My favourite would be "la duchesse de langeais", if that counts.

Rose and The Doctor

The Way We Were (which coincidentally was just on AMC tonight).

Casablanca is a close second.

I have 3 nominees myself:

"Much Ado About Nothing," Shakespeare's anti-thesis to "Romeo and Juliet;" Beatrice and Benedick are NOT instant lovers, they're the exact opposite, people who come to know each other, hate each other, and finally find themselves personality partners over many, many sparring sessions (and a bit of trickery) rather than R&J (or Claudio and Hero) just bumping into one another, falling in love over a weekend, and that's it...

"Pygmalion" by Shaw, if that counts, as Higgins DOES NOT love Doolittle romantically, nor he she, but they come to have such a grudging Platonic respect for each others' skills and capacities that it's almost as good, and it's easy to see why people wanted "My Fair Lady" and the two together (even if Shaw vehemently opposed the idea)...

And for a "serious" love story--

"The Idiot" by Dostoyevsky.
IT. IS. A. MASTERPIECE.
The love triangle between Aglai, Nastasya, and Prince Myskin is PERFECT.
In my short, admittedly-loveless life...

That is the most accurate depiction of not just love, but the different KINDS of love there are.

Myshkin's honest, he loves BOTH Aglai and Nastaya...in different ways:

He loves Aglai in a passionate romantic sense, but that Christian/redemption-leaning side of him loves Nastaya; he loves the potential of both women, Aglai for what her young life represents in terms of beauty blooming and Nastaya for what she represents as a tragic figure who's come this far AND as someone who can be redeemed and brought fully to the light...

Dostoyevsky's probably the best "Christian writer" in the Western Canon; not counting Shakespeare (who was Christian, probably, but wasn't really a "Christian writer" in the sense that he laid the Christianity on thick in all his works, he's a far more "Christian-lite"/often secular writer with a humanist bent befitting his Renaissance environment) h has Dante and Milton, really, to beat for that honor, and as much as I love Milton, I really do think Dostoyevsky wins it here...

HIS books and characters make the strongest case for the Christian ethos I've ever read...

Quite frankly, if someone could transport him back in time to write the Bible, we might have a LOT more Christians in the room right now, he's such a convincing author. ;)

It's just so perfect, you KNOW these people--
You know the Aglais, the silly young lovers who romanticize about love and their lovers.
You know the Nastasyas, the ones who are far more worldly and far more cynical.
You know the Myshkins, people caught in the middle of those extremes trying to decide.

For Aglai, Myshkin's can't live up to her ideal of "the pathetic knight," she wants both the perfect Lancelot-like knight AND a Quixote-like project all at once, the perfect, idealized lover that no one can live up to.

For Nastasya, Myshkin's TOO perfect, as Dostoyevsky (once again demonstrating WHY he's the best Christian writer to ever walk this earth) lets Nastaysa speak to a very secular-if-cynical concern in love, namely, in Myshkin's whole quest to "redeem her" he actually makes her feel lesser, makes her feel unworthy, and doesn't want that feeling as it's an odd mixture of shamefulness felt on her part and perceived superiority on his that drive her off.

And Myshkin's NEITHER; he's better than Aglai gives him credit for but not at all the sort of spiritually-domineering figure Nastaya feels he is...

He's just a man, and ultimately, they're just women at different ends of the spectrum:

Aglai's that pampered, spoiled, utterly clueless little trust fund daddy's girl everyone's met and secretly loathed at some point...

And Nastasya's the older, over-worldly person who's too hurt to take things any view but one of cynicism in many cases...

And Myshkin's caught in the middle.

It's all genuine, and is one of the few love triangles that honestly does feel that way.

And the ending is perfect--

The showdown between the three of them...
Nastasya ultimately being murdered for her poor choices...
Aglai forced to lose her youth and wealth in marrying some old nobleman of poor repute...
And Myshkin relapses into insanity from all of it.



THAT is so much more rich, so much more complex than R&J or La Boheme or Titanic or Les Mis' musical version...

It's not a just a story about people in love, but WHY and HOW they love each other...

And why that's not always the best thing.

"Rose and The Doctor"

She was alright...but in a way, Rose was rather awful--

She just left her boyfriend for some stranger...admittedly one with a time machine, but still!

And she does it AGAIN!

But Micky winds up with Martha, who left the Doctor because he couldn't return her affection.

Well that's fine, I mean, I have no problem with Mickey...

