The Libertine (R, 2004)
Netflix synopsis: Johnny Depp portrays 17th century poet John Wilmot in this provocative period piece. Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester, received posthumous acclaim for his sexually overt poetry, but his womanizing ways garnered the most attention during his brief life. His rakish adventures include attempting to kidnap the woman he would eventually marry, constantly angering the king and wooing actress Elizabeth Barry. Samantha Morton and John Malkovich co-star.
Review: I felt compelled to write this review because of the lower- than-average Netflix rating. This film could easily have been very heavy-handed and superficial – what’s easier to show on screen than a larger-than-life character? It’s much more difficult to portray such a character with complication and subtlety, and the film executes superbly, so much so that even your own feelings about the title character become complicated.
I’m accustomed to Johnny Depp turning in great performances because he does it so often it’s nearly rote (Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, Finding Neverland, Pirates – he made it the box office juggernaut that it is - even Secret Window). He’s been in some movies that I thought sucked, but his performances are always worthy (Blow, From Hell) b/c you never know what new incarnation to expect – he has no “style” because he’s always inventing, inventing, inventing. In other words, I have high expectations for my boy. So it came as a shock to me that, with all the bad reviews of this film and NF’s expected 2.7 rating for me, Johnny’s performance here blew me out of the water.
From the opening and closing monologues (no edits, no cuts, straight minutes of him talking directly into the camera with changes in lighting to match the emphasis on his words – if you don’t get chills here, check your pulse) to his blase relationship with King Charles, played by an always delectable John Malkovich (who wanted Johnny for this role – now if that’s not a compliment, I don’t know what is!) to his passion for Samantha Morton, not for the flesh, but his real attraction (her acting talent), to his speech in front of the House of Lords which is considering a bill to abolish the monarchy, Depp really gives a tour de force performance. The script is rich w/so many types of dialogue (though as mentioned in the special features doc on the making of, some of it was improvised, like I said, always inventing!) – your clever banter, your rebellious FU dialogue, your passionate about acting dialogue, your passionate about love dialogue, your noble speeches, your ignoble speeches, your lusty sex talk, your cynical, jaded w/the world lines, your downright comic scenes (and here I refer specifically to the portrait scene with the monkey – classic). And Nicole Kidman’s prosthetic nose has nothing on Depp’s Second Earl of Rochester. 
He’s definitely not a vain actor. This performance should have garnered some award recognition imo, even Oscar recognition – it was of that caliber.
Samantha Morton and John Malkovich, as always, play their characters to the hilt and really make the story a rich one. Morton is a strong- willed, talented, actress back in the days when women were just being allowed to take their place on stage in playhouses in England. The Earl loved his sex (and his face and body really show it middle to end of film), but he loved art even more, and his true love for Morton’s character doesn’t stem from her physical beauty (as the film emphasizes, she is a “plain-looking” woman), but that he saw her nucleus of talent that just needed to be developed. He volunteers himself to be that tutor. Also great performances by Rosamund Pike
(the Earl’s wife) – there’s one scene where Depp returns to his wife, at the height of his illness, and they have this great great spat that is so realistic – and Johnny Vegas (also in Pirates, if I’m getting the right guy here). And lest I forget, the guy who plays Depp’s personal servant (who Depp “hires” because of personality similarities) is downright hilarious and a rich, rich character.
To clarify, the movie is NOT obsessed with sex. There are some sexual scenes, never w/o purpose, that I can count on one hand, and one particular such scene is purposely clouded, dream-like. These scenes fit well with the movie’s focus on the Second Earl, to show his obsession with feeling, ANY feeling, because he was so cynical and jaded about life. That includes his scenes where he’s drinking heavily (I guess that’d be all of them!) Also includes the scenes between him and Sam Morton at the playhouse – a great scene where he tells her to keep doing this one line over and over and over again. When she actually delivers the line, playing Ophelia in Hamlet, to the audience, it gave me chills and I welled up – it’s a weird meta-experience. Makes you wonder whether actors nowadays put that much effort into their performances – well, the ones in this film clearly do.
Lastly, I loved the cinematography. While NF calls it a “period piece,” it doesn’t have that airbrushed, peaches and cream complexion- type quality that your British aristocratic adaptations normally do, even though the Second Earl is next in line to the king of England. The cinematography seems to want to match the Earl’s personality – not afraid of getting dirty (in fact, there are several scenes where Depp jumps out of his carriage into thick, brown, gloppy mud up to his royalty-encrusted boots under dark, cloudy English skies), not afraid of hanging out with the plebes, not afraid of pissing off the King, just not afraid.
Truly, The Libertine is the perfect title.
Final Rating: 4 stars. Audrey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Review: I agree with everything you say, Audrey. Depp’s acting was superb and there was not an element lacking in the film. Still, while I admired The Libertine greatly, I did not really like it very much! The sordidness of the subject matter overcame me, I suppose, as did the dark tint of the cinematography. In more than a few scenes I had a hard time seeing the action. I just felt depressed and trodden-on at the end. I rated it 3.5 since it was so well done; I just couldn’t bring myself to say I “really liked it.”
As a result of seeing the film I did, however, subsequently purchase Graham Greene’s (!) excellent biography, “Lord Rochester’s Monkey.” Well worth a look if you want to learn more about the man.
I see the focus on liberation in all its forms, and definitely the passion. On reflection I’m not sure it was the sordidness of the subject matter, rather the sordid feeling I had during and after watching it, like a wretchedness of the soul that could never completely be washed away. While the sum of The Libertine’s physical elements might earn it a 4, my emotional experience was about a 2.5. I feel comfortable with a fractional rating of 3.5 but couldn’t go with the 4 on Netflix.
I agree Depp was mesmerizing in the role, but come on, I expect no less from him any more. The man is a consummate chameleon.
Kym
