My friend, my Arthur without songs.
Do you not know your sins?
Which is like an evil mold,
Did you get into sable fur?
My friend, still in the wind
Under a strict convoy of stars
The angels of death are flying.
Whispering endlessly under the nose
Poems by Old Verlaine,
What is the question of the edge,
Which is behind the fleur of corruption.
It sounds like it’s upside down...
... Perhaps that’s why I should start with a review of the film, which made a very interesting impression on me both times when I watched it. I am not going to write about homosexuality, about the unfortunate Matilda, because many good people have done it before me. I will not write about the talented work of the actors and other members of the crew, and I will not mention the absolutely brilliant play of 19-year-old Leonardo either (yes, he was the same age as Arthur when he left literature). I would like to share my personal impression.
The first time I saw this movie was in 2016, when I was 28 years old and in love with a man 11 years younger than myself. Here I am, a man with his achievements, with a long-established life, falling in love with an underage young man. As a poet, I understand Verlaine, 27, so well. 27-30 is a very dangerous age for a lyrical poet. As the outpouring of youth, when you are 18-20, lifts you up and fills you with strength, so the outpouring of the third ten dehydrates you. As an author, you are looking for air. That's Verlaine. In its own way, tragically, horribly... I stopped a step away from the fall, but the pain and grief received no less. And out of this pain was born a cycle of new poems. And the poetic youth lasted. The film very shrillly shows the search for inspiration, the search for novelty. This is the desire to kill yourself in the name of creativity. Arthur for Paul becomes both Mephistopheles, seducing him to sin, giving him a second youth, and a certain absolutely unearthly creature showing him new frontiers of creative freedom.
This film clearly shows how Rimbaud opens to Paul himself, how Paul is afraid of this new freedom, but goes to the end, loses his Muse and finds himself new and his new lyrical I.
Arthur and Paul are antagonists in terms of creative method. Arthur is looking for a maximalist solution, and in the years of their connection, Paul creates “The Art of Poetry” in the glory of semitones.
They were supposed to meet one day. They met brightly, brightly and separated.
And now, reviewing this work yesterday, I thought that this film is about the place of art in the life of a particular person and in the spiritual life of people in general.
Rimbaud in the film is a man who, in his own way, is wised by the experience at the end of their relationship with Verlaine, he is very holistic as a person, knows what he wants, he is smart. And he's a maximalist, as I said. Why do people think maximalism is evil and evil? All great people (almost all) were maximalist. Throughout the plot, Rimbaud is looking for a double, a lyrical hero, to whom he can give his voice. And myself. In the end, he finds and ... leaves creativity.
In fact, for Rimbaud, art equals life, he lived art as a stage of his existential development and left. And for Verlaine, art is life, and life for him is only an appendix to creativity. Because Verlaine did not fully understand Rimbaud, but Rimbaud understood Verlaine perfectly. Perhaps that’s why their relationship sooner or later should have ended sharply.
And, of course, in the background there is an eternal question... The feeling that art is indeed sometimes a demonic force that experiences a person’s soul, self-control and love.
And Verlaine, as an artist, is tempted by this force.
But the question remains: did he stand it?
For me personally, it's open...
I watched Total Eclipse a little over a year ago, thanks to pure chance and a love of literature. I had never heard the names of these poets before, and after I dived into their poetry and their lives, I could say that in a sense, this film divided my life into before and after.
When I first watched it, I was stunned by what was happening on the screen, it was a sunstroke. I couldn't take my eyes off. What struck me most was the main characters.
(Grandly played by Leonardo Dicaprio) Arthur Rimbaud, as if descended from the pages of his own biography and drawings of Verlaine. A true poet rebellious, uncompromising in relation to himself and to his beloved, striving for the sun with all his essence.
Paul Verlaine (played by David Thewlis) Forever drunk, suffering from fits of rage, talented and beating a young pregnant wife poet. At the first meeting, as if besotted looks at the young poet and can not believe that a 16-year-old boy is able to write lines from which the soul shrinks and flies away somewhere in other spheres, young Arthur looks at him in response surprisingly seriously, he smokes, burps at the table, not too friendly with his wife and mother-in-law but for Paul it does not matter, one glance of the "fallen angel" is enough to slam the trap.
And now there is no one more valuable to Verlaine than Rimbaud, visiting bars and poetry clubs together, sleeping and philosophical conversations with someone who really understands you, what is more important to a poet? Nothing. That is why he succumbs to the persuasion of Rimbaud, this is exactly what he wanted at that moment, it is not only in the young man and his incredible attraction, but in the inspiration and poetic understanding of freedom that Arthur offers him. “You’ll help me, I’ll help you” is a mutually beneficial agreement, which at some point both forget because they fall in love, although there are ups and downs in their relationship, they are destructive and creative in equal measure. Passion can not prevent even Matilda, but tries, I will never understand why she held on to her husband for so long, allowing herself such antics, Verlaine in turn also clings to his wife, despite his passion for Arthur, “loves her body.”
He is a weather vane, he is carried from side to side, and it is this weakness of Verlaine that poisons his relations with Matilda and Rimbaud and leads to monstrous consequences.
Arthur warned him more than once, but Paul, blinded by his experiences and absinthe, did not hear him.
An amazing film that opened up to me a favorite poet, and for that alone I will love this film endlessly and review it over and over again.
A film about genius and freedom about love and poetry, disappointments and primarily about life.
10 out of 10
The title of the film “Total Eclipse” best describes what is happening at the heart of the plot. This is an immoral story about the sexual relationship of the French poets Paul Verlain and Arthur Rimbaud.
At the time of their acquaintance, Rimbaud was only 16 years old, and Verlaine was married to his young wife.
Poets drink without drying up, brawl and do various nonsense, this is another disgusting couple.
Verlaine appears before the audience as a spineless and weak person who seems to have fallen under the influence of a young seducer, he suffers from alcoholism and does terrible things: burns his wife’s hair and throws away the cradle with his child.
While watching the film, I wanted to tell Paul Verlaine: you have such a cool wife, young and beautiful, from a well-bred family, stop drinking and you will be fine. But Verlaine continues to downplay his poetic talent, subservient to Arthur.
Of course, this young man appears as a true genius, confident in himself and in his talent, a rebel by nature, bright and charismatic. He has a huge influence on Verlaine’s work, and himself, grows as a poet. But still we see how Verlaine's life is collapsing because of this connection and how low he is falling.
I am convinced that this careless, savage friendship, this sugary and suffocating love, was destined to decay into the embrace of reality. But it is a blessing that our generation received beautiful poems that touch the heart today.
I was surprised how much the actors Leo DiCaprio (Rembaud) and David Thewlis (Verlain) looked like the poets they were in life. The star actors played for five.
Undoubtedly, a lot of work was done in the film and it is not by chance that Agnieszka Holland chose a gray scale that immerses in the atmosphere of that time; costumes, both chic and rags, which best demonstrate the striking contrast between the estates of the XIX century. What are the rooms in which the poets lived, where there was nothing but a bed, a table and a chair? It was in this atmosphere that the best poems were created.
