ROMANTIC CINEMA: VALENTINE'S DAY CHOICES.
Many of us might choose to watch typical Hollywood style films on Valentine’s Day evening, perhaps something corporate and cold like Love Actually, Four Weddings and a Funeral or Notting Hill, designed purely to get you to part with your hard-earned cash and believe momentarily in a cheap fairy-tale. But there are many films that capture romance better and, despite their titles, capture it more accurately than traditional romance genre movies.
Many such films offer a manufactured, fairy tale romance that bears little resemblance to reality, so
I’ve compiled a list of some alternative romantic films to watch over Valentine’s Day that I think offer a more passing resemblance to real life romance as reflected on screen.
They’re alternative, so no Casablanca or Gone with the Wind here, as they are on every blog on the internet in this category. I'll be expanding on these when time allows and when I feel inspired to do so. I only do anything, writing or otherwise, when I'm inspired to do so.
I don't like cheap romantic trash cinema, so I've attempted to showcase a few I think are deeper and more meaningful.
Ultimately, it is through our hardship and mistakes that we find a reason to live, and a drive to get it right, so in this sense - those of us who have struggled - we are blessed.
Our feelings can often blind us and that is regrettable, not so much for what we think we feel, but for the time we waste just feeling in and of itself.
I often think or stand by the principle that we should all strive to respect others. I think the world we live in is a very questionable place and those of us who show kindness and step out of our comfort zones to offer
support and kind words are few and far between? So, we should appreciate any good that comes are way in whatever form it takes. Grab the good in any shape or form with both arms....embrace it, even if it is flawed.
Even if you are just a passing fan of cinema, then you will recognise the most human of traits within its DNA. This human ability to draw conclusions or represent ideas that are and will remain fictional yet still have the power to influence are present within cinema's DNA. We create, through imagery, that which we want to see or expect or desire to see. Cinema would likely not work if it represented ideas that we could not in some way relate to.
Life often works exactly the same way: we are drawn to ideals and would not naturally seek that which doesn't meet our expectations or desires. Cinema just conveys a story that we are expected to relate to or embrace, ideally.
We all place symbolic meaning on that which sadly may not have any meaning whatsoever, but it is this unconscious fantasy that keeps you going or compliments life. The leaves blowing in the wind, the blossom on the trees, or the bird's singing in the trees: it is merely the natural cinema of the human soul and life is all the better for it, even if it isn't a reality.
Let's look at the movies :)😊
BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945)
Laura Jesson: I had no thoughts at all, only an overwhelming desire not to feel anything ever again.
1945's truly timeless masterpiece Brief Encounter is a British film that deserves its title as amongst the greatest ever made.
In short, the film tells the story of a pressured suburban housewife, Laura (Celia Johnson), who, by chance, encounters her equal, Alec (Trevor Howard), at a railway station tea shop around the outbreak of the Second World War. There is an instant attraction, and the two connect very quickly. They admit to each-other that they are both married, and that their encounter will likely be short-lived.
However, they agree to meet again, and the bond begins to grow as the connection between them grows stronger eventually pushing Laura into despair as she struggles to juggle her feelings against the chaotic British backdrop of the war, conventionality, and marriage.
One of the most enduring films of all time, Brief Encounter has stood the test of time, and this is present in its ageless craftsmanship and its timelessly relevant themes. Ironically, Brief Encounter feels quite fresh and new as a film when you view it today, as Hollywood has taken the romance in so many failed directions since 1945 that we’ve come to expect the so called ‘Hollywood’ romance tropes that tick all the boxes as we sit in the cinema.
The majority of cinema deals with heightened reality and pure fiction, especially the romantic genre, but Brief Encounter captures something tangible, human, and honest, and serves as a reflection of much of societies angst concerning romance outside marriage.
This story isn't about a 10 year relationship. This is just about a brief connection, which has so much significance and power that the lead character of Celia nearly takes her own life in front of a train, in despair. She's in so much pain that she would leave her husband a widow and her children, motherless. The holds of the Christian marriage have left her hollow, and she feels suffocated by British society, in both her role as a mother and a wife.
Basically, Alec represents an equal who satisfies Laura intellectually, and aesthetically, but he is nonetheless at odds with her stable, by the numbers, husband, who pays the bills and takes care of the children but nevertheless doesn't reach her the same way.
Her predicament in and of itself is at odds with her feelings for Alec, and the story is a critique of her personnel situation, the heartbreak and fear of giving into love, and, indeed, a look at British life and values concerning such things, and the natural conflict burning inside the unwieldy human soul, which transcends such tawdry values.
