Review of The Libertine (2004) by Filipeneto — 13 Feb 2022

After a period of social and moral puritanism, inspired by the consolidation of the Church of England and a more austere political regime - the English Republic - the first decades of the return to the monarchy saw a reversal of this scenario, with society allowing itself to do more mundane customs and habits, especially in court life. It is in this context that appears John Wilmott, 2nd Earl of Rochester, whose father was a crucial figure in supporting the House of Stuart and to whom King Charles II himself owed gratitude.

This film approaches, in very generic lines and with a dose of fiction, the life of this controversial playwright and poet and his relationship, fluctuating and unstable, with his royal benefactor. Rochester married Elizabeth Mallet after kidnapping her, but it was not a happy marriage in the long run. As the film shows, he lived a dissolute existence, squandering his family fortune among the most infamous theaters, taverns and brothels in London and tarnishing his reputation with various scandals: in addition to the numerous mistresses, actresses and prostitutes with whom he involved, will have had dishonorable conduct in a situation that ended in the murder of one of his friends, in addition to being accused of quackery and illegal practice of medicine. Although the film prefers not to talk about it, Rochester got to know several European countries, where he left a good intellectual reputation, and was also notable for his bravery in the naval combats of the Anglo-Dutch War. After a life of sexual and alcoholic excesses, the poet ended up paying the bill at a young age, dying at 33, profoundly weakened by syphilis. For posterity would be his last words, in which he renounced atheism, and a work of poetry and erotic and satirical dramaturgy deeply caustic for the time and which is still considered quite adult and provocative today.

The film is quite good, and I think it just didn't receive more recognition and visibility due to the provocative and controversial nature of the character it focuses on. It is not, at all, a suitable movie to watch with grandparents or the parish priest. Laurence Dunmore directed with skill and talent, beautifully combining historical realism with the creative need that a film demands. The casting choice was smart, and Johnny Depp is the most suitable option to bring the libertine to life. The actor has a penchant for bizarre characters, and Rochester fits him like a glove. John Malkovich also did an excellent job, giving Charles II a good dose of realism, without exaggerated pomp. Samantha Morton also lived up to her character, an actress who wants to approach her career professionally and not just be an occasional hooker for wealthy patrons. Finally, a word of appreciation for the work of Rosamund Pike and Richard Coyle.

The film exudes realism in the way it exposes the environments of the restored court. Far from the luxury of European monarchies, the English court appears here in dark and almost violent tones, with an omnipresent humidity. London looks like a muddy and dirty sewer rather than a big capital. Nevertheless, the costumes and sets betray the luxury and sumptuousness of the environments and mansions of the aristocracy. I especially liked Rochester's clothes and the long wigs that pontificated in men's fashion at the time. The cinematography makes good use of these shadows and existing light to nuance the look, making the film as dark as its main character's personality. Finally, I cannot end without praising the skill and elegance of Michael Nyman's score.