There are films that belong to the category of special, incomprehensible to the end creations of human culture. Movies that are so difficult to understand and evaluate in time, because it requires an atypical view of the world, the ability to see more than just a picture or plot. For me, this film was both an inner shock and the most intimate story of love, poetry and freedom in the endless mainstream of recent decades. It is a spark as rare as Rimbaud’s ingenious poems written during his rebellious youth. It gives rise to many parallels in memories of my youth. This is our shared youth. And I want at least for those three years (1871-1873) to become that young Rimbaud. A tramp and genius who dreams of changing the world. This movie is out of this world. He is like an immortal guide to the undiscovered and forgotten truths that seem to have passed away with the great era of French symbolism. The era of individualists, rebels who do not want to put up with the bourgeois nature of society, the era of true poets - pioneers whose insights still illuminate the world. I am also sorry that this role of Leonardo DiCaprio (as if born for her, because such an extreme fusion of the true nature and charisma of the actor with his image can be called a miracle) was so strangely lost among his other venerable roles. Thus, the first youthful discoveries are replaced by a successful, famous and already mature acting career. But this Rimbaud, and this Leo DiCaprio Hollywood will no longer. I want to remember him forever as a sincere, absurd dreamer, as if he had never parted with this image. For me, he will remain the immortal Arthur Rimbaud, the one who gave me the image of my favorite poet on the screen. This film is not just a provocative creation, not just a touch on a taboo subject, but literally a touch on eternity. A film naked in every sense, with its undisguised, piercing beauty. The film is not for everyone, but for those who are infinitely dear to the themes touched upon in it - high poetry, spiritual freedom, love that despises prohibitions, genius and madness, dreams and impulses of a rebellious spirit and, finally, the greatness of the human soul.
I now dream of him every night, my great, radiant sin!
Good day, dear friends! Today, the hero of my review will be a rather old 1995 film Total Eclipse starring Leonardo DiCaprio and David Thewlis. Despite the fact that the film of such distant years I learned about it only recently, when I studied the early filmography of Leo DiCaprio. He had successful, strong work and before the famous “Titanic”, which I sincerely admire, such as “Diary of a basketball player”, “Romeo and Juliet”, “Life of this guy” and in general I have repeatedly said that I admire this actor, who can play everything, he even in his youth deserved an Oscar. But this film left me in a quiet shock, and in a bad way. Below I will try to explain why.
The film is directed by Agnieszka Holland. The film is based on a play by Christopher Hampton. The story is based on real events. In short, the film tells us the story of the acquaintance and relationship of two French poets – Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rimbaud. This is a short description of the film I read on the website and decided to see what is hidden behind this general phrase. This is not a very famous and very early work of DiCaprio, and until recently I did not know about the existence of this film. I don’t know what I expected to see, but definitely not what I saw!
The film, of course, is very provocative, candid, and sorry, immoral! I consider myself quite a tolerant person in the subject of same-sex relationships, homosexuality, a few months ago I left on this site a very enthusiastic review of the film “Brokeback Mountain”, and in fact it is also about the intimate relationship of two men. But Brokeback Mountain is the movie that made me feel admiration, sadness, regret, emotion, but by no means disgust. I’m not going to compare the two films any further, they’re completely different, the only thing they have in common is same-sex relationships. The painting. Total Eclipse caused me a feeling of disgust, disgust, I couldn’t even watch it all sequentially, but only in snatches, on rewind, but I had enough!
The film is stunningly dirty and repulsive. I don’t know if anyone saw love between the two poets, but what I saw was the filth, lust, disgusting behavior of both, Paul Verlaine’s eerie attitude towards his wife (beating a pregnant woman, setting her hair on fire, pushing a crib with a child, his own child, by the way, that’s disgusting!) And in general, the actor David Thewlis as Paul Verlaine - disgusting appearance, this greasy, half-mad smile the whole film caused a feeling of nausea! I understand that this film is an autobiography, the actors are not to blame, there was actually a relationship between these two people that is commonly called homosexual. Although, of course, if you leave the unpleasant, repulsive scenes and think a little deeper, the acting of both, and above all Leo DiCaprio, of course, flawless! At the time of filming, he was only 21 years old, and he played the young poet Arthur Rimbaud, who was even younger, and did it brilliantly! I can't believe it was him at all.
Of course, as a girl, it is much more pleasant to see Leo as a romantic Prince Jack Dawson kissing a beautiful girl, not a disgusting man with a beard, but as an actor, for Leo, Total Eclipse is definitely a more difficult role! Paradoxically, in this sick relationship, Paul and Arthur drew inspiration for their work, they went crazy for each other, wanted to probably break this relationship and could not. But for me, it's not love, it's a disease, a lust that's ruining their lives. Incidentally, the meaning of the title of the film “Total Eclipse” is the state of the main characters, their destructive impact on each other’s lives.
However, the story ended sadly for both. Paul Verlaine was convicted of homosexuality and lost everything he had, and Arthur died in 1891 in a Marseille hospital from a cancerous leg tumor.
To sum up, the film is of course ambiguous, provocative and ingeniously disgusting. On the one hand, the truly magnificent performance of the actors, their complete immersion in the role, and on the other hand, the immorality, dirt and corruption of the characters. And note, despite the fact that Paul was twice as old as Arthur, it is impossible to say that he corrupted the young boy, rather, this “boy” with its beauty, provocative sexuality, complete lack of moral framework, drove him crazy. And in the end, despite the sad ending of their lives, I did not feel sorry for either of them, the only feeling they both cause is disgust! But this is not the fault of the actors, this story is reality, it was just so dirty, and the actors showed it!
Honestly, I don’t recommend watching this movie! I only had one time, and even then rewinded on separate bed scenes, and I very much doubt that I want to watch it again! Too much
The film is immoral - disgusting. It has a lot of very frank, nude scenes, including homosexual orientation, so the age limit is strictly 18+, compared to this picture “Brokeback Mountain” seems a romantic tale of love. But if you are a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio and you are an adult, you can decide to watch this film, if only to once again admire the acting skills of Leo.
To be honest, I am not familiar with French literature, so I will rely only on my impressions of the film by Polish director Agnieszka Holland. She took the bold step of making a film about the ambiguous relationship between two poets, considered the leading figures of French literature.
First, DiCaprio in this film played well and organically got used to the role of the French poet Arthur Rimbaud. I looked at Leonardo with different eyes, and respect him for taking on such an unusual role.
Second, despite a couple of, say, unconventional, candid scenes, it was interesting to watch the volatile relationship between Rimbaud and Verlaine (played by David Thewlis). Paul Verlaine seemed, to put it mildly, weak character, was sorry for his wife, who really loves him, and at the same time obeys the young man. And Rimbaud's not really cute either. . .
The film is made interesting, beautiful, well-chosen musical accompaniment - everything is done at the highest level! The film introduced me to the life of famous French poets and was interested in getting to know their works.
The only thing that is unbearable is that you can transfer everything.
A film of great cinema. Despite the fact that one of the headings is precisely biographical, this picture is a great work of art that tells us about the life of the great French poets of the XIX century: Paul Verlainet and young Arthur Rimbaud.
The film will interest fans of artistic culture, good acting, and fans of Leonardo DiCaprio.
Not talking about it in the review is simply impossible. After all, despite his young age, he played a role, he is 100%, which is already worth your attention.
The film teaches a lot, that you should always go to your goal, no matter what. To have your own ideals, your own point of view, and most importantly not to be like everyone else, not to be a copycat of society. Do not be afraid of yourself, and behave as you see fit.
Love. It's like the second title of the movie. After all, Paul and Arthur begin to realize that they are passionate about each other. This is where your own drama begins. You can talk about love for hours, but I think it is better to see once than to hear a hundred times.
After the film, you will want to get up from the couch, and immediately start acting, finishing your great deeds, telling the truth that you could hide from your love and just a loved one. The slogan of the movie is that fear is stupid. You don’t have to give it your short life.
The whole film is accompanied by an orchestral muse of the Romantic era, which is also very important.
To be brief, the film is about the great geniuses who turned the world upside down, about love, inspiration and the search for their truth, about fulfilling their whims, desires.
- What's your greatest fear?
That other people will see me as I see them.
- What are you most afraid of?
- That others will see me as I see them.
-Paul, don't go! Come back! Don't leave me alone! How will I live now?