Within the context of the story, Laura has been married to her husband for a considerable amount of time, possibly decades, yet her 'brief encounter' with Alec and its heart-breaking conclusion, leads her to put herself in harms way in the latter half of the film. The connection with Alec is so powerful that she feels she cannot go on living without it.
This tragic situation and her behaviour are reflective of the transcendent power of the human condition. It defies all societal, legal, and religious constraints in my opinion.
Anyway, just when you think the film couldn't end on such a profound note, it goes one better and alludes that the story you've just witnessed may have been a psychological escape of sorts by Laura’s own creation, which in and of itself was a bold move by writer Noel Coward, especially in mid-1940's Britain, a place where much of society was walking on eggshells where traditions and values were concerned, and in my opinion, still very much is. That is why the film still feels as resonant today as it did some 70 plus years ago, and speaks to the disturbing power and hold marriage and relationships have on people in the United Kingdom.
Brief Encounter is a film that asks you to interpret its themes. It's an elegantly performed story that raises lots of questions, and you're left to interpret them how you wish.
I think the film has some very strong feministic themes too. The film is primarily coming from Laura's perspective, and she's clearly seeking or dreaming of some kind of escape or empowerment away from the enslavement of her predicament.
Her husband fundamentally doesn't listen to her, and it’s clear within the context of the film that he's not the right fit for her. There is something inherently sexist, especially during the 1940's, about a woman feeling pushed into a societal marriage of convenience because she’s given birth. It just suggests that our culture was governed by a draconian influence formed by traditions that may have been influenced by a male perspective in the first place, like the New Testament or further revisions to the Bible, and I think these situations are in and of themselves inherently male influenced.
Perhaps the key to Brief Encounter’s longevity and appeal is the fact that, just maybe, nothing much has changed where its themes are concerned in Britain, but I won't answer that one.
I'll just leave it open to interpretation??? :)
STANDING THE QUALITY TEST OF TIME
Brief Encounter is over 70 years old now, but has stood the toughest test of any film - the passage of time. It has done this, despite its technical perfection, because it tells a story that is never going to tire or go out of date.
It was so well scripted from the offset that it just couldn't fail as a work of cinema.
David Lean is highly regarded as amongst the greatest British filmmakers in history, but I feel this is easily his strongest work. There is just such a strong techinical relationship, and understanding of film present in Brief Encounter that cemented the film as a pioneering work in 1945 and it continues to inspire people and filmmakers to present day.
The chemistry between actors Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson is organic and glows brightly on the screen and never fades. You never for a second feel your listening to scripted dialogue. It is so fluid, organic and natural sounding, with some beautiful lines elegantly conveyed by the leads.
The characters are likeable and down to earth, and it's the only example of a romance played out in film that I felt was worthy of my time.
Romance, like Comedy, is a debatable genre of cinema and should only be attempted by the most skilled and accomplished filmmakers. I've felt motivated to discuss some romantic films because I feel the genre has served cinema very poorly in recent decades, like comedy, and I need to set the record straight.
Furthermore, Brief Encounter is shot in beautiful and moody black and white and no matter how many times I've watched it, I'm still in awe of the lighting and craft that has been put into every frame. The image tells you all you need to know. The unspoken passion, and emotions of the characters is told through the lighting, with beams of light breaking through the dark frequently. The light breaking through the societal barriers and beaming into Laura's soul.
Brief Encounter feels as if the world, just for a brief moment, has stood still for Alec and Laura and you so wish that it would have a happy ending, but the films ambiguous ending, and brutal conclusion, does give the film a respect and honesty that just hasn't been replicated in this genre of cinema since.
On the critical side, despite the serious subtext and Celia Johnson's character's situation, the film and the story it tells is somewhat idealistic. In the sense, the notion of two people randomly hitting it off in a tea shop to such a extent that they would question leaving their own husband and family is rare, unorthodox and uncommon.
A child is always a different person to yourself. While we have a responsibility as parents to raise a child, and indeed a legal responsibility, they are without question their own entities .
Overall, it is idealistic, almost fantasy (there is an implication she is dreaming or yearning), romantic cinema with passion, pain, and the courage to just say it how it really is, which is extremely rare in romantic cinema today, and sadly in cinema in general.
THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS (2016)
The Light Between Oceans tells the story of Tom Sherbourne (Michael Fassbender), a broken and traumatised victim of World War I. Tom takes a position as a light-keeper on Janus Rock, a lighthouse just off the coast of Australia. He later encounters his perfect match, the beautiful Isabel Graysmark (Alicia Vikander), and they fall in love and prepare to have a family together. Unfortunately, nature cruelly cuts their dream short when Isabel suffers two miscarriages. However, things brighten up when a baby girl is found adrift in a rowboat with a dead adult passenger. The couple, knowing they should technically report the incident, decide to keep the child and raise it as their own, but the dream is short lived.
The Light Between Oceans was released in 2016 and is based on the best-selling novel by M.L. Steadman. The story present here is fascinating, and it really gives you something to think about. The story represents something of chaotic moral dilemma that doesn't really have any clear answers and is left open to interpretation, something I love to see in all literature and film.
Isabel and Tom represent the perfect couple, in the sense their love is genuine, and their desire for a family is not based on any superficial need for a family, in the sense that the baby here represents a spiritual requirement of the mother; rather, it is necessity for these two individuals, broken by society and the world, to connect and bond over such a child. The child is acting as a psychological safety net for two emotionally unstable lovers, but there is a nobility in their plight versus those that seek children as merely a societal bench mark in their personal chain of life, as such acts are by most accounts trivial and more often than not completely fruitless and passionless.
The novel is beautifully brought to the screen by director Derek Cianfrance, and real-life couple Alicia Vikander and Michael Fassbender have magnetic chemistry, which just elevates the work ten-fold.
The Light Between Oceans is a beautifully realised film and honest story that is not afraid to go places where other romantic dramas would not dare, and I enjoyed it and it reached me as a viewer as a result.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S ROMEO AND JULIET (1996)
Romeo: Did my heart love 'til now? Forswear its sight. For I never saw true beauty 'til this night.
William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, directed by Baz Lurhmann, was one the most memorable films of the 1990's. Truth be told, the great William Shakespeare's work has not been the most overly successful box-office material in cinema history. This modernised approach to Shakespeare managed to introduce flawless style, inspired storytelling, and true cinematic craft to a timeless classic.
The film did well financially and critically and won and was nominated for many awards.
A then very young Leonardo DiCaprio portrayed Romeo Montague in the film, and an equally young Claire Danes would portray Juliet.
Leonardo DiCaprio became something of a quick cinematic icon in the 1990’s, cementing his place in Hollywood history by following this film up with 1997's Titanic, which was a huge success, and a rare example of a film that ignited the box-office whilst being worth watching at the same time.
Anyway, 1996's Romeo and Juliet, despite being modernised and re-imagined, is arguably the strongest or most enjoyable film based on any work of William Shakespeare, and certainly worth a revisit here in 2019. Incidentally, the film also contained a beautiful score by composer Craig Armstrong, which would go on to win the Bafta award in 1997 for best film music (the only British Bafta winner of the 1990's) and it still sounds stunning today.
Interstellar (2014)
I've been very critical of director Christopher Nolan on my blog. I disliked his work on Batman. But 2000's Memento is a great film, amongst my personal favourites, and this 2014 effort, Interstellar, got it just right too.
Interstellar tells the complex story of a group of astronauts in search for a new home for humanity. The central role of astronaut Joseph Cooper was played by Matthew McConaughey and his adult daughter, Murphy, was played by Jessica Chastain.
Interstellar represents the most human of stories wrapped around complex science fiction concerning time and space travel, which is the primary reason I like it.
It tells me about the human condition using time travel and space as an elaborate and engaging plot device. The nature of self-sacrifice and the unbreakable bond between a father and his daughter represent things that transcend space, time travel, or any scientific explanation for anything.
In my opinion, it's these human endeavours of the soul that should be explored more to fully understand the human condition at its most impassioned and purest form, and only in this capacity of exploration may we find any real answers that will really benefit us here on earth.
We are defined in the moment, not by the future or technology or awards and recognition. We do what we think is right and that is all that truly matters. Not business, not human exploration, sport, or achievement....we just are.
I'm not religious, although I admire religious iconography, as I believe religions of all kinds are rooted in a conflict with the human condition in and of itself, a chaotic yearning for self validation and purpose for a species that will inevitably bring the earth to extinction, but if I can borrow the term spiritual to describe soul searching and trying to understand the human condition, then I'd say Interstellar is a spiritual science fiction journey, not a million miles from 2001:A Space Odyssey, a film it has clearly been inspired by.
Around all four corners of the globe, humanity seeks validation. It seeks purpose. It challenges or seeks to challenge. It engages where it can never win, and will never win. It follows rules where there are not any.
