Romances you rooted against

Tools    





He’s not really an invalid. Only acting one.
Shocked to see such ableism in this thread.



Strange adjective to describe a beautiful love affair.
As I recall, the first time I saw it, it was a beautiful love affair. The next time, I recall thinking that Yuri was abandoning his family to the tender mercies of the bolsheviks.

I guess I was influenced by my partner of that time, who wanted to rename the movie, "Snow and Sex".

Then I realized that much of the plot decorated the musical soundtrack (or vice versa?). Maybe it's time to see it again, but 3 hours is a long time to unravel Yuri's intentions. I'd be curious to see how a contemporary audience would react to this movie since it seems so dated in a lot of ways now.



Shocked to see such ableism in this thread.
“Ableism”? Is there such a word? Too lazy to find out.

I'd be curious to see how a contemporary audience would react to this movie since it seems so dated in a lot of ways now.
As the non-romance theme of the movie is the Russian Revolution, obviously it’s going to look “dated”. Besides which, fairly sure there’s been a remake.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



As the non-romance theme of the movie is the Russian Revolution, obviously it’s going to look “dated”. Besides which, fairly sure there’s been a remake.
There was a remake on British TV, but it seems to have passed into the shadows without much notice. The 1965 one had a choice between being somewhat historical OR, a romance, framed by a historical period. As a choice for a script writer, I expect that, given a choice between dry history (brutal history at that) and a romance story, they chose the latter. Every story has to be set in some time frame and there aren't many that got set in the Russian Revolution, so they had a clear field for a script. By 1965, history and politics had equated Russian Revolution with bad so it's not just a tacky romance, but a "star crossed romance set in a turbulent time".....good ad copy if I do say so.



The 1965 one had a choice between being somewhat historical OR, a romance, framed by a historical period. As a choice for a script writer, I expect that, given a choice between dry history (brutal history at that) and a romance story, they chose the latter. Every story has to be set in some time frame and there aren't many that got set in the Russian Revolution, so they had a clear field for a script. By 1965, history and politics had equated Russian Revolution with bad so it's not just a tacky romance, but a "star crossed romance set in a turbulent time".....good ad copy if I do say so.
You’re describing this movie as having been dreamed up by the screenwriter. You do know it’s based on Pasternak’s novel? And it’s still not a “tacky romance” or “affair” no matter how many times you describe it as such.



You’re describing this movie as having been dreamed up by the screenwriter. You do know it’s based on Pasternak’s novel? And it’s still not a “tacky romance” or “affair” no matter how many times you describe it as such.
I know it's a novel, but it fits into that somewhat strange category of historical fiction. When Pasternak wrote it, the setting of the story was still recent and well within living memory. To make things murkier, it was politicized historical fiction, was smuggled into the west, subjected to CIA meddling and denounced in the Soviet Union.

The movie has all the hallmarks of cinematic romanticism, in which characters, torn asunder by the sweeping changes of the revolution find some solace in true love, out in the steppes. They look really good in their well tailored clothes too...don't look much like political exiles. It has waiving fields of grain and big orchestral musical themes. After seeing the movie, way back when, I recall reading the book and being surprised at how comparatively unromantic it was. No Julie Christie and Omar Sharif.

The script writers made it into a romance and then did image and music to fit that.



Also, here's a controversial (maybe) answer: His Girl Friday

Don't get me wrong--I totally rooted for them to be partners. But romantic partners? Nah. They have high-quality partner/co-worker vibes. But for me there was a serious lack of sexual spark between them.

I feel like ideally they'd work together and continue to spar and challenge each other, but they'd each have a handful of no-strings-attached sex buddies.
i, too had mixed feeling about Grant and Russell in His Girl Friday...there was a definite chemistry between them, but like you said, I think it was more connected to their passion for the newspaper business. I don't think Grant had any interest in getting back together with Russell romantically until he finds out that she is engaged to Bellamy.



I now have another example to add: All Night Long.

The movie was okay and Gene Hackman does a great job, but both his and Barbra Streisand's characters are awful people and never really do anything I would say "redeems" them. Hackman even seems to become a bigger jerk as it goes on. I also didn't think the chemistry between them was convincing, along with the dialogue being very cheesy.

First of all, I have to say that I'm thrilled to learn that I'm not the only person on the planet who has seen this movie. I will say that don't think Hackman's character was a terrible person, but I never really believed that these two characters were really in love with each other,



The guys in Brokeback Mountain (but only because they were already married & had children)... otherwise, I'd say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

It doesn't matter that they met before they were married and had children?



It doesn't matter that they met before they were married and had children?
Nope. You shouldn't make vows to one person if you're already in love with someone else.
A vow is a vow.



i, too had mixed feeling about Grant and Russell in His Girl Friday...there was a definite chemistry between them, but like you said, I think it was more connected to their passion for the newspaper business. I don't think Grant had any interest in getting back together with Russell romantically until he finds out that she is engaged to Bellamy.
Exactly. The romance seemed almost purely in response to a kind of "But that's MINE!" reaction to seeing her with another man.

Like, I will happily concede that I'm probably overthinking this, but don't you get the sense that they will continue to "cycle" this way--breaking up and then making up, but also hurting other people along the way?



The movie has all the hallmarks of cinematic romanticism, in which characters, torn asunder by the sweeping changes of the revolution find some solace in true love, out in the steppes. They look really good in their well tailored clothes too...don't look much like political exiles. It has waiving fields of grain and big orchestral musical themes. After seeing the movie, way back when, I recall reading the book and being surprised at how comparatively unromantic it was. No Julie Christie and Omar Sharif.
Since Pasternak didn’t make movies (so far as I know), we have to accept the movie as is. Certainly without Julie Christie & Sharif (though I didn’t find him attractive) the movie wouldn’t have been the success it is.

As for “well-tailored clothes”, the only memorable clothes IMO were worn by Chaplin’s character who needed to be defined as bougie in order to show one contrast between pre- and post-1917.