It seems that many art icons—especially poets and writers—tend to fall deep into what we’d call ”social transgressions”. I’m not sure what the essence is: is it because they understand too much about life, or because they’re digging too deep into it? according to Rimbaud, to be the greatest poet of the century, you have to feel everything in your body; you have to become everything. his philosophy of Dérèglement De Tous Les Sens is basically just a justification for destroying himself and everyone around him. He felt that to reach truth or become a seer, he had to cross the moral boundaries of ordinary people. As a result, he became incredibly manipulative and indifferent to social consequences. Then there is Verlaine, who argued that poetry should be a medium to cherish life, despite his own conduct being utterly deplorable.
But watching the dynamic between Verlaine and Rimbaud was genuinely repulsing. I was especially struck by verlaine’s treatment of his wife, he was LITERALLY the quintessential patriarchal husband. To him, Mathilde was nothing more than an aesthetic object to be consumed. He lacked even the slightest inclination to explore his own wife’s soul, which is just absurd. He idolized Rimbaud’s wild soul while reducing Mathilde to a decorative trophy. His logic is that the soul is immortal while the body is destined to rot, thus justifying its exploitation, is a truly warped mindset.
Their dynamics is literally one of the most toxic dynamics I’ve ever encountered, and I think despite how badly the director handled the story, it's actually not that bad if you focus on the narrative between the two of them, rather than just the visual execution.
It seems that many art icons—especially poets and writers—tend to fall deep into what we’d call ”social transgressions”. I’m not sure what the essence is: is it because they understand too much about life, or because they’re digging too deep into it? according to Rimbaud, to be the greatest poet of the century, you have to feel everything in your body; you have to become everything. his philosophy of Dérèglement De Tous Les Sens is basically just a justification for destroying himself and everyone around him. He felt that to reach truth or become a seer, he had to cross the moral boundaries of ordinary people. As a result, he became incredibly manipulative and indifferent to social consequences. Then there is Verlaine, who argued that poetry should be a medium to cherish life, despite his own conduct being utterly deplorable.
But watching the dynamic between Verlaine and Rimbaud was genuinely repulsing. I was especially struck by verlaine’s treatment of his wife, he was LITERALLY the quintessential patriarchal husband. To him, Mathilde was nothing more than an aesthetic object to be consumed. He lacked even the slightest inclination to explore his own wife’s soul, which is just absurd. He idolized Rimbaud’s wild soul while reducing Mathilde to a decorative trophy. His logic is that the soul is immortal while the body is destined to rot, thus justifying its exploitation, is a truly warped mindset.
Their dynamics is literally one of the most toxic dynamics I’ve ever encountered, and I think despite how badly the director handled the story, it's actually not that bad if you focus on the narrative between the two of them, rather than just the visual execution.
