As I prepare for the future of this blog (and there is a future, if anybody's wondering), I find myself looking back at the good times, when I had the time to watch a movie a day and write a blog about it, which...yeah, wasn't even sustainable for me in 2021, so make of that what you will. ANYWAY, I decided that I would bring all of these posts together in an omnibus of sorts, so anybody that wanted to read these posts could find them all easily in one place. This, alongside other archives, are going to be pinned to the top of my page, and will serve as a long index of the films in the appropriate genres. The goal? To extend these archives as I go along, and have this running index for my blog. And again...there will be additions...
SO! With that, feel free to check out these films in the romance genre, which is somewhat...difficult to define, honestly. Romance overlaps with a bunch of other genres, so even films that put the love story at the center of the narrative have more to them by necessity. So, just figure these as films whose narrative is driven primarily by romantic tension and motivation. Any films you'd like to see in this list? Comment, reblog, message me, whatever! I'm always open to suggestions to add to my ever-building master list of romance films. And check out the other indices to come!
Dirty Dancing (1987; dir. Emile Ardolino) (Recap | Review)
Pretty Woman (1990; dir. Garry Marshall) (Recap | Review)
Sleepless in Seattle (1993; dir. Nora Ephron) (Recap | Review)
You’ve Got Mail (1998; dir. Nora Ephron) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
The Notebook (2004; dir. Nick Cassavetes) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Romeo + Juliet (1996; dir. Baz Luhrmann) (Recap | Review)
Emma. (2020; dir. Autumn de Wilde) (Recap | Review)
The English Patient (1996; dir. Anthony Minghella) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Doctor Zhivago (1965; dir. David Lean) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Review)
In the Mood for Love (2000; dir. Wong Kar-wai) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
The Bridges of Madison County (1995; dir. Clint Eastwood) (Part 1 | Part 2)
If Beale Street Could Talk (2018; dir. Barry Jenkins) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Before Sunrise (1995; dir. Richard Linklater) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Brokeback Mountain (2005; dir. Ang Lee) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Call Me By Your Name (2017; dir. Luca Guadagnino) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Carol (2015; dir. Todd Haynes) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Desert Hearts (1985; dir. Donna Dietch) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
The Danish Girl (2015; dir. Tom Hooper) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
The Phantom of the Opera (2004; dir. Joel Schumacher) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
An Affair to Remember (1957; dir. Leo McCarey) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
The African Queen (1951; dir. John Huston) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Pillow Talk (1959; dir. Michael Gordon) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
My Girl Friday (1940; dir. Howard Hawks) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Annie Hall (1977; dir. Woody Allen) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)Amélie (2001; dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)
Love Story (1970; dir. Arthur Hiller) (Part 1 | Part 2)
Love, Actually (2003; dir. Richard Curtis) (Part 1 | Part 2)
West Side Story (1961; dir. Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins) (Part 1 | Part 2)
Before I go into ANYTHING else...let’s talk about the actual Danish Girl, Lili Elbe, or Lili Ilse Elvenes.
Oh, uh, full warning, this is gonna be LONG, so skip to the bottom if you’re just here for the Review! OK, history time!
Now, what the film The Danish Girl notes about the beginning of the transition is pretty spot-on, from what I can tell. After marrying portrait painter Gerda Gottlieb in 1904, the two lived in Italy and France before moving to Paris in 1912. Yeah, that’s over 14 years before they’re shown doing so in the movie. Inaccuracy #1. In 1908 (here comes number 2), Elbe (Einar at the time) painted this portrait of trees along a fjord in Denmark.
Yeah, NOT in 1926, as the film says. But, yeah, that’s a nitpick, I recognize that. Anyway, the revelation came when model Anna Larssen (not “Ulla”, which is Inaccuracy #3) was late, and Gerda asked Elbe to fill in. When Larssen eventually showed up, she suggested the name “Lili”. Basically, this scene from the movie was pretty goddamn accurate.
Except for the dates, anyway. Because while the movie mostly takes place around 1926 and afterwards, this probably happened closer to 1920, in Paris. So, yeah, Lili spent a LOT more time as Lili in real life. Additionally, Lili was pretty goddamn public about the whole thing, inviting guests and hosting parties as herself, rather than as Einar. At the same time, Gerda was getting pretty goddamn famous for her paintings of Lili, like this one.
Which, yeah, are really good! Also, they were considered lesbian erotica by many! YEAH! And here’s a fun fact: Gerda may not have been straight-up straight. Yeah, the film and the book (we’ll get there) kind of ignored the fact that their marriage was annulled by the Danish government, not by the two of them. Inaccuracy #4. Now, obviously, their relationship ended, and Lili ended up getting together with a man (we’ll get there, too), but there are a LOT of unanswered questions about Gerda’s sexuality, and views of sexuality (which is barely hinted at in the “male gaze” speech in the beginning).