Today, there are more and more people who consider themselves atheists, but I think there are fewer and fewer people who really understand atheism and have an atheistic mindset. This was largely contributed by the fact that the propaganda of atheism was engaged in very narrow people, such as George Carlin, Jacques Fresco or the same Dawkins.
Meanwhile, atheism is a heavy burden, a tough choice, and Arthur Rimbaud made that choice consciously. He looked boldly at the problem of the non-existence of God and ridiculed less courageous people, philistines and Pharisees. I see the whole film as a story about Verlaine’s attempt to join Rimbaud’s difficult but noble choice. Attempt to become one of the Atlanteans, bearing the entire burden of the atheistic world. Yes, now it is probably clearer than the title I chose for the review.
Paul dared to rank himself as having the right, for a while sincerely amused himself with the sense of permissiveness that can be seen in the scenes of his quarrels with his wife, but we know how it ended. As in real life, in the film, Verlaine came to what he came to, which angered and disappointed Rimbaud.
Unfortunately, fifteen minutes before the end, Agnieszka Holland went somewhere in the other steppes, began to play too frivolously with the image of Rimbaud and ended the film in a rather unexpected way. But thanks to high-quality directing and great acting, the actors still look quite fascinating. However, I will drop a couple of points for, but my subjective view is a rather weak final.
8 out of 10
The mind is clouded, the sense of reality is lost.
The directors of films sometimes so accurately select the title of their works, which fully reflect the plot. A total eclipse ... of mind, views, soul, awareness of the world. I don't care about reputation, family, place in society. “There is only a moment, and hold on to it.” Here it is, and now it is happening, and I wish it did not end. What makes a person do crazy things? Want to experience something new? Bad company? Or is it a way of life: extracting pleasure and adrenaline from everything you can?
I have never been familiar with the work of both (as here they present “legendary”, although everything can be) poets, so the perception of the film stopped at the plot and play of the actors. And then DiCaprio was very impressed. A troubled young man who so deftly fell in love with a family man and just as simply destroyed his family. They don’t think about the consequences, they live in the present and each of them is different. The mind is clouded, the sense of reality is lost.
Human pity Matilda, who gave "second chances" to her beloved husband and which he mockingly rejected. She did not understand the nature of Verlaine's feelings for Rimbaud, but fought for him to the last, and eventually "released" him. Matilda was the only person who extended a helping hand to Verlaine, who was confused, and he had enough awareness for this, but he deliberately made a choice not that it was not in her favor, but even in his own.
But such people always have a predictable end - an early departure from life and a large number of questions to assess their heritage.
5 out of 10
This is an incredible film that captures completely from the opening credits! A delightful soundtrack perfectly complements the picture.
French cinema is, of course, feelings, emotions, passion, love. And all this is there, and their originality only adds to the interest. A rich story, there is no possibility of distraction. There's an action going on all the time, if they don't move in the literal sense of the word, then they talk and their speeches are beautiful.
I fell in love with the main characters. Although Paul was disgusted in the beginning, I ended up loving him. Mimics, movements. How complex each one is. They do everything so naturally, so freely, so gracefully. In each of them there is sophistication, aristocracy. Paul, of course, is more gentle, Arthur is more rigid, calculating.
In addition to love, the film has a historical component. It speaks of the French Revolution, shows the attitude of the state to such relations (now everything is allowed by law). It shows reality, not romance (the moments when they need to get money). There's also a scene of poets meeting. There are scenes of creative torment. I liked how the change in mood was emphasized during the creative process. Such a playful, carefree, open Arthur suddenly closes, becomes serious. For him, creativity is very important, he takes this process very seriously.
The film teaches us to appreciate the creative process. Arthur does not do everything for money (maybe for fame), he is a true creator. He can't help but be creative. He wants to feel this life, to get to the bottom of it. He can't wait to try everything, to see everything. I want to change the world! He decided to be a genius and he did. It is good that he was able to find a true friend like Paul, who fully accepted him as he is and supported him. It's really a total eclipse. Paul is at the mercy of Arthur.
A genius, any genius has something negative, but also positive, knowing Rambo as a poet, one of the favorite poets, who does not like liberals, living in a time of war and famine in a small French town, in a large family, he ran away from home so often, in search of the sun, read a lot, once he went so far as to cross the Alps, and ate grass, in one poem he describes it. Being so young, irresistible before the journey, the desire to live differently, to write, see, read, communicate, he could not afford all this in an era of lack of money of youth and laziness, he justifiably gets into the soul of the not so young but successful poet Verlaine, amazes him with his poems, who wrote poetry at such an early age, one can only assume that Rambo only enjoyed the benefits granted to Verlaine. Rambo wrote his poems between the ages of 16 and 19, later deprived of his legs due to gangrene in Africa, he returns home to France, and again takes up the pen and dies at the age of 40. The best poems they wrote together, Rambo and Verlaine. This is a touching story of two brilliant poets of that era.
As for the film, it is sustained, camera shooting at a height, the music fully conveys the feelings shown in the film my score of 9, without exaggeration, only loving poems and biographical films will not remain indifferent. A huge thank you to the director for this adaptation of the story of such a grandiose poet.
Why do I love him more than any other writer? Is it because his failure is so instructive? Was it because he resisted to the last? I confess that I love everyone who is called rebels and losers. I love them because they are human, because they are human, too human. #34
Henry Miller, The Time of the Killers
Essay on the centenary of Arthur Rimbaud.
A provincial savage who invaded the bohemian life of a Parisian poetic circle with all his numerous "merde", provocative antics and outright spitting. But the biography of the great French poet, who devoted only four years of his life to literature, cannot be complete without the persona of Paul Verlaine, a poet and family man, increasingly presented by his biographers as an exceptional victim of the “demonic spouse.”
The history of the relationship between the two poets in Total Eclipse is represented both by episodes that are very accurate (rarely), and based mainly on legends. Therefore, if you want historical authenticity, it is worth looking for another picture. "Total Eclipse" is unlikely to satisfy the requirements of truth, increasingly turning into an ingrained fantasy towards the end.
Another negative point of the picture is the foreground and exaggerated “Herculean passions”. Rimbaud and Verlena. It makes no sense to deny them, but the medical report of the sodomite connection, conducted directly in court, cuts the eye.
But definitely a positive assessment deserves acting.
A stunningly charismatic young DiCaprio as Rimbaud, and hardly anyone could have played him better yet. Even those blond hair and light blue eyes of the Gallic ancestors. David Thewlis as Verlaine deserves admiration for the expressive look of the “unreasonable maid”, for the whole range of feelings from youthful love to drunken aggression.
Separately, it is worth noting the delightful musical accompaniment Kachmarek.
Blinded by the reflected light, the inhabitants are looking for a guide in the genius, an ideal hero who has denied the sins of both his own and the sins of society, who knows the way to the light. The path of genius is not the path of God. The basis on which the graceful flower grows is crap, and the sparkling threads of poetry are most evident in the darkness of a total eclipse. Because eternity is...
Montparnassian circle "Mean Boys" shudders when a young peasant son Arthur Rimbaud breaks in. The Devils shrivel like children in Halloween costumes who manage to summon a real demon. The bourgeois circle, which sanctimoniously preaches freedom and freedom from convention, cannot bear the true destroyer. Only one remains as enchanted as he was on the first day - the Parisian poetic celebrity Paul Verlaine, who invited a sixteen-year-old boy from the small village of Charleville, finding his poems brilliant.
What the film is accused of, namely the almost complete absence of poems by these famous poets, is in fact one of the main techniques of director Agnieszka Holland, who, although she did not sin against historical facts, tried to go beyond the biopic with her tape. Arthur’s genius against the backdrop of Paul’s good but average level is a paradigm we must take for granted. The attempt to declare someone a genius, to try on the angelic halo of genius on the forehead of this or that second character, makes the viewer eventually freeze and stare at this useless halo in his own hands, whose roundness shines like a solar halo.
