Nothin’ Ain’t Nothin’ Without Love

Love is an emotion that finds its roots much deeper in the human psyche than even the most hopeless romantic could possibly fathom. Through the great maze of life, the most prevalent and recurring theme seems to be the quest to satisfy the human need for love in every one of its forms: a best friend, a tight family, a true love, and so on. Without the care and support of each of these pillars, a person’s life would feel significantly emptier and could potentially lead to a loss of a sense of purpose. In this same way, film is bound to an unwritten cinematic convention stating that love is the greatest motivator and the greatest distraction. The role of romance in a film is rarely an afterthought, but more a major player in the narrative.

In this essay, the role of romance in the film The Notebook (2004, Nick Cassavetes) will be analyzed with respect to form and style, noting specifically the matter of courtship. It should then be noted that without the stylistic depiction (described throughout the remainder of this essay) of romance and courtship in the film, the plot would have lacked the complexity or human interest factor to captivate an audience.

Since the early 1980s, a constant cultural oscillation between the belief that storybook romance can exist and the realization that every day life doesn’t reflect the ideal circumstances under which storybook romances occur1 opens the door for filmmakers to play off of this inner debate to create a forum for viewers to contemplate, in their own mind, the inherent possibilities. This sort of emotional catalyst is just the sort of captivating tool required to capture an audience and keep them interested in a film. It’s not unheard of for a person to compare their own love life or their ideal characteristics of a mate to that of a character in a film1.

The Notebook (2004, Nick Cassavetes) is the quintessential contemporary romance film. The film is set in the 1940s, a time when romance is commonly believed to have been the “real” kind.
Noah, the male protagonist, is a lower class blue-collar worker at a local mill.
Allie, the female protagonist, is an upper-class elite on vacation for the summer in Noah’s small, southern hometown. The two meet at local carnival through a shared friend and Noah instantly knows he has to have to know Allie. Through a series of stunts and borderline stalker-ish badgering, Noah finally gets Allie to agree to a date with him. Throughout their relationship, Allie learns to let her hair down and stop being so uptight and conservative. Meanwhile, Noah realizes that he’s wholeheartedly lost himself in a romance that could never possibly happen. Allie’s departure to New York for school at the end of the summer puts an end to their relationship and before she knows it, she’s moved on to someone of her own class and privilege. Things seem perfect and Noah is all but forgotten until one morning she reads a newspaper article highlighting his restoration project of an old house where the two had first made love. On a whim, she decides to ride out to the house and see what Noah has been up to over the years that they haven’t seen each other. Instantly the deep passion that each had felt for the other is brought to the surface and the couple lives happily ever after.

To the average reader, this sort of cutesy love story may seem a bit of a far reach, even to the point of being sickeningly cute. Yet this film has come to define an entire generation of romantic cinema. In the American market, if a random sample of viewers were asked about whether or not they’d seen the film, an overwhelming majority would reply, “yes.” It seems counterintuitive, then, that such a misleading and overly enthusiastic romance film would be so widely viewed. The answer lies within the psyche of the human mind, and the stylistic tools defining the film’s form.

The narrative in this film can be a bit farfetched at time, but the impeccable use of mis-en-scene in setting the scene and making the characters believable allows the audience to put into place a strong willing suspension of disbelief. This is evident in the candlelit but decaying setting of an old revolutionary’s house where the couple finds refuge from the world together. Allie plays an old piano as Noah talks about their future together. The most striking example of the use of mis-en-scene in painting the story is the stark contrast between the two protagonists’ dwellings. Allie lives in a massive southern plantation house, with white columns framing the front of her house. The interior is decorated ornately in red and gold, frequently colors of the noble in feudal Europe. The house is several stories tall and features a front porch with rocking chairs where her father reads the paper in his robe and pipe. Noah’s place, on the other hand, is a ramshackle little building that seems to be on the verge of being swallowed by the swamp near which he lives. It’s a humble abode, with a small wooden front porch for friendly gatherings.