I'm just saying ROSE seems a bit flighty, just leaving her boyfriend TWICE like that...

Mickey couldn't have come along (and when he finally did get to come, she couldn't have chosen him over the Doctor, not once? Poor guy...)

Obi, if only we could agree on religion...... I share and appreciate your passion for Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky. Feel free to write on such things any time.

In response to your query, I'd suggest Little, Big by John Crowley, or The End of the Affair by Graham Greene.

"Pygmalion"

ROFL

Are you serious, obi?

Christ innocently dying on the cross for the sins and salvation of mankind.

@abgemacht:

On "Pygmalion?"

Yes and no.

That is...I get why it's really not a "love story" (hence why I have the others, one comedic and one tragic) but I think it IS a superb "relationship story," and while it's not at all a romantic love story (lest Shaw's head burst with rage from beyond the grave) it's possibly one in a more Platonic sense...Higgins himself says he envisions Eliza, Pickering and himself as "three old bachelors" growing old together...

Eliza's having none of that of course, but it does go to show he did care enough about her to want that end goal...which is pretty much his equivalent to (or replacement for) "love," being bromance pals for life.

Again, Much Ado and The Idiot are the more serious choices of mine, but I thought "Pygmalion" deserved a mention for giving a love story that...well...didn't feel the need for love to win out in the end--or even for it to be acknowledged as something worthwhile by all of those involved. It's more of a "relationship" than "love" story...

So what it loses in sentimentality it sort of makes up for in its utter frankness--it's a borderline relationship/Platonic love story that has the gumption to take a look at Freddy Einsford Hill and proclaim "Ha! Romantic love is for idiots!" and, simultaneously, looking at the cold Mr. Higgins, "Ha! Blind cynicism towards love is for idiots!"

It seems to reach across the aisle that way, so I felt it deserved a mention at least.

@dipplayer:

Thanks dipplayer (though if we agreed on religion...well, where would the fun be, if we agreed on things?) ;)

Lady & The Tramp, Peaches & Herb, Ben Dover & Phil McCavity

"Christ innocently dying on the cross for the sins and salvation of mankind."

1. Not a love story, that's either the most masochistic or else the most contrived "shame on you" story of all time from the "love story" angle.

Is the Jesus myth a good story?
...
I'd argue it's a better archetype and myth than story...
That is, I think the ideas BEHIND the story are a lot better than the actual story as written...

Same thing with Exodus--"The Ten Commandments" and "The Prince of Egypt" are two BRILLIANT adaptations of the Moses story, and the Moses story IS one of the great archetypal myths in world literature...

But read the actual text...and it's nowhere near as deep in terms of character, plot, diction, syntax, psychology...the shallow text just doesn't measure up to the seeds of great ideas it has, partly because of the format (you just can't convey in a Bible book what you can in a 2 or 3 hour film, the dynamic between Moses and Rameses in particular is fleshed out VERY well in both films, and there isn't one great author--from Homer to Dante to Shakespeare, Dickens to Dostoyevsky to D.H. Lawrence and so on--that doesn't have a great hero AND great villain powering their narratives) and partly because of narrative faults in the literary source themselves. In the films, it's very fleshed out, and Rameses is a complex and almost sympathetic villain at times, you WANT him to be able to come to an accord with Moses so they can be happy and be brothers again, but HE can't do that because he feels a mixture of duty to his throne, egotism, and family pressure...ALL of that is missing in the original text, it's very black-and-white, Moses is good and Rameses is wrong and evil and the bad guy with no redeeming qualities and no depth given, he's just evil and egotistic, full stop--that's not complex.

That's not real...I daresay most of the un-indoctrinated, thus, don't by the story for the same reason most people over the age of 16 don't buy Romeo and Juliet as really being in love--namely, we know better.

We KNOW real love takes longer than a couple of quick dates and kisses, and that it's really just infatuation rather than a deeper, meaningful love story Romeo and Juliet have going on...and...

We KNOW people aren't black-and-white all-good or all-evil, that's why a lot of brainless action movies today get such poor reviews and why comic book movies now try and make once-one-dimensional baddies (the Joker, Doctor Octopus) deeper, more three-dimensional characters, because mustache-twirling, all-evil bad guys aren't realistic and we don't buy it, and if we don't buy it we can't get invested.

Thus, the original TEXT of Exodus sets up a great idea and archetype--oppressors vs. underdog, brother turned against brother, worldly egotism vs. humility and faith--but it doesn't capitalize on that in the text by creating one-dimensional characters and focusing more on the religious/legalistic aspects of the story than these literary ones.