Verlaine suffers in the suffocating atmosphere of a good marriage, mocking his young wife and beating the cradle with his newborn son. Arthur is his outlet, his opportunity to become what he wants to be, to escape from reality into the world of poetic madness. The young provincial, who came to conquer Paris, can offer Verlaine not only his body, he can give him understanding. “Whatever binds couples together is not love.” Maybe stupidity, selfishness or fear. Love must be reinvented. He throws his clothes out of the attic window, walking naked on the eaves, urinating on Parisian poets, piercing through Verlaine's palm to prove that he loves him. And he, licking drops of blood from the crippled limbs, crawls after him like a dog on his belly. They invented their love. It's not passion, it's immersion in madness. Prone to sadomasochism, Verlaine found his deity, only occasionally breaking back to his wife to swallow the air of “normality”, but poisoned by this freshness, soon again makes his wife pay with pain and suffering for being unable to build the bright, luminous life he dreams of without Arthur. Had it not been for Arthur, perhaps this black crater would have engulfed Verlaine, his wife, his child, his mind, spitting out only the bloody bones of a drunken and negligent murder.
Anyone who accuses Holland of lacking romanticism has not seen The Mysterious Garden. She knows how to stop the moment and admire the innocent purity as if every new morning is a unique miracle. The devil-olive whirlpool of homosexual passion attracts and repels poets intentionally. Holland creates a catastrophe, which the onlooker looks at with a sense of admiration and horror, but is unable to look away, just as he can not help looking at the fire devouring the building.
In a total solar eclipse, shadows fall on the world and the whole world seems unreal, but at the same time the only true one, as if there was never another. A little broken, indecisive and at the same time impulsive Thewlis in the role of Verlaine, looks with slightly obscured eyes of absinthe lover at the reflection in his own pupils. He would break everything, including his relationship with Arthur, if he could, but he is being torn down by a current stronger than himself. Verlaine declares his passion for the bodies of lovers, “the soul is eternal, there is still time for it,” but Thewlis gives the feeling of a man fascinated by what he thinks can jam the mechanism that turns the sun so that it never rises again. When you find out that River Phoenix was supposed to play Rimbaud, you can't help but introduce him to DiCaprio. When River, being forever in a narcotic veil, would perceive both his behavior and the behavior of others as the only true, because this is his nature, Arthur in his view could not do otherwise, then Leo feels the eternal youthful maximalism that he conveys to the hero, the desire to shock, to seem worse than he is. And this interpretation of the image is no worse. She's just different. A different interpretation, but the same logical ending.
Everything ends and if the sun does not show for a long time because of the shadow, the fantastic world ceases to attract. Arthur runs out of inspiration, he looks at his lover, who has already given him all his admiration, who is already empty like the first bottle at a feast, and realizes that he himself, with his decisions, led himself to this. The pain that ended in passion is now unbearable. Pain, like a bridle, is no longer needed, now pain is a whip, which is punished for the fact that passion is not still pleasing. A prolonged bad dream that ceased to give painfully sweet pleasure. And the parting that is brewing becomes for them a torture, which they stretch endlessly, unable to make the last blow of mercy.
In Arthur’s last sentence to choose a soul or a body, one cannot be sure that there was a correct answer. Verlaine chose the body, but would you know if Arthur would like to share his soul, consumed with dreams of eternal freedom? The eclipse ended, the sun again went across the sky, beckoning Arthur to his kingdom, to Africa, where in reflection from the sand and water, he reigns as the only god in his palaces. Destruction has limits, you can not kiss and break all the porcelain dogs, thereby letting them go, someday nothing will be destroyed. Verlaine stayed by the banks of his wormwood absinthe river, repeating quietly, "I don't exist when there's no one around me." It wasn't just the romance that ended. The muse, beating in ecstasy in the wrong light of the eclipse, with the first rays left both.
This film is not about poets or poetry. It's a movie about the sun. The fact that the world of an eclipse can be described, but you cannot live in it forever. That the demons of destruction do not walk in the guise of men and that no one can invent a new love. Someday you will want to rays on the skin and kiss on the palm of your hand instead of hitting a knife. The film ends with Jan Nightmarek's compositions Eternity and Sun. Because eternity is the sun, scattered by glare on the sea.
Naturally, this film is designed for a certain audience, you can not argue with this, and it should be taken into account.
The film tells the story of a young poet Arthur Rimbaud, cut off from the world, striving to become a genius. At the invitation of the already established poet and in the future - the only friend, Paul Verlaine, he comes to Paris, hoping that he will find something new. He does not care about the opinions of others, he is as immersed in himself and his ideas as possible. It exists in its own world. Using, roughly speaking, his ' mentor' Paul Verlaine, he is looking for a way to change life, rebel against opinions, carry out a revolution of souls, thereby becoming a genius.
I can’t agree with people who call Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine gay. Paul Verlaine was married to a woman whom he loved madly and devoted almost all his lyrics to her. Meeting Rimbaud, he became mad, succumbed to the temptation to experience something new,' to know everything' as Rimbaud wanted, he also sought any methods to find ' fresh meat' for reflection.
39; When I was young and golden, I thought all I needed was experience and I could create new colors, a new god & #39;
The very personality of Arthur Rimbaud is original and interesting, it is interesting to watch his unforeseen actions, his manner of presenting himself. The perception of his world is not subject to anyone.
For the first time, watching this film, I found it wild and shameful, but something on the soul remained that made him reconsider and think about everything.
I’m currently reviewing this film and I’m already racing to talk to the actors about their lyrics. This movie changed me a lot.
If you are interested in poetry ' Damned Poets' if you like to puzzle over the topic ' what I bring to this world' then you will like this film.
Yes, Europeans can make movies. A completely original, roof-bearing film that causes a whole range of emotions. This is a drama about the relationship between two great poets. 19th century, literary meetings, pipe, absinthe.
There are absolutely disgusting scenes, the film mercilessly tears all the patterns. Therefore, unprepared or overly romantic, it is better not to start watching it at all.
I agree that this is DiCaprio’s best role. Deviant, along with this wildly charming teenager who can not get along with anyone. Free to release all his inner demons. There are no limits or limitations. There is freedom of body and spirit. And yes, it is not safe to indulge all your whims, but, as you know, the brakes were invented by cowards.
The relationship between the two poets is not so simple: there is love, passion, cruelty, affection, jealousy, and most importantly – absolute sincerity. They're out of society, out of norms. Imitate animals? Why not? Hurt each other? Yeah, great. Risk of going to jail? Sure. These two people understand and feel each other like no one else. They both have families, but they are so boring and dreary.
Why do two famous poets feel completely alone and lost in this world without each other? Which do you choose, body or soul? What is love at all?
The world is imperfect. And probably all great creative people are crazy in their own way. This movie completely turns this idea out.
For those who do not disgust non-traditional relationships between men.
I watched the movie in one breath.
DiCaprio - TALANTISCHE, so convincingly was able to play free of people, society, from prejudice, poet Arthur Rimbaud, who turned the world of literature, changing the course of History. Throughout the film, we see the love between him and Paul Verlaine, a 19th-century French poet. This story is true, but as usual, exaggerated on the screen. Magnificent acting, field shooting, chic costumes - I am delighted!
Everybody watch!
Deep disappointment and disgust are now eating me from the inside out. A completely unexpected impression was made on me by the film “Total Eclipse”. I wanted to see the difficult fate and relationship of the two poets, the search for themselves, some fine line between all this, but the opposite happened.
