So. Having for some reason neither heard of the play nor the film based on it until yesterday, but being a fan of what I knew of the
Earl of Rochester's life and work, I happily went and saw it today. I wasn't aware of the play at all until I saw the end credits, which still surprised me seeing as I didn't think it a 'typical' adaptation of a stage drama for the screen (the obvious comparison point, thanks to the participation of John Malkovich, being
Dangerous Liaisons).
Not a perfect film -- I think that there were essentially two climaxes not properly stitched together in satisfying fashion. But I appreciated the fact that it was filmed as a costume drama with plenty of grime -- muted colours and cinematography (was this in fact the first film since Barry Lyndon to use candlelight as sole light source for many scenes?), lots of muddy streets of London, etc. While not a perfect film, still striking and compelling, thanks to the portrayal of Depp as prototypical 'I go to the edge where others dare not' long-haired (hey, I can identify) poet/priest/cynic/destroyer. (Hell, FUCK Jim Morrison, a wimp in comparison.) Samantha Morton did a reasonably good job with some solid lines, Malkovich as Charles II appropriately corrupt/standing on ceremony, Francesca Annis as Rochester's mom (so I assume, I didn't immediately recognize her but she's in the cast list) appropriately cold. Enough verses from Rochester's own work brought it, a pornographic stage review worthy of Ken Russell, a too-neat dramatic ending which might or might not be real, fear and loathing everywhere (comparison points less Dangerous Liaisons that Valmont or perhaps the still-underrated Ridicule, possibly the best French-language film of the past fifteen years if not more), a prologue and conclusion worthy of the self-dramatization. Again, still not perfect, too somehow convinced of Rochester's 'humanity' in corruption at the end (did he ever have it? Surely not when he had lines like
I storm and I roar, and I fall in a rage,
And missing my whore, I bugger my page.
But perhaps I seek to hold to an inhumanity he didn't have.)
Any other thoughts? They are welcome.
(Please note I am completely fucking drunk by now for some reason, but it's after some ridiculously good sushi so I see no need to apologize. Oh god my head. Maybe I identify with that long-haired fucker that Depp portrayed more than I realize.)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 13 March 2006 06:11 (twenty years ago)
I find it hard to believe that no-one had anything to say about this? Perhaps no-one else has seen it - when I went to watch it there were about 20 people in the audience. I enjoyed it. The candle lighting is excellent, there are some great cameos, and I just love watching Depp do his English accent. Also it's pretty funny in places.
Rochester did turn up at Parliament in that condition, although whether he was quite as eloquent or quite as hideous looking is open to discussion.
This HREF="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750939133/qid=1142244299/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl/026-1763139-2214862">biography is well worth reading.
― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:06 (twenty years ago)
I sort of liked it and sort of didn't, though I wonder how much of that was because I subconsciously expected period drama to be all Austenian politesse and whimsy. I thought John Malkovich was brilliant, Depp less so mainly because he was so odious. I guess I almost didn't want him to be humanised as it would have confused unsatisfactorily my understanding of the character.
― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:55 (twenty years ago)
Even more creative misreading + ex post above:
I read this as Johnny Depp/Sam Morton in Pete Doherty/Kate Moss biopic. How perfectly interchangeable is the currency of the alt aristocracy!
― xin, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 20:50 (twenty years ago)