IN SPACE NO ONE CAN HERE YOU SCREAM.
Those were the words that were used in the marketing of 1979's cinematic masterpiece Alien, and they sounded just right to me.
I'd always envisioned space travel as being a epic waste of time and something that would result in chaos and disappointment. Alien represented space as a dark, desolate, nightmare where human beings were out of their depth, fighting against violent, acid spitting, Xenomorphs, the aliens of the title.
Whilst, I can watch films that cover the topic of space travel, I feel more comfortable viewing it as something nightmarish and wrong, not this idealistic next stage in human evolution.
As a basic rule of thumb, you have to set the house straight on earth before you even consider space travel, and we've messed this planet up good and proper. In fact, we've done that much damage that God, if there is a God, has long since abandoned us and I don't know who, if anyone, is in charge anymore.
Most of the smart science-fiction movies depict human travel to outer-space as being a deeply questionable endeavour, Alien, Event Horizon, Silent Running, Annihilation and this sort of cautionary, poetic, dream, Interstellar.
Do you know what is in outer-space? The greatest mystery since the inception of mankind?
Nothing. Nothing that will benefit or enlighten you anyway.
My message to those keen to venture into space is clear one: The greatest journey you will embark on is that of your own mind, and the 60 years to death we call life. Don't fill the time you have with something that,, in theory, is going to take hundreds if not thousands of years to even come close to fully realising. Let NASA do it incrementally, and let them waste billions of much needed dollars doing it.
All the toughest questions are already here on earth, not in space. Science teaches us that humanity is overly reliant on resources that are man made, that we are reliant on non-finite resources, and greater society is always in turmoil and chaos. Whatever it is or whatever solution is needed to better humanity then it must be sought here on earth.
Any exploration of space or possible long-term future expansions into space are destined to fail.
Mankind has the intelligence to bridge the divide between earth and space, but not the stability. What can I say, we're damaged goods as race in and of ourselves. We cannot by default succeed in such a way that space travel would lead to some sort of long-term revitalisation or improvement of our race.
Look the whole purpose of the Universe and humanity is to play the game here on earth. That is all there ever was and all there ever will be. There is fuck all in space and ZERO to be gained from ANY research or exploration (F U C K A L L). In fact, by exploring space you are defeating the object of life itself. You might as well put two barrels of a shot gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It is very interesting and beautiful to look at and I'm sure that connects with that all to human sense of wonder and the need to verify something or be validated by way of exploration. The only validation you need is on your own doorstep. The further you move away from your self and your own motivation, the more you lose yourself altogether. Space exploration is a corporate by product designed purely for fiscal gain. Don't feed them. Ignore them. Nothing of any good will ever come of it.
However, I enjoy the fantasy and some of the theory, but science fiction cinema, in terms of space exploration, is as rose-tinted, dreamy, and idealistic as it gets, and in reality, I'm afraid it doesn't get much better than down here. Sorry to piss all over the corporate parade 💪
Nonetheless, Interstellar, like 2000's Memento, represents Christopher Nolan in his directorial element.
Ex Machina (2014)
Director Alex Garland was best known for his novel The Beach, before entering the world of film directing, and he didn’t disappoint. Ex Machina is a cautionary tale, an almost Brothers Grimm for the 21st Century. However, at its centre is a fractured romance with a humanoid android called Ava, which fuels the protagonist Caleb Smiths motivations, which ultimately, like many doomed love interests, leads to dire consequences.
Ex Machina asks deeper questions as to the limits of artificial intelligence, what defines humanity or reality, can a soul be created or imitated, and will AI technology surpass our fragile society and take advantage of our weaknesses, the way humanoid Ava does in the film.
Somewhere in Time (1980)
Somewhere in Time didn’t have a significant impact at the box-office but grew into a great cult film. It features an early role for Jane Seymour and Superman himself, Christopher Reeve.
It is beautifully made… that phrase gets thrown around a lot, but this film really deserves the description. It’s truly gorgeous to look at and has a standout score by John Barry which compliments the film perfectly.
Again, it’s a story of a complex love affair, based on a novel by Twilight Zone writer, Richard Matheson who wrote the screenplay and, beneath the romance and assumingly gentle setting, there are dark undertones. The ending can be emotionally ambiguous or sentimental depending on your view of life – it didn’t resonate with me as a completely happy ending.
The story surrounds the character Richard Collier played by Reeves, who may or may not (there’s an air of ambiguity) have seen a portrait of someone he fell in love. It turns out the picture is dated from around 1912, and this leads Collier into a Twilight Zone type plot involving time travel.