This film is not about poets. There is nothing poetic, vulnerable and creative about it. There's no poetry here. There's only depravity. I am not biased against people whose attraction to same-sex love is stronger than nature. On screen, we were often shown occasions where such feelings were regrettable and even understandable, but not in the case of Total Eclipse. The carnal pleasures of two men who do not work, drink, despise their colleagues and family - that's what this movie is about. As for me, even such a pastime would be permissible if they also created in the frame. I'm sympathetic to creative people, and I can probably justify whatever they do, but again, not here. If the hero DiCaprio (Arthur Rimbaud) still somehow rushes, searches and writes, then his companion Paul Verlaine, except disgust, does not cause any more feelings. I don’t know if everything happened exactly as the authors interpreted these “complex” relationships, but I realized one thing that I don’t even want to understand it in detail. This creation completely killed in me the desire to know their biography and read poetry. Maybe this is wrong, but I am sure that I will live well without this knowledge.
The main actors are good. I’m a fan of Leo, so I’m very reluctant to write a bad review of the movie he’s in. But I can’t help thanking him for making this film, even in some episodes, aesthetically beautiful. Also here he shines with plasticity and the ability to imitate animals. As for David Thewlis, this is not the first role I’ve seen. Otherwise, I would have avoided it in cinema. His hero is pathetic and disgusting. So let me just say that he plays very convincingly here. Too much.
It is strange that we were shown poets in this light. Judging by the reviews, I’m one of the few people the film made a bad impression on. I speak only for myself that in some moments it seemed that the creators simply want to deprive these artists of new fans.
Just for DiCaprio I put
The picture tells about the complex relationship of two French poets of the XIX century. The film left a terrible, disgusting residue for it tries to be philosophical, although it itself is not, but the most upsetting thing is that the film is empty and raw. The picture leaves a terrible aversion to both the main characters and the tape as a whole.
First of all, I didn’t show any sympathy for the two main characters. The only person who could be sympathetic and compassionate was Matilda. She clearly loved her husband very much, because for a reason she endured all the humiliation and pain caused by Paul. Such a wife should be valued, cherished and taken care of in every way. I am pleasantly surprised by her femininity and ability to go out of my way to be such a charming wife.
As for Paul, he may be a great poet. But he's a terribly stupid and naive person. There were no feelings between the poets, but rather a story about how a teenager is able to control an adult man. There was no lyrics or romance in it, it was vile and disgusting. Watching Arthur push around and use Paul was simply terrible, in some moments the stupidity, naivety, greed of Paul already became quite infuriating. He considered himself a great poet, capable of reviving the new generation of poets in whom he saw Arthur. But all this philosophy and belief in a bright future is really just his obsession with it and clearly an unhealthy psyche. As for Arthur, he may write great poems, but as a person he is terrible.
In the end, I want to say that the film is absolutely raw, empty and fake. I declare this film immoral! What was most annoying was that the painting was trying to be pompous, philosophical and elementary, trying to teach us how to live with these two horrible people. I am very disappointed in the film and lost two hours of my life. Only for the work and efforts of the actors three out of ten. Do not watch this film, if you do not want to disturb your normal, adequate psyche.
3 out of 10
If only you knew from what rubbish poetry grows without knowing shame. ?
Agnieszka Holland's "Total Eclipse" turns 20 this year. And I've been with this movie for 15 years, since I accidentally watched it in a nighttime screening of one of the channels. This drama about the relationship between Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rambo at one time prompted me to study the life and work of these great poets.
Verlaine, a 26-year-old gentleman, already a famous poet, meets the young poetic genius Rambo, who comes from the province to conquer Paris. Our first visit to a literary society shows us what this 16-year-old boy is capable of. This Enfant terrible, rebellious and debauchery mercilessly mocks the poems sounding at the party, accuses poetry of being sloppy, urinates on the manuscript and finally arranges a real battle.
Yes, he is a rebel, he wants to experience everything in this life, to reach the essence, to sink to the bottom, and then, from the abyss, to fly up purified. Perhaps this desire to try everything led to alcohol and drugs. Maybe that's what pushes him into the wilderness of forbidden love with Verlaine looking at him lustfully. If Rambo lived in our time, he would probably be a rock musician who exists on the principle: “Live fast, die young.”
I am amazed at how different these two characters are. Verlaine is a very weak man, hesitant, unsure of himself, and (as he said) in “his rotten Museum.” Sometimes, getting drunk, he becomes simply disgusting: he mocks his young wife, who has just given birth to a child, but at the same time reaches for her, for her body.
Rambo, despite the "gentle" age - very smart, calculating, he is strong, tough, even cruel. He tells his friend ruthless, terrible things, and one day in a tavern gives him an expressive lesson, nailing his hand to the table with a knife.
The relationship of the two poets is immersed in a thick atmosphere of drunken absinthe frenzy and sexuality. Their passionate close-up kisses and nights of love were a shocking revelation twenty years ago.
Verlena in the film was played by British actor David Thewlis. He created the image of an eternally doubtful man who does not dare to do anything: he rushes between his wife and Rambo, he does not know whether to go to war with Spain, he wants to shoot Rambo, but only hurts in the arm.
Arthur Rambo, played by twenty-year-old Leonardo DiCaprio, is remarkably good. So precisely to get used to the image, to reincarnate in a kind of fallen angel - for this you need to have an extraordinary talent. In addition, DiCaprio in this role is very beautiful. It’s interesting to see how his face changes. This is a boy with a childish blush, or a tired man with a hard lip. Rambo – DiCaprio, walking at the beginning of the film in Paris with a light walk of an unencumbered man with a thin tube in his mouth, as if he came off Verlaine’s graphic sketches.
I cannot but mention the unparalleled music of composer Jan Kaczmarek, who is fully involved in the dramaturgy of the film.
Anna Akhmatova wrote: “If only you knew from what rubbish poetry grows, knowing no shame...”
Total Eclipse is a talented film about the search for an ideal and the impossibility of achieving it, about unfulfilled hopes and human passions. About the torments of creativity, about the eternity of being, "where the sea merges with the sky."
10 out of 10
Someone said there was a lot of sex in the movie - I didn't see sex, I only saw love.
Verlaine. It is hard to imagine anyone else in this role. Thewlis is an amazing actor. His Verlaine does not cause disgust, although he deserves it - but attracts.
He was a talented poet, a true decadent, drowning in absinthe and debauchery. Ugly, frivolous, vicious, weak, and yet arousing interest and sympathy.
He was married, in love with his young wife, looking for a source of inspiration, but the muse found it herself. "Why did you choose me?"
What Verlaine could offer the young man - money and help, what the young man gave in return - love. Rimbaud did nothing at full strength: he devoted himself entirely to creativity and love.
What was Verlaine doing? Nothing. He only talked about love, his wife, his lover, and it didn’t seem plausible. He loved fights, each in his own way: his wife physically, Arthur spiritually. But is it possible to love two? Is it possible to love by accepting one thing and rejecting the other? Nope. Paul tormented both, begging to come, then abandoning them. He couldn't make a choice. He abused his wife, beat her, set her hair on fire. He mocked Arthur, talking about his wife’s beauty and his love for her, causing him pain. The scene where Paul says he can’t leave his wife because he loves her, loves her beautiful young body, and Rimbaud’s body is not, Arthur picks up the wedding ring on Verlaine’s finger with a knife, and then stabs him with resentment, jealousy, anger. Very revealing scene. And then Verlaine shoots Arthur and injures his hand.
Both his wife and Rimbaud were waiting for Verlaine to do something, to decide, to follow him, to pull him back and forth. But when he was with his wife, he ran away with Arthur, and under Arthur he said about his wife that he wanted reconciliation with her. Did he really love any of them, was he worthy of such love?
