No cure for cholera!

Márquez novel is ravished by diseased film

Teghan Beaudette

There are significant risks studios, producers, directors, and screenwriters incur when adapting a widely known and beloved piece of literature. The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Harry Potter saga have translated those risks into both mammoth profits and successes for their production companies. Unfortunately, the long-anticipated film adaptation of the 1985 novel by Gabriel García Márquez fails to deliver even a watchable version of the novel.

Love in the Time of Cholera formulaically introduces us to young love. Our young lovers, Fermina Urbino (Giovanna Mezzogiorno) and Florentino Ariza (Javier Bardem and Unax Ugalde) share love letters and secret glances in the Carribbean during the late 1800s. The novel, written in Spanish, is known as one of the most tragic and beautiful love stories ever written. The film unfortunately fails to spend enough time on the critical character development necessary for an audience to connect with the characters and remain interested in their love for the duration of the film. Attention frequently wanes, and inappropriate, uncomfortable laughter was heard throughout the crowd at the most dramatic moments. Florentino’s love for Fermina is to last over 50 years, through rejection, her years of absence, her marriage to a wealthy doctor, the birth of her children, and her husband’s eventual death. The audience should be able to remain interested in this love (the force that is to drive the film) for at least two hours. Unfortunately, we are not.

The film misses its mark on just about every category. From poor performances all around to abysmal cinematography to distracting makeup choices, this film offers nothing but constant distractions and emotional emptiness to the audience. A particularly distracting decision was to swap out Florentino’s actor early in the film (to indicate aging) while keeping Fermina’s actress unaffected by the years. Her decision to thwart his love after their long-overdue reunion may be attributed to the fact that Florentino is unrecognizable. He’s an old man and she looks just the same! Makeup is especially distracting during close-ups, when Florentino’s moustache seems precariously and artificially perched on his upper lip, ready to fall into his lap at any moment.

In addition, the film treats sexual encounters awkwardly, which makes relating to the characters even more difficult. The director evidently has a proclivity for bare breasts, as more than 30 pairs are pointlessly flashed up on the big screen. Devoid of emotion, the sex scenes are typically handled in the most uncomfortable way. Examples include Fermina’s first night with her husband, which mildly resembles molestation, or the interesting decision to include a bare-it-all sex scene between 70-year-old Fermina and Florentino. It is not their age that puts the viewer off, but the film’s inability to handle the powerful subject matter.

The set design, on the other hand, is breathtaking. The backdrop to the story never lets us down — lush green mountains are awe-inspiring and the crush of the market provides a refreshing jolt of realism to the film. However, despite this singular redeeming quality, the film will leave you uncomfortable, confused, uninterested, and grateful for the closing credits.

Love in the Time of Cholera is one to avoid. It’s not the nine dollars you’ll regret parting with but the two and a half hours of your life.