These settings are crucial plot elements throughout the courtship of Noah and Allie. The stark contrast between the circumstances of their lives is the driving antagonist to their relationship throughout the film. In one scene, Noah is invited to dinner with Allie’s family and guests at the mansion. The first difference that viewers notice is the fact that every one of the upper class participants at the dinner is dressed in classy white clothing. Noah, on the other hand, is dressed in black. As the dinner proceeds, the topic of conversation hovers consistently on money, culminating in Noah being asked how much money he makes at the mill. His response is clearly discouraging to Allie’s family, but Noah’s sense of pride doesn’t allow him to feel inferior to the others.

Through all of the antagonism, however, Noah and Allie still fight for true love. The narrative follows a path where Noah consistently gets Allie to step outside of the box of the social norms in her upper class society to let the wild, carefree girl Noah sees inside her out. In one pivotal plot moment, Noah convinces Allie to lay down in the street with him and watch the streetlights turn from red to green to yellow. Allowing herself to overcome the strict social barriers employed by her parents signifies to Noah that she truly is the fun-loving carefree girl that he sees in her. This key moment signifies the transition of the sophisticated Allie into the Noah’s Allie. Noah takes this opportunity to really open up himself, and asks Allie to dance slowly in the street with him. The only musical accompaniment is Noah singing softly to her while they hold each other.
Throughout the entirety of this scene, the audience is captivated by the strong connection between the two characters. It solidifies the willing suspension of disbelief for the remainder of the movie because the viewers themselves have become so engrossed in the emotions through well-done mis-en-scene and a strongly emotional narrative.

Throughout the film, as is typical in traditional dating beliefs, Noah is the driving force in the relationship. Right from the beginning he has to beg Allie for a first date through a series of stunts at the carnival where they met. He teaches Allie how to drive, he gets her to go swimming in the lake with her clothes on, and he reads her his favorite poems. Only once does Allie step outside the role as the one being courted and makes an advance on Noah.

Inside the old house that Noah has vowed to restore (to Allie’s specifications) Allie asks Noah to make love to her. Traditionally, the men are supposed to be the initiators of this sort of contact. But the reversal in roles in this moment is the final blow in validating the story up to this point. The audience in this moment is lost in the strength of their love.
Without the use of mis-en-scene to create an empathetic connection with the protagonists, the extreme circumstances of this film may seem unbelievable to the vast majority of viewers. The narrative is strong and stylized, and this requires a much more present willing suspension of disbelief in the audience than is typical for a romance film. Yet it is that very reason that this film has come to so strongly represent true love. Overcoming the odds and beating antagonistic circumstances to find the one true love is the reason people watch romance films in the first place. The Notebook accomplishes that without leaving something to be desired. In my own personal experience watching the film with women, I have yet to see a dry eye at the end of the film. This is due in no small part to the use of mis-en-scene to make the story believable, and a strong narrative to move an audience to contemplate their own love lives.

Schreiber, Michele Joanne. "You don't want to be in love...you want to be in love in a movie": Romance and post-feminism in contemporary film and television. Diss. University of California, Los Angeles, 2006. Dissertations & Theses: A&I. ProQuest. Georgia Tech Library, Atlanta, GA. 16 Apr. 2009 http://www.proquest.com/

Walker, Susan. "It was a fine romance with no surprises." Toronto Star 25 June 2004, sec. D: 3.

Gelman, David, and Paul Kandell. "Isn't it romantic?" Newsweek 18 Jan. 1993: 60-61.

McCormack, Louisa. "The one: does he really exist? Louisa mcCormack uncovers the truth about Mr Right." Flare [Toronto, Canada] Sept. 2004, Vol. 26, Iss. 9 ed.: 174.

McCarthy, Ellen. "Sparks's Love Affair With Romance." The Washington Post 26 Sept. 2008, Every ed., Weekend sec.: 31.

Contemporary Love

Love, an emotion stranger to no country, known to all humankind, is a topic of interest around the world; globalization of world cinema has also been very commonly analyzed around the world. A common aspect of cinema that can be identified throughout the world is the presence and meaning of love. An interesting focus of this topic is evaluation of how different cinematographic industries portray love modern societies. As societies begin to tread away from the normal marriage patterns, it seems as if the film industry assists these transitions by portraying these new trends in a positive light. In America, a positive trend has developed towards interracial marriages, while in India, the trend is towards inter-religious marriages, and in other countries, same sex marriages.

