A Home at the End of the World
Such Netflix synchronicity that I should get this DVD after We Don't Live Here Anymore. It's such a poignant counterpoint. It reminds me of my comparison of the counterpart paintings (Start:Heart and APart:Heart), one was all strucured and prim but kind of empty, the other was full and vibrant, but may be harder for folks to grasp or embrace.
The homeless group (they don't live THERE anymore, anyway) has all the structure, but it's devoid of love and affection. Even the two having the affair don't seem to have real love, they're just acting out of frustration and boredom. All the issues in that movie had to do with people loving people they weren't supposed to love, sexually enjoying people they were not supposed to enjoy, being attracted to people they weren't supposed to be attracted to, doing things they weren't supposed to be doing. And you know what? Despite the beautiful homes and children and perfectly socially acceptable lives, not one person in that whole film was really happy, really loving.
The closest was Hank, who did allow himself outside the stifling rules that made everyone miserable and tore the families apart. Hank was not selfish or a hypocrite though, he set up the affair for his wife and was happy that she was being attended to by the other guy. What is love if it isn't wanting happiness for the other person? He wasn't particularly deceptive either, he didn't seem to make much secret of his activity, as opposed to his wife, who coyly tells Terry to confront her cheating husband (the one she's fucking). Many may see him as the villian of the film because he had affairs first, but I see him as the closest to being loving, honest & happy character....the only smart one, because he understood the inablity of the marriage/rule structure to deliver on the American Dream of promised happiness. And, he didn't just sit there and wallow, he did what he could to make his life happy within the structure. His wife did not, and, in the end, he could not make the happiness for her. I wonder if she'll ever find peace and happiness... I doubt it, because she doesn't look to herself to find it. She was looking to Hank to provide it for her. She was looking to bask in his attention, his light, because nothing was really emanating from within.
The group whose home was at the end of the world, at least did have a loving harbor. The ever-chameleon-like Robin Wright Penn plays a free spirit who involves herself with two childhood friends that had played some gay as kids. When they reconnect as adults, the three of them live together and raise the kid she becomes pregnant with, by whom, I don't know. They never struggle to love each other or follow the rules. They do struggle a bit with the unconventionality & complexity of it all, but, it seems like such a better struggle. It's a them against the world kind of thing. They know they're different, they know they'll stand out in suburbia, but there's so much love shared freely between them. None of them feel compelled to love each other or be with each other but the whole movie is a giant love-fest, showing true caring and insight. When seen next to the other movie - it's such a stark contrast.
In the film Sissy Spacek plays a very loving, progressive mom of one of the guys (she's effectively a mom to both). She had a traditional marriage and she expresses regret at having lived so much of her life in a small box & she clearly admires the younger woman for the courage of her choices.
I can tell you, from my own perspective, I've found it's easier to worry about fitting into a larger society than deal with family members who expect you to fit into their box. First the marriages are about love and creating this ideal life together, then you have kids, your attention turns to them, you stop exercising your marriage muscles and coast on your previous love, secure in your marriage to act as a crutch and hold everything together. At first you think it'll all get back to "normal", that fun, free love, but it never really does. So, you fit yourself more and more into the marriage and, increasingly, community structure. The people within become more attuned to the kids, community, responsibilities & structure and less attuned to their own needs, since they're not allowed to follow them. They get cut off and sad because the structure, and now even their spouse, doesn't really support them as individuals. The structure is about structure and, like corporate America, sustains itself with rules and expectations. It's not about love anymore, it's about playing the game, by the rules.
The rules and structure are not without reason and purpose, and Ray Kroc and Walt Disney, who I discussed in the Super Size post used pervasive and rigid rules coupled with constant spying to build those businesses into what they are today... big and getting bigger and profitable. When cults use these tactics it's called brainwashing, when corporate America uses it, it's called productivity and when parents use it, it's called bedtime. But, it's all basically the same. Follow the rules and do what you're supposed to do, and you'll be watched. That's exactly what my marriage felt like for many years. How can you love in that kind of environment? If love isn't given freely, it's not love. I certainly didn't feel loved, I felt trapped.
In my Stepford Wives post I ask if this divided work model of marriage is working. The answer is no, but, now I realize it's not just that the work is divided, it's that the love gets replaced by obligation. Steven Stills tells us, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Now, I interpret that in the sense that if you love God and yourself, you're always with the one you love, even when those closest to us are not really loving us or us, them. But, we all understand what that line really means, it was a hit song for a reason, all the teens were singing it. Sometimes we can't get the person we think we want so we try to love the one we're with, the one who wants to be with us. And we all know how tough it is to do that, because love and obligation never seem to coexist well together.
The homeless group (they don't live THERE anymore, anyway) has all the structure, but it's devoid of love and affection. Even the two having the affair don't seem to have real love, they're just acting out of frustration and boredom. All the issues in that movie had to do with people loving people they weren't supposed to love, sexually enjoying people they were not supposed to enjoy, being attracted to people they weren't supposed to be attracted to, doing things they weren't supposed to be doing. And you know what? Despite the beautiful homes and children and perfectly socially acceptable lives, not one person in that whole film was really happy, really loving.
The closest was Hank, who did allow himself outside the stifling rules that made everyone miserable and tore the families apart. Hank was not selfish or a hypocrite though, he set up the affair for his wife and was happy that she was being attended to by the other guy. What is love if it isn't wanting happiness for the other person? He wasn't particularly deceptive either, he didn't seem to make much secret of his activity, as opposed to his wife, who coyly tells Terry to confront her cheating husband (the one she's fucking). Many may see him as the villian of the film because he had affairs first, but I see him as the closest to being loving, honest & happy character....the only smart one, because he understood the inablity of the marriage/rule structure to deliver on the American Dream of promised happiness. And, he didn't just sit there and wallow, he did what he could to make his life happy within the structure. His wife did not, and, in the end, he could not make the happiness for her. I wonder if she'll ever find peace and happiness... I doubt it, because she doesn't look to herself to find it. She was looking to Hank to provide it for her. She was looking to bask in his attention, his light, because nothing was really emanating from within.
The group whose home was at the end of the world, at least did have a loving harbor. The ever-chameleon-like Robin Wright Penn plays a free spirit who involves herself with two childhood friends that had played some gay as kids. When they reconnect as adults, the three of them live together and raise the kid she becomes pregnant with, by whom, I don't know. They never struggle to love each other or follow the rules. They do struggle a bit with the unconventionality & complexity of it all, but, it seems like such a better struggle. It's a them against the world kind of thing. They know they're different, they know they'll stand out in suburbia, but there's so much love shared freely between them. None of them feel compelled to love each other or be with each other but the whole movie is a giant love-fest, showing true caring and insight. When seen next to the other movie - it's such a stark contrast.
In the film Sissy Spacek plays a very loving, progressive mom of one of the guys (she's effectively a mom to both). She had a traditional marriage and she expresses regret at having lived so much of her life in a small box & she clearly admires the younger woman for the courage of her choices.
I can tell you, from my own perspective, I've found it's easier to worry about fitting into a larger society than deal with family members who expect you to fit into their box. First the marriages are about love and creating this ideal life together, then you have kids, your attention turns to them, you stop exercising your marriage muscles and coast on your previous love, secure in your marriage to act as a crutch and hold everything together. At first you think it'll all get back to "normal", that fun, free love, but it never really does. So, you fit yourself more and more into the marriage and, increasingly, community structure. The people within become more attuned to the kids, community, responsibilities & structure and less attuned to their own needs, since they're not allowed to follow them. They get cut off and sad because the structure, and now even their spouse, doesn't really support them as individuals. The structure is about structure and, like corporate America, sustains itself with rules and expectations. It's not about love anymore, it's about playing the game, by the rules.
The rules and structure are not without reason and purpose, and Ray Kroc and Walt Disney, who I discussed in the Super Size post used pervasive and rigid rules coupled with constant spying to build those businesses into what they are today... big and getting bigger and profitable. When cults use these tactics it's called brainwashing, when corporate America uses it, it's called productivity and when parents use it, it's called bedtime. But, it's all basically the same. Follow the rules and do what you're supposed to do, and you'll be watched. That's exactly what my marriage felt like for many years. How can you love in that kind of environment? If love isn't given freely, it's not love. I certainly didn't feel loved, I felt trapped.
In my Stepford Wives post I ask if this divided work model of marriage is working. The answer is no, but, now I realize it's not just that the work is divided, it's that the love gets replaced by obligation. Steven Stills tells us, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Now, I interpret that in the sense that if you love God and yourself, you're always with the one you love, even when those closest to us are not really loving us or us, them. But, we all understand what that line really means, it was a hit song for a reason, all the teens were singing it. Sometimes we can't get the person we think we want so we try to love the one we're with, the one who wants to be with us. And we all know how tough it is to do that, because love and obligation never seem to coexist well together.
posted by Intervision at 5:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home