There’s chemistry between the two leads and the effort Collier puts into reconnecting with his lost love is gruelling as much as it is heartfelt.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)
Bram Stoker’s Dracula's theatre promotion ran on the line ‘Love Never Dies’. It came out of nowhere in 1992, film producers had struggled to adapt classic horror novels Frankenstein and Dracula into films resembling anything close to the original source material.
Universal Studios had put their spin on it, and in Britain, Hammer Studios also produced a very lucrative franchise from both stories; however, both were original concepts save a few similarities, and were devoid of any memorable serious romance (Bride of Frankenstein as the exception).
1992’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula turned the monster into a man, who happens to have a serious crush on Mina Murray, whom Dracula believes is reincarnation of Elisabete, who tragically committed suicide.
Film-makers struggle with Dracula. I feel this 1992 adaptation is the only attempt with any true merit, and it is an extraordinary work of cinema in its own right. Like all great horror novels, particularly Dracula and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the source of the horror is a human one. Behind the monstrous creations and sharp fangs, are stories of broken souls driven to behaviour that ultimately unfairly defines them as evil in the eyes of humanity, but disguises good intentions gone awry.
Director Francis Ford Coppola was something of an auteur in 1992. He had carte blanche at the time and a lot of freedom from financiers and the studio, and it shows in every frame. The film is lush, vibrant, has exceptional set and costume design and incorporates lots of different artistic choices which are interesting, such as an old real hand-cranked Pathé camera, which is used during a crowd scene in London, and Jonathan Harker appears to cascade down the castle walls during escape, not unlike the style incorporated by director Jean Cocteau in Orpheus.
Overall, an exceedingly rare example of a film based on a classic literary horror character that just really surprised audiences in 1992 with its impeccable attention to detail, eroticism, lush visuals, perfectly executed narrative, and its unique take on Bram Stoker's novel.
The Fly (1986)
The Fly (1986) directly draws its inspiration from classic horror, both literary and cinematic. There are too many film references to mention. It’s a re-imagining of the 1959 original starring Vincent Price but owes more to Frankenstein, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Kafka’s The Metamorphosis amongst others.
Another cautionary tale, it is at its heart a romance. By chance, Seth Brundle meets Veronica, a journalist. A subsequent romance forms, but it’s torn away by Brundle’s self-destructive nature combined with his obsessive attitude to his work, ultimately overriding any normal life he momentarily connects with through Veronica.
The Fly takes a swipe at pretty much everything including our own self-deprecating nature when it comes to dealing with the ravages of disease and age, but it’s Seth’s reluctance to embrace romantic attraction and instead give way to his baser human instincts or human-crossed-with-a-fly instincts (it’s a metaphor either way), that make it a tough watch emotionally…leaving a character torn between what is essentially, two different people.
Crimson Peak (2015)
Crimson Peak isn’t a narratively complex work, but it is very stylish and has a nice combination of practical and computer-generated effects. The gothic H.P Lovecraft inspired story and setting is lovingly brought to life with gothic beauty and lurid horror. Crimson Peak is a feast for the eyes and senses but there isn't much to think about. Unless there is some hidden subtext in the film I'm not picking up on.
There’s a romance at the centre of the film that works, despite a lack of chemistry between the lead actors.
Director Guillermo Del Toro has attracted Oscar attention for The Shape of Water, a film I disliked immensely; however, this isn’t his strongest film, but it’s worth a watch.
I've always liked Guillermo Del Toro's movies, but I could not for the life of me buy into a single frame of 'The Shape of Water'. I disliked the silly screenplay and dialogue, the story, the set design which looked like a cross between Jean-Pierre Jeunet meets David Lynch's Dune, and its craft.
It is the only work of cinema in over 30 years of viewing that I have fallen into a coma watching; I made it to exactly the 60 minute mark and fell a sleep, and then really, really, reluctantly placed the disc in the player to finish the film, after around 2 months.
There is just absolutely nothing going on in 'The Shape of Water' and the design was so ugly and dull that I could not enjoy its style either. I understand what he was trying to achieve with it, but he failed miserably. Why they awarded the film best picture at the Oscar's speaks to his power in the industry, and his influence.
I look forward to Guillermo Del Toro's next movie, either-way, as all his other films are excellent. All best film-makers have there multi-million dollar ego trips that don't let me in as a viewer.
The Hunger (1983)
NOTHING HUMAN LOVES FOREVER.