Two films that represent these qualities are the American film Guess Who and the Bollywood film Veer Zaara. The film Guess Who is about the controversial topic of interracial marriages in America. The film defines the hurdles faced by an interracial couple progressing towards marriage. It does so by outlining the thoughts and prejudices that common Americans dwell upon. Throughout the movie, the difference in race is portrayed as a challenge. The protagonist of this movie is an African-American woman who happens to be dating a Caucasian man. When the young man is introduced to the woman’s family, it causes a stir amongst them. The father of the woman is in awe over the race of the man, and refuses to look past it which results in the two men forming a relationship of mistrust. The sole basis contributing to this relationship of mistrust is the race of the young man. This raises thoughts in the audience’s mind that if the man was also African-American, would their love be faced with such revulsion? The movie goes on to show that, indeed, the reason behind the mistrust was race alone. Due to this mistrust, the father starts investigating the young man and uncovers a hidden secret. The young man has lost his job and has failed to inform his girlfriend. Now, such a secret is not uncommon in a young relationship. However, with the added mistrust and race difference, this diminutive issue is posed as a great betrayal. Society only lends a hand to such an interpretation. Up until recently, marriage has always been composed of a couple sharing the same skin color. Society has come to comprehend that as normalcy. The idea of a marriage between people of two different colors is beyond imaginable to such a society. The parents in this movie represent this society. They refuse to accept this relationship as proper because it overthrows everything that they believed was right. The parents, as the society, share their doubts about such a couple. The marriage between the couple is not acceptable, because it goes against what society holds as correct. Therefore, the movie symbolically shows the obstacles that such a relationship would endure. These obstacles are not caused by the parents, per se, but by the society as a whole. However, the movie also shows how such a couple can overcome these obstacles. By the end of this movie, the parents of the woman realize that the marriage between two beings from different racial backgrounds is just as legitimate as that of a couple from the same racial background. This movie tries to show the transformation of modern society from a society that cannot accept such marriages to one that slowly understands them. Bob Bloom, in his review of Guess Who, is quoted saying, “The idea of mixed marriage — once considered such a taboo that states had laws on the books forbidding it — no longer carries a stigma in our continually growing multicultural and multiethnic society.” (Bloom) However, regardless of society’s tendency towards accepting these interracial marriages, Guess Who’s predecessor Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner related the stigma whereas Guess Who shows how “black/white relationships aren't nearly as taboo today as they were in the 1960s… although it does depict some of the difficulties that are still prevalent for interracial couples, especially for parents who have always envisioned the type of man they want their daughters to marry.”(Leo)

The second film, Veer Zaara, is about a topic that is controversial in many parts of the world, inter-religious marriage. The relationship depicted in this movie is between a Hindu man and a Muslim woman. These two religions are commonly feuding in India and Pakistan. Their battle has been around for ages. However, this movie does not occur in the conservative years of society. It takes place at a pivotal time where society is transitioning to become less orthodox. In this movie, the protagonists are the couple and the antagonists are the Muslim woman’s family members. The couple meets in India, and falls in love soon after. When the woman returns to her home in Pakistan, the man follows right behind to ask for her hand in marriage. Traditionally, if he were a Muslim man, the marriage would have taken place soon after. However, because the man was a Hindu, which is symbolically the opposite of Muslims, the family rejects his proposal. The family so strongly opposes this relationship that they proceed to wrongly accuse the man of a crime that lands him in jail for the next twenty years.

