Image courtesy of www.impawards.com
Director:
Mike Newell
Cast:
Benjamin Bratt……….Dr. Juvenal Urbino
Giovanna Mezzogiorno……….Fermina Urbino
Javier Bardem……….Florentino Ariza
Liev Schreiber……….Lotario Thugut
John Leguizamo……….Lorenzo Daza
Films that involve romance have gotten a relatively bum reputation over the last several decades because of the advent of the formulaic romantic comedy. The sort of clichéd nonsense that has been foisted on audiences, from Fever Pitch to How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and all points between, have left the great romantic films skewered. Hollywood has a hard time getting the genre right, but when it does the results are staggering. While it’s highly derivative in terms of its cinematography and story, Love in the Time of Cholera is another in the long line of good but not quite great romantic dramas that are a clear notch above films like Must Love Dogs.
Love in the Time of Cholera follows five decades plus of love between Florentino (Javier Bordiem) and Fermina (Giovanna Mezzogiorno). After a passionate affair in their youth torn asunder by conflicting priorities, the film follows the two through their lives as they reconcile their feelings for one another with the priorities of the lives they’ve chosen to build separately to its foregone conclusion.
The film is an interesting one because it follows the lives of both people, mainly focusing on Florentino though, with a different view of love. When Fermina’s father (John Leguizamo) implores her to marry the articulate and wealthy doctor who he fancies (Benjamin Bratt), the result is one that separates the two for their lifetime. For Florentino it is a lifetime of a lothario lifestyle, leading to him writing in a book full of conquests but not true happiness. For Fermina it’s a lifetime of stability, but not love. It’s a heart-wrenching film that takes a lot of its style and story-telling from great love films in the past, mainly from The Age of Innocence (from which it borrows pretty heavily in terms of its story) to 2005’s Pride & Prejudice (from which it borrows a lot of style).
If it feels awfully derivative, it’s because it borrows from so much of other films. From its cinematic style to its story, there’s not a lot about the film that’s remarkably original. While the setting is certainly unique and looks beautiful, as Love is a film filled with all sorts of beautiful visuals from late 1800/early 1900 Spain, the film’s strength is in Bardem’s performance.
In a time when he’s also currently playing a soulless sociopath in No Country For Old Men, Bardem is in a role that is markedly different as a poem writing man of industry. In a role not written that well, he brings a lot of warmth, charm and likeability to the role. There’s a lot of depth to be found in a part that doesn’t provide for a lot of it throughout the film. With each heartbreak and each setback, his presence makes us want the relatively foregone conclusion of the film as opposed to merely waiting for it. Bardem makes us care about Florentino despite not having as much to work with as he could. This is the case of an actor bringing out much more of a character, truly submerging himself in the part, as opposed to playing a great character.
While the film’s writing lags when it comes to how it handles both main characters in terms of their development, what it does provide is ample opportunity for some wonderful dialogue. Much like any epic romance, there’s a laundry list of wonderful moments made better because of the dialogue. It’s beautiful in a way that people speak only in the movies; it’s the ideal of love and a rather impractical way of saying it, but beautiful nonetheless.
Every year there seems to be a glut of mediocre to awful romantic comedies and one or two great romantic dramas. For 2007 look no further as Love in the Time of Cholera may be the class of the bunch. In this year it’s not saying much, as the year’s best romantic comedy (Knocked Up) is heads and tails ahead of it, but for what it tries to be it succeeds on a number of levels.
