It is a fine line between accepting things the way they are and falling into the trap of self-fulfilling prophecy. There is no way to maintain any sort of stability or functionality but to accept things the way they are. But accepting the status quo can easily become stultifying, stunting, a committment – however unplanned or undesired – to the way things are now, which is one tiny step away from self-sabotage, from preventing yourself from exploring and taking risks and pushing away from the mooring of the known to venture on the high seas of the unknown, the unknowable.
It’s a scary world out there.
I’ve been watching movies during my spring break. I’d planned on going out and having drinks and conversations and possibly hangovers. Instead I’ve been predominantly sober (excepting tonight) and spending a lot of time ripping seams on thrift store clothes and imagining fascinating (to me) new ways of combining materials and gorging on movies and short stories. While I have a constant stream of the latter running through my head, just waiting for the day that I have the patience and stamina and inspiration to write them down, the other, the films, have had me thinking. So here is a rundown.
I saw Greenberg last Monday with a friend. It is a wonderfully acted film. The characters feel so incredibly real – it is like you could walk to the local coffee shop and there they are, standing in line, waiting, a little unsure about their choice, but prepared to make their order and accept the fact that they will not be exactly happy about it, that it won’t be the perfect drink, that it will not completely satisfy whatever it is they are needing, but that it will be enough. Which is exactly how life is. A continuous and occasionally monotonous series of enoughs. Never more than. Often less than. But seldom critically insufficient. Just the bare minimum to maintain the status quo.
This has been my experience this recession – a perpetualization of the bare minimum. I wonder how this prolonged exposure to living at the edge (by American standards – though not that far off by many other standards either. I mean, I have food and shelter and a computer and a car. But I also live alone, on my own, and I’m always two weeks away from moving in with my parents or my friends or living out of my car. I recognize that is different than starving in Ethiopia or living under a tarp in Haiti, or walking among roadside bombs in Afghanistan, but it is still unstable, still scary, still a constant source of stress. Because, and I can officially say this from experience, living out of your is not easy. It is similar to living in a tent, only you never get to fully stretch your legs out when you sleep. So this edge I’m on, this edge is valid. It may not be fatal, but it certainly is not inconsequential.) I wonder how living on this edge will change me in the long term. I suspect that it will not be that much different than the people who survived the great depression, who in their 70’s and 80’s still hoarded canned food, and refused to buy new furniture or clothes when the old were still serviceable, and who left considerable sums of savings to their spouses and children – not because they were investing geniuses or because they somehow struck it rich, but because they lived a lifetime of frugality. I think about what it would be like to earn enough money to cover my bills and then some and I don’t imagine the vacations I would take and the clothes I would buy and the cars I would drive, I imagine how much money I could save by living as I do now, how quickly I could pay off my student loans, how rapidly I could contribute to my retirement – only without the stress of homelessness lurking behind every paycheck. I have a hard time imagining otherwise.
That is not what the movie is about though. The movie is about what happens when life doesn’t live up to our expectations. It’s about what happens when we must face that discrepancy – when we have to reconcile what is with what we thought would be. There is a fair amount of irony in this – particularly if you take a fourth wall/metaphysical view. I mean, here is Ben Stiller, an actor who has had the skill/karma/sheer luck of being successful in one of the handful of industries in which success guarantees wealth, portraying a character who is facing the reality that he will never be successful, at least, not in the modern cultural definition of success. That he does it convincingly is a testament to the skill aspect of his success. That it is impossible to forget that one is watching a movie about the reality of reality is probably the film’s main downfall. It asks unanswerable questions, and leaves the ends untidy. That is its charm. It presents its characters realistically and includes their flaws and neurosis. That is its interest. But it is a film. An art project for the rich and famous. And that is its challenge, and ultimately, it’s failure.
Still. I say go and see. It is not a bad way to spend an afternoon, and it will raise questions – the questions that we least like to have raised and most often should be asking.
Last night I watched Forgetting Sarah Marshal. I have to confess that I have a slight crush on Jason Segel. I try not to. He’s exactly the kind of guy that I break. Into itty bitty pieces. But still, there he is, vulnerable when he should be impervious, obtuse when he should be acute, and as accessible as a Reader’s Digest abandoned in your grandmother’s bathroom. During a funereal. He does more damage to my perception of males (sidebar – I am a total misogynist – I freely admit this. But I am also a misandrist – in that I am always amazed when men express sincere emotions or show any sort of real interest or appreciation for others. This does not apply to my male friends, who never fail to surprise me with their humanity, just as my misogyny does not apply to my female friends. Yet from everyone else, I will confess now, I expect the worst. And sometimes I even expect it from my friends – which gives them lots of leeway when it comes to living life as it is instead of as Disney has told us it should be.) than any other public figure I can think of. Yet he couches it in the realm of comedy. Which is good, I guess. I mean, without the permission to break the tension with the occasional chuckle, the strain of awkwardness would be unbearable. And that is pretty much how the whole movie runs. It is continuously awkward, and intentionally so. But the comedy, the over-the-top-ishness, the behavior that is so obviously that of a character and so completely removed from any experience (I’ve had) of reality keeps the film moving – makes it worth watching.
Another tangent. Am I the only one to notice how much of our daily interaction seems scripted these days? Or is it simply the fact that I’m living a very stunted life right now – perpetually on a short micro managed leash? I’m astounded when I have a conversation that steps outside the parameters set by reality TV and Fashion Magazines and Wireless commercials. Maybe I’m just too out of touch. Maybe I’m spending so much time hiding with my textbooks and peer-reviewed articles and thesis statements that I’m the one who isn’t holding up her end of the human interaction. But I don’t think so. I spend a great deal of every day out there, moving around in the world. And the only thing that keeps me from being continually disappointed is the fact that I have such low expectations to begin with. What do I do about that? What can I do about that?
End Tangent.
Tonight I watched (500) Days of Summer. Of the three films, I would most strongly recommend this one. There are two scenes that speak to me so sincerely in this film – both of them questioning the paradigm of romance on which we build our perceptions of inter-gender relationships – that cut to my core. I find that I have asked the same questions – not out of heartbreak or simple disillusionment, but because I can see no real evidence of the thing that our culture, our history, and our friends and family insist exists. Love? What is that? A word, for sure, but what does it mean? What does it actually stand for? I remember before I was to get married when a younger friend of mine asked me what it felt like to be in love, and I said to her “you’ll know it when it happens” which was one of the biggest lies I’ve ever told. I wasn’t in love then – and I knew it – I didn’t know what love did feel like, but I was pretty damn clear on what it didn’t feel like. To have a film approach this subject head on and unflinchingly is refreshing. In many ways it reminded me of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Both films are a juxtaposition of the expected and the remembered with the real. Expectations are simply imagined memories, and, as a rule, fair badly against the banality that is reality. It (life) will not go the way we expect. It (and it doesn’t matter what it is) won’t. That is real.
Of the three films, the acting (and the actors) are most watchable in (500) Days of Summer. But all three deserve the time they require. All three approach relationships from a real, but not unappealing point of view. All three make genuine and novel contributions to the library of romantic fiction. But they are still movies. Still stories. Still fiction.
Someday I would like to see a film about what happens when somebody decides to opt out – to ignore the instinctual drive to couple. What happens to those people who live their lives alone? Ok. That is enough from me. I can feel the vodka blending my brain cells together into a pastey gray mush. Time to go be unconscious.
And tomorrow maybe I’ll see a movie.