After the annulment, the two just...drifted apart. Their relationship dissolved, and the details on that are fuzzy. By 1930, Lili was headed on a completely different path. She wasn’t a painter like Einar (and it turns out that she thought of them as two entirely separate people, like two souls living in the same body, which the movie got mostly right), and she was mostly unsatisfied with her career, life, and other things. And that is where Drs. Erwin Gohrbandt and Magnus Hirschfeld come in, NOT Kurt Warnerkros...yet. He’d come in for the other five (YES FIVE) surgeries, but wouldn’t be involved with the first. Inaccuracy #5, and also #6, while we’re at it! See, the film would make you think that Lili was the first complete gender reassignment surgery, but she was actually the second. The first would be Dora Richter, in a procedure that was performed by Dr. Hirschfeld from 1922 - 1931. YEAH. BIG-ASS INACCURACY THERE. Here’s Dora, by the way:
Anyway, Lili had her first procedure, to remove the testicles, performed in 1930. In the same year, the divorce between Lili and Gerda was finalized, and Lili legally changed her name. Two more procedures were performed, the first to implant an ovary, and the second to remove the penis and scrotum. Inaccuracy #7, by the way. And, hey, let’s go for number 8! Let’s talk about Henrik, a dude who didn’t exist. He and Hans were both very loosely based on an art dealer named Claude Lejeune.
Claude was an art dealer (there’s the Hans part), and was indeed in love with Lili. They got together around early 1931, and he’d actually been in love with her for a good, long time. He proposed to marry Lili, and she accepted, also hoping that the two would be able to have children together. But to do that, it was believed that Lili would need a uterus. And, obviously, having children would be MILES more complicated than that in basically EVERY way, but this was early in medical science’s understanding of some of that biology.
In any case, however, Lili would need both a uterus and a vagina to feel whole. And so, the fourth surgery was scheduled. And she had that surgery in 1931, a couple of weeks after Dora Richter successfully had the same surgery performed. But, sadly, Lili wouldn’t be so lucky.
Lili’s body rejected the uterus, and while transplant rejections of any kind wouldn’t necessarily be fatal now, they definitely were back then. They attempted to remove it, but that subsequent 5th surgery caused infection, which caused a fatal heart attack three months later. Lili Elbe died on September 13, 1931, at the age of FORTY-EIGHT. Yeah, Inaccuracy #9.
By the way, you may be wondering: what about Dora Richter, the first successful person to get these surgeries? Well, she disappeared...in Germany...as the Nazis were coming into power...yeah. Fuckin’ YIKES.
And so, that’s the true story of Lili Elbe. And there are far more differences than that, I’m sure, but those 9 inaccuracies aren’t insignificant, that’s for sure. Although, it probably doesn’t help that the movie was based on a fictionalized book.
Oh, uh...did I not mention that? Yeah, this movie is based on The Danish Girl, by David Ebershoff, which means that this film is essentially a cinematic game of telephone. Which, uh...not great. Granted, Ebershoof made some other...interesting changes, which the film didn’t inherit. In the book, for example, Gerda is named Greta, and is American? Um...why? I dunno, it’s kind of weird. Oh, and that’s not including one more issue with the movie. But, you’ve waited long enough, huh? Recap of the film is here and here if you wanna check that out! Let’s get to the Review already!
Review
Cast and Acting: 8/10
I am...conflicted. So let me start here by saying that the acting in the film in and of itself is fantastic, all-around. Not a weak actor in here, that’s for sure. Let’s start with the side-roles, for once. Ben Whishaw, Matthias Schoenaerts, and Amber Heard are all good. Heard’s accent is a little shaky, but they’re still all solid performances. OK, how about Alicia Vikander? She’s great! And she won the Oscar for...Best Supporting Actress. Um...wait...Supporting? But not Best Actress? Uh...OK. That’s a little weird, let’s be honest here. But, Alicia Vikander did deserve that win over...oooooooh, Rooney Mara in Carol? Maybe not...damn.
And OK...let’s get into the elephant in the room, huh?
Eddie Redmayne is fantastic as Einar Wegener/Lili Eber, and I genuinely think he had a great shot to win Best Actor...but, yeah, Leonardo DiCaprio definitely deserved it, I think that goes without saying. Hell, that year had a SOLID line-up for best actor. And Redmayne had even won it the year before for The THeory of Everything, another biography where he played Stephen Hawking. But ALL of that said...HNNNNNNNNNG, there should have been a transgender actor cast in this role, ideally. Now, I’m fully aware how difficult that would be, as Hollywood isn’t extraordinarily diverse in terms of including trans actors in massive mainstream projects. It’s better now, but it’s nowhere near ideal. But if anybody knows an actor who would’ve fit this role and performed it well, I’m DEFINITELY interested. So, despite that controversy, Redmayne was pretty goddamn great in this role. But, uh...that doesn’t mean everything is perfect...
Plot and Writing: 5/10
OK, that seems low, I know. But it’s pretty goddamn damning that this movie was based off of a heavily fictionalized book instead of the actual life story of Lili Eber and Gerda Gottlieb. And because of that, there are not only some missed opportunities, but some straight-up damning inaccuracies. That’s a set of pretty poor decisions, I tell you what. Not sure why Lucinda Coxon came to that decision when adapting this screenplay, but it wasn’t exactly nominated for Best Screenplay. And the writing certainly isn’t bad, but it is...overly saccharine sometimes, especially for a film based (loosely) on a true story. I dunno...just not the best set of choices here, sorry to say.