The movie shows that the reasoning behind this decision is not that he is an unacceptable suitor for the woman, but rather because he is from a different religion. It is a sufficient conclusion to claim this movie pushes for religious harmony as Michael Hoffheimer says, “The film projects a casteless, open-handed Hindu spirit. Sikhs appear repeatedly in peripheral roles where they mediate Muslim and Hindu relations. Zaara' devotion to her Sikh bibi takes her to India. Veer's Punjabi family celebrates Lohri collectively with the village Sikh community.” (Hoffheimer) Once again, the family in this movie also represents the society from that vicinity. Culture does not allow people of two separate religions to form such a bond. Each religion upholds different values and ideals; the fusion of those ideals is a thought that society cannot tolerate. The public tends to value past traditions and steer away from any amendments to those traditions; an inter-religious marriage defies all these rules and traditions that the society plants amongst its own. Therefore, a topic such as inter-religious marriage is one that can easily infuriate and offend societies. When that topic is enacted in real life, society acts out by taking extreme steps to end it. This movie brings this topic into light. It vividly describes the opposition that a society has towards an inter-religion marriage. By the end of the movie, the family, or the society, starts to accept and acknowledge the relationship which represents how modern society has transformed into one of a more accepting nature. This movie also has interracial aspects. Although many would foreigners would not consider the union between Indians and Pakistanis interracial, the natives have many contentions over this issue. This is “A movie that aims to bridge the distance in the hearts of Indians and Pakistanis, Veer Zaara tells the story of squadron leader Veer Pratap Singh (Shahrukh), a rescue pilot with the Indian Air Force. He is a humble man who gives without asking, who loves unconditionally and keeps no prejudice in his heart.”(Apunkachoice) The amount of adversity seen in this movie truly shows how what you believe and where you come from can play a pivotal role in determining many aspects of your future, especially in regards to determining who you will marry.
Modern society considers love capable of overcoming the difference of religion in a relationship. Societies, throughout time, have adapted to different types of relationships. Our society, the modern society, considers love and marriage as a relationship between people regardless of their race, religion, or sex; whereas, the societies of older times considered love and marriage to be the bond between man and woman of the same race and religion. The film industry contributes to this transformation by bringing such contentious topics into the public’s eyes through movies. So, while there may be cases of such marriages all over the world, they are obscure. Michael Rosenfield brings up a good point in characterizing the reason for the divide in interracial marriages, “’The racial divide in the U.S. is a fundamental divide. ... but when you have the ’other’ in your own family, it’s hard to think of them as ’other’ anymore,” Rosenfeld said. “We see a blurring of the old lines, and that has to be a good thing, because the lines were artificial in the first place.’”(MSNBC) Movies such as the ones mentioned above do the job of bringing these cases to people that would normally not encounter such issues. As society watches its transformation on the big screen through a movie, it slowly begins to adapt those changes to real life. Society’s ability to adapt to various changes due to the oncoming generations is often seen on the big screen; the effects of these changes on love are no exception as the world begins to portray the new outlooks on the silver screen. These movies will help the world move past the invisible lines of segregation and move towards a mindset of equality creating less of a divide within the household of the “obscure”.

The Beauty of Divorce

Four out of every ten, that’s how about how many married couples in America will get a divorce. That means 4 out of 10 people around you will have a divorce in their lifetime. Whether we choose to accept it or not, divorce surrounds us as Americans. It’s in all the hot celebrity gossip, it floods the airwaves with acoustic ballads and meaningful rap songs, it even shows up in videogames. What is really sad is the percentage of the divorce rate as you enter into a second and third marriage. Second marriages end 60% of the time and third marriages are at a whopping 73%. Why then, something so popular is rarely seen in our films? In Mexico, people are an eighth less likely to get a divorce, yet one of the most popular Mexican films in America has a whole third of the story about divorce. The closest American film that parallels the story is Lindsey Lohan’s Parent Trap. American films patronize divorce while Mexican films (like Amores Perros) show the flaws and gracefulness of it. Both stories portray a husband that gets a divorce from his wife and finds another woman. In both films the husband gets annoyed with the wife but the main difference is the way in which it is shown to the audience. Amores Perros shows the divorce as a new beginning and as a way to be with the woman that makes the main character really loves, while Parent Trap is a comedy where the main character learns that the beautiful ones aren’t always the nice ones. Love is a universal topic that everyone is interested in watching and learning about. Some nations portray love as a wonderful fantastic journey, others choose to laugh at it and teach archaic lessons on stereotypes learned about love in the 3rd grade such as, those taught in Parent Trap and every sappy romantic movie since the dawning of time. Love is too broad a topic to dive completely into headfirst. One should be informed about love topic by topic, subject by subject. L let me then just focus on one small portion; divorce.

