Casanova in Love

As I’ve stated before, Casanova is one of my pet subjects, being the topic of two poems and a short story of mine. This was long before I saw the David Tennant movie, which I’ve finally seen and can comment upon.

As written by Russell T Davies, scored by Murray Gold, and populated with actors who all showed up in the second series of Doctor Who, one might say it’s all a dress rehearsal for the 10th Doctor’s reign. Performance-wise, I feel Tennant plays Casanova exactly as he would play the Doctor later—down to the Estuary accent (to be fair, it would seem rather strange for Casanova to have a Scottish accent, but IMHO, sexier). From what I know of the man, the Davies/Tennant characterization and Tennant’s physical appearance are about as dissimilar from the real Casanova as possible, except perhaps in the exuberant lust for life and the penchant for lying through his teeth that both Casanovas are seen to exhibit. (Casanova was more typically Italian in appearance, fairly robust and muscular, though if I remember rightly perhaps as tall as Tennant. And he had brown eyes, dammit, but don’t get me started on that rant.)

However, that isn’t to say this Casanova didn’t make me laugh, which the real one did too, and indeed Tennant was all charm, just as the real Casanova was. I could see Davies’ personal agendas oozing out of every facet of the story, in order for us to identify with and love Casanova. First off, yes, he was born poor to an actress and, I believe, an acrobat father, and indeed, he was seduced very young by a servant girl (Bettina Gozzi, I believe, was her name). The rags-to-riches story may be true, though not nearly as prominent as is portrayed. Henriette was certainly one of the great loves of his life. Bellino the castrato who was actually a girl was also factually-based, an entertaining facet of Casanova’s love-life just as portrayed in the movie (right down to Casanova sticking his hand down Bellino’s pants and finding “proof” of “his” manhood). Nina Sosnyana was quite delightful as this outrageous-but-true character.

Other lovers are referenced (condensed much as they were in the equivalent Love in the Time of Cholera) such as an allusion to drunken homosexuality, (in Turkey I believe) and impregnating several nuns. He did sleep with a couple sisters at once, (actually I rather liked this part of the movie; as my friend Patricia noted, the ‘MA’ warning appeared in the upper left of the screen at this point for a reason!). The Signor Bragadin incident was more or less true. He did leave Europe strewn with his bastard children (and you’d think after his childhood he would have tried harder to support them all, which the movie tries hard to justify by his bringing up his son by one of the nuns.) The duel with Grimaldi I think is true, though I can’t remember if it was over Henriette or not. I was very happy to see Casanova’s escape from Venetian prison handled more or less factually, as it’s one of the most exciting incidents of a very full life. The same is true of the French lottery, which he really did invent. And then gambled all his money away. He mentions Voltaire having written about him, when in reality he later met Voltaire (though as he says in the movie, he didn’t think much of the French writer).

The section in London really let me down, though, as it left out his escapade with La Charpillon, for whom he almost committed suicide (admittedly of interest to me since that’s what the short story was about). I was also not surprised to see Casanova’s brush with incest confined to his son and his daughter, rather than himself and his daughter (which was the case), and felt it a bit sanctimonious for the movie character to be so horrified. Also, Casanova’s deceptions and intrigues were shown mostly as playful and not hurtful, and while in general I would like to believe that, some, I think, could not be seen in such a positive light. In a way I felt Casanova was being portrayed as much a rebellious modern icon as Marie-Antoinette was in the Coppola film; the music and costumes, not to mention much of the direction and the fact Casanova was going around saying “oh bollocks,” were highly modern in some sections. (Still not sure what the point of Casanova being dressed in very modern cutting techniques was supposed to signify.) So in some sense I disapproved; I guess I was expecting an eighteenth-century more along the lines of the hyper-realism of Perfume. I was a bit annoyed, too, that all the characters were soooo shocked by everything, when, according to Julie Peakman in Lascivious Pleasures, Casanova’s tastes were “tame.”

On the other hand, it was a fun romp. The frame story was about as perfectly constructed as the fake-out at the beginning of Eric Saward’s “The Visitation”; that is to say, clever but almost too clever. O’Toole made a very good old Casanova, and again here was another reason to sympathize with him: he’s old, he’s a penniless librarian (which is how he ended his life), he’s still pining for Henriette. (While the movie didn’t go into this too much, he was still capable, physically and mentally, of seducing girls like the young and slightly annoying serving maid Edith. It’s almost like “Rose” all over—introduction to the mystifying male character through the view point of a young, sassy, sensitive girl.) Casanova was indeed writing his memoirs at this point, for which we are indebted to him, but I found myself getting highly impatient with the frame story and wanting to return to the young Casanova storyline!

I must, however, confess to a bit of disappointment despite the ever-present ‘MA’ warnings; I think David bared more in “Smith and Jones” than in this entire story, which is supposed to be all about sex! (That’s being disingenuous; the most I’ve seen him bare was in that photo in heat last year on the beach where they gave him the dubious title of one of the Worst Bodies of 2006.) I have to admit it’s a bit frightening that an actor should go from a sex symbol to a children’s icon! I mean, he was very good at being charming but it was THE SAME character as the Doctor, and I was hoping for something a bit less cursory, I guess—with more layers?

I have to admit the production’s guts in trying to condense a life this big and bold into a mini-series, getting so many location shoots, so many extras in period costumes, all the dances, etc. Though I’ve not seen the Heath Ledger film, I understand its theme is the hardened Casanova falling in love with one woman, a theme shared with this film. Alas, I don’t think he would ever be happy with one woman, but it must be a popular notion. Ah, what the heck, despite my elevated commentary, I thought it was fun.