Could it be that we are more reserved than were those living four hundred years ago? A.C. Grayling, a professor of philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London, claims that this is a "more prudish age" than that of the second Earl of Rochester. Johnny Depp portrays Rochester, an immoral celebrity of 17th Century England, in the new film The Libertine. 

While giving a short biography of the scandalously offensive member of Charles II's court in The Independent, Grayling considers the upcoming film and its unlikelihood of suitably representing the man (infamous for wicked satires, a dirty mouth, extreme lechery, pedophilic homosexuality, and violent dueling) or the period in which he lived. He writes, "However good the film is, and however many X-ratings it gets, it can never capture all the truth about Rochester...not all his doings can be reprised on the cinema screen."

Unfortunately the prof never addresses what actual doings couldn't be fit for 21st Century audiences and I have trouble pondering taboos that are still too heavy for film. Sure today there is a conservative religious presence that may take more offense with Rochester than did his contemporaries, but then again the Puritans came out of the same era as the Earl and the Libertine movement. Meanwhile the more open-minded minority of the present has a tolerance for pretty much anything. If Rochester were alive today, would he still be considered the most lewd of the land? Not in a time of Paris Hilton, Johnny Knoxville and Pete Doherty (fittingly of a band called The Libertines).
 
Rochester could not have performed any act worse than those seen in a John Waters movie nor could he have said anything more tasteless than will be heard in Sarah Silverman's new concert film Jesus is Magic. There are obviously some things that Johnny Depp cannot literally depict as the legendary pimp and poet, such as murder, but what may not be done illegally for real may always be simulated in the movies.

What I assume Grayling means is that The Libertine will not be a huge hit at the box office. But that is a given. The bigger reasons, though, for its inevitable failure lie in its being too raunchy for the usual period-piece crowd, and too much a period piece for the usual fans of crass. The Weinstein Co. seems to be focused on Depp's performance in their decision to distribute the film for one Oscar-contending week in New York and Los Angeles this month with a wider release held off until after the New Year.

While we wait and see how The Libertine fares, can anyone think of something (other than child pornography and snuff) that is still even restricted from being shown in an NC-17 picture?