Disney’s Parent Trap utilizes comedy as a way of neutralizing the instinctive American taboo mindset of divorce. By making the audience laugh at the divorce the situation has lost its shock value and once again levels the playing field to a manageable level. The director chooses to use high key lighting and bright colors to display the relationship between the new love interest (Meredith) of the divorced husband (Nick). The beginning of the film shows them in love; opposites attract in this film where the rough-and-tough, hard working Nick falls for the prissy, spoiled, nature hating Meredith who’s smile “would kill small mammals” (Conlogue). Instead of giving the poor parents that are dragged to this god awful film some actual drama/thought inducing plot, the director decides to throw all hopes of calling this movie a true film out the window as James Berardinelli put’s it “it's just another dated example of the family-friendly, creatively-barren pabulum that the studio turns out with regularity” The divorce is not a main key in the story but it deserves a thought. It seems as if nothing is put into the making of the divorce on screen. Lindsey Lohan’s character(s) play pranks to break apart Nick and Meredith and rather than showing the audience that things are not going well for the couple the film straight shoves the fact into the viewer’s faces. Roger Ebert sees the film in a different light. He chooses to think that the director speeds through the film because of an abundance of story line, yet the whole plot is simple: girl finds twin, twins get their parents back together. American directors are too afraid to come out and say to their audiences that divorce isn’t a terrible thing. Few films dare to even mention divorce. Producers have turned down edited scripts so that the film doesn’t mention divorce. Many films never explain where the father/mother of the main character is. Cinema in America feeds the taboo subject of divorce by hiding it under laughter and silly jokes. We, as a nation, can’t handle the subject because we refuse to see the beauty in it. Showing and talking about divorce in film doesn’t have to be covered in gags and pranks. All the nation needs is a good film that talks about divorce in a positive light. Our nation sees it as a dark cloud hovering over the families it posses. Many other countries though have learned to celebrate the good that comes out of it.



Amores Perros follows 3 separate stories as they slowly realize that (as the title says) love is a bitch. The lighting colors help to portray the story in a manner that few catch onto yet everyone is affected by them. In one of the three sections, a beautiful celebrity (Valeria) falls for an average Joe(Daniel). The story begins with Daniel finally leaving his wife for Valeria and getting an apartment to show how devoted he is to her. The shots here are long to show how much the two lovers care for each other. Eyes are a big part of this couple. Just by looking at the eyes the audience can tell the level of infatuation. The eyes of one or both of the lovers are usually on the top corners of the thirds in the frame. This divorce gave Daniel and Valeria the opportunity to love without fear of being caught (Ebert). The death of one relationship leads to the birth of a better one. This film gives divorce a good reputation. Toward the end of the section Daniel and Valeria start to drift. Daniel starts to revert from caring lover to distant roommate. They fight and bicker but for some reason the audience can’t get the love in their eyes out of their heads . Gonzalez does such a great job showing the audience the infatuation that it is all they can remember about this couple. This film shows the audience that even if fights are present in a relationship, the love in the beginning is all that matters (Harrison). Daniel moves on from his wife to Valeria and doesn’t regret it. This nation has less than an eighth of the divorces that America has, yet it is the culture that accepts divorce as a potentially wonderful experience. Mexican film allows divorce a chance to fill in when marriage cannot fulfill its duties.

Divorce is greatly underappreciated in America and a big reason for that is film. Yes, in divorce there are usually parties that get hurt, but why carry on a charade of happiness and love if it is only skin deep? Mexican films are less biased regarding those that suffer in a divorce and more understanding to those that gain after the divorce. Humans love; it’s built into our system and it’s what most people strive for day in and day out. People have died for those they love and will continue to do so. Love is a topic that will live on for forever and a day. Humans make mistakes, it’s what we do, we rush into things or we don’t weigh all the options. Divorce is a way of rectifying those mistakes, but as Americans we don’t realize this. Mexican films show us that this way of thinking is flawed. Why should Daniel and Valeria be separated because society dictates the divorce should only be viewed as a home wrecker? They love each other and that is more than most people can say. So should Daniel have left the costume on and continued to hide Valeria? No, they did the right thing but most people in America refuse to agree with the validity of their divorce based on society’s induced opinions. Cultures will always have different views on topics, but the best way to see these differences is through film.

