Egad, what a cheesy title. But since it's a period romance comedy and not a contemporary one, it's a little more excusable I guess. The plot is a gender-bender. Mira Sorvino, a princess, falls for a young hunk who's been brought up by his bachelor uncle (Ben Kingsley) and spinster aunt (Fiona Shaw). Unfortunately, they've taught him to hate her and all other women (oooooh!), as well as reject the notion of love, so she has to dress up as a man to infiltrate their household and get Mr. Studly to fall for her. However, her charms are so great that the whole family winds up falling for her.
Therein lies my moral quandary. Sorvino not only takes the trio of infatuations in her stride, she encourages all of them to selfishly accomplish her goal. Doesn't this make her an unworthy heroine then? Should we still be rooting for her when she breaks two hearts to attain one? I'm not sure if the ending is morally justified for suitable enjoyment of the movie, even if all parties involved eventually benefit by learning about the power of love. The sight of a simultaneously crushed Kingsley and Shaw are heartbreaking and put a damper on the happy ending. That aside, The Triumph of Love is a lovely display of fine actors having fun giving melodramatic performances.
Sorvino is a great choice for the lead role, if only for her naturally deep voice. Her facial features are soft but back then it wasn't an uncommon thing for nobles back then to be gentiles in looks and nature. I can't help but to compare her to the other period gender-bending actress, Gwyneth Paltrow, in Shakespeare in Love. Paltrow undeniably gives the superior performance, but I can't say if it wasn't because Shakespeare was a better movie. Shaw is an excellent actress who can portray romantic torment with both comedic and dramatic flair. Sir Ben Kingsley reminds me of an older Colin Firth, not looks-wise of course, but in that they both look adorable when demonstrating the melting of their icy exteriors. And oh my, is that Gandhi wearing a wig and nuzzling a boob? Surely he deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here than in his other movie of that title.
Therein lies my moral quandary. Sorvino not only takes the trio of infatuations in her stride, she encourages all of them to selfishly accomplish her goal. Doesn't this make her an unworthy heroine then? Should we still be rooting for her when she breaks two hearts to attain one? I'm not sure if the ending is morally justified for suitable enjoyment of the movie, even if all parties involved eventually benefit by learning about the power of love. The sight of a simultaneously crushed Kingsley and Shaw are heartbreaking and put a damper on the happy ending. That aside, The Triumph of Love is a lovely display of fine actors having fun giving melodramatic performances.
Sorvino is a great choice for the lead role, if only for her naturally deep voice. Her facial features are soft but back then it wasn't an uncommon thing for nobles back then to be gentiles in looks and nature. I can't help but to compare her to the other period gender-bending actress, Gwyneth Paltrow, in Shakespeare in Love. Paltrow undeniably gives the superior performance, but I can't say if it wasn't because Shakespeare was a better movie. Shaw is an excellent actress who can portray romantic torment with both comedic and dramatic flair. Sir Ben Kingsley reminds me of an older Colin Firth, not looks-wise of course, but in that they both look adorable when demonstrating the melting of their icy exteriors. And oh my, is that Gandhi wearing a wig and nuzzling a boob? Surely he deserves the nickname "Sexy Beast" more for his role here than in his other movie of that title.