Directing and Cinematography: 8/10
Tom Hooper shouldn’t direct musicals. However, since this wasn’t a musical, directing and cinematography here is pretty damn good! Real talk, this is a gorgeous looking movie, and the way shots are framed are fantastic. Perfect? Weeeeeeeell...given the fact that painting is a main focus of the film, for both Gerda and Einar, there should’ve been more painter-quality shots in here, I think. And while the cinematography by Danny Cohen is pretty fantastic, I can’t say that it’s perfect. Still, in terms of lighting and general skill, it’s still quite a good looking movie.
Production and Art Design: 10/10
But the deficiencies in the direction are EASILY compensated for by the production design! Like, hot DAMN, this is a good looking movie, like I said! That goes from the construction of the sets, to the gorgeous outfits all over the place, especially Lili’s outfits. Some iconic pieces of wardrobe there, that’s for sure! But if I have ONE complaint...this movie never once felt like the 1920s. Yup, good old anachronistic complaints from me again! Yeah, I’ll change the record one of these days, I promise. But even with that, it’s hard to ignore just how good this movie looks, to be honest. It’s just...gorgeous.
Music and Editing: 8/10
As I type this, I’m listening to a track of the film on YouTube, and it is a beautifully delicate tune. I’m not sure that I’d be able to associate it with the film if presented to me on its own, but it’s definitely a nice track to listen to by itself. Playlist worthy? For somebody, almost certainly, but not for me. One of these days, a film like that’s gonna pop up, I swear. But for now, Alexandre Desplat and his score are gonna stay off my iPhone. This really is a nice score, though, I promise. Editing by Melanie Ann Oliver is pretty good as well, and I’ve no complaints about it, to be honest. Overall, this side of things was quite nice, if not the most notable thing I’ve ever seen or heard.
I might have been a little harsh, but it’s still got an 78%.
This is a good movie, but...I dunno, the inaccuracies do bug me. Hell, there are WAY more than what I’d mentioned, and I mentioned a lot. Not to mention the other glaring issue: no trans people at any stage of the production? Really? No script consultants, no writers, no NTOHING? That’s...egregiously bad. Like, holy shit, guys. And, yes, this includes Redmayne, because even though he performed admirably in the role...I dunno. I’m no expert on ANY of this, as a cissexual dude with cissexual experience, but it feels a little...reductive, is all. Like I said, if any other actors have been suggested for this role, I’d love to know. The whole thing feels...I don’t know, just not great.
And by the way, that’s without even TOUCHING the question as to whether or not this film is authentic to the trans experience. Again, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA, but I’ve also heard that this film isn’t universally acclaimed in the trans community, so to speak. And I’m definitely interested in the reasons for that. All I know is this: from the perspective of a complete outsider, I was intrigued by this films view of the transgender experience, specifically as seen in the earliest days of those realizations happening and being publicly known and reported on. And that’s all I can really comment on, in truth.
WHOOF. That was a goddamn topic, huh? And now, I’m going to continue on the the month of romance with...wait, the 19th is my 5-year anniversary with my GF, pictured here:
Ravishing. Anyway, I think I’ll let her pick from my choices for this next one. Hold on a sec...OK, then. Sing it with me now! AND DO I DREEEEEAM AGAAAAIN, FOR NOW I FIIIIIIIIIIIIIND...
February 19, 2021: The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
Might be just because it’s so fresh, but I REALLY enjoyed this movie!
It could also be because, unlike the last two entries, this one had a more hopeful, borderline happy ending. I mean, not completely happy, obviously, but a realistic joy, given the circumstances! Carol is an extremely romantic film, and one that I do think is borderline perfect. And, if I’m honest, and I realize this is blasphemous...
I think I like it more than Brokeback MountainI’M SORRY
I can’t deny it, I do actually think I like this movie more...but again, that might be because it;s not as much of a tragedy as Brokeback Mountain is, in truth. And this definitely isn’t to say that I think Carol is a BETTER movie than Brokeback...but I do like it a little bit more.
But all right, enough navel-gazing; shall I get into why? Probably should explain myself. Recap can be found here and here. And the Review can be found below!
Review
Cast and Acting: 10/10
...Yeah. Yeah, it’s perfect, I have no problems with this rating. Cate Blanchett is amazing as Carol Aird, and Rooney Mara disappears into Therese, but together? Together, their chemistry is hauntingly good. I was rooting for them both the entire time, which is natural of course, but they are just wonderful together. Rest of the cast is great, too, as Sarah Paulson, Kyle Chandler, Jake Lacy and Corey Michael Smith are all memorable for various reasons. And I honestly don’t have too much else to say here, because the acting is pretty goddamn spot on.
Plot and Writing: 10/10
Based on 1952 novel The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith, which was the first lesbian-themed novel with a happy ending, by the way, this screenplay as adapted by Phyllis Nagy is...shit, man, it’s GOOD! S’fuckin’ GREAT! And I also don’t have much to say here! The writing and plot are spot-on, and I’m genuinely not sure how to complain about it. It’s just...GODDAMIT, it’s fantastic.
Directing and Cinematography: 9/10
Todd Haynes knocked this one OUT! Again, an amazing job, with some great shots, and...y’know, I’m starting to feel like these reviews are getting, I dunno...repetitive? I really need to up may critical game, huh? Well, look there are legitimately some great shots in here, both in terms of shot construction and in terms of overall camera movement and direction. The scene in the car comes to mind, not to mention any other scenes of emotional expression between the two characters. Is it perfect? No, not really, but it’s still amazing. Seriously, I know it’s getting repetitive, but I don’t have much else to say. Haynes’ direction and Edward Lachman’s cinematography are amazing.