In the end, the wife gets tired and disappointed, then Rimbaud. It wasn't Verlaine who made the choice and wanted a divorce, it was his wife. And what he told Arthur was that he couldn't be alone, that he needed someone nearby. Paul is with Arthur because he has nowhere else to go.
Rimbaud is angry, jealous, despising and yet tolerates and forgives the drunkard, sleeps with him. For money? They're almost gone. Maybe because he loves you? This loser shot him in the arm, and Rimbaud weeps in front of his family and exclaims “Verlain!” Verlaine! when he's put in jail. Those two years of separation should have made a difference. What does Rimbaud see? Turned to the god Verlaine. When Rimbaud asks him, which would he choose, body or soul? Paul answers uncertainly - the body. Is that the right answer? Maybe the body and the soul? "No more." Rimbaud pushed Verlaine away because he had gone through too much in those two years and wanted more than pig love.
Rimbaud. This role was to be played by a very talented actor – River Phoenix ("My Personal State of Idaho). Of course, this is his role, and he would have played great, but the fate was different: Phoenix died of an overdose of mink, and the role went to DiCaprio, who played brilliantly!
Rimbaud did wear and tear, loved madly: both soul and body. What he expected from Verlaine, and what he was incapable of. Did he talk about his feelings? Nope. Should we talk about love when actions express it more powerfully than words? "You are dear to me."
Some say Rimbaud was with him for the money. What money? If desired, he could find a sponsor and richer or steal for the worse, and choose a more beautiful lover. Others say Rimbaud abused Verlaine. What was he worthy of? Arthur believed that this was how he should behave with him.
They fought, fought, hurt each other, hated, destroyed and loved to the point of exhaustion. Arthur couldn't write with him anymore.
The genius of Rimbaud burned to the ground, said everything he wanted. Was he happy afterwards? She seemed to be connected to an African woman, but she looked lost and devastated. Lived a difficult life, died young ...
Top score!
The review can begin with a standard phrase from the exam in Russian: "This work raises many problems..."
There are really many problems: homosexuality, poet and poetry, the problem of finding inspiration, finding oneself and the meaning of life, the problem of love. But the director cuts only the tops. It seems as if the questions not only were not resolved, but even were not asked to the end.
The whole film is a cutting of the throwing of the main characters, densely flooded with erotic scenes (which “pull” the film) and slightly sprinkled with poetry. Yes, with eroticism it turned out perfectly: sensual close-up kisses, tenderness, passion ... Watching actors play is a pleasure. Special thanks to Jan Kaczmarek for the beautiful soundtrack that makes all scenes of the film more organic.
The poetry was much worse. Not only did it turn out to be a “spoiled phone” due to the “mixture of French and Nizhny Novgorod languages”, and poems in principle practically do not sound in the film. No, well, there are, but we need more poems!
I also found the film homophobic. U.S. President Nixon used the Circassian trick, portraying himself as a loving husband and animal advocate to make his candidacy look better in the election. With the hero Tulis (and with DiCaprio too), the reverse story came out: as if by chance they do things that cause hostility to the viewer: Verlaine throws a cradle with a child, Rimbaud urinates on the manuscript - that glimpses into the frame, but leaves an unpleasant residue.
In short, the film is superficial and contradictory, but for the play of the actors.
5 out of 10
The film is again about love affairs, only between poets, Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine. Paris 1871. Verlaine invited Rimbaud (played by the beautiful David Thewlis, now more associated with Professor Lupin from Harry Potter), having previously approved his poems. Sixteen-year-old Rimbaud settles in the house of Verlaine, from where his wife, pregnant Matilda, soon banishes him for rudeness and uncleanness. She would be happy to have a dialogue, and Rimbaud is not very willing:
- What does your father do?
- Mostly drinking, I suppose. We haven't seen each other in 10 years.
Verlaine and Rimbaud take part in the meetings of the literary circles “Mean Boys” and “Devil Boys”, are friends, drunk, quarrel and reconcile. Their quarrels are not only on literary grounds, although Rimbaud here gives rise to a dispute. Unprepared to squeeze into the confines of salon poetry, he declares of Paris: "What bothers me most in this city is that artists are more bourgeois than the bourgeoisie itself." Matilda is not happy with such a young and attractive Rimbaud (even if in the film he is played by Leonardo DiCaprio!), who completely captured the attention of her husband, Rimbaud even returns home for a while, where an entertaining dialogue between him and his mother unfolds. Ta says that there is a lot of work in the fields, and Rimbaud, pointing to his leaves, with a feeling retorted that he has a lot of work there (on the leaves) too. Everything turns out so that Verlaine leaves the family and goes with Rimbaud to London. Having lived there for some time, they travel around Europe and break up in Brussels, after Verlaine in a heated argument (drinking absinthe) shoots Rimbaud’s wrist.
Rimbaud: Get tougher, reject romanticism, forget the rhetoric, get it right. I finally saw where the attempt to conquer the world had taken me.
Verlaine: Where did she take you?
This way. My search for universal experience brought me here. To idle and drag on a useless, impoverished existence. As the lover of a bald, scary, aging lyrical poet who clings to me because his wife doesn't want him back.
Verlaine was sentenced to two years in prison. After breaking up with Verlaine, Rimbaud returns home to Rocher's farm. After that, Rimbaud stops writing and travels the world. He dies after a leg amputation in a hospital where he was cared for only by his sister. And Verlaine kept memories of Rimbaud.
Quote:
In curly harbors where gases ripen.
Drunk water, I was myself.
No armored boats, no sailboats Hansa
They would not have moved my frame.
Wrapped in purple fog,
The cherry frown of the sky,
I brought poets and gourmets.
In the sky, the sun is in the sky.
Excerpt from The Drunk Ship, 1871.
Who knows if the world would have changed if there hadn’t been a total eclipse? Would people see, would throw everything superfluous out of their understanding of the world if they suddenly saw it?
“No,” says Agnieszka Holland through the mouth of his hero, “No.” The world is too old to change. And it has already been said. Her guess is confirmed by the words of film critics who claim that the film is too frank, not covered with a romantic halo, and therefore uninteresting. But the word "Total Eclipse" was still said in front of the audience who remembered it.
We have three heroes who are slowly telling the story of their lives. "Your life, or yours?" But these are actors! you say. But for me there will always be talented Leonardo DiCaprio, David Thewlis and Romana Borenger separately, and their characters will leave their mark on the heart, like real people.
Having loved a man once, I love him all my life. Sometimes, remembering those with whom I was before, I close my eyes and glorify them all.
Paul Verlaine is a man brought up as a gentleman. He settled down to live at the expense of other people, listen to the vershees of incompetent poets in the evenings and politely clap them. He married Matilda, a girl pleasant in appearance, rich and obedient. He was a good poet, he was a good poet. But in the evenings, he secretly drinks absinthe in the bar, and is jealous of those who can do it in the open.
She's your wife. You love her, right? Come back here!
Arthur Rimbaud is a young poet, all old attachments are strong in him, he loves his mother, sister, Verlaine, pities his wife Matilda, but does not allow them to get used to their own tenderness. He's cruel to Verlaine, he pushes them around as much as he can because Verlaine needs it. The range of his emotions is truly great. He goes from cynical mockery of Field to tearful pleas to come back, he changes. "I change when I write." Having met him, Verlaine also tries to become more open and independent. He hits his wife, lights her hair, laughs at her father, and, seeing her patience and meekness, goes further and further, then tearfully begging her to forgive and start over.
This film left an eternal imprint on my heart. And even if David Thewlis himself is not very good about the eclipse, even if critics do not recognize it, let Leonardo DiCaprio consider this film an experiment - still my heart will flip when I hear two words of the cherished title. I will laugh at Rimbaud’s words about the city of Charleville (" the worst hole in God’s created Earth), and sigh hard during the family dinner scene when Arthur exclaims “Verlain” twice, and his mother responds colorlessly and impenetrable to shocked children, “eat on.”
