I watched this film when it came out in the cinema five years ago, and I have only ever had one conversation about it with another individual who had watched it. IMHO this is one of the most remarkable films I have seen, and I am wondering why nobody has seen it.
I suppose because it wasn't a box office hit in the sense of lots of people rushing to see it, and there are a lot of reasons for that, like if people didn't really know who Rochester was or the story of his life and works. The story itself maybe doesn't appeal to a lot of people because it quickly becomes quite harrowing, it's not an easy film to watch - though I say that as praise for the performances, because given the content and the characters, it shouldn't be.
It has such incredible performances that it is a shame more people haven't seen it, particularly Johnny Depp of course. I think it's one of his best performances, and I have yet to see a role of his that I haven't liked. But he really is outstanding in bringing to life such a complicated character and making him both vile and empathetic at the right moments.
It's a good job the internet is around so fans of films like this can talk about them when they don't get much of a chance to in real life!
got to agree, some of my family saw it and loved it, I can't say its a film many people I know have seen. Most have no idea who Rochester even is.
I agree its a remarkable performance by Depp, who truly brought Rochester to life. Thank goodness for the internet, where its possible to talk to Libertine, and Rochester fans.
life is not a succession of urgent "nows". It's a listless trickle of "why should I's".
I suppose because it wasn't a box office hit in the sense of lots of people rushing to see it, and there are a lot of reasons for that, like if people didn't really know who Rochester was or the story of his life and works. The story itself maybe doesn't appeal to a lot of people because it quickly becomes quite harrowing, it's not an easy film to watch - though I say that as praise for the performances, because given the content and the characters, it shouldn't be.
I wish I could have seen this in the cinema. One of my close friends had told me about this film and since we have similar interests in films, I decided to find a copy of the DVD and buy it, sight unseen. Anyway, Depp is amazing in this film, one of his very best performances.
You're terribly late you know...Naughty! Mad Hatter3/5/2010
I am glad I am not the only one that buys DVd's unseen but on the off chance I will like them, did that with girl on a Bridge, among many others and really loved it too.
life is not a succession of urgent "nows". It's a listless trickle of "why should I's".
The factual answer to your question is that it was a limited release. I'm in the UK and heard of the film when it was released, but even when it eventually made it's way to the cinemas it never made it to any cinema close enough for me to see it. And I did try to find it on somewhere! I guess you could say it is somewhat niche in it's market given the subject coupled with the amount of profanity... but still I think a lot more people would have seen it if they could have.
Hmm... I don't know about elsewhere, but maybe it's as I was younger when this was released so didn't know about such things, but today in fact more smaller films make it to some cinema around here such that you can see them. Which is a happy thing. I wish I could have seen this at the cinema though, but hopefully those who will enjoy it will find it for themselves some day.
Oh, and, if it isn't evident by the number of posts I have made over time on this board, I agree with how you feel about the film!
It watched it last weekend. I respect your opinions on this movie but I still have no idea what the point of the movie is. Maybe I should get more info about Rochester.
Or maybe it's because I saw Transformers 2 and Terminator Salvation :p
Don't you just love that response whenever you say you hate a film that people rave about . Never fear here anyway - There have certainly been a number of so-called masterpieces I have found dull or utterly ridiculous (sometimes I think people's opinions on certain things aren't their actual opinions, but are so influenced by others' views that people have unwittingly kind of followed along believing in them like the Emperor's new clothes... but I digress...) and I would say probably more people don't like this film than love it... but also people tend to either not like it much or adore it as far as I have seen?
Anyway, a lot of people think you need to know something about Rochester beforehand to enjoy the film, but when I first saw it I wasn't certain Rochester was definitely a real person even. I certainly found out soon enough after watching since I needed to know! But I adored it despite that, and I think that it does have a point in itself as well as (or more likely because of) being a character study of someone who I find utterly fascinating.