Production and Art Design: 9/10
Remember how I said that the costumes in Brokeback weren’t as time-accurate as I’d hoped? Well, this movie DEFINITELY makes up for it, as the production design feels extremely accurate to the time period. In fact, sometimes it feels...too accurate? Yeah, yeah, I KNOW, not the best of criticisms, but hear me out. Sometimes, in this movie, the fact that this takes place in the 1950s punches you in the face, while it’s also understated at other points, and it never really evens out for me. But still, it deserves high points, so high points it gets.
Music and Editing: 8/10
But as compared to Brokeback Mountain...yeah, Carter Burwell’s score is fantastic...but not quite as iconic or notable. Like, just talking about it now, I can vividly remember the score for Brokeback. But for Carol? Nothin’. I know it was impactful in the film itself, but I don’t think it was as good, is all I’m saying. But as for Affonso Gonçalves’ editing, it’s great. I know, RIVETING commentary, but I don’t have too much to say here. Still, great score for great music and editing.
Hey, look, a 92%! This really was another Brokeback.
Which makes sense, because not only do I think this is just as good...it got slept on by the Academy Awards SO MUCH HARDER than Brokeback. That’s right, it’s time for another edition of The Oscars...are...BULLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!
And what have out contestants won? NOTHING. Not just that, but this film wasn’t nominated for Best Picture (Mad Max Fury Road was, and this movie’s definitely as good as that; Spotlight won, and that was admittedly deserved) or Best Director (The Revenant won, deservedly, but this should’ve been NOMINATED). Sure, Blanchett and Mara were nominated, as was Nagy for Screenplay, Burwell for Score, and Lachman for Cinematography. And sure, it lost those categories to some deserved entries, but the lack of nominations for those two categories is...yeah, not great.
OK, now that this is done, I’m probably gonna watch Blue is the Warmest Color, right? What if I were to tell you...that I wasn’t? I’ve never seen BitWC before, and I should...but you know what? WE’RE GOIN’ OLD SCHOOL, FUCKIT
SORRY! This one was never published. So, rewind to yesterday for me, and stay tuned for the Recap and Review of the next film tonight! Anyway, in terms of Brokeback Mountain...
This sums up my feelings exactly.
I tell you, I enjoyed this movie FAR more than I thought I would, and it definitely wasn’t what I was expecting. It’s heavy, it’s tough, it’s not afraid of moral ambiguity and complex characters, and it’s a VERY good character study, holy shit. And that actually has led to something...interesting in my analysis.
But I’ll get there. Overall, this has managed to further cement Ang Lee was one of my favorite directors. Seriously, he’s been fantastic for me this year, and I’ve now seen 4 of his films. Winning me over. Oh, and one more thing. Remember how I said my girlfriend was a huge fan of Jake Gyllenhaal? Here she is, by the way.
Well, I’m a big fan of Heath Ledger. And, yes, it’s partially for the obvious The Dark Knight reasons, but also...honestly, he’s great in 10 Things I Hate About You.
Takes some GODDAMN TALENT to make me like a character like Petrucio, who is maybe one of Shakespeare’s biggest pieces of shit in any play. Plus, I also remember him in The Brothers Grimm! That was a movie I liked when I was, like, 15. And it always greatly saddens me that he’s gone. Ugh. Guts me.
Speaking of being gutted, let’s talk about this movie! Recap’s here and here!
Review
Cast and Acting: 10/10
They’re perfect. Yeah, uh, Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal COMPLETELY DISPPEAR in these roles, as Ennis and Jack. I was 100% involved and convinced by these two, and that’s one hell of a feat, considering that both of them are actors I know very well. I expected to see Mysterio and the Joker the entire film, and they both vanished into these roles, I CANNOT emphasize that enough. And their chemistry, while complex and nuanced as SHIT, is fantastic. Not necessarily my favorite couple (sorry, guys, Fonny and Tish still take it for me), but arguably the most fascinating. That might be because of the environment and setting of the film as a whole, but they expertly dance within those lines.
Oh, and the supporting cast? WHOO! Yeah, Michelle Williams knocks it out of the part, Anne Hathaway also vanished into her role, Linda Cardellini had a memorable scene or two, and Randy Quaid was also surprisingly good! Seriously, no slouches here. An all-around perfect cast for a near perfect film.
Plot and Writing: 10/10
...Near perfect. I will say, there will be a few negative points in here. But writing? Naah. Plot and writing are SUPER goddamn strong here. The original short story by Annie Proulx is definitely one to look out for, but its adaptation by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana is...well, it’s basically perfect. It’s not overly sappy, it’s very realistically romantic and heartbreaking, it’s surprising, it’s engaging...what else is there to say? This is some of the best writing and plot that I’ve ever seen. I can’t think of any prominent flaws.
Directing and Cinematography: 10/10
...Ang Lee is legit one of my favorite directors right now. Like...hot damn, this movie’s gorgeous. Oh, and don’t worry, I didn’t forget Rodrigo Prieto’s gorgeous cinematography; not sure how I could if I wanted to. This movie look amazing, the direction is spotless...look, this is a great movie, OK? If there anything that isn’t absolutely perfect about it? Well...