When HOMER comes to a big moment in The Iliad, he has one of his great heroes give a grand speech...

When SHAKESPEARE comes to a big moment in "Hamlet," he has the Prince of Denmark/King of Rambling go on and on and analyze in great and poetic depth that choice...

When Exodus comes to one of the most climactic moments of the OT, so important a HOLIDAY follows from it (Passover, of course), what does Moses say?
Some sort of rousing speech to buoy the spirits of the Israelites?
Given all the Moses/MLK parallels drawn, does he give a similar "We WILL Get to the Promised Land" speech?

No.

Of all times...this is when Moses feels it's appropriate to tell us about...

Circumcision and the need for a proper diet.

You can argue that's necessary in terms of setting of the religious ideals of the OT--I'm not arguing that.

I AM arguing it's poor narrative technique; I mean, how much more anti-climactic can you get, and how much more unfitting a moment can you pick?

While telling them what to do so God's curse "passes them over," Moses couldn't have given a speech of the MLK/inspirational sort?

Or, if it HAD to be religious, it couldn't have been a "Behold the power of GOD!" sort of fire-and-brimstone speech (since, well, God IS raining fire down on the city as part of the Plagues, so I guess if ever there was a time...)

At least THAT would've had more narrative punch.
Exodus doesn't do that.
It doesn't flesh out Pharaoh.
It doesn't flesh out the conflict.

One reason I like "The Prince of Egypt" as a film is it shows Moses MISERABLE that Egypt's being destroyed...this was his home (as he tells us in song) after all, and he feels reluctant and shameful and possibly even a little ashamed to be destroying it now and harming innocent women and children...

That makes Moses a reluctant and far more complex hero, and as a result, he's more relatable; that's missing from the Exodus account.

ALL OF THIS goes for the Jesus Crucifixion as well.

It has 4 authors, so in one sense it benefits in that if you wanted to pick and choose from each of them, you could probably construct a story from various snippets that WAS more complex and poetic...

But as it stands in each of the 4, while I don't know if I'd say they're as flat as Exodus, none really reach the lofty heights of their ideals--

For this alleged Most Important Moment Ever...the text itself doesn't live up to the billing.

Plays, poems, and paintings since have done a FAR better job capturing this idea of it being a sort of Greatest Personal Sacrifice Ever (never mind if that's actually true or if it logically follows.)

2. Yeah...no.
Not a love story.
You know what I mean.
Give me a break...

@Obi - "We KNOW real love takes longer than a couple of quick dates and kisses"

We don't *know* anything of the sort. I believe in love at first site. considering you are essentially a eunuch and definitely a virgin, your views of how people fall in love are a bit, shall we say, uninformed. That's putting it politely as I can.

They say Jesus died for our sins but that is a bullshit excuse because God who sees all, knows all did fuck all when the bad guys were torturing his lad, how can a God stand by and watch that happen especially if he could do something to stop it.
If God couldn't be arsed to protect his only son why should anybody think God is gonna save them, I think he has proved beyond doubt he doesn't give a damn.
Think about how much more powerful the crucifixion story would have been if God had saved his son rather than send a `message to the world that he would stand by and watch his son suffer a slow horrible, painful death, how can you respect a God who does that?
Personally I blame the parents.

@Nigee - I feel sorry for you.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son, so that whoever relies on him will never die, but have eternal life.

Draug - so you're condoning Gods actions, shame on you.
I learnt nothing about love from the crucifixion but a lot about hate, because you gotta hate your kid to watch them suffer like that.
Oohh God does this, God does that, ooh he's really nice and looks after us all.
No he doesn't, he was a stay away father who did nothing for his child, the sooner Christians stop encouaging this kind of behaviour the better.
I believe in the concept of family and family values and I hope good Christians can see the light and do the same.

Mujus - God gave his only son, but he hadn't been around all his life so what moral right did God have to 'give' his son, children aren't the property of absent fathers.
No what you are actually saying is God did nothing to save his son from dying a horrible, painful, tortuous death like a common criminal.
You should not be condoning such behaviour you crazy man, will you be allowing your own kids to be tortured in a similar fashion, after all if it was good enough for Jesus why not nail your own kid up on a cross for a couple of days and see how he feels about you. I'm pretty sure Jesus died actually hating his father.
Don't defend stay away fathers, this is the wrong message to give to children.

"We don't *know* anything of the sort. I believe in love at first site."

