Total Eclipse

It's a good thing not too many people saw this film when it came out [no pun intended], because, if any of DiCaprio's female fans had seen him in this, one of his best early roles, his career would have been over well before he was involved in "Titanic." And that's because he's so utterly convincing as the tortured, bisexual teen genius poet Arthur Rimbaud, that it would undoubtedly set many of those young ladies to wondering if he'd played the part a little TOO well, if you get my meaning. If ever there was any such thing as a male femme fatale, It's Leo right here. Rumor has it that he tried to have the video pulled a few years ago, right after his "Titanic" success. It's a good thing he wasn't successful, because I think that this film rates right along with "The Basketball Diaries" as possibly his best performance.

But it takes two to tango, at least in this case, and David Thewlis is almost as good opposite DiCaprio as Paul Verlaine, who began as Rimbaud's mentor and wound up as his long-time lover. As Verlaine was ugly and overweight, whereas Rimbaud was lithe and handsome, the two seemingly would have made an unbelieveably odd couple physically, but were drawn together more by their mutual likes and dislikes rather than physical attraction. And that's what you sense through all of their scenes together, a meeting of minds more than a meeting of bodies.

There were many who praised this movie, there were many who hated it, but love it or hate it, it holds a strange fascination which makes you remember it long after you've seen it.

Arthur Rimbaud was famous for what? For changing the face of French and possibly all modern poetry. At the age of 17. Do we see any of this in the movie? No. We have a director who thinks that being gay was Rimbaud's muse. All through the film, I kept wondering, "when are they going to let him read his poetry, and show us WHY it was important, HOW it contrasted with conventional poetry at the time?" I mean, if you're brave enough to try to sell graphic homosexual scenes to a Merchant Ivory audience, then why not be brave enough to "bore" us with some literary analysis?

This art-house film is not a crowd-pleaser but is nevertheless an excellent film. It is one of DiCaprio's best independent films before he became a titanic superstar.

Rimbaud"s painfully self-destructive bisexual life and his affair with Verlaine is not a "nice" story to tell, but the drama is interesting as a study in the eccentric mind of the artist. Beneath the plot is the age-old question of whether the artist's oddness hinders his creativity or is actually the fuel for his art.

Genius is by nature sui generis. Most of us can only observe and wonder, and from time to time pretend we are similarly gifted. As for the actual behavior of genius, it almost always entails what is commonly known as bad manners.

The other striking feature of genius, for some but not all, is what is commonly known as insanity. Although modern science has defined various types of mental disorder and found causes and cures for some of them, it really begs the question to try to judge character or morality on the basis of scientific data. Art lies after all outside the realm of science, and always will do.

Having said that, I believe the film Total Eclipse must be reviewed or criticized solely on whether it is a good work of art. My opinion is that it succeeds at some levels, and fails at others.

I accept that the writer and director knew exactly what they were doing at every step. Except for a few quibbles about editing, I agree that the artistic concept and the technique are first rate. The musical score is excellent. The camera angles are generally adept at conveying the actions and emotions of the cast. Outdoor scenes tend to be well conceived.

Unfortunately, all that falls by the wayside because of flaws in relating the story accurately and well to its origins. Anyone familiar with the lives and work of Verlaine and Rimbaud can only cringe at the superficiality of this film. As many others have pointed out, scant attention is paid to verse, and then only in a language -- English -- that only approximates the original. It would have been a graceful beginning to make this film in France with French characters speaking French, then allowing the subtitles to fill in the gaps for non-French-speaking viewers.

What that conclusion implies, of course, is that the primary cast is wrong for this film. I really hate to say that, because DiCaprio and Thewlis are great actors doing the best they can to carry the film forward. Although I would have picked a different physical specimen for the role of Verlaine (for some odd reason the face of the late German director Fassbinder comes to mind), the choice of an androgyne for Rimbaud was physically right on target.

Finally, I am appalled at some of the comments here that betray a preoccupation with sex. "Zany" is the only word one can apply to subjective and even judgmental interpretations of this film about this or that scene or bit of action not in accord with a viewer's personal sexual expectations. My own view is that this was, if anything, a highly bowdlerized adaptation of reality.

In short, recast this in French, and focus more on the full text of Rimbaud's genius.

Of course there is pain and monstrosity in love. Two wild poets would need to live that out. But can a movie about it make any sense, without a fair portion of their poetry?

Michelangelo said that painting excels when it approaches sculpture, and sculpture when it comes close to relief. An art form is enhanced when nearing its periphery, almost turning into another art form. Along this line, I am sure that the poetry of Rimbaud and Verlaine would have stood forward excellently, when recited in the movie about their relation. It would also have helped in making their interactions understandable.

After seeing the movie a second time, I read some of Rimbaud's writings, and there was a slightly different character emerging from his words, than the one portrayed, though excellently, by Leonardo DiCaprio. Rimbaud's own words show that he was a victim just as much as a predator. Of course, he would say so, himself, but also: this modification would have made the movie rise beyond the black and white polarity it is too often caught in.

Still, I enjoyed the movie tremendously, mostly thanks to Leo and the way he made his character fire up. He might have been type-cast, to do the obnoxious adolescent, but they got more than they bargained for - he included the most important aspect of Rimbaud: the prodigy poet, the artist living for art, loving for art.

His acting is sometimes stunning, and not only in delicate scenes where minute nuances are essential, but also in all kinds of silliness in between. To hear him bark like a dog, really like a dog - did he do that himself, or was there an added sound effect? The pause, and the slightly humorous expression on his face, right before he tells his fellow poet that he expects more from him than his words. His posture and cocky moving about in the Paris of the noble poets, and his running on all four in the countryside. Brilliant acting.

There's a lot of formidable acting also on behalf of the others in the cast, even when the script and the direction works against them. And it does, more than once. Maybe the plot got all confused, simply because the poetry of the poets was not taken into account.

But a film gone awry can still be a wonderful experience. Frustrating, but wonderful. This one is.