Video Project

"The greatest thing is to love and be loved in return..."

The Stigma of Forbidden Love: Homosexuality as Explored in Modern Cinema

International posters for "Brokeback Mountain" and "Fire". The solemn, downturned faces in the "Brokeback" poster indicates that this is a tragis love story, whereas the smiling faces on the "Fire" poster shows this film is uplifting and celebratory of their love.

As the oldest and strongest human bond, love as been portrayed in many forms in art, literature and, most frequently in modern times, cinema. Romantic love has often been the central theme of several films, and a major sub-plot in other films with different focuses. However, romance in cinema has always been tailored to a stereotypical formula, since film-makers realized the potential of romantic films at the box-office. Few film-makers have successfully broken the mould and made “original” love stories for the silver screen; however there have been significant efforts in doing so and establishing a new sub-genre within romance – homosexuality.

With social and societal advances such as the abolition of slavery and apartheid, women’s suffrage, and establishing independence from colonial ruling, there have been several changes made in laws around the world to reflect equality for people of all races and genders. When it comes to homosexuality, however, even the most socially advanced nations are hesitant to clearly establish rights for people who choose to deviate in their sexuality from the social norm.

In today’s entertainment business, homosexuality is no longer openly considered to be a social stigma. Hollywood and several other film industries have embraced the idea of equal representation for homosexuals as characters in film and television. Most films that feature gay and lesbian characters focus on their homosexuality (such as in The Rocky Horror Picture Show) rather than feature a story where the characters happen to be gay (such as in The Color Purple). While this may contradict the notion that homosexuals are treated equally (after all, a film that features a heterosexual romance does not always focus on the romance as the main plot), it actually helps to bring about a certain understanding behind the psychology of homosexuality. Since it is often viewed as a disease of sorts, these films aim to shed light on the choices made by the gay and lesbian characters and explain the pain and loneliness they feel when society ostracizes them because of their choices.

Several seminal films featuring gay and lesbian characters prominently have gone on to become classic films, representing great film-making and acting. However, such films are even today viewed as risky ventures since the critical and audience reaction cannot be predicted. Still, films continue to try to realistically portray homosexual characters in cinema so that people may accept them (if not their lifestyle choices) into society.

Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain and Deepa Mehta’s Fire are both examples of cinema that feature homosexual protagonists but have a bigger theme and message for the audience. The homosexual content is intended to be a fraction of the message – to help people find it in their hearts to be accepting and tolerant of those who mean no harm by living their lives differently from the societal norm. In both films, the protagonists are young and married, and seek each other out as a means of comfort and solace. Their love is portrayed as not one merely seeking sexual gratification, but with the genuine emotions and feelings as portrayed for heterosexual love in cinema. Both films focus on the choices, self-discovery, and also the fear of judgment, rejection and loneliness of their characters. Both films have the homosexual content frame the plot so as to make the audience question their sympathies and ethics. Unfortunately for both films, they were also the center of much controversy due to the explicit sex scenes in both films.

Lover's embrace: while the protagonists may both be male, the love and affection shown between them is exactly as how a heterosexual romance is portrayed, giving thr audience the idea that homosexual is no less pure or passionate as a heterosexual one.

When thinking of homosexuals being portrayed in modern cinema, one’s mind immediately jumps to Ang Lee’s 2005 film Brokeback Mountain. Annie Proulx’s story about two lonely Wyoming ranch hands in 1960’s America created a storm of controversy when first released. It was taking the classic alpha male stereotype, the “American cowboy”, and portraying them not only as homosexual, but also as emotionally unstable and essentially “womanly” men.

