"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe book is better than the film mostly because of the writer Ondatje's prose. Before I saw this film, someone who had seen it, told me the love depicted in this film isn't real. After seeing this film, I can see how her suspension of disbelief in this regard could've been distracting to other movie-goers as well. Frankly, some of the intense displays of love were laughable and seem to be on the edge of parody. But by the end, everyone should realize this is a big message piece of art. It is not specifically about love at all, it uses \"love\" to dialectically reveal the human divide or the arbitrary borders of countries that help justify wars and hatred. It is about misunderstandings and the blind following of the things that supposedly separate us. The critical scene for the real theme of this movie is when the hero or antihero's pleas for help for his stranded lover in the desert is ignored and disregarded for the reasons shown in that scene. This film is also about hope and forgiveness, the hope epitomized in the interracial relationship between Binoche's recovering character and the Indian minesweeper (echoed in the Sikh's buddy-buddy relationship with his white coworker who ends up dying nonsensically) and the forgiveness epitomized in the Caravaggio character's first hunt and then forcing out of what he thinks will be the hero's confessions for his war \"crimes\" (betrayal of country). I think the film could've been made even better than it is. I don't know if a more realistic portrayal of the circumstances of love would've made the real themes and points of this film even more obvious or not, but I agree this film is not about realistic romantic love, as the people behind this piece of art or film imply in an early scene when the eventual lovers first meet. The hero talks about how a new car, broken-down car, fast car, etc. (I'm paraphrasing) is still just a car no matter what adjective you put in front of it. She replies but parental love, platonic love, romantic love, etc. are very different kinds of love. This is ironic because this film is really about the one love all humans should want which is the love of (or for) peace (not materialistic things which are usually the real reasons for wars, epitomized in something most of us want such as \"cars\", let's say). Otherwise, we may be left stranded to die in a cave in a vast desert with ancient wall art/drawings of swimmers, suggesting that the seas and life-supporting waters which were once there have all but disappeared. I believe \"The English Patient\" won the Oscar because of these big messages not specifically for its depiction of romantic love. Awards tend to go that way. The relationship of the hero and heroine was necessary to draw the audience in, unfortunately this view of love may be antiquated in the age of divorce and so many singles who can't seem to get together on so many levels, so ridiculous versions of mythic love are hard to get into, even in daydreams, which film love has always been, especially in good old Hollywood. The film may fall short of what people expect but a 7 out of 10 movie worth seeing, regardless.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"