This picture is not only worthy of the word “genius”, but also the title of genius too.
I’ll never understand why this movie got into my heart. I don't want to know. Let this mystery be beyond my reach.
I will be out of reach for everyone. Master of silence.
In the film Total Eclipse, the director introduces us to the passionate, pathetic and unique world of two French poets – Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rimbaud. Before this film was not familiar with their biography and work, so this is a great opportunity for you to get acquainted with the special world of French poetry.
What about the cast? I think in the summary of the film, you have already read that the main storyline is a love triangle. The only thing that didn’t satisfy me was our dear David Thewlis. It is painfully pathetic and not at all convenient, he looked as a homosexual Paul Verlaine. And that's a huge disadvantage to me. During the whole movie in my head was only one thought, how he does not fit this role.
What about DiCaprio? What about DiCaprio? He's always great. This man was given an acting gift. He did a great job. And just for the sake of his play is worth watching the movie. By the way, it is known that the role of Arthur Rimbaud, played by Leo, originally planned River Phoenix (a very spectacular and popular actor), but in connection with his death, the role went to DiCaprio. What I am, no matter how rude it sounds, I am very happy.
By the way, few foreign films made in serious genres caused me as much laughter as this picture. Oh, that DiCaprio! The mixture of his acting talent and film scenes is something.
By the way, there were enough dramatic and philosophical lines. Not really. Every line, every scene had a very deep meaning. I would love to present to your attention a huge number of phrases and quotes that I like, but I will limit myself to one, my favorite: To become the first poet of this century, I must experience everything myself. It was not enough for me to be one person. I decided to be everyone. I decided to be a genius. I decided to create the future. "
The movie was impressive. After watching it, I was immersed in the comprehension of many life issues, and if this happens to me after watching the film, it is an indicator of a quality picture. Once again, the film quality, but not a masterpiece.
7 out of 10
At one time, I had the chance to read the biography of two poets who with their creations became the “bomb effect”. At one time, they represented a poetic beaumont, which was distinguished by marginality, bordering on madness, these are exalted people, their actions are shocked, frightened, there is no explanation for them, but such are often geniuses, and no one doubts that Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rimbaud are geniuses.
It is rather strange that no one put their biography (if they did, then I am not aware of it) and only in 1995 the Polish Agnieszka Holland took up this case. The woman undertook a difficult task: both heroes are a national treasure of France, you can not offend the French, showing in a negative light their idols, but still this biographical drama and the truthfulness of the shown here is taken into account, although in the opinion of many the film "Total Eclipse" does not quite go by real facts.
Agnieszka Holland put the tape in a dizzying manner: its main lot was interpersonal relations, a love triangle, forbidden, as the sodomic connection was then called, but it is still worth asking: did Verlen and Rambo love each other or did they love each other’s talent, genius and rejection of everything around them? Now they would be called, politically speaking, opposition to the existing rules, they were against and at that time they were creating. Some scenes cause, to put it mildly, bewilderment mixed with disgust.
She Agnieszka Holland before "Total Eclipse" had two Oscar nominations. This film can also be attributed to those that claim for awards in advance, because they are protest, provocation, shock and all this, nevertheless, highly feature film. The script was written by Christopher Hampton. This man has already won an Oscar. He qualifiedly acted with the plot, he did not wander with thinking about how such characters developed in Verlaine and Rembaud, he simply expressed that they are such and everything, do not want - do not accept them. He clearly softened some moments of their lives, but even this was enough for the viewer to close his eyes in a mixed state of surprise and disgust, as I said above.
The cameraman Jorgos Arvanitis received an award at the Venice Film Festival, another honored filmmaker in the "clip" "Total Eclipse". But there is a nuance in his work - everything seems to be done well, but somehow not fresh, too restrained, without tearing in the frame, without scrupulousness, emotional stress. It was a rather faint show, I would call it minimalist, so the film seemed staid, without a turbulent visual nature. But the composer Yan A.P. Kachmarek (in ten years he will become the winner of the "Oscar") created such musical motifs, from which the soul becomes anxious and the feeling of an approaching catastrophe does not leave for a second when viewing the picture.
And for two actors — Leonardo DiCaprio (Arthur Rimbaud) and David Thewlis (Paul Verlaine) — you can say little, just saying that they play great. Their company was close to everyone else, especially Romane Borenge. It seems that she does not spoil the picture, but it feels like she loses time after time DiCaprio and Tewlis.
Strong international "creative" team, two actors who played bright roles. The film “did not last” all the same, but for those who like not only adrenaline cinema and high-budget tapes, you can watch.
7 out of 10
“I think it is not so important to love the soul as the body. After all, the soul is immortal.
Choice is something that a lot of people, a lot of talented people, or just mediocre people face.
Leonardo DiCaprio played the role of a young, not ordinary, with a non-standard thinking, a vision of the world and literature in general, a boy of 16 years. It would seem so young, but there deeply relates to what he writes.
Here he is, a true poet who cares neither money nor fame.
A story about the state of literature at the time. The two creators of beauty.
The genius of the young poet Arthur Rimbaud (played by DiCaprio) frightened and amazed many. The boy is selfish, partly arrogant, experienced a forbidden feeling that could lead to the death penalty.
Love for Arthur was something foreign, he endured it very hard. He suffered himself, tormented a loved one.
Paul Varlen (played by David Thewlis) is a mediocre poet who admired the poetic gift of young talent. From his wife to his lover. Weak, selfish, unremarkable on the outside. He could decide everything, he had to make a choice, but lost the most precious thing in life.
“My greatest and most pleasant sin. We were always happy, always happy.
Great acting. Excellent work of the director. Great soundtracks. It's as it should be.
In the center of attention of the creators of the picture “Total Eclipse” – the relationship of two famous French poets of the second half of the nineteenth century: Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rimbaud. Both belonged to the list of “damned poets”, which was made by Verlaine and, in addition to Rimbaud, attributed to this group Tristan Corbier and Stefan Mallarme. “Cursed poets”, according to Verlaine, were distinguished by their rejection of bourgeois reality and ostentatious decency.
Alas and ah, in the picture of the Polish-Jewish director Agnieszka Holland literary research of the main characters is given a minimum of attention and time. You can even say that it is not paid at all. Generally speaking, “Total Eclipse” is a tape purely about the physical connection of the accomplished poet and a mature man (Paul Verlaine) with a promising debutante and an uncouth young man (Rambo).
Unfortunately, while watching the film, it is difficult to get an idea of how Verlaine and Rimbaud so inspired each other that they created their best works in the era of their short-lived relationship. Surprisingly, the literary part in the biographical film about famous poets was reduced to impossibility. With the exception of a few lines by Rimbaud, which Verlaine reads shortly after Arthur’s arrival in Paris, all the work of the founders of symbolism remains behind the scenes.
The viewer is left to see the unsightly side of the coexistence of Paul and Arthur. Otherwise, it is impossible to call it “to communicate like animals”. All the bed scenes were made so frankly that, by no means being prudish, the tape of Agnieszka Holland was very coldly perceived even by homosexuals. They say that no elevation in the relationship is not implied, and the emphasis is on bare physiology.
It is difficult to understand what the creators of the picture wanted. However, they certainly did their best if they set out to demonstrate the destructive effect of homosexual relations on human morality. Or show the process of family breakdown due to excessive consumption of absinthe. Or to cause delight in the impeccable work of the Greek operator Giorgos Arvanitis.
