Books, it seems, are always better than their movie adaptations. While a film may have adequately recreated a novel’s plot and characters, it can never fully establish the connection one has reading it. It is one thing to spend weeks with a book, imagining its characters in your head, and it is quite another to have the same story told to you in a matter of hours, with the characters splashed in front of your eyes. “Love in the Time of Cholera” exemplifies this book/movie trade off, and is a film that may have been better off staying a novel.
The author, Gabriel García Márquez, is a powerful writer who engages all of the reader’s senses to fully engulf them in a story. The same power was expected from this film, but something seems to be lost in translation.
In a Colombian village in the 19th century, two teenagers fall in love through an exchange of letters. Florentino (Javier Bardem) gradually eases the skepticism of Fermina (Giovanna Mezzogiorno) and eventually wins her heart. Just as things are progressing smoothly, Fermina’s father (John Leguizamo) discovers the letters and forbids the two to see each other again.
The rest of the story deals with the pair’s separate lives. Fermina goes on to marry the wealthy Dr. Juvenal Urbino (Benjamin Bratt) to live a life where stability replaces passion. Fermina convinces herself that her early love for Florentino was merely an illusion. Florentino, on the other hand, cannot forget the time they had together. He spends his life engaging in meaningless affairs to distract himself from the pain. “Love in the Time of Cholera” is not a typical love story, but rather a tale of painful waiting. Love is not the cure here, but the disease.
The real strength of this film comes from the actors’ performances. Bardem plays Florentino with a quiet passion that makes the audience believe the ridiculous intensity of his unrequited love. As his character ages, one can see the years of suffering etched on his face. His anguish is palpable.
Mezzogiorno’s portrayal of Fermina is also impressive. Florentino is the protagonist in the story and, thus, much of the story is told from his point of view. It seems, then, that Fermina’s character should come across as cold and distant, and this certainly is the case. Mezzogiorno successfully portrays Fermina at arm’s length, never fully showing us her motives but hinting at the pain inside. These two characters could easily be real people, struggling to protect themselves from the disease of love, effectively underscored by the cholera epidemic.
“Love in the Time of Cholera,” published in 1985, is a classic literary tale of unrequited love. With that knowledge, it is easy to expect a cinematic masterpiece. While the film certainly captures the essence of the story and its characters, the power of the original novel is lacking. However, if a moviegoer is searching for an entertaining two hours, rather than a literary experience, “Love in the Time of Cholera” will not, unlike Fermina, keep you waiting.
