See, I remember Chocolat when it was coming out in the movies, and it was causing quite a stir since it was getting a lot of critical acclaim - it got five Oscar nominations to give you an idea. Chocolat is a romantic comedy - a chick flick - and back in 2000/2001 I was not really interested in it. I was more into the American Pie style of humour, and in terms of chick flicks I preferred something like 'Loser (2000)', more cheese - both movies with Jason Biggs and Mena Suvari. I saw Chocolat back then, and I couldn't care less.
Since then I have seen the movie a number of times when it came out on cable, but never really paid much attention to it until now - fourteen years later. It is a good movie, and you should give it a watch if you're in the mood for some romance porn. You may want to have some chocolate in hand though - those scenes can get you. I had some hot chocolate in hand; oh yes, I was prepared.
Chocolat is one of those movies that is filled with pornography for women - pure eye candy for what women generally like. We have Johnny Depp being the bohemian traveler who is also responsible for his people; an old French village set in 1959 with lively people; sensual scenes involving love making; there is also a little touch of female empowerment and rebellion against man; and most importantly, we have abundant displays of chocolate in its many sensual forms: from cacao beans, to hot cocoa, truffles, and chocolate used in savory applications.
A friendly note: be really careful when applying chocolate into savory applications in your cooking. Cacao is not an ingredient that will just blend into any dish. The results can be disastrous. If anything, look into "mole" something that is predominant in Mexican cuisine... Anyways, back to the review.
The movie itself flows really well, you do not feel like you're spending two hours in it. There are many characters, and the character arcs in focus do have a satisfying beginning and end. There are some aspects that some may have problems with, like the heavy foreshadowing of Armande's death, but none of those things bothered me at all.
All except for one - yes, I am aware that this movie is based on something published before, but I looking at this film as its own - The only problem I have with the movie is the scenes that involve the burning of the "gypsy" boats. No one dies in the fire, and nothing really happens after the fire. Sure, the gypsies suffer a bit, but the movie makes it as if this is something they go through on the regular almost. All we get of this event is how Serge gets disposed of a few scenes later where he is told to leave town, and there are absolutely no repercusions towards the comte in this regard. It just bothered me how this drunk's arc is ended.
This movie even has its own mythos involving the mystic 'Northern Winds', a spirit that talks to the heroine of the movie, and it makes it believable. There is also the topic of religious restraint and change - all emphasized by lent being a central part of the plot. (Actually, most of this movie happens within forty days. Which got me thinking: this woman must make a lot, and I mean a lot of money selling these chocolates for her to afford this kind of lifestyle.) These are all great themes that cover the Chocolat universe, but there is one particular topic that it covers that made me want to write this post, and that topic is travelling.
I feel that this topic has quite a bit of relevance today more than ever. People in general nowadays have this urge to visit many places far away from their homes. Hell, there has been a shit ton of marketing coming from the tourism industry. A lot of the movies as of late that touch on this subject are encouraging people to travel, be free, leave the chains of society behind, become a citizen of this world, break the mold, get a food truck, open your own business, chase your dreams and fuck everything else, stick it to the man, if you stay where you are you will die - all seemingly good reasons to travel.
Now, don't get me wrong. From what I just wrote you may think I am against seeing the world where we live in. I actually do encourage travelling to places you have never been - I think it is something everyone should do. As long as you keep a good spirit throughout the journey, you will come out a better person. For anyone out there who feels lost, my first tip would be to consider travelling; great things may happen. There is one piece of warning though: what people don't generally talk about travelling is that once you settle down in one location indefinitely, there is a high risk that you'll start missing bits and pieces of the places you visit, and you can't get those back unless you keep moving.
I feel that this topic has quite a bit of relevance today more than ever. People in general nowadays have this urge to visit many places far away from their homes. Hell, there has been a shit ton of marketing coming from the tourism industry. A lot of the movies as of late that touch on this subject are encouraging people to travel, be free, leave the chains of society behind, become a citizen of this world, break the mold, get a food truck, open your own business, chase your dreams and fuck everything else, stick it to the man, if you stay where you are you will die - all seemingly good reasons to travel.
Now, don't get me wrong. From what I just wrote you may think I am against seeing the world where we live in. I actually do encourage travelling to places you have never been - I think it is something everyone should do. As long as you keep a good spirit throughout the journey, you will come out a better person. For anyone out there who feels lost, my first tip would be to consider travelling; great things may happen. There is one piece of warning though: what people don't generally talk about travelling is that once you settle down in one location indefinitely, there is a high risk that you'll start missing bits and pieces of the places you visit, and you can't get those back unless you keep moving.
The point that I am trying to make is, there are many angles that can be covered on the subject. From the movies that I've seen where a character is involved in some form of travelling; the idea of going back home or settling down sucks. Unless - and this is in almost all the cases - there is a love interest that they are returning to. Or the movie uses the topic of travelling as a device at near the end of the movie so that it can come to a conclusion. Yeah, there are many exceptions I'm sure, but how come I don't see them all too often.
That is the portion of Chocolat that I found to be refreshing - at least the way I like to interpret it. We have a travelling woman and her daughter. For as much as they get discriminated in the towns they are in, we see through the daughter that it is something they have learned to accept. They both see the beauty of the places they are in, but sadly due to mystical forces they have to keep moving. The reason why they stay in this town instead of the other ones... I'll just say it's because of the plot. But they stay, and it is because of the love they have towards some of the members of this community, not because of the love interest. There is also the mutual understanding between Vianne and Roux that as much as there is to gain from travelling, they also lose a great part of themselves in their journey, and I found that moment to be beautiful.
Yes, I know, the other character Roux returns because this movie needs a double happy ending... Yes, he does this because of a love interest. I know I complained about this very used cliche, but at least it wasn't the central point; this happens after the forty days of the main timeline in the movie. Sadly, I also have to admit... there is nothing more romantic about having love at the end of one journey.
That is the portion of Chocolat that I found to be refreshing - at least the way I like to interpret it. We have a travelling woman and her daughter. For as much as they get discriminated in the towns they are in, we see through the daughter that it is something they have learned to accept. They both see the beauty of the places they are in, but sadly due to mystical forces they have to keep moving. The reason why they stay in this town instead of the other ones... I'll just say it's because of the plot. But they stay, and it is because of the love they have towards some of the members of this community, not because of the love interest. There is also the mutual understanding between Vianne and Roux that as much as there is to gain from travelling, they also lose a great part of themselves in their journey, and I found that moment to be beautiful.
Yes, I know, the other character Roux returns because this movie needs a double happy ending... Yes, he does this because of a love interest. I know I complained about this very used cliche, but at least it wasn't the central point; this happens after the forty days of the main timeline in the movie. Sadly, I also have to admit... there is nothing more romantic about having love at the end of one journey.
