Can't buy the love story


It's perfectly believable that two children in a detention camp could form a bond that endures through decades of not seeing each other. What's ridiculous is the idea that mutual affection between two pre-teen kids could somehow, over decades without contact, actually transform itself into romantic love between two adults now in their fifties. I kept thinking I must have missed something in the storyline -- something about them reconnecting in their twenties and enjoying a romance. But no, we're supposed to believe that two 50+ year olds, who haven't seen each other since they were children, are actually in love with each other? Love? Seriously? Come on.

reply

During the truck ride to town there was a small discussion that told us that they did have some contact back in their 20s. Melanie told Christopher that she received his letter ......but it was too late. By the time that the letter arrived she was already married and was going to have a baby. It was unclear just how much contact they had had.

reply




I think they could because their being together in that prison camp and wondering if they would live or die would bring closer together and an expeience that they cannot forget. Look how she kept records on the people that were there. She cannot move on. It stays in her head

reply



I really can believe. It is because of the horrific event they shared caused them to romantisice about the whole thing that Melanies family cannot understand. Only those two children bonded together. Jakob was like a shepherd watching over his sheep and helping them in the ordeal and that ordeal they have not forgotten and cant forget. They were all they had

reply

Maybe the problem is that the original poster can't imagine anyone that old falling in love. Secret for the young uns--people can fall in love at any age.

reply

Maybe you've not yet felt that overwhelming connection with a person.....that stuns or shocks your system to the core.

I am in my mid 40's and saddened by your comments, that you have to "be" around someone to "be" in love. Letters, memories, take hold and as long as we don't put those memories on a pedestal or make the memories more than they were...love can last and deepen over time, even if we aren't near the person we love.

I've always said that parents who make fun of their children or say they can't know what love is at a young age, are forgetting. Or they just never experienced that kind of connection themselves at a young age. Your comments kind of remind me of that.

Love is ageless.....it can take hold of us at 10 and last until we are 90, or take hold of us at 50, 60 and older and last until we die.

Memories of survival, where people depend on each other not just for the basics, but to truly survive emotionally, are so much more intense than I can even imagine. Those are emotions we can't dismiss, or make fun of....until we live through some horrible trauma ourselves, we can't even begin to understand the connection, that stays over time. It is a part of them...that will never leave, never truly fade, that helped to form who they became, despite other loves, other family and friends. Their friendship and love for each other as children....saved them. Why wouldn't it last through the ages? It is an unconditional and lasting love.

Not trying to annoy, but am so disappointed when anyone of any age can't imagine that a love from long ago or anytime can't last or be rekindled years later.

It can and it does.

Thanks.

reply

Thanks for the comments. Those who failed to actually read my initial comment might want to do so. I was not expressing doubt that two people would bond deeply under such circumstances, or doubt that people over 40 do fall in love, as some stupidly suggested, but rather that I find it implausible that the deep emotional connection forged between two pre-adolescents would somehow transmute into romantic love despite their not having being in contact between pre-adolescence and maturity. I'm no psychologist, so I may well be wrong. Stranger things have happened.

reply

I agree with what you're saying. While we're all free to interpret the movie as we like, I don't think there's much of a "love" angle. Instead, what I think the director was trying to show was that people bond by circumstances. In particular, adversity makes bedfellows. Think of Christopher Plummer who says he married her because he thought he could help her. It's pretty clear that they have a loveless marriage (by the romantic definition of love) and their marriage is more about troubled souls sticking together.

A lot of people expect this to be an emotional tear-jerker. After all, the DVD says some nonsense about "a tender love story of redemption, healing and reconciliation". I didn't get that at all. I thought this was a story of human beings and how they deal with traumatic history. Each character approaches it in a very different way; yet they remain closely linked by their common suffering--not to be confused with "true love" whatever that is. I think when we view the movie on more of a psychological level rather than emotional, it makes sense and packs a powerful message.

reply