Love in the Time of Cholera

have to say, I thought the book was much older than it is: 50s or 60s instead of 80s. I’ve never read it, only excerpts, and I was surprised that it was a very straightforward, down-to-earth story, a subversion of typical love stories, but realistic nonetheless. Given his reputation for magical realism, I had expected outlandishness, but it seems that must be only within his prose style. The story of unrequited love enduring, yet twisting in an unsightly way, over decades, it was very cleverly done, treading a fine line between giving a fairy tale depiction of love and equating it with the darkness of obsession and showing the unfulfilled and callous existence it can create.

I’m a little surprised the film has such poor reviews – The Sunday Times even rated this ** and the dreadful Spiderwick Chronicles ****! Yes, it was a little turgid and overlong, a little too self-assured and certain that its audience will be rapt by such a worthy subject no matter what, but it was still an excellent film. It felt odd, being in English, but retained a lot of Latin spirit, its setting certainly believable and evocative. Having actors speak in heavy accents may mean we accept their acting more readily than if searching for the nuances of natural speech, but there were some excellent performances regardless of language, from the mother’s encroaching madness to excellent depictions of various ages from the principles. Part of the story’s appeal is its broad simplicity, the huge exaggeration of the gestures that define its characters, but there was subtlety here, and overall it was well-made, well-acted and rich, as well as that little bit more realistic than expected, given its story, which was a point in its favour.