Production and Art Design: 7/10
Yeah, production design is kind of odd. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great, but it NEVER feels like the 1960s, ‘70s, or ‘80s. And while that might actually be the point to a certain degree...the film also somewhat relies on this taking place in those time periods. So, yeah, that is a legitimate weak point in the film for me, one of very few. And don’t get me wrong, this movie LOOKS fantastic! It’s just not quite as timely as I think it’s supposed to be.
Music and Editing: 9/10
Music likewise is fantastic, especially the sweeping orchestral ballad that I’ve 100% heard outside of this context. However, it’s not quite soundtrack worthy for me. Still beautiful, and Gustavo Santaolalla’s score is gorgeous, but not necessarily my favorite. And the editing is fantastic, and I have no complaints about that. Good job to you too, Geraldine Peroni and Dylan Tichenor!
92% feels good for this one!
This is a film I recommend to everybody. Unsurprisingly, it’s pretty big on Tumblr, but it’s also big...everywhere. Oh, and before I say anything else, in today’s edition of the classic show The Oscars are Bullshit, this film 100% deserved the Best Picture Win over Crash. Like...VERY much so. The Oscars suck.
Speaking of the Oscars, I was tempted to do Moonlight next, but that movie (from what I understand) is a bit broader than a romance in terms of genre. So instead, let’s continue the LGBT-rain with another romance between two men, but more recently this time. And hey, why not one that miiiiiiiiight have been snubbed for that coveted Best Picture award, huh?
February 19, 2021: The Phantom of the Opera (2004) (Part 1)
I love musicals.
Hands down, when talking cinematic adaptations of musicals, my favorite is Little Shop of Horrors. I’ve seen it MANY times, and will see it many, MANY more. And I’m not the only one. I mean, obviously, but in this case, I’m referring to my girlfriend. She’s chosen to represent herself with a GIF from her favorite musical, Hairspray. So, here she is:
Ravishing. Now, because it’s currently our anniversary, I let her pick today’s movie from my list. And so, she chose a musical that neither she nor I have seen: 2004′s The Phantom of the Opera. And some of you may now be saying, “What, this guy said he liked movie musicals, and he hasn’t seen TPotS? That’s like saying you haven’t seen Grease, or Singin’’ in the Rain, or, PFFT, West Side Story!”
...About that...
Yeah, yeah, I know! It’s insane, and I’m a hypocrite. I’ll be getting to the rest of those eventually, and one of them’ll be coming in the next couple of days, I promise. You can probably guess which one. Anyway, fact of the matter is that we’re gonna watch it tonight, and I’m looking forward to it.
However, there’s another factor to this, and that’s the fact that this film...doesn’t have the best reputation amongst fans of the original musical. And, yeah, this should ideally be the Michael Crawford version, but the Butler version is the one I have access to, so we’re going for it. SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
Recap (1/2)
Paris, 1919, back when the whole city was in black-and-white for a year. They lost the budget for color after World War I. Anyway, at an old opera house, an auction is taking place, and items found within the theater are for sale. One of these is a music box with a monkey on it, an item which sponsors a bidding war between an older woman, and an older man in a wheelchair. I’m sure we’ll find out who they are eventually.
Anyway, a broken chandelier is also up for option, and was involved in the mysterious disaster of the “Phantom of the Opera” fiasco. They turn it on with electric light, and as they raise it to the ceiling, the organist goes fuckin’ NUTS. The song’s so loud that it REVERSES TIME, and we’re now in color, in the year 1870 at the same opera house.
The theatre, managed by the soon-to-retire Monsieur Lefèvre (James Fleet), has just been purchased by Richard Firmin (Ciaran Hinds) and Gilles André (Simon Callow), who are there to observe. On stage, a rehearsal for the opera Hannibal is taking place, and the costume’s are already...like, a LOT, not gonna lie. The headliner for the show is soprano (and drama queen supreme) Carlotta Giudicelli (Minnie Driver), and is being funded by patron Raoul, Vicomte de Chagny (Patrick Wilson).
The background dancers are instructed by Madame Giry (Miranda Richardson), and include her daughter, Meg (Jennifer Ellison), and her adopted daughter, Christine Daaé (Emmy Rossum). As the rehearsal takes place, an accident happens on stage, almost injuring Carlotta. Enraged, she leaves, and refuses to perform.
Meanwhile, Madame Giry finds a letter from the Phantom, who demands his normal monthly salary of 20,000 francs, as for Box 5 to be left open. While the new owners think that this is ridiculous, they also note that it’s pointless without a lead singer for their show.
However, Christine is volunteered, and shows that she is indeed a talented singer. The show goes on, and Christine is a smash, much to Carlotta’s dismay. At this point, Raoul also discovers that this is his long lost childhood friend (and possibly long lost love) Christine, which she also noticed earlier.
But this is because of a mysterious teacher, who sings to her from the walls of the theatre. Meg comes in to congratulate her (through song), and asks who her tutor is. Meg responds...in song (”Angel of Music”).
