In the movie, Love in the Afternoon, Ariane, played by Audrey Hepburn, is a young girl who lives at home with her detective father. Ariane makes a habit of rummaging through her father's files, which deal primarily with romance and infidelity. One client of her father's is a man whose wife has been found visiting the Ritz suite occupied by Mr. Flannigan repeatedly. Mr. Flannigan is an American who dates and seduces a number of women. Ariane overhears that the husband intends to shoot Mr. Flannigan and, in order to save him, she climbs through his balcony window at the decided time and takes the place of the wife. Upon barging into the room, the husband feels foolish and claims to have been mistaken. Ariane is deeply attracted to Mr. Flannigan but is fearful of his reputation. She, thus, decides to remain mysterious and slightly distanced, and to put herself into the same rink as Mr. Flannigan by claiming to have been with numerous men. After the unfolding of several events, the two end up riding away on a train together, with the narrator telling the viewers that they are to be happily married.
This movie, first copyrighted in 1959, reflects the society of the time in the manner of speech, dress, behavior, and other outlets. Furthermore, although Mr. Flannigan is portrayed as a playboy of the time, he is never shown to do more than slow dance with his affairs. This seduction includes his attending band of Gypsies, who play an exact time and selection of music. Although Flannigan's charade is typically a night affair, Ariane will only meet him in the afternoon so as not to raise the suspicion of her father. Overall, the romance between Ariane and Flannigan is innocent, never progressing past a kiss.
Love in the Afternoon has a larger sense of Romanticism than what we expect to see in movies today. As mentioned, the two travel away together to a happily ever after. The woman gets the dreamy man and the promiscuous man settles for the love of one beautiful woman. This romantic notion is set into the minds of the viewers as idealistic, possibly even deserved idealism, and may have, even minutely, contributed to the mindset of society and its feelings towards courtship.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Topic
Although oftentimes diluted, the portrayal,in film, of commonalities and/or expectations in relationships generates the reciprocal effect of reflecting and influencing society, a key factor in decisions made in courtship, because the slight congruity between films lends to the ideas of normalcy and love as defined by society.
Monday, February 12, 2007
New Direction of Evidence
Thus far, I have explored several ideas about love in and of itself. Firstly, I explored the mental notion of an ideal, intangible love that contrasts to reality. This notion is a common cause of restlessness within a relationship and of single individuals being incapable of fathoming the idea of love. In my second post, the thought of real love versus faux love was further explored but with a different vantage point. The perspective detailed the way in which love can be become a role to play and, thus, becomes artificialized and impassionate. Finally, the third post cites love as a choice made upon a presented opportunity and what makes us choose between juxtaposed opportunities. The blog, in general, seems to lead to the question of whether or not true love exists and how we go about finding it without getting caught up in something superficial? I would now like to start examining this and related ideas as portrayed in various films.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Love as an Opportunistic Choice
Scenario: A beautiful, young woman could have any man in any room at the snap of her fingers. However, the woman is interested in two men in particular and is trying to decide which one she would want to be in a relationship with. In the juxtaposition of two decent men, what is it that excels one and disenfranchises the other? Is it appearance, availability, money, largely reciprocated interest, or simply an unfounded choice? Either way, it eventually comes down to a choice of sorts.
Oftentimes, the situation is not so blatant as to be choosing between two individual people, but there is no doubt about the fact that we choose. This is not to say that we don’t feel anything towards the people we take interest in, of course, but that the love grows after we decide to love that person. Take in perspective how people, for the most part, don’t fall in love with their best friend’s spouse and how many people have a “type” they pursue. A number of decisions, many unconscious, are based on social “rules”.
Furthermore, there is variation in opportunity. In the aforementioned example, the beautiful woman could have any man she wanted. In other words, she has every opportunity for love or, at least, a date. However, consider the decreasing number of opportunities for love that surface as age accumulates. As people typically date people of relatively close age, an older woman would encounter more married men and less opportunity. She may also be involved with a more serious career, a family from a previous marriage, etc. This difference in opportunistic love is readily portrayed in television, film, and society.
One movie that portrays several of these ideas is Something's Gotta Give, starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton. Nicholson stars as Harry Langer, an older man with the tendency to be involved with much younger women. He is dating a woman named Marin who invites him to a family beachhouse. Once there, Harry encounters heart problems and Marin's mother, Erica (Keaton), is left to his care while Marin must return to her daily life. In rash summary, Harry and Erica end up falling in love. This is an anticipated storyline because society seems to deem large age differences in relationships as inappropriate and as an insufficient basis for love. Furthermore, to explore the ideas of compatibility, choice, and comfort, the direction in the movie is foreseen when the fact that Erica is acting as a caretaker is taken into account.
Oftentimes, the situation is not so blatant as to be choosing between two individual people, but there is no doubt about the fact that we choose. This is not to say that we don’t feel anything towards the people we take interest in, of course, but that the love grows after we decide to love that person. Take in perspective how people, for the most part, don’t fall in love with their best friend’s spouse and how many people have a “type” they pursue. A number of decisions, many unconscious, are based on social “rules”.
Furthermore, there is variation in opportunity. In the aforementioned example, the beautiful woman could have any man she wanted. In other words, she has every opportunity for love or, at least, a date. However, consider the decreasing number of opportunities for love that surface as age accumulates. As people typically date people of relatively close age, an older woman would encounter more married men and less opportunity. She may also be involved with a more serious career, a family from a previous marriage, etc. This difference in opportunistic love is readily portrayed in television, film, and society.
One movie that portrays several of these ideas is Something's Gotta Give, starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton. Nicholson stars as Harry Langer, an older man with the tendency to be involved with much younger women. He is dating a woman named Marin who invites him to a family beachhouse. Once there, Harry encounters heart problems and Marin's mother, Erica (Keaton), is left to his care while Marin must return to her daily life. In rash summary, Harry and Erica end up falling in love. This is an anticipated storyline because society seems to deem large age differences in relationships as inappropriate and as an insufficient basis for love. Furthermore, to explore the ideas of compatibility, choice, and comfort, the direction in the movie is foreseen when the fact that Erica is acting as a caretaker is taken into account.
Projected Love
It is overwhelmingly easy to get caught up in a moment, a schedule, a role. That said, it is logical to assume that many couples may be doing just this; they get caught up in momentary fun, call it a relationship, and take on the roles of people in love. People who don’t take time out to examine the relationship and its function in their life may never see this objective view. Perhaps this compatibility and role-playing can last a durable amount of time but is this, simultaneously, the reason why so many couples end up unhappy?
Compatibility is a flexible term. Many people use it in reference to the level at which two people are agreeable and when saying two people are compatible for each other, he/she is typically referring to a high level of connection between the two. However, what if compatibility is merely the ability to get along? For lack of more optimistic phrasing, what if these “compatible” couples are simply two people that can live alongside each other without plotting murder? Subjectively apply a couple of lovely words, a supposed higher meaning, and you’ve got love?
The intent is not to sound bitter or propose that love does not exist. Rather, the idea is that true love is rarer than we like to convince ourselves to believe. A woman watches a film about a romantic relationship and is afterwards left with a resounding, faux- love feeling. However, this is not love, it is a manipulation of emotion. Partly due to these fantastical ideas and manipulations, many women form ideas about what elements combine to form the perfect man and a sketchy definition of what love is. Then, when a man comes along, says the “right” words at the “right” times, and projects interest, a woman may come to the conclusion that he is the “right” guy because she has been able to put checkmarks in all of the boxes.
It’s simple to dismiss these people as unbelievably ignorant but to be caught up in a mode, in a compartment of life, is an incredibly powerful force. So, unfortunately, the question remains: how do we define true love and separate it from the faux love?
Compatibility is a flexible term. Many people use it in reference to the level at which two people are agreeable and when saying two people are compatible for each other, he/she is typically referring to a high level of connection between the two. However, what if compatibility is merely the ability to get along? For lack of more optimistic phrasing, what if these “compatible” couples are simply two people that can live alongside each other without plotting murder? Subjectively apply a couple of lovely words, a supposed higher meaning, and you’ve got love?
The intent is not to sound bitter or propose that love does not exist. Rather, the idea is that true love is rarer than we like to convince ourselves to believe. A woman watches a film about a romantic relationship and is afterwards left with a resounding, faux- love feeling. However, this is not love, it is a manipulation of emotion. Partly due to these fantastical ideas and manipulations, many women form ideas about what elements combine to form the perfect man and a sketchy definition of what love is. Then, when a man comes along, says the “right” words at the “right” times, and projects interest, a woman may come to the conclusion that he is the “right” guy because she has been able to put checkmarks in all of the boxes.
It’s simple to dismiss these people as unbelievably ignorant but to be caught up in a mode, in a compartment of life, is an incredibly powerful force. So, unfortunately, the question remains: how do we define true love and separate it from the faux love?
