3 Comfort Movies (P&P inspired)

A friend recently reached out to me saying she had just rewatched Pride and Prejudice (2005) (praise be to Netflix for adding it!!) and desperately needed something else to get her fix of comfort movies. Essentially, what she needed were more rom-coms. She wasn’t willing to commit to an entire TV series (something we can all relate to I’m sure) and so I provided her with the following movie list.

1. The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018)

I adore this movie. I have watched it multiple times already, read the book, and have recommended it to dozens of period drama lovers. It’s a keeper in the period drama upper echelon, and especially in the comfort movie pantheon. It’s predictable, but also sweet and humorous at times. At other times, it’s sad and bittersweet (but actually not that sad for a movie that covers a bit about WWII, I’m just being honest here). There is a little bit of mystery too. The main character, Juliet (Lily James), is sort of faultless, other than maybe “too curious,” (which isn’t a real flaw ok), but nevertheless we enjoy watching her on screen alongside sweet, book-loving pig farmer Dawsey (Michiel Huisman). It’s truly charming and perfect for a cozy night in. (The book is pretty fantastic too!)

Genres: war, drama, romance — Starring: Lily James, Michiel Huisman, Matthew Goode

2. Letters to Juliet (2010)

Why have so few people seen this delightful movie? I mean, for one, it takes place in Italy? Two, we have an adorable “enemies to lovers” trope thing happening here. And three, did I mention it takes place in Italy? Amanda Seyfried is a cute American who insists on helping an older but still glamorous Vanessa Redgrave find her long lost love Lorenzo (do I get points for alliteration?) by taking a road trip through Italy. Christopher Egan is Redgrave’s young, caring and handsome (!) grandson along for the ride. Sparks fly. It’s just a lovely, simple movie to watch. Yes, it’s predictable, but did you all miss the part where these are comfort movies? I guess this is technically Romeo & Juliet inspired, but like P&P (2005) it’s a perfect wine night film with a HEA (unlike our two star-crossed lovers from Verona).

Genres: romance, comedy — Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Christopher Egan, Vanessa Redgrave

3. Emma. (2020)

Maybe it’s cheating to recommend Austen for an Austen-inspired list. But oh well, I think there are many people who haven’t actually seen this yet. Emma has fast taken the spot as my favorite Austen heroine, especially to watch. She’s snarky, arrogant, and has fantastic style. She also grows the most in my opinion, and it’s just a delight to see her development unfold. Anya Taylor-Joy in particular is fabulous. She’s perfectly petulant and assured in the same breath. I find her to have so much range, she was utterly creepy in The VVitch (2015). Mia Goth also does a great turn as Harriet Smith, and the two bounce off each other well. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous – if we have any Sex Education or The Crown fans here, it’s just one recognizable face after another! The film is also completely satisfying to watch, filled with beautiful pieces of art, gorgeous costume design, and an eye-catching pastel aesthetic. Emma. (2020) reminds us why Austen stories are so timeless and appealing.

Genres: comedy, drama, romance — Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Mia Goth, Johnny Flynn, Bill Nighy, many other fantastics

These are just three, but there are dozens more! What do you guys watch when you want a comfort movie?

Thoughts on: Melancholia (2011)

• Director: Lars von Trier
• Genres: Drama, science-fiction
• Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, Alexander Skarsgård
• Release: May 18, 2011

It’s 2020, and that means it was the end of a decade. As such, that means we got every type of 2010s ranking list imaginable, including this behemoth by Vulture. Bizarrely, the number one movie on this list is a movie from 2011 that many people have never heard of. This might be in large part because of the director Lars von Trier self-sabotaging the Cannes premiere himself, and perhaps also because Kirsten Dunst admits she doesn’t like promotion hoopla all that much.

Either way, this movie is a hidden gem, and Vulture did well putting it on my radar. This movie is part of Lars von Trier’s “Depression Trilogy.” The trilogy consists of Antichrist, Melancholia, and Nymphomaniac. All three films star Charlotte Gainsbourg, who seems to act as a muse to Trier. With a name like Melancholia, it’s hard to think that this film could be about anything but depression. In fact, it is really, really about depression – but it is also about a giant planet called Melancholia hurtling towards the Earth.

