PS: Lily Collins is so pretty in this movie. The two main reasons why I went to watch this film even in the mist of projects and exams are because;
1. Lily Collins
2. Someone very special to me gave me this book as a souvenir from his trip to London long before it was made into a film. I remember finishing the book in 2 days, but spent the rest of the week sobbing in the corner of my room.
Excuse the grammatical mistakes, or any spelling mistakes, or just mistakes in the content. I was in a hurry to get everything down before memories start drifting away. I am a very forgetful person, and this has to change as soon as possible.
I've tried my best not to start my reviews off with a little, spoiler-free, synopsis and some little facts about the cast and crew. However, I think I've failed, miserably. I will not mention how sad the film was for me, because I believe the dolefulness cannot be measured, and is different from one another. Some might not think it's sad. Some might think it's sweet. Some might cry their heart out. Some might call it stupid. Films are personal preferences, and one should not judge another's preference based on their own preference. It was painful, but I walked out the cinema smiling. Maybe I've become attracted to sad love stories that gave me heartaches, but would also gave me warmth.
 |
| "Love, Rosie" starring Lily Collins and Sam Claflin Directed by Christian Ditter |
"Love, Rosie" is a film based on a novel "Where Rainbows End" by Cecelia Ahern which was published in 2004. The story is, basically, about two best friends, Alex and Rosie, falling for one another over and over again. It sounded simple enough to be just another chic-flick you take your girlfriend to watch on weekends. Do not let the simplicity of the plot fool you.
The way the story was told in the book was by letters, and then text messages, then came the internet and IMs and E-mails. It started off with Rosie inviting Alex to her 7th birthday party via a written letter. The use of letters had an effect on the story, not only because it's rare to have a book written completely in letters, but it creates an effect of ambiguity. What the reader knows is what was written by the characters. What they wrote may not exactly be what they were thinking at the time. They might have some other hidden thoughts or agendas, the ones that cannot be written. However, by using written messages as the main medium of communication all throughout the story shows that, no matter how far away they are physically, they will always think of one another first, and keeping in touch with each other is their priority.
As the adaptation goes, things has to be changed in order to suit the film's intention and its market. Some effects would work perfectly fine in books, but would look bloody ridiculous on screen. (The word 'bloody' was inserted there as a joke, but you'll fine out why later.) This is one of those examples. As stated above, the book was written purely as letters and E-mails without any dialogues, but that wouldn't work on screen. Imagine going into the theatre just to watch two characters reading letters in voice-overs. This film is a story 'based on' a book by Cecilia Ahern, and was told in a non linear narrative with some flashbacks into their past. It wouldn't be fair to judge this film according to the book because they are two different medias, and that both of them served it's purpose. The book gave us nostalgic feelings, and a little ambiguity for us to prey that the two get back together in the end. On the other hand, the film gave out the same vibe as other romantic love stories, just more melancholy and more painful to watch. The film served the book's purpose of telling a story of two best friends finding their way back to each other after thinking it was too late to be realising that they are completely in love with their childhood friend. Another major change in the film was the age they finally reunited. They were in their thirties in the film, but they were in their fifties in the book, which was even more heartbreaking. They spent most of their lives being with someone else, even when they knew there will never be anyone else for them other than each other. How misunderstandings could lead to a life time of misery.
Moving on to the cinematography of the film, the use of the vintage filter made it more nostalgic in a way that people would want to go back and hug their childhood friends. The majority of the film was in a warm tone, yet when they were in Boston, everything became cold and dark. The differences between Dublin and Boston were shown clearly in the film. Scenes in Dublin were mostly shot in warmer tone than scenes in Boston. Apart from the filter and the tones, the use of film grains emphasised the fact that they -the production crew- tries to create a nostalgic effect because we relate grained film with the old days. The scenes were also more grained in Dublin than in Boston.
There are not as many love scenes between Alex and Rosie since they spent most of their time apart, or was trying to figure their life out. However, overtime they kiss, the camera suddenly zoom into their lips in an extreme close up shot. This shows intimacy between the two of them, narrowing the audiences' attention to the hesitation they shared. This shot only occur when Alex and Rosie were about to kiss each other, and not when they kiss someone else. Moreover, when Rosie was crying after she've found out that she was pregnant, the camera zoomed into her face but is not stabilised. It felt as if the director was shaking the camera up and down on purpose, which made the scene not too still and more realistic. There are several long shots during the film which reveals the scenery of the town there were in and the roof top of Rosie's new place. Also, at the very end where the camera pan out of Rosie's hotel room and to the over landscape of the place. Not just the plot was beautiful, the cinematography was also beautiful. What I like the most is the way there were voice-overs before the scene shifted to the character who was talking. It hooked the montage together, linking it into one.
No films would be a 100 percent perfect (except for films that were made by Joss Whedon, purely because I am a part of the Whedonverse and that anything Joss does will be perfect.), and there are some aspects that obstructed the flow of the story. First of all, the way they tried to exaggerate their British accent gave me a headache. Don't get me wrong, I love listening to people with British Accent. Still, by adding the word 'bloody' in the middle of a sentence does not make it British. Besides, only the two main characters seems to be having the accent, where others speak normal English, even their friends from the same school, or Rosie's mother. I am well aware of the fact that Rosie and Alex were from Dublin, but that does not make it alright for just the two of them to be having a distinguish British accent. Further more, Rosie and Alex were supposed to age. Rosie looks like she was 18 since she was 18, until she was in her thirties, and so is Alex. There are make ups that would make actors look older than their age, or even younger. It was just strange watching a film where the characters were supposed to age, but they look exactly the same.
Let's talk about the title of the book for the last paragraph. For the title of the review, I wanted to point out the fact that rainbows are circles, and the end is also the beginning. The story's main problem started off before the school dance, which may be the reason why Alex came back -after all these years- to ask Rosie to go on a dance with him. Imagine a rainbow. Rainbows don't end. There would be no rainbows without any rainstorm, right?