The point of it: well, if a point has to be explained then it probably doesn't mean anything anyway. It's hard now to remember what I thought about immediately after first watching it, but I remember that I did feel strongly. I couldn't get it out of my head for a long time. And the main things I thought about were to do with life and it's meaning and our place in it: the point of it, the potential we have and what drives us to fulfill it or abandon what we could achieve. I think that's what the film seems to try to relate to to me: the way it connects with it's modern day audience is by placing Rochester with a conundrum which for him would have been very different given the age he lived in, but which in today's society is the dominant view: if there is no God (or we do not believe in him), what do we look to to give our life meaning? I think the film implies Rochester tried to seek absolute truth in life and would not accept anything he could not believe which often lead down rather destrictive and self-destructive paths... And I think we can relate to this kind of stuff in our skewed way from our current stance.
The film is about wastefulness: it shows us what Rochester could have been. In reality I think it's pretty untrue in that sense for Rochester wrote a lot in his short life, given his status and responsibilities really. But certainly had he lived longer he could have written more, and towards his death he seemed at times to be growing up and becoming somewhat more serious - for example showing more interest in politics, so where his work might then have gone we'll never know (of course that seriousness may have been brought on by illness... and once you start the what if's you'll never end nand Rochester won't be Rochester anymore, but someone else entirely!!) Anyway, the biggest thing that struck me in the film perhaps was not about the waste of talent, but about the waste of what he could have gotten from life and given to others and I think that's a point of the film, for why else would you have the "Do you like me"s?
I am rambling on. I am sure you don't care. So I'll stop! There's more discussion on those "Do you like me"'s in the Do you like me now thread though if you do care: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375920/board/flat/64507187
Not sure what I ever wrote here! haha, rambleramble internet! Oh well!!
And if you'd like to find out more about Rochester, I suggest reading some of his work first of all. I think the first to like to would be: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/mankind.html
hiya Static!
to join the ramble... I never felt that the film was about wasted talent, as some in the the film said it was about to them, but how Rochester defined his own talent as used it according to his own distinct and unique principles, rather than what others felt he should have done with it.
It was about the power of truth, and how that is worthy in itself, and how anyone that looks at themselves as critically as they look at others is a rarity.. and Rochester was a rarity, it was about being brave enough to see hats truly there, and paying the price for it. It was about how true people are conradictions and beyond definition.
It was about Rochesters talent and how HE used it, his passions, his boredom, his pain and his joys. It was about how life isnt neat and tidy, and how what insipres passion is often also ugly and cruel.
It was about a genius,because Rochyester was one, the type there are far too few off, and how hard it is for them to exist amoung people who are far from genius's.. and what that does to them.. and how lucky some of us would feel to know someone with Rochesters mind, insight and passions.
I think rochester didn't waste his talents, his talents were wasted by the mundane world they were forced to fit in, we wasted Rochester not the other way around... but then I am biased where Rochester is concerned
If you question what the film is about, you might as well ask what the point of poetry is, the point of truth.. what the point of being honset about what we are, and true to ourselves..
life is not a succession of urgent "nows". It's a listless trickle of "why should I's".
Hey - how go things with you?
And... *giggle* ... for (while I do agree with all you say about Rochester) there's only one place such discussion can lead to which is our lovely "Do you like me now?" and it's meaning/relevance in the film, which we seem to have slightly different viewpoints of. I won't go there now as we've discussed it before and it has actually been months since I watched the film or read anything Rochestery! It's dreadful! I need more time in the world. Hence my previous post probably being even more garbled than it would usually be: Rochester is not recently-enough read and thought about at present and I only hope for time enough to rectify that as soon as is possible.
...Oh, and I am sure that you would have a different experience of the film for the first time if you did know a fair amount about Rochester as opposed to knowing nothing of him. That's just the way it is. But is either view "right"? I suppose you could ask Laurence Dunmore... but also, perhaps a film, like any art form is what you take from it and that is all there is. Which is why I said that to some degree if the previous poster didn't get the point, no amount of explaining anyone can do will make them feel the point, even if they may understand it in description.
Ah, and as I said, I also don't feel Rochester wasted his talent in reality, but I am sure this is one thing I did feel the first time I saw the film, knowing nothing of the real man...
There are lots of dots in this post, so maybe I'll add a few more for luck!! .... .......... ..............!!
Because in the first five minutes of this film the main character fingerbangs his lawfully-married wife. I'm afraid neither Hollywood, nor the filmgoing public-at-large, have any taste whatsoever, for such sexual orthodoxy in film.
share