The movie opens on a series of disturbing and mysterious images, both of people and space (the ending is quite literally given away to remove suspense, but you might not notice if you aren’t paying attention). It then introduces Justine (Kirsten Dunst) on her wedding day, which is quickly turning into a disaster due to Justine’s crippling depression.

Dunst depicts depression in a full-bodied, all-consuming way, quickly becoming desperate to escape and acting in bizarre ways. Both Trier and Dunst have a history of depression, and it is clear that they are imbuing the screen with substance from their own experiences. At the same time, Justine’s sister Claire (played by Gainsbourg), is stressed and attempting to keep the wedding together. She encourages her sister to hide her depressive episodes from her new husband (a sexy Skarsgård).

Gainsbourg is the daughter of Jane Birkin and Serge Gainsbourg, two figures that are larger than life. At the same time, she has an initial feeling of normalcy about her in the first half of the film. I think whether you like the first or second half of the film says more about you, the viewer, than it does about the film. The first half is intimate and human, but also vaguely crazed and sometimes makes less “sense” than the second half. Dunst’s character behaves strangely, and is increasingly detached from the effects of her actions. Her new-husband calls off the entire marriage simply due to her behavior during the wedding.

“Those bitches have locked themselves in their bedrooms and are now taking baths. Is everyone in your family stark raving mad?”

Dunst is both likable and unlikable. She pushes the limits of what is “acceptable,” in fascinating ways. Her wedding is, as I said, a disaster – but the real disaster is yet to come.

I, personally, am a second half person. While the first half sets up the characters and how we understand them in a familiar situation, the second half puts them in a completely unfamiliar one. The apocalypse approaches slowly, and allows Trier’s actual purpose to be revealed – he wants to talk about the human psyche during an apocalypse. Justine quickly accepts the reality of the situation, while Claire starts to lose her grip. Kiefer Sutherland is great as Claire’s astronomy-obsessed, callous husband, and his character’s grating presence underscores the fact that this is truly a film about women. (Of course we can discuss Trier’s portrayal of women and femininity in general, but still).

Additionally, Trier accepts that he wasn’t trying to make the movie accurate in terms of the astrophysics (in fact he wishes the film had more flaws in general), but although the science is hand-wavey, it doesn’t take away from the movie. It’s frightening and beautiful, and there is some weather and atmosphere fun mentioned for the science-fiction enthusiasts. It is a little hard to believe that the movie scientists have not realized that Melancholia is on a collision course with the Earth. That doesn’t quite make sense, but can be ignored with a little suspension of disbelief (or as I chose, a conspiracy theory about all the scientists lying to humanity to keep the peace until the end). Anyway, the movie isn’t about the science.

I did, and still do, vaguely wish this movie had been made a few years later. The visuals would have been stunning with higher quality effects, but it’s still awe-inspiring as is. I love the switch in perspectives between the sisters between the two halves of the film, and Justine’s view in particular strikes a chord. Sometimes it does seem like the world is a truly terrible place and it might not be the worst thing for it to get absolutely demolished.

“The Earth is evil, we don’t need to grieve for it… nobody will miss it.”

It’s not my intention to glorify depression but…in a way it is the movie’s goal. It’s a very beautiful movie after all and it’s pitched as “a beautiful movie about the end of the world.” Even the haunting music, Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde which repeats throughout the film, is meant to add to the overall aesthetic.

Trier says, “In a way, the film does have a happy ending.” This is truly captured in a split moment where we see Dunst luxuriating in the light of Melancholia, alone at night, and utterly naked. In a sense, the movie is cathartic, wallowing is the only option and the only rational option. Fighting is pointless. A weakness becomes a strength. The ending is unsurprising, but allows us all to breathe a sigh of relief.

