Having read the other reviews here, I understand why many enjoyed the film -- it runs something like a potboiler romance story that one might read on a beach on a lazy afternoon. It is enjoyable for the look, Sophie (hard to dislike), and the strong female lead role (though the other women are typical 19th century figures). But this would never be published as a novel (Romantic or otherwise) in the early 19th century -- too many morally questionable doings here for that. More on this in a second -- but let me begin by saying that if you lay aside all ideas about the reality of this story, you can enjoy it. If you begin to wonder at the plausibility of the plot, it quickly becomes nonsensical. That does not mean you cannot like it - - most films are nonsensical in terms of plot, and they still bring in loads of viewers and big bucks. Certainly, the limited settings made it easy for the writer to ignore the real 19th century here, in the main (despite some suggestions that it was a hard time to live for many people).
Spoiler below:
The parts that struck me as modern and unacceptable to 19th century publishers are: surrogate motherhood, indomitable feminine will that conquers all obstacles, adultery (more than once -- and not excused by the alleged initial purpose), acceptance of the live for the moment in pleasure theme, euthanasia, and getting away with all of this with no deep fear of the retribution that was commonly thought to await all such disturbers of conventional morality. We might attempt to justify that all of these were certainly possible in the early 19th century -- no argument there (and the Romantic and early feminist movements did encourage fantasy for women readers); but much of the action here never would have been seen in a 19th century novel without the required, related punishments for their accepted standards of immorality that here are notably missing. I point this out only so that the uninformed will not mistake this story as something that is truly a product of early 19th century thinking -- no, I would say it is modern in its messages.
I will not speak about how this may have copied other stories, or further about how much of the real history of the 19th century is left out -- that does not really matter much. My main point here is that no one should believe this would have flown within its purported time period; the story, had it been written then, would likely have been burned. That said, it does speak to modern audiences (on several levels), does raise some interesting points for discussion (moral issues, feminism, the reality of the educational system featured, how all 19th century medical realities were ignored, and attending historical comparisons, and finally, whether upright and admirable behaviors can somehow excuse or make more forgivable several clearly morally unacceptable behaviors exhibited by the same characters), and the film is somewhat entertaining, or at least not too difficult to watch (I have watched it several times in fact, though always when someone else put our copy of it into the machine).
Modernized film versions of stories like "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice" come to mind in terms of ignoring 19th century realities and acceptable behaviors, but still being very enjoyable for modern audiences. Maybe this helps truly interested people to study history more deeply, to see how we are so very different in many ways today (especially in England and the USA) than people who lived 200 years ago.
To finish, I do not dislike this film -- though I would say it is not really a period piece in its themes, and it does have several plot points which are ludicrous (those are discussed in other reviews here; one is even rather funny -- the sister's request that Sophie love the gentleman for both of them). As a simple entertainment that can please on a quiet evening like a Harlequin romance, it is fine. I do not think I would have enjoyed it without Sophie Marceau, however (she solely keeps the film alive with her presence -- it would be nothing without her).
Spoiler below:
The parts that struck me as modern and unacceptable to 19th century publishers are: surrogate motherhood, indomitable feminine will that conquers all obstacles, adultery (more than once -- and not excused by the alleged initial purpose), acceptance of the live for the moment in pleasure theme, euthanasia, and getting away with all of this with no deep fear of the retribution that was commonly thought to await all such disturbers of conventional morality. We might attempt to justify that all of these were certainly possible in the early 19th century -- no argument there (and the Romantic and early feminist movements did encourage fantasy for women readers); but much of the action here never would have been seen in a 19th century novel without the required, related punishments for their accepted standards of immorality that here are notably missing. I point this out only so that the uninformed will not mistake this story as something that is truly a product of early 19th century thinking -- no, I would say it is modern in its messages.
I will not speak about how this may have copied other stories, or further about how much of the real history of the 19th century is left out -- that does not really matter much. My main point here is that no one should believe this would have flown within its purported time period; the story, had it been written then, would likely have been burned. That said, it does speak to modern audiences (on several levels), does raise some interesting points for discussion (moral issues, feminism, the reality of the educational system featured, how all 19th century medical realities were ignored, and attending historical comparisons, and finally, whether upright and admirable behaviors can somehow excuse or make more forgivable several clearly morally unacceptable behaviors exhibited by the same characters), and the film is somewhat entertaining, or at least not too difficult to watch (I have watched it several times in fact, though always when someone else put our copy of it into the machine).
Modernized film versions of stories like "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice" come to mind in terms of ignoring 19th century realities and acceptable behaviors, but still being very enjoyable for modern audiences. Maybe this helps truly interested people to study history more deeply, to see how we are so very different in many ways today (especially in England and the USA) than people who lived 200 years ago.
To finish, I do not dislike this film -- though I would say it is not really a period piece in its themes, and it does have several plot points which are ludicrous (those are discussed in other reviews here; one is even rather funny -- the sister's request that Sophie love the gentleman for both of them). As a simple entertainment that can please on a quiet evening like a Harlequin romance, it is fine. I do not think I would have enjoyed it without Sophie Marceau, however (she solely keeps the film alive with her presence -- it would be nothing without her).