Friday, February 2, 2007
The Idealization of the Unknown
There is a distinct disparity between society’s ideas on what love really is and what it should be. It's a battle between compatibility and practicality, often conceived as reality, versus a sense of Romanticism and idealization. However, even these ideas, of both reality and fantasy encounter variation over time and between societies.
The mode of love in a society can most often be examined by the roles of the sexes. In a general segmentation of American history, the 19th century saw women devoid of the right to vote, own individual land, and earn equal wages in the workforce. Women were expected to wear modest clothing, act in subservience to men, and to dream merely of a family of typicality. In other words, the supposed notion of love was the institution of marriage. Much to the same effect, men were held up to a certain standardization of value in society; the ability to provide for the family, possession of a sense of machismo, and many other pressures bore on the man’s mind until life in itself was a set of rules and obligations, rather than passions and desires.
Under these presuppositions, it is clear how love can become a role to play in life. The woman stays at home, cooks, cleans, and waits for her husband to return from work. The man showcases his wife at dinner parties and smokes a cigar at the birth of his son. In essence, they are the perfect cookie-cutter couple. However, the introduction of the idea of ambition, passion, or an intense love, may be cause for the disgruntled spouse. For example, in The Bell Jar, Esther is a writer skeptical of the notion of love. She considers the thought of marriage with Buddy, the typical outline of what a husband should be. However, she fights herself over the point because she rejects the idea of becoming a molded person after marriage. (He proposes that she will not wish to write as a wife.) In this case, personal ambition is the reason for unacceptance although, oftentimes, the lack of excitement and passion drives dreams to another place.
Film seems to be one of the largest promotions of this idealistic love. From the time we are little, we become conditioned in our thoughts on love. Many children are raised watching movies such as Cinderella in which the dejected woman eventually gets her prince. In Beauty and the Beast, the Beast transforms back into the perfect man. These ideas become ingrained in us as humans and we continuously search for our fairy tale love.
Literature, music, and other art forms also tend to promote idealization in society. They may point out the faults of a situation or they may propose a whole new ideal level of emotion. In either case, the mind begins to accept the idea that there will always be something better out there. Much for this reason, de Rougemont curses passion because it derails practicality and the necessity to regenerate society. However, even in what would be considered a happy relationship, the individual mind will always, at least subconsciously, wonder about that which is different, perhaps better.
The mode of love in a society can most often be examined by the roles of the sexes. In a general segmentation of American history, the 19th century saw women devoid of the right to vote, own individual land, and earn equal wages in the workforce. Women were expected to wear modest clothing, act in subservience to men, and to dream merely of a family of typicality. In other words, the supposed notion of love was the institution of marriage. Much to the same effect, men were held up to a certain standardization of value in society; the ability to provide for the family, possession of a sense of machismo, and many other pressures bore on the man’s mind until life in itself was a set of rules and obligations, rather than passions and desires.
Under these presuppositions, it is clear how love can become a role to play in life. The woman stays at home, cooks, cleans, and waits for her husband to return from work. The man showcases his wife at dinner parties and smokes a cigar at the birth of his son. In essence, they are the perfect cookie-cutter couple. However, the introduction of the idea of ambition, passion, or an intense love, may be cause for the disgruntled spouse. For example, in The Bell Jar, Esther is a writer skeptical of the notion of love. She considers the thought of marriage with Buddy, the typical outline of what a husband should be. However, she fights herself over the point because she rejects the idea of becoming a molded person after marriage. (He proposes that she will not wish to write as a wife.) In this case, personal ambition is the reason for unacceptance although, oftentimes, the lack of excitement and passion drives dreams to another place.
Film seems to be one of the largest promotions of this idealistic love. From the time we are little, we become conditioned in our thoughts on love. Many children are raised watching movies such as Cinderella in which the dejected woman eventually gets her prince. In Beauty and the Beast, the Beast transforms back into the perfect man. These ideas become ingrained in us as humans and we continuously search for our fairy tale love.
Literature, music, and other art forms also tend to promote idealization in society. They may point out the faults of a situation or they may propose a whole new ideal level of emotion. In either case, the mind begins to accept the idea that there will always be something better out there. Much for this reason, de Rougemont curses passion because it derails practicality and the necessity to regenerate society. However, even in what would be considered a happy relationship, the individual mind will always, at least subconsciously, wonder about that which is different, perhaps better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)