The Hunger is a case of style over content, like Crimson Peak. There is bags of style here which I admired, but the narrative is thin and distant, and not much effort has been made to really flesh out the story, leaving nothing for you to sink your fangs into.
The story is adapted from an interesting novel by Whitley Streiber, and it goes like this, during the 18th century, a vampire (Catherine Denueve) and a human she’s sought out and bitten on the understanding he will live forever, have a romance for 200 years before the human, played by David Bowie finds, to his horror, that he’s starting to age in the 21st Century.
Bowie and Deneuve work well together and have chemistry, and there are some pretty heart wrenching scenes towards the end, which are equally disturbing and emotional, but it’s certainly a romantic film, and like most on this list, it has a very good soundtrack.
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Sleepy Hollow is a fun gothic horror film, with lots of romantic subplots, some of which are disturbing and some with fairy tale qualities. There’s nothing too serious going on here. It’s quite a light yet melodramatic affair despite it being a horror, with an eccentric Tim Burton undercurrent.
The set and costume design are flawless; the film feels like a multi-million-dollar Hammer film from the 1970's stylistically.
The headless horseman is paper-thin as a character and could have done with fleshing out and the plot, despite being based on the novel by Washington Irving, reminds me of an episode of Midsomer Murders narratively.
Nina Forever (2015)
This is categorised as romantic horror on the internet, so I’ve decided to put it on this list.
I enjoyed it, but I don’t think it’s a subtle affair at all.
It actually made my stomach turn the first time I watched it. The film has a very unforgiving story, which is quite mean spirited, but I agreed with what the film was attempting to convey and understood it.
Nina Forever is at times quite a disturbing watch, but if you like something dark, and morbid Valentine's Day, then give it a try.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)
Kenneth Branagh’s much maligned adaptation of Frankenstein is not anywhere close to as bad as the bad reviews it received in 1994. One would have thought it had the potential to be on par with Coppola’s Dracula, given its desire to remain faithful to the novel – which it isn't entirely. It wasn’t even close, but it’s a decent horror film and has some equally impressive elements that don’t quite match the sum of its parts.
The romance, or shall we say the emotive themes and romantic themes, work throughout and ask questions such as: Can life overcome death and retain enduring love?
Does the need to resurrect a loved one from beyond the grave show evil or good will?
What really defines a father, and does a biological attachment really mean anything at all?
Do we create our own demons on the path towards our greatest ideals?
Mary Shelley’s bench-mark novel is brought to the screen beautifully with some truly breath-taking and remarkable set and costume design, but the film itself falls short narratively.
The weight of Mary Shelley's complex novel is reduced to 120 minutes of film, and some parts work better than others, particularly the character development between Victor Frankenstein and love interest Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter).
The greatest of filmmakers often buckle under the weight of classic literature.
There’s an unfortunate bit of casting too. Frankenstein’s creature (he was never called a ‘monster’ in the novel) is portrayed by Robert De Niro, which was a huge misstep; although, you can assume the studios placed pressure for a well-known name. I've said this before, but some novels don't always transition well to film. I think, like in most novels, the creature as it were is an idea, and when we bring it to life on film, we change the rules of the given literary counterpart.
The creature becomes an on-screen physical embodiment, and for film fans and critics it becomes scrutinized based on its appearance. In this instance, as was the case for Boris Karloff, the creature looks kind of silly and we lose interest or belief in Frankenstein's monster as audiences. Horror, even though it is my favourite genre of cinema, does get it wrong with its depictions of monsters, if you will.
As for the 1994 film adaptation, the creature, is a slimy, grey, stitched up re-animated corpse with bright yellow fake lenses in its eyes and tons of latex. The eyes should be black, or left the same, as if to replicate something not having a soul.
Issues with the monster design aside, the set and costume design on offer here are a feast for the senses. There is a truly remarkable sense of Mary Shelley's gothic work come to life, and of course, shades of gothic German expressionistic cinema of the 1920's. Branagh understands the beauty of pain and the importance of incorporating it into gothic cinema. Every blood curdling scream is sincere and over the top, exactly how it should be.
This world is beautifully assembled and brought together with a particularly fitting score by composer Patrick Doyle, which just encapsulates everything gothic cinema should: intensity, poetry, passion, heartache, love, and death.
How do we transfer Mary Shelley's creation to the big screen flawlessly?
