'Letters to Juliet': Just Say, "Yes"

Renée Scolaro Mora

Letters to Juliet does poke fun at itself occasionally, but not enough to keep us from saying, "Grazie!" when it finally ends.

Letters to Juliet

Director: Gary Winick
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Vanessa Redgrave, Gael Garcìa Bernal, Christopher Egan, Franco Nero
Rated: PG
Studio: Summit Entertainment
Year: 2010
US date: 2010-05-14 (General release)
UK date: 2010-05-21 (General release)

Taylor Swift's "Love Story" is featured in the trailer for Letters to Juliet. The song is symptomatic of all that's missing and misunderstood in the film, which draws from Romeo and Juliet only the least painful plot elements. The movie features no feuding families, no clandestine rendezvous. In fact, there is almost no believable conflict to be found, only exquisite Italian landscapes as backdrop to a tidy foregone conclusion.

Sophie (Amanday Seyfried) is a fact checker (and wannabe writer) for the New Yorker. She is engaged to Victor (Gael García Bernal), a chef whose own aspirations and manic enthusiasm render him endearing, even if they do distract him from Sophie. On vacation in Verona, Victor is just as distracted as he is in New York, and soon leaves Sophie to sightsee on her own. At the famed Casa de Giulietta, where weepy girls write and leave letters seeking advice from Shakespeare's Juliet, Sophie discovers the Secretaries of Juliet, a multigenerational assemblage of women who answer these letters in Juliet's name, each according to her own "specialty." Sophie soon joins in, answering a letter that had gone undiscovered in the courtyard wall for 50 years. In an amazing testament to international mail service and spontaneous travel planning, the recipient, Claire (Vanessa Redgrave), shows up in Verona only a week later to launch an exhaustive search for Lorenzo, the love she left behind half a century ago.

Claire's search for her lover is sweet and amusing, especially as she encounters a string of eager potential Lorenzos ranging from the slightly addled to the overly tanned and Speedoed. The film is engaging and even sort of refreshing for those moments where it remains focused on Claire and the idea that desire, passion, and romance transcend age and are not solely reserved for the young. Redgrave is wonderfully subtle as Claire, who is as hopeful and nervous and daydreamy as any young girl might be, yet without being wholly idealistic or impractical. She knows there are risks in what she's doing (Lorenzo might have forgotten her, be married, or even be dead) and she figures they are worth taking.

Unfortunately, Claire is saddled with her snobbish and disgruntled grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan). Being a self-proclaimed "realist," Charlie directs his anger (born of his desire to protect his grandmother) towards Sophie as the instigator. But he also shows discomfort with romance generally. He recoils as Claire recalls an intimate picnic with Lorenzo all those years ago. Charlie's response -- "What's so romantic about eating in the dirt?" -- reveals his childish inability to see Claire as a sexual being, as well as his own lack of sensuality. He feels threatened, not only because he might be replaced as Claire's protector, but also because, as he sees it, if she wasn't in love with his grandfather, this would "invalidate his entire existence."

Charlie is Sophie's opposite, which in this sort of film is supposed to make him perfect for her. (She's also a young version of Claire, which adds an Oedipal creepiness it's best not to think too much about.) The problem with this (aside from the nonexistent chemistry between Seyfried and Egan) is that Victor isn't believably "wrong" for Sophie in the first place. Sure, he needs a lesson in work/life balance and time management, but he's passionate and artistic and even romantic, in his way, just like Sophie. So it's hard to cheer on Charlie or hope for Victor's ouster.

What little sappy goodness Letters to Juliet offers is spoiled when it turns away from Claire and Lorenzo and focuses exclusively on Sophie and Charlie. The movie somehow manages both to rush through their warm-up (they go from eye-rolling and insult-hurling to playfully dabbing each other's noses with gelato in about two minutes) and drag out the resolution of their relationship. Worse, it does so in a manner so thoroughly predictable (never has a balcony been so overused) that it provokes audible groans from viewers. True, the film does poke fun at itself in some of these moments, but not enough to keep us from saying, "Grazie!" when it finally ends.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.