Roland Michell (Aaron Eckhart, who I read recently lives nearby in Cupertino, CA) is an American living in London. He is working as an assistant to a literary professor and specializes in the work of Randolph Henry Ash, a 19th century poet known for his single-minded devotion to his wife. At the start of the film Roland is going through old books at the British Museum when he finds a letter between the pages. He brashly decides to "borrow" the letter, which seems to be a love letter from Ash to a woman who is *not* his wife.
The letter is written to Christabel LaMotte, another 19th century poet. The best expert on LaMotte is Maud Bailey (Gwyneth Paltrow), so Roland goes to see her. At first she dismisses his suggestion that Ash and LaMotte had ever even met, much less carried on any sort of affair. But Roland and Maude dig further, finding out far more about these two long dead people than they ever expected.
As this mystery and investigation is going on in the present day, the movie begins to flash back to the 19th century story. We see Ash (Jeremy Northam) meet LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle, who visually reminded me a bit of Meryl Streep at times) at a party, and we see them develop a relationship through letters written back and forth. There is more, but I don't want to give away too much.
If you've heard anything about this film, you know that Roland and Maude also develop a relationship. But the construction of the two romances is far less parallel than I would have expected. Ash and LaMotte are immediately drawn to one another, but have serious social forces keeping them apart. Roland and Maude, on the other hand, have only their own internal issues keeping them apart. I don't think this was as clear to me as I watched the film as it is now, and it seems to add something to my appreciation of the film's structure.
The aspect of the film which bothered me a bit was the ease with which the modern couple solves the series of mysteries that they are confronted with. I can only think of one case where they initially guess wrong, and the certainty with which they move forward makes it seem as if they are also seeing the flashbacks to the 19th century that the film's audience is seeing, which confirm each of the steps along the way. On the positive side, the fast progression of the mystery kept the film from feeling as slow as I initially feared it might be.
In the film's favor is the cinematography, which captures England both present and past beautifully. The acting is fine but not memorable, perhaps because the characters seem to think more than they feel.
All in all, this film is a good romance that is well worth seeing.
Seen on 9/8/2002.
The letter is written to Christabel LaMotte, another 19th century poet. The best expert on LaMotte is Maud Bailey (Gwyneth Paltrow), so Roland goes to see her. At first she dismisses his suggestion that Ash and LaMotte had ever even met, much less carried on any sort of affair. But Roland and Maude dig further, finding out far more about these two long dead people than they ever expected.
As this mystery and investigation is going on in the present day, the movie begins to flash back to the 19th century story. We see Ash (Jeremy Northam) meet LaMotte (Jennifer Ehle, who visually reminded me a bit of Meryl Streep at times) at a party, and we see them develop a relationship through letters written back and forth. There is more, but I don't want to give away too much.
If you've heard anything about this film, you know that Roland and Maude also develop a relationship. But the construction of the two romances is far less parallel than I would have expected. Ash and LaMotte are immediately drawn to one another, but have serious social forces keeping them apart. Roland and Maude, on the other hand, have only their own internal issues keeping them apart. I don't think this was as clear to me as I watched the film as it is now, and it seems to add something to my appreciation of the film's structure.
The aspect of the film which bothered me a bit was the ease with which the modern couple solves the series of mysteries that they are confronted with. I can only think of one case where they initially guess wrong, and the certainty with which they move forward makes it seem as if they are also seeing the flashbacks to the 19th century that the film's audience is seeing, which confirm each of the steps along the way. On the positive side, the fast progression of the mystery kept the film from feeling as slow as I initially feared it might be.
In the film's favor is the cinematography, which captures England both present and past beautifully. The acting is fine but not memorable, perhaps because the characters seem to think more than they feel.
All in all, this film is a good romance that is well worth seeing.
Seen on 9/8/2002.