Well I think personally we create something that in theory at least could be anatomically accurate and cast an unknown actor. That being said, Helena Bonham Carter looked fine in her make-up. I think because her face was so badly disfigured on one side, and wisely left relatively clear on the other, it helped audiences view her as nothing more than a mumbling re-animated corpse that was suffering some confusion and experiencing echoes of its past life permeating through what was left of its brain. When we are familiar with an actor, the fear of the unknown, which is what works so well in horror, is lost and with long passages of dialogue by a Hollywood actor playing the creature, you start caring too much and the fear factor goes out the window.
As for the film, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein picks up in the latter half, with some tense and emotive scenes involving Elizabeth, and things get a little gruesome which is what I like to see. So, a flawed work, but by far the best adaptation of Frankenstein your ever likely going to see on the big screen, as along with Dracula, I believe these stories are almost un-filmable (judging by the handful of decent or faithful adaptations in existence).
The Abyss (1989)
The Abyss, like many great films, barely broke even at the box office, which is a shame as it’s a great science fiction film and deserves to be seen by everyone. Plus, it’s romantic.
The story focuses on a deep-sea drilling platform, managed by Virgil Brigman (Ed Harris), the estranged husband of Dr Lindsey Brigman (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), who designed the platform. They are ordered to engage with the US government after a submarine collides with an unidentified object in the ocean, and Virgil’s estranged wife Lindsey gets involved too, which quickly rekindles their romance.
The government send a SEAL team to retrieve a trident missile from the sunken submarine, which may have encountered extra-terrestrial life. Trouble starts with clashes of jurisdiction and a member of the SEAL team starts to lose the plot.
This film is a real stand-out, and it manages to capture a real heartfelt romance without feeling sentimental and, on top of that, it’s underwater with everything going wrong. It’s not got anything unpleasant in it, and it’s upbeat, which singles it out in this list. Furthermore, this film was a big deal in terms of special effects at the time (such fluid CGI was in its infancy), and the effects scenes are beautifully rendered on screen – they’re quite awe inspiring, even now.
Incidentally, the film has been long due, and may really benefit from an up to date remaster, but to date, this as yet to happen. The Abyss is available in both its theatrical cut, and its superior director's cut.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/aug/09/the-abyss-james-cameron-30th-anniversary-sci-fi-epic-love
TO CONCLUDE.
Overall, it’s surprising just how many films falling under the categories of Horror or Science Fiction capture romance on screen much more vividly and ultimately more accessibly for the majority of us, than the box office smash romantic comedies promoted as traditional cinematic romance.
Yes, there are other genres that get lacklustre one-size-fits-all movies – Christmas and Halloween receive generic, uninspired treatments – but with a closer look you can find something more realistic and sincere … a truly scary film or something that captures the real meaning of Christmas. Think of It’s a Wonderful Life instead of Elf or John Carpenter’s Halloween instead of Saw.
If you enjoy what you’re watching then it’s done its job effectively, but it’s sometimes worth ducking out from under the romantic genre umbrella and tasting some different fayre.
We will at some point or another develop feelings for others. It is debatable if they have any scientific grounding or meaning. I'm sort of 60/50 in favour that they don't. I believe some people just get everything reciprocated and others don't. Rejection hurts when you're a teenager, but you sort of get used to after you reach middle-age.
Not everything in life is within our influence, but we may hope that which is within our influence can see through our weaknesses, fears, insecurities, mistakes, and intentions, if any, and salvage the good in us.
Life itself rarely, if ever, easily gives us the opportunity to fully share or place our collected fears and mistakes onto others with the hope they will except, understand, and sincerely forgive that which it encompasses. I guess love means excepting others faults, and perhaps that is what Valentine's Day is all about.
This is the power of the human condition, the ability in some to fully and without hesitation see past each others failings,let them lie, and move past them, and begin to except others mistakes.
All the movies here represent similar related themes; the pay off in the films is often an exchange of personal pain, not necessarily carnal or romantic pleasure. I believe this aspect of life covered in these films is closer to real-life than the Hollywood-esque romantic cinema we've all grown familiar with. Those of us that carry the burden of our pain long for it ease or be understood, but if we didn't have any it may not have motivated us or at the very least made us survivors.
To close, time does have its virtues and benefits, but it’s also cruel, uncompromising and ultimately unbeatable.
The very nature of its power commands respect and when you respect time, you truly value it and anything that encompasses it or takes place within it. You value the shortest of moments when you respect time, and you carry the heaviest of hearts when it slips through your fingers in uncompromising hourglass of life. You kick around this country long enough...you start to understand human beings and how to deal with this countries vast amount of fully grown sperm cells. Can you take any of them or any of this countries institutions, rules, morals, or values...seriously?