There are some wonderful scenes in Total Eclipse: Rimbaud’s epically determined walk on the way to the capital, episodes in London, the scene of Verlaine and Rimbaud’s breakup. Or Arthur Rimbaud's daydreaming. These scenes really feel the tragedy of what is happening. Most of the picture - dull libations of absinthe, alternating with sexual acts.
For this reason, sympathy is caused by the heroine Borenge Romance - Matilda Verlaine, the young wife of Paul. A small girl from a decent (and wealthy) family, who does not understand the poetic gift of her husband, but carries under the heart of his heir. She seems to be the most sensible person in the series of orgies. Her sincere love causes admiration and regret, because her unhappy husband often shows himself far from the best side.
As for the main characters, everything is much easier here. David Thewlis very well played the elderly Paul Verlaine, who vegetates in the bourgeois family and decides to let go of the reins upon the arrival of the unbred but promising poet Rimbaud. To be honest, Thewlis-Verlain looks on the screen no more than a lustful scapegoat, but who showers all adversity. His behavior is disgusting, but he is also a little sorry, because he risks losing literally everything through his reckless passion. It remains a regret that remained undisclosed, for example, Verlaine's role in the Paris Commune.
Young Leo DiCaprio with his own charm depicted a young rebel convinced of his exceptional abilities to change the world. He does not want to vegetate in the countryside (at the same time he adores his mother and sisters), so he writes to the recognized poet Paul Verlaine and becomes his protégé. It is difficult to say which actions of Arthur Rimbaud were dictated by sympathy for Verlaine, and which were the result of a desire to settle down warmer, but the hero of Leo DiCaprio turned out to be outstanding, with a sensual soul. That's just the transition from the village sludge to a more or less secular young man turned out to be too sharp.
So, all the impressions of the "Total Eclipse", it should be mentioned that the presented movie belongs to the category of those films that need to be felt. But Agnieszka Holland, who is known for her work on social injustice, was too carried away by the reality of what was happening. Therefore, her tape about the poets Verlaine and Rimbaud contains a minimum of sublimity, but sins excessive naturalism.
I have reviewed, reviewed and will continue to review.
This is the film that I fell in love with when I saw only the figure of a young Dicaprio in the first seconds of the film. I am amazed at the talent of this man. Every scene, every movement, every look (God, this look!), every voice (the advice is to watch in the original), every crazy smile, and this eternal tube in your teeth - it's matchless, there's just no words. He's the jewel of this movie. So subtle to understand and feel your hero and convey it so vividly, so charming - it could, in my opinion, only such a talent as Leo.
Of course, there is nothing to say about Verlaine (Tewlis). He is, in my opinion, the most controversial character in the film. It causes disgust, sometimes pity, sometimes sympathy, smile, sometimes fear. The alcoholic is on the verge of madness - I was even happy when he ended up in jail. But there is something in this hero... Some kind of comic tragedy, which certainly attracts the attention of the viewer.
For anyone who is afraid of same-sex relationships, don’t be afraid. All the love scenes are amazing. First kiss - I would put it in the rating of the best kisses of cinema! How much sensuality, passion, and not an ounce of vulgarity, not a drop of disgust! One bed scene with Verlaine and Rimbaud, another: Verlaine and Matilda, third: Rimbaud and the unknown African are all beautiful. All in moderation, nothing superfluous. Excellent.
In general, the visual picture is very beautiful: the beautiful dresses and wealth of Verlaine’s house, intersects with the rural simplicity of the Rimbaud house, and all this is in contrast to the eternally dirty shoes of the heroes and bright green glasses of absinthe, and it is all sustained in the same style and very convincingly.
There are a lot of funny scenes in the film, usually with Dicaprio. He loved to look at the camera when he was young! Given the fact that the character is 16-17 years old, it seemed very appropriate and cute.
Some scenes in the film are shot so harmoniously that you want to rewind each time and revisit this or that moment. Sometimes you just want to stop the movie and enjoy the beauty of the shot.
In short, one of the few movies I want to watch without end. My assessment:
“Love does not exist. It needs to be reinvented. . ?
Total Eclipse is an amazing movie. Europe of the XIX century, melancholy melodies and the history of relations between the two poets - all this creates a peculiar, immediately engrossing atmosphere.
A quick-tempered and weak-willed hero of David Thewlis, free and proud Arthur Rimbaud performed by DiCaprio - they are hostages of their feelings, so sincere and contradictory.
I didn’t expect this film to impress me – I put off watching for a long time, preparing for the perception of my favorite actor, Leo DiCaprio, in such a peculiar role. Not a superficial scribbler, but a real poet who has something to say, who has experienced poverty, who is looking for a purpose in life, trying to wrest Verlaine out of dull bourgeois society. And anger, and despair, and joy, and recklessness – all the sometimes extreme emotions of DiCaprio (whose deafening success in “Titanic” is yet to come) conveys amazing.
This is a story worth experiencing. A story that leaves an ambiguous and unusual impression is difficult to express because it is somewhere on the subconscious level. A story that is thought-provoking.
The soul of Arthur Rimbaud is mysterious and disturbing. Has anyone solved her secret, understand? I think Verlaine never succeeded. Only the sun succeeded. The sun that merges with the sea.
Interest in this picture can be dictated by the fact that it tells about the most discussed homosexual relationship of the XIX century: the love relationship of two French poets – Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine. The script is based on a play by the famous English playwright Christopher Hampton (who personally starred in the episode), written by him at the age of 18. For Hampton, in turn, the starting point was the letters of poets, whose stormy romance lasted almost two years and “for the rest of their lives.”
Events begin in 1871, when at the invitation of 26-year-old Verlaine in Paris from the province comes unknown 16-year-old Arthur Rimbaud, before sending the capital celebrity his first poem experiments. The appearance of the young “prince”, later called the “genius of the underworld”, dramatically changes the life of Verlaine, by the time of 2 years married to Matilda Mota, a rich and devoted aristocrat, at this time just bearing their firstborn.
Weak-willed and not alien to secular prejudices, Verlaine finds in the person of his reckless chosen one a chance to escape from the world of prescriptions and conventions and indulge in pure intimate passion. Awakened suddenly thirst for freedom and obsessive desire to approach the genius of Rimbaud forces Verlaine to make a difficult choice between the soul and body of his beloved.
Having given preference to the latter, Verlaine thus condemns himself to the ungrateful role of an eternal and stupid lover. Rimbaud, following his manifesto of consciously destroying the mind in the name of liberation from the shackles that hold the ordinary self, experiences, unlike Verlaine, a creative boom. It was in these two crazy years that he created the famous “One Summer in Hell” and the cycle of prose poems “Illumination”.
Poets, forced to hide from philistine gossip, flee abroad, where their mutual "all growing passion does not withstand sensual intensity." During a notorious row in Brussels, Verlaine shoots Rimbaud's wrist and ends up in a local jail. But not because of an attempt on a person’s life, but because of the “practice of sodomy” – this is how same-sex relationships were characterized in those days.
Almost completely excluding talk about poetry, and in fact the writing process itself, the authors paid the main and exclusive attention to the love relationship of the two men, managing to amaze with rare sexual revelations. Having paid special homage to spiritual and carnal decadence, the film does not at all glorify decadent moods, since it seeks to restore to the main human sense its original purity, no matter how pathological and perverted it may seem to the sexual majority.
The grounds for such a conclusion are given, first of all, by two main performers - at that time Leonardo DiCaprio (Rembaud) who was still unbronze and the Englishman David Thewlis (Verlain), who had already crowned the laurels of the Cannes Festival. Having initially shown enviable courage - having agreed to star in this outrageous and somewhere even provocative picture, by no means guaranteeing the strengthening of professional reputation and mass popularity, both artists so heartfeltly played poets-lovers that almost obliged to identify the names of great poets with their faces.