The two protagonists, Ennis del Mar and Jack Twist, develop a friendship while working together herding sheep over one summer on the titular Brokeback Mountain. Over time, and through the instigation of one drunken night, the two realize that what they feel for each other is more than friendship. Each at first denies the attraction(both declare after their first tryst that they are not “queer”), but slowly succumbs to it, all the while keeping it a secret and separate entity form the rest of their “normal” lives. Each ends up married to other women, but they never find the comfort and companionship that they found in each other, with their wives. Everything comes to a tragic end when Jack dies suddenly of apparently unknown causes, and what started as a sincere love affair between two lonely men ends in loneliness once again.

All-American Cowboy: Although the focus is on character development, the films retains the visual aspects of a Western - from costumes to scenic settings of the Wyoming mountains (Alberta, Canada for the film) to rodeo ranches to saloon bars - which is essentially a "manly" and "macho" sub-genre of films.

One of the more important issues that this film seems to bring out is that homosexuality is a choice. Ennis and Jack are both attractive young men with many prospects – they could both get any women they wanted as sexual partners. This is highlighted especially when both men get married - Ennis to his fiancé Alma, and Jack to the spoiled daughter of a rich rodeo rancher, Lureen. However, they are shy, passionate and reserved, and they find happiness only in each other’s company where there is no pretense. They choose to love each other, despite the fact that they have all the desirable attributes of a heterosexual male and have female companions that are “suitable” mates, and this emphasizes on how homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not some disease or affliction.

The secretive nature of their relationship is played up to emphasize how intolerant the rural society in 1960’s America was. In an era where civil rights and equality for all had not been laid down, the question of homosexuality being accepted in society was absurd. In the same hand, it goes to contrast how little society has changed, especially in the same geographic areas portrayed in the films. Very little of the attitude toward homosexuals has changed, and although modern society promises tolerance towards all, they do very little about it when it comes to keeping true to their word. In the same way that Ennis and Jack keep their relationship secret so that they do not get lynched or ostracized, people today (especially in the entertainment business, where some people make a career or selling themselves as a sex symbol) keep their homosexuality a secret and remain “in the closet.” It’s strange to think to that even in the most progressive of all nations, people are forced to maintain secret lives or face being ostracized by society.

Loving symbolism: just as with any relationship, years of love and memories lie within inanimate objects, like Ennis's and Jack's shirts folded together on the same coat hanger, next to a picture postcard of Brokeback Mountain.

The overall treatment of the story and the general temperament of the film is that of a tragic love story of two lovers torn apart by society. Without the element of sexuality, it seems to fit perfectly into the stereotype of unfulfilled love with a tragic ending. The protagonists are lonely and withdrawn, but find pleasure in each other’s company. They fall in love but are afraid to admit it to each other and to themselves, because of fear of the social order. Even cinematic clichés like stolen glances, long embraces, and fights that eventually culminate into the characters confessing their love for one another – the essentials of any secret love being portrayed in cinema – are used to good measure in this film. By giving a film with homosexual protagonists the same treatment as one would for one with heterosexual protagonists, the film-makers intend to convey that there should be equality in the way homosexuals are treated. If a man is shunned from society for leaving his wife for his gay lover, he should be treated no differently if he left his wife for another woman. The real tragedy of the film seems to be the fact that what had kept Ennis and Jack apart from each other (fear of homosexuals) has not been legally erased in society like racial segregation, or passed through like wars or civil unrest.

United in strength: the women of "Fire" may share a taboo love, but they thrive upon it and find a new sense of courage and hope for their lives together. They go against convention not only in the conservative society of India, but also the world.

On the flip side, in a society generally considered to be conservative, films portraying homosexuality are mostly regarded to portray empowerment and freedom. Deepa Mehta’s 1996 film Fire fits neatly into that category. The story itself blends social commentary about the status of women in India along with the parody of the notion that one tends towards homosexuality when unable to find a suitable heterosexual partner. The film focuses on the lives of Sita and Radha, two housewives (by way of arranged marriage) that live as part of a joint family in modern-day Delhi. Radha has been married to her husband Ashok for nearly 15 years, but has no children since she is infertile. Spurred by this, Ashok becomes an ascetic of sorts and remains celibate, using Radha as a test for his resolve. Meanwhile, Sita has been newly married to her husband Jatin against his will. In an attempt to rebel against his parents’ wishes to settle into a conventional arranged marriage, Jatin continues to see his girlfriend despite being married, thus neglecting Sita routinely.