Time can bring you moments, even brief, of pleasure that energise you, and heal wounds, and time also gives you moments of deep pain and regret, and wounds can come back. But it’s through our darkest moments that we truly reach a respect and understanding of the pleasure life gives and then value it even more. Or we should all strive to do that. What have we got to lose....everything.
Everyone’s life is priceless, but not everyone values it, and not everyone out there values yours or your time. Time is constantly moving forward and takes no prisoners.
I personally don't think there is enough time, even in a very long life, to begin to unravel and fully understand all our personal pain, and get the answers to unanswered questions, so we must embrace our pain, and find it in ourselves to salvage all the positive, by using the pain to shine amongst the dark.
There comes a point in your life where time is all that matters, and you let go or have to let go of the time where it didn't seem to matter at all. I'm still relatively young, but I know death is always around the corner. When your a child, you never think about it, not ever. Now it is all I think about. Life is so precious. The only real virtue of growing older is you value life more, and certain things become more precious.
Ultimately, the passage of time itself can be kind to our mistakes and long periods of time teach us humility and resolve through life’s ups and downs and these are often crucial lessons that cannot be avoided, but lessons that will continue through our lives until death himself absolves us, forgives, and ultimately releases us.
As for our personal pursuits, with all the will in the world they may, I warn you, end up fruitless.
Those lucky amongst us will have at least the opportunity to say goodbye, whilst the rest of us will just fall by the way sides of society and into the gutter....just where it wants us, leaving us with nothing, but resentment for those who appear to have life and all its fruits on a golden plate.
I think as the passage of time moves forward we may seek to re-write the wrongs we've done in the past or seek or experience something that can substitute those mistakes, or fill in the dark empty spaces in our souls. I believe life offers us that opportunity but I can't or have yet to know when it will happen, or if it will for me personally.
We can't change the past or get something we wanted from the past, but we can substitute those feelings in the present, and every new day is at the very least a chance.
In a nutshell, it is never too late to be the man you wanted to be or be seen to be, even if you've sailed many, many miles away from that person.
It sounds sentimental and gooey, but I think we can be inspired by those we like to be better than ourselves or feel that we can be better or change and aspire to equal them; if we are lucky, we keep those people in our lives and benefit from them, or we lose them, and lose their influence too.
The foolish amongst us...expect life to cash out when we wish it too, but it is never like that. You can't patch up the empty spaces in your own soul without doing your own soul searching first. There is no exit strategy in life, only a field of landmines that you can try to cross and hope you get right. But nobody is saying, you can't get it right and cross over.
Let go...your children do not and will never define you.
Only you define you.
You either except that whilst your still very young, or wait until your just ready
to slip into the wooden box or a landfill for us working classes in the not too distant future?
I don't mean to actually discard your own offspring. I just mean psychologically you should never be defined by your own children or partner. That is all. The greatest sadness attributed to humanity is its need or the comfort it seeks in being defined by the nature of the process or the ability to procreate more life.
I'm not a scientist so I'll leave the science to them, but philosophically speaking or theoretically because an organism of any kind, be it human or non-human animals, has the ability of re-production it doesn't necessarily mean that is its natural purpose. We have excepted these biological processes as the norm, and they have been compounded by religious idealism and societal politics, and social class dynamics (the nature of old money, elitism, and a hereditary monarchy or ruling class), as the norm, but I have questions surrounding humanities inception from the first day, so speak, rendering notions of procreation, null and void.
In this simplest of terms: there really is such thing as a mistake in evolution., and never underestimate human beings ability to romanticise any given thing in this life and beyond it.
Love and care for everything you can and should, but never be defined by it. Go through this life with your head held high, and when you're finally in your last hour or minutes of this life, go out with no understanding of what defines you.
To be pigeon holed in a box as a person, or relationship of any-kind, or even a friendship, is nothing short of modern day slavery.
For most us, if we can't ever meet our ideals internally, then, just maybe, we can pass them off externally, as a satisfactory second-best.
Real life doesn't come with a road-map. We all make our paths as we move along and should never place faith in a single plan, it might be easier to enjoy being happy with what we think we want rather than being denied, through life, what we may really need, and are almost certain to never get.
When my final day does come, and come it shall, I'm going to leave this life wilfully disappointed, and I think that's is a good thing, not miserable...just disappointed. As I believe this life, whatever the outcome of our greatest dreams and desires, is supposed to be a little more bitter than sweet by nature.
😊 😊 😊😊 Enjoy the movies....not reality.😊😊 😊 😊