Other fun links about Melancholia

• (Interview with Lars von Trier by Per Juul Carlsen 2011) https://www.dfi.dk/english/only-redeeming-factor-world-ending
• (Director’s statement) https://cdn-media.festival-cannes.com/pdf/0001/45/39fd4e759ad01ae5001c6002398ff4305a4a9595.pdf

Thoughts on: The Age of Adaline (2015)

• Director: Lee Toland Krieger
• Genres: Romance, fantasy
• Starring: Blake Lively, Michiel Huisman, Harrison Ford
• Release: April 24, 2015

As a romance lover, newly converted San Francisco enthusiast, and admirer of all things Harrison Ford, this movie was a nice surprise. Knowing it was an immortality movie, I wasn’t sure whether to expect a bittersweet ending, or something sappy and convenient. I got the latter, but ended up not too disturbed by it. Adaline, as we are told by a rather unnecessary narrator, is a perfectly normal girl is born in 1908 in San Francisco. Her husband conveniently dies young, and then at the age of 29, she has a harrowing accident. Thanks to some pseudo-science explained by aforementioned narrator, she stops aging.

Fake science is annoying in movies, and they should just stick to some magical realism. She gets hit by a bolt of lightning and stops aging. That’s enough explanation for me. I don’t need a deep scientific analysis of her cells and telomeres. After the accident, we experience a creeping realization that something is different; her peers age and she doesn’t. The FBI trying to track her down to study her (during the Red Scare to make it even more fun) is probably the most thrilling party of the movie. Sadly, it gets a little boring from there for a bit.

Blake Lively does well, but not well enough in my opinion. She lacks the period drama flair. She has a soothing voice, ageless and timeless, which works well enough, but I almost wished she did have a jazzier presence. I guess she would stick out too much since her security hinges on avoiding attention, but she would be more lively to watch (get it?). Lively is saved from real acting by the fact that the majority of the movie takes place in present day, although it is a little disappointing. I love a good period drama, and this movie sets one up and doesn’t follow through.

“Dammit, you’ve heard it before?”

“Just once, from a young Bing Crosby.”

However, the San Francisco setting is a lovely surprise. The filmmakers clearly adore San Francisco and discuss it’s wonderful history through their showing of “A Trip Down Market Street,” an actuality film made in 1906 that captures the San Francisco downtown. We also get a lot of Golden Gate Bridge history. The nostalgia is real. Adaline adores history, and that’s one thing I can enjoy about her character. What’s not to love about history? (Except all the racism and war and genocide but oh well).

Here, enter Michiel Huisman. I adore him from The Guernsey Literary Potato and Peel Pie Society (and have fun watching him in The Haunting of Hill House), but enthusiasts might recognize him better from Game of Thrones. He is good at playing earnest characters, but is otherwise an uninteresting character. Kind philanthropist. Love at first sight. Eh. He takes Adaline on vacation to his parent’s house where…SURPRISE his dad is an old flame of Adaline’s. And is played by HARRISON FORD.

Ok, finally. Finally, we see where this movie is going. At this point, it loses all ability to surprise us. There are no more plot twists. This movie is chugging along to the end. However, we have to enjoy the vague creepiness here, as well as some solid acting by Lively and Ford. There’s some…chemistry there? It’s simultaneously uncomfortable and exciting. It’s weird that she’s dating his son. It’s weird that she could have married him. It’s weird that his wife is just…there. But it’s definitely fun weird.

Huisman fades into the background. Ford and Lively have some moments. Then things become convenient and the movie ends. Overall, I enjoyed it – there were some sweet moments between Adaline and her daughter interspersed with the plot, as well as some great San Francisco scenery. It’s a pretty basic romance movie, which just happens to have Harrison Ford. Watch if you are in the mood for a floaty romantic drama, some fake science, and an amusingly uncomfortable family dynamic.

“Remember that? 1954, I was a junior in college. That’s the last photo I have of you.”

“Well, you’ve seen one, you’ve seen ’em all.”