Afterwards, Madame Giry also congratulates her, and tells her that the Phantom is pleased with her. Right after, Raoul also pays her a visit, and the two reconnect on shared memories of times in an attic in the summer. She tells Raoul that she is visited by an Angel of Music, and cannot go to the dinner that night with him. And the Phantom agrees, as he locks Christine in her room. YIKES.
And as literally every person in the theatre except Christine leaves, the Phantom serenades her, angered by Raoul’s presence, and Christine’s potential dalliance with him (”Mirror”). And through the mirror, he takes her to a mysterious crypt beneath the theatre. And as they sing their strange duet in the form of the title song (”The Phantom of the Opera”)...I try to resist talking about Gerard Butler until later. And it’s hard. It’s SO hard, guys.
But, OK, he takes her away on a...sewer horse...how the FUCK did he get that horse down there? And wait, WAIT, does he put her on that horse to walk her, like, 20 feet to the gondola? Like...WHY DO YOU HAVE THE HORSE? That is...monumentally wasteful. Where do you keep the horse? Does he feed the horse? How much? How often? With what? Does the horse eat the sewer rats? Is there naturally growing sewer hay? Does the Phantom’s salary go towards buying food for the horse, or buying new horses when the original ones DIE OF STARVATION - WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THIS HORSE?!?!? WHOMSTVE THE FUCK
And yes, I love this fuckin’ song (not the singers, but we’ll get there), but this is distracting me alongside the statues of naked men in the sewer, because...well, Joel Schumacher. What can I say, it’s kind of his aesthetic. Anyway, we get officially introduced to the Phantom of the Opera (Gerard Butler), a very handsome-looking man who likes wearing a half-mask.
I say handsome, because the Phantom in this movie, looks...fine. HE LOOKS OK. HE LOOKS LIKE A DUDE WEARING A MASK. What, did somebody throw a hot candle at his face once, and he freaked out over it and ran into the sewers forever...WITH A HORSE? NOT OVER THE HORSE SHIT.
Look, the Phantom is supposed to be HIDEOUSLY scarred. Famously, in one of the film adaptations of Phantom, actor Lon Chaney Jr. purposely distorted his own face using adhesive face in order to play the role of the hideously disfigured character. Now, other versions have just given him severe, and I mean SEVERE burn scars. But behind the mask, Butler looks...fine. HE LOOKS FINE GODDAMMIT. He looks like he’s wearing the mask because it looks edgy and shit.
But OK, what’s happening in the movie? Oh, right, more serenading (”Music of the Night”), with another song that I like quite a bit. This and the previous song were songs Id heard before, and that I’d already had on my playlist. They’re great, what can I say? Now is Butler doing it justice? Ehhhhhhh, we’ll talk about that in the Review.
During this song he kinda seduces her, or attempts to, and also shows her a wedding dress. She sees herself in it and IMMEDIATELY faints, Jesus! Curtain falls on Christine while she’s in a bed, and we go back to her room, where Meg is looking for her. She finds the mirror, and is about to go back there, but her mother finds and stops her.
Meanwhile, stagehand Joseph Buquet (Kevin McNally) tells the chorus girls of the legend of the Phantom, and describes a physical description that doesn’t match him...even a little. We cut back to Christine, who wakes up in what my girlfriend refers to as a “bomb-ass HQ.” Which is fair, let’s be honest. Anyway, she heads over and tries to unmask her new masked lover (?).
He’s not the biggest fan of this, and he emos all over the screen (”Stranger Than You Dreamt It”). And then, as he puts his mask on, we suddenly (and I mean suddenly) jump to 1919, where the old woman, Madame Giry, bids farewell to...wait, that’s Raoul? HOW DOES HE LOOK SO MUCH OLDER THAN HER, WHAT???
Back in the past, inexplicably, the theatre owners and manager sing about the theatre and the Phantom’s demands ("Notes..."), and are soon joined by Raoul, who brings them a separate note, saying not to look for Christina any further. THEN, Carlotta joins them, delivering a letter of her own from the Phantom, warning her not to return to the theatre.
In his letters, he details how his theatre is to be run, threatening a disaster if Christine is not cast in the lead role, and if Carlotta is not cast in a silent role. However, the theatre owners and Carlotta refuse to obey, and Carlotta is cast in the role, as the owners try to appease her (”Prima Donna”).
That night, during a performance of Il Muto, Carlotta’s singing the lead role. Additionally, Box Five is full, and the Phantom is PISSED. So, like a Phantom do, it’s time for some good old fashioned petty revenge! He switches her throat spray, causing her to lose her voice on stage, and causing the audience to laugh when the show ends abruptly. They quickly and publicly recast the role, giving it to Christine instead. Well, mission accomplished by the Phantom! Guess we’re good without retribution. And then he hangs the stagehand.
Well...fuck, man. Realizing that the Phantom is EXTREMELY dangerous, Christine goes to save Raoul, who she...is in a relationship with now? Wait...wait, hold up, the fuck did I miss? I mean, yeah, he probably is gonna kill Raoul, but there is, like, NO lead-up to their connection before this point.
Anyway, as Christine explains that there is a Phantom when Raoul says he doesn’t exist...wait, WHAT? MOTHER FUCKER BUQUET JUST NOT MURDERED IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY WHAT IN THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN????? YOU LITERALLY HEARD THE...you know what? Break. BREAK. This is...this one’s tough.
Yeah, I had to do this one. Partially because I knew about this film previously, as it was kind of a smash hit when it came out in theaters. It was about as big of a deal as Blue is the Warmest Color, which...we might get there. But, yeah, Carol was already on my radar when I decided to dip into LGBT cinema.
But also...you can thank my girlfriend again. There she is (as she’s choosing to represent herself through GIF form) below.
We love The Owl House. Anyway, I wasn’t aware of the meme until we were watching a movie, and she just screamed “HAROLD THEY’RE LESBIANS!” And after doing some research on that statement...that’s goddamn hilarious. And it all started with Carol, so the writing’s basically on the wall there.
Here’s what I know. This movie stars Cate Blanchett...OK, that’s it! Shall we find out more firsthand? SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
Recap
In New York City, a man enters a bar and restaurant, where he sees an old acquaintance, Therese Belivet (Rooney Mara), who is having dinner with another woman, Carol Aird (Cate Blanchett). And, uh, lemme just say, we’re jumping off RIGHT away, and my girlfriend immediately starts screaming “HAROLD” at the screen.
Anyway, Jake invites her to a party with mutual friends, and Carol and Therese end their dinner date early. As Therese looks out of the window of a car on the way to the party, she thinks backwards through time, and takes us with her. FLASHBACK
Therese wakes up one morning around Christmastime, only to see her boyfriend, Richard Semco (Jake Lacy), ready to take her to work on a bicycle though Central Park. They talk about going to Paris on vacation, an idea about which Therese seems nonchalant. Therese works at Frankenberg’s, a department store that doesn’t exist. As is typical of the season in NYC, shoppers and their children flood the place. We went there on Christmas of 2019, and I grew up in the area. Trust me when I say Christmas in NYC is FUCKIN’ NUTS.
Therese works at the toy counter, and that’s when Carol arrives to get a doll for her daughter. Unfortunately, they’re out of the doll she’s looking for, so Therese offers a model train set to her instead, and the two hit it off basically immediately. And when I say hit it off, they HIT IT OFF. Like...the chemistry is IMMEDIATE. Maybe that’s Cate Blanchett’s pure charisma, but I’m just saying...they have the fastest chemistry establishment that I’ve seen yet.
But oh no! Carol’s forgotten her gloves! However, it doesn’t seem like much results from that, as the work day is soon over, and Therese and Richard go to a movie and a beer with friends Phil (Nik Pajic) and Danny McElroy (John Magaro). That night, having returned home, Therese looks at Carol’s gloves. Using information obtained during the department store visit, she mails the gloves to Carol, at her gorgeous mansion.
Carol is combing her daughter’s hair, as her husband Harge Aird (Kyle Chandler) arrives home with the mail. Things seem somewhat amiss, as Carol seems extremely unhappy. She later calls her at the department store to thank her for the gloves, and offers to buy her lunch that afternoon. She agrees, and the two head to a nice restaurant.
Over the course of the meal, it’s revealed that Carol and Harge are going through a divorce (yeah, that tracks), and Therese’s conflicted on how she feels about her relationship with Richard. Carol invites her to come over at some point, and she agrees.
Later on, while in traffic in the car of a friend, Abby Gerhard (Sarah Paulson), she seems to acknowledge potential attraction between her and Therese, although it’s not exactly set in stone. She heads to a party that evening. Meanwhile, she visits her friend Danny, an aspiring writer, who inquires about her hobby of photography, and then...kisses her...even though she’s dating a friend. Fuckin’ OH BOY, DANNY.
Harge takes Carol home, and he’s 100% still in love with her, and she’s just not feeling it. This may be related to the fact that she and Abby were also once a couple. Yeah. Harge is aware of this, and they were DEFINITELY a romantic couple in the past, which means...yeah, Carol’s a straight-up lesbian, it would seem. Harge says it “shouldn’t be like this,” and it’s not clear whether that refers to Carol’s attraction to women, or the divorce in general. It is the 1950′s, after all.
OH WAIT. Forgot to mention that, didn’t I? This film takes place in the 1950s, I think? Hasn’t been made super clear as of yet, but the aesthetic is certainly the 1950s, without much doubt. The next day, Carol goes to pick Therese up, and meets Richard. Richard tells Therese he loves her as they depart. Therese doesn’t return the sentiment. FUCKIN’ OOF.
As the two drive through Lincoln Tunnel together, their dialogue is quieted, and we get some interesting close-up shots of their eyes, lips, faces. And it’s definitely meant to suggest something more physical, something without words. In other words...Harold’s wife is starting to get the idea. Harold’s not quite there yet, though.
Carol and Therese go to Carol’s home in New Jersey, where she meets her and 4-year old Harge’s daughter, Rindy, who Carol obviously loves VERY much. That night, Therese plays the piano, and also shares her passion for photography with Carol. Carol shows interest in her hobby, when Harge suddenly shows up to take Lindy unexpectedly for Christmas with his family, away from her.
The argument that this results in quickly envelops Therese, as Harge confronts Carol about her presence there. The ending result, though, is that Carol is forced to let Rindy leave early with Harge. And yeah, it’s sad for her. Harge, on the other hand, is being an absolute dick. The two have a verbal and PHYSICAL argument outside, which Therese partially overhears.