Well, yeah, it COULD be love at first SITE...just not at first *SIGHT!*

THAT would just be silly! ;)

"considering you are essentially a eunuch and definitely a virgin,"

Oh come now...a virgin yeah, but let's not go insulting eunuchs by throwing me in with their lot...

"your views of how people fall in love are a bit, shall we say, uninformed. That's putting it politely as I can."

1. I don't have to be shot point-blank in the head to know it doesn't usually leave said targeted head in the same shape (both literally and figuratively) as before.

(Some might encourage me to test that theory first hand, but that's another story.) :p

2. No.

You cannot fall in love at first sight.
Love implies a rather deep, special connection...
That does NOT happen just by locking eyes...
No matter HOW much the music swells or how perfectly you speak in iambic pentameter.

You can develop a crush, maybe, sure--

But as anyone who's been through high school will tell you, a crush based on the mere sight of someone is NOT love.

(Granted I think the whole notion of love's flawed as is--hence my picks, Much Ado, Pygmalion, and The Idiot all examine the flaws in our conceptions of love A LOT for "love stories"--but if we must go with the concept and accede to being...true, somehow, someway...there it is...)

Romeo and Juliet are NOT in love...not really in love...

They have a crush, an instantaneous teenage (well, for Juliet teenage) crush.

Now, a crush CAN develop into love...rather like a seed may develop into an oak given that it's a healthy seed and properly nourished (and you know, that no one poisons or stabs said seed before it gets that far)...

But you have to go a bit further than "seed" before I consider you "a tree."

Likewise, you have to go more than a day or week before you can say you're "in love" rather than merely having the seed of it, that is, a crush.



Granted I may be just a miserable cold virgin bastard...

But then there's no reason the head on my shoulders and its logic shouldn't be overpowered by that other head of mine, hm? ;)

You people just fed the krellin. Please refrain from doing that.

Lazarus Long and Dora Brandon from "Time Enough for Love" - Robert Heinlein.

obiwanobiwan and himself

I'm guessing from obi's post he's not actually a virgin and is employing sarcasm to demonstrate the point. Also Jesus wasn't innocent and it was reasonable to crucify him given everything

LOL SC...

And no, Socrates, full disclosure--I am a virgin.

I myself, I'm just not the dating type, don't have money to support a date and pay, and anyway, I'm just not a romantic (as you can probably tell from my cynical postings)...

I'd be a bad mate, I wouldn't know the first thing about how to be a good boyfriend--

So any woman brilliant and witty and talented and cultured enough...I'd rather have her as a friend than risk losing her as a boyfriend...

I can talk to her as a friend, and that's all I really care about, I'm not passing on DNA here, and not turned on by men (frankly I struggle to see what women must see in us) so I'll likely live a sexless life, with all my friends gradually leaving as married women (though it'd be nice if women didn't feel the need to get married so much...I think society forces that idea far too much, that marriage is the apex of a full, romantic life...marriage hurts the woman more than the man, limits and consigns her more, and unfairly so--if a man cheats it's an affair, and maybe it can be looked over or dealt with, but if a woman cheats, how often is there forgiveness the other way?)

But yeah, if I were to just be blunt and purely aesthetic about it--

So many women are rather elegant and striking in their own way, and the men they're attached to seem disinterested, meat-heads, or both, frankly I cringe nine times out of ten when I see female friends with their boyfriends, and wonder how they could put up with either such thick-headed banality and a lack of attention or else just a lack of finesse and nuance on their part in favor of the most blunt and crude gestures possible.

Since he's the married man here--and challenged me when I said I didn't think instant love was possible--I'll put him on the spot a bit--

If you'd be so kind, Draug...how do you and your wife make a good couple (assuming that you do, and you sound like you love her, and there's no evidence that she doesn't love you...so how does that work? Granted I've never been in one myself, but as a friend to enough women to this point...well, I've almost NEVER seen it end well, and my meat-headed-moron or uncaring-asshole depiction of our sex has proven accurate for their relationships thus far...and some of these people have been together for years, or even married...so how DOES your own "love story" work, if I may ask and presume it does, as it, happily, seems to work for you?) :)

Oh, I was hoping for some intense persistent sarcasm! Incidentally that makes you a bit of a dick Draug, no offence... I agree on the marriage thing but then again I'm a communist so everything is oppression in my eyes ;)

And I think this ideal of woman you speak of is rare, not as rare as the ideal of man instantiated, but rare still, trust me, bitchess be crazyyy.