There's an old adage about screenwriting that goes along the lines of, "Whenever a man and woman are talking in a script, no matter what they are talking about, they are always talking about sex." It's an underlying premise of the conversation. The subject could be getting her out of Russia, the weather in June, auto-repair - but the characters are still entwined in a sublimely subtle dance of sexual negotiation. And at some point in the movie, they will end up together. It might be as simple and innocent as the kiss in Princess Bride or as steamy as the sex scenes in 9 and 1/2 Weeks, but you know that the two are working their way toward physically (and emotionally - can't forget that even in movies, sex is an emotional thing) being together.
The same could be said, I think, of love. I think that in some ways, all conversations that we have are conversations about love - or if you can't stretch that far, they are about human connection. We're always feeling each other out.
The debate continues as to whether a guy and girl can be friends - something that When Harry Met Sally thrust upon the world. Still, there's no definitive answer. I tend to sway back and forth. I think more interesting than that is the question of why we should be debating it. Why are we so drawn to the topic? Why are men so incredibly taken by women? Why are women so longing for men?
The simple answer is the animalistic one. We need water, food, shelter and mating. In that order. With water and food basically taken out of the equation by modern society, and shelter pretty much dealt with (if you're not looking for a place in DC that is) mating/partnering is our only great struggle left as animals. The only one.
In the Symposium, Plato, recounting the voices of many philosophers at a party, describes love in the most vivid of ways. Socrates' answer of course is the shining, perfect example, bringing forth the idea that love is an incurable connection to the God-force, true love is Godly love. For the most part I can agree with love being a great connective force toward ultimate reality.
But I was always more in favor of Aristophanes' story. It's funnier anyway. The short version is this:
Before man took the form he and she are in today, there existed beings made up of two of everything. Two heads, two torsos, two sets of arms, two sets of legs. The moved around by cartwheeling and lived in utter bliss. But they made the Gods mad with how happy they were - how perfect - (noting any similarities to other stories?) - so the Gods split them in two and cast them apart. From that day on, then, the creatures spent most of their time looking for their other half, the person that completed them. And when they found one another, they wanted to press up close against each other, trying once again to become truly connected.
Socrates passes this story off as base, foolish, a trifle definition of love and longing.
I've always really liked it though. It's romantic and it makes incredible sense. Perhaps we were together at one point and ripped apart. It's all we can do as humans to get that feeling back. Have you ever noticed that you don't have to have experienced love in order to want it? Are there any other things in life like that?
Saying, "you don't know what you're missing," just doesn't apply. We do know what we're missing without even knowing what it's like.
Best of luck with your last great struggle. And remember, men and women are only always talking about sex in the movies.
No comments:
Post a Comment