From friendship: Radha and Sita form a special kinship from their lonely marital lives. From ordinary household chores like hanging up the washing (top left) to visitng the the temple together (bottom left), they begin a friendship. This turns into a stronger, passionate bond from shared talks late nights (top right) to meals shared together (bottom right) since their husbands have no wish to spend time with them.

With no one else to turn to for companionship or understanding, the two women become friends and gradually discover their feelings for each other. However, when living under the roof of their conservative in-laws and particularly inquisitive servants, their relationship cannot remain a secret and they are soon discovered together by Ashok. Rather than giving up their relationship, the two women leave their homes and husbands and begin a new life together, without any bounds or restrictions to their happiness

The theme of this film also focuses on choice – not just on homosexuality but also on every choice we make for ourselves. The films asks the audience to question whether the choices we made for ourselves were entirely our own, or were influenced or pressured by parents, society and conventional norms. In this modern age, the rather antiquated notion of arranged marriage still prevails in Indian society. Women are allowed to pursue higher education in schools and colleges, yet they submit themselves into being obedient housewives rather than choosing a career path for themselves. The film presents the matter of choice - if women feel like they are being oppressed and restricted it is because they have allowed themselves to be so. In the subconscious of the average Indian, a woman’s place is still as the home-maker: submissive and docile, and obedient to her husband’s every wish. The film urges women to realize that it is only by choosing to progress further in society can they make actual progress. If a woman agrees to reduce herself into nothing more than a servile domesticated entity, then she has no one to blame but herself.

Escape: Radha is confronted by her husband after having her affair with Sita discovered (top left) and in the ensuing struggle, Radha's clothing catches fire (top right). However escaping the flames of the ruins of both her marriage and her clothing (bottom left), she finds Sita and both are united to life their lives together (bottom right).

As is expected, homosexuality is portrayed as an extreme social taboo in Indian society. Heterosexual relationships that do not culminate in marriage are frowned upon, so it comes as little surprise that homosexual relationships are regarded almost akin to devil worshipping. Fire was the first Indian film to explicitly depict homosexual relations in contemporary India and thus drew a lot of controversy as well as criticism for being overtly feminist and promoting homosexual agenda. Since homosexuals do not live openly in Indian society, there is no way of knowing whether the portrayal was accurate or not. However, the main focus seems to be feminine empowerment rather than the homosexuality.

Both films do an excellent job of establishing a romantic relationship between the protagonists. At the same time, issues that are actually the main focus of the plot are highlighted subtly. The themes of both films are choice and consequence – Brokeback Mountain shows us that if you choose a life that denies you happiness in order to maintain face in society, you must have to accept the loss and heartbreak that comes with it, and Fire shows us that women can break away from the shackles of mundane domesticity and neglect if they make the choice to stand up for themselves. More importantly, by presenting the romantic relationships as taboo and secret, they emphasize on the importance of love in our lives, and how we, as humans, cannot survive without companionship. Love transcends beyond sexuality and physical needs – it is also an emotional and spiritual connection, and both films strive to tell the audience that it is in this vein that homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality. At the core, they are films that are about love, loss and choice - which are essential in life of any sort.

A rollercoaster that is love...

"There is no greater fool than a fool in love."

Whether it's like feeling on top of the world or a chemical reaction in our brains, love is inescapable and unexplainable. Our group of intrepid writers make an attempt to figure love out - in cinema, that is.

Romance in cinema is as ageless and ever-present as love in our lives. An essential ingredient in every film to give it the "human interest" factor, romance covers a broad spectrum of genres within itself. In here, we will analyze individually the many different aspects and styles of romantic films.

Topics explored will be courtship (the quintessential love story), homosexuality (tragic yet empowered love), infidelity and divorce (love gone awry). By exploring these aspects, we hope to come closer to the meaning of love, or at least how love is portrayed on the silver screen.