is so often married to period English dramas, Nyman was careful not to traffic in his own cliches. "I started my career as a music historian and have always been comfortable in the study of deep sources," he says. "So I did fight the temptation to practice history. I see this score very much in the vernacular of 20th century Hollywood films. For example, I used solo piano, which shouldn't work at all -- a built-in anachronism. This instrument did not exist at all at that time. But it works. It liberated me ... that I could finally write something without direct reference to the 17th century."
Inspiration also came in the form of the actors' performances that Nyman captured in his deft, erudite fashion. "I like to go to extremes," says Nyman. "Johnny (Depp) as Rochester, is rude and streetwise, a brilliant wit caked in mud. Samantha Morton is the antithesis, all lightness and luminosity. And Laurence provided some brilliant set pieces -- there's a 360-degree camera twirl in one scene which is just meat and drink to me. It enriches my own palette."
Spoken with the relish of a true libertine.
Date in print: Wed., Nov. 30, 2005
--------------------
Angelica to Jack - "How is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
Please note that JohnnyDeppReads.com is not associated with any other sites, blogs, twitterpages, etc other than the ones posted at the top of this page (JDR blogs, etc.). Please report any abuse to admin@johnnydeppreads.com
Reviews and interviews, A sample of the reviews and interviews
Johnny Depp Reads Message Board->The Films of Johnny Depp->Johnny Depp's films, 21 Jump Street & TV shows->The Libertine - 2005