As an apology for bringing Therese into this marital struggle, Carol gives her a ride to the train station, so she can make her way home that night. On the train, Therese cries. Is this because of Harge, because of Carol, because of a struggle with her own feelings? I’m honestly not sure. And it’s a good question.
Carol seems to believe that it’s because of her, though, as she turned her away somewhat abruptly. However, she quickly tries to make up for it by calling and apologizing. Therese says that she has questions for her, and Carol is more than willing to answer them. The next day, Carol goes down to her divorce attorney’s office, only to discover that Harge is trying to take away ALL of Carol’s custody.
And the reason for it? You guessed it! Carol’s a lesbian! Sooooooo, FUCK HARGE!!! With this otion, Carol won’t be able to see Rindy for several months, which hurts her greatly. Again, fuck Harge, he’s a dick who’s taking away Carol’s joy and time with her daughter solely because Carol isn’t attracted to him. GODDAMN, that absolutely sucks.
Meanwhile, Therese’s struggling with her own feelings, some of which may be for Carol, and actually STRIGHT-UP asks Richard his opinions on the origins of homosexuality. He believes that it can’t just happen like heterosexual love, which...I mean, 1950s, what can I tell ya, it wasn’t great. He point-blank asks her if she’s in love with a girl, and she says no, and leaves him in the street in a huff. And real talk, I feel bad...for Richard. Therese, too, but dude is genuinely in head-over-heels with Therese, and is just NOT getting the hint.
Carol and Abby go to have lunch, where Carol breaks the news. They share tenderness, as they have in the past, and Abby’s pretty clearly out of the closet, as much as one can be in the 1950s. Also, quick aside to note that Sarah Paulson rules...and moving on.
Carol then visits Therese, and gives her new camera equipment as a kind gesture. Carol shares with her the news of the struggle with her husband, and says that she’s going on a trip, to get away for a while. She invites Therese to come with her, quite spontaneously, and Therese equally spontaneously says yes! Fuckin OOOOOOOF to Richard, goddamn.
Also, exactly the halfway point! See you in Part 2!
Well, I liked it! The soundtrack is literally the music I was born to, so I guess I would like it, right? Anyway, for somebody who isn’t a big fan of romance films, I do think this is an engaging film, with an engaging central romance. Plus, the dissection of class politics during the time is interesting, if a liiiiiittle superficial. From what I’ve read, there’s more to this film subtextually, particularly in terms of the Jewish-American population at the time during which the film takes place. But I won’t get into that here.
Let’s jump right into the Review, yeah? If you’ve only seen this post, check out the Recap if you’d like more info on this film! OK, let’s go!
Review
Cast and Acting: 8/10
Great cast, great acting, and GODDAMN, Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey have some amazing chemistry. It’s the highlight of the movie, and sells it all on its own. But then, why an 8? Because the casting of literally every character just...doesn’t fit with their age. Yeah, the ages are all of here, and NOBODY looks their age, and it DISTRACTS ME SO. And so, there are a few points taken away in this category. But for what they have, these guys are awesome.
Plot and Writing: 7/10
This is, by far, the weakest part of this movie, and not really for the writing. The script is a partially autobigraphical work by Eleanor Bergstein, a “teenage mambo queen” whose family summered at a resort hotel in the Catskills, where she would dance. Neat, huh? Anyway, this was a pretty solidly written film. Shame the plot is pretty goddamn cardboard. Yeah, it’s a REALLY simple and overdone plot, sorry to say. And that’s OK, it still works fine, but it is noticeable. And so, for a relatively unoriginal Romeo-and-Juliet style plot, we’re taking off a couple of points.
Directing and Cinematography: 8/10
Emile Ardolino hadn’t exactly directed a lot of well-known films. His most famous films were this and Sister Act. Sadly, he died from AIDS complications in 1993, and I would’ve liked to see more from him, as the direction was great in this movie, especially for a movie centered around dance. Jeffrey Jur’s cinematography is also worth talking about...when it really matters. He doesn’t get to show off too much, but we see it highlighted in some of the less-cluttered scenes, like the one above.
Production and Art Design: 8/10
Does this film scream early ‘60s? Does it say it? yeah, it says early ‘60s, sure. Pretty well, even. But even then, it’s not exactly loud. May be it doesn’t need to be, but this film legitimately feels far more ‘80s to me than ‘60s.
Music and Editing: 9/10
Why in the hell is this not a 10, you ask? Here’s the thing, the music in this movie? GREAT. Part of that is due to the composers for the movie, John Morris, Erich Bulling, and Jon Barns. And the other part, of course, is due to the kick-ass sampled soundtrack. What can I say? It’s fantastic! BUT...also anachronistic. Some background songs are clearly ‘80s songs, and the most famous song of the film, the Academy Award and Grammy Award-winner, the Jimmy Ienner song “(I’ve Had) The Time of my Life...” is CLEARLY an ‘80s song. And as much as I love that song, AND I DO, that is a legit issue with the period setting of this film. But still, despite that, the editing and music of this film deserve nearly full credit.
80%! B for Baby!
This was supposed to be a “chick flick,” right? Although...in retrospect, maybe I don’t truly know what that means. Let’s re-examine that term, yeah (and also whether that term should even be used, let’s be honest)? But...with which movie? There are SO MANY choices. Was...was this a mistake?
