I summarized the flick without spoilage: a girl doesn’t believe she can love, so to understand “love” she strives to define it.
She interviews scientists, intellectuals, friends, and in a very “When Harry met Sally” style, she interviews and records the love stories of several couples. One couple:
A man and woman worked together. One day, the woman was wearing a brand new pair of expensive boots, and it was raining. Standing next to each other under a canopy, she told the man, “Great. Time to ruin these boots.”
The man said, “Hold on.”
He ran off, then returned in his Jeep, which he drove up the steps and under the canopy to save her boots.
I told Todd that the boots weren’t the point; it was that this man performed this very gallant gesture. Whether he did it for sex, or love, or lust, or kindness, or respect–he didn’t give a shit, he just did it.
Then I said, “I just don’t believe that kind of chivalry exists anymore.”
I expected Todd to say something typical, like: “Come on, you emotional wind-bag. Where’s your spine?”
Instead, he said, “I agree.”
Then he told me what he believed love is. He said people haven’t changed in the past 10,000 years, just our lifestyles. Love existed 400 years ago as a means of survival. People were like partners in a business deal, and they married to have children, and those children helped tend the farm, and everyone worked together to provide food and shelter. Families were like a small co-op. Nowadays, life is simpler. At least, it’s simpler in Western society. We don’t have to choose a husband/wife. Marriage is no longer a necessity for survival. Love can be a pure and raw emotion if it’s allowed to survive outside of dependence, or whatever other superficial roadblocks we construct to block its growth.
It’s one man’s opinion. First of all, I don’t want to drop the ball on chivalry, but I’d like add to his thoughts and say I don’t think there is a clearly defined border around this amoeba-like definition of love. I mean, 400 years ago, in merry ol’ England, around 1600, homosexual love was common–even if that love incurred the death penalty. It wasn’t till the 1700s that gender types became more rigid and homosexuality became more taboo. Now? Our views on homosexuality, gay marriage, and all that orbits is in constant change.
Chivalry has also undergone change through the centuries. According to Wikipedia (granted, not always the most trusted source for information), after the 12th century, chivalry was seen as a code that emphasized the virtues of courage, honor, and service. It was an ideal of life and manners of knights. Now, we use it as a term to describe an ideal of modern-day knights. Of course, with our our very American autonomy of thought, we each want different things. Sure, I want a guy to open doors for me every once in a while, but I don’t want a man to drop his coat in a puddle so I don’t get sewage on my feet. Blech!
Am I making sense?
The definitions of love and chivalry morph because life morphs around us. Each of us should have our own inner Wikipedia page of love, including a link to how much chivalry we can tolerate. For me, just knowing a boy would take me under his coat to guard me from hail (as I would do for him if my coat was big enough), or some other reasonably chivalrous act is enough; however, throwing his coat over a pile of horse manure so I don’t aerate it with my heels is pretty ridiculous, expensive, and kinda gross.
So wiki away. Want an open relationship with 4 other people? Great. Want to have kids by yourself? Want to be a good Christian and abstain from sex until you’ve found the one you want to spend the rest of your life with… guess what? That’s okay.
Don’t forget it’s okay to edit.
I’d really like to talk to Charlyne Yi’s character in Paper Heart right now. Can someone give her a call?
Printed by permission. Visit Mari's blog at http://www.mari-go-round.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment