The first time I watched it, I was struck by a little amount of contempt I felt towards Johansson's character; how she seems to defeatedly accept everything that comes by and doesn't participate in or steer her life. But that passed; there was no judgment made because, sometimes, our lives seem bigger than we are, and we feel we have no control or ability to control or the need for it.
The scond time I watched it, it was just a simple, multilayered, beautiful, gentle ode to loneliness and companionship, inspiration and boredom, maturity and the process of maturing, and to the environment and the person. It was also when I decided that, visually, the sequence of when Johansson's character visit Kyoto and the shrine was my favourite.
This time, what struck me was the "foolish" and unguardedly happy smiles on both their faces at the end, on the busy street in Tokyo, when they hug and kiss. So it's love. I'm not classifying the emotin because I don't think it can be; I don't think you can put love in a drawer and friendship in another and different kinds of love in separate drawers. The way I attempt to understand it, the emotion is the same, everywhere; it is preoccupation with somebody other than yourself, in such a way as to desire happiness or comfort or love for them, even at the cost of your own, and not expect anything in return.*
In that last scene, there was a bit of this reflected, I think. At that particular moment, they were both - perfectly - happy. Only that one moment, maybe, but then, that was because at the end of that moment, their minds started filling up again; details of lives as they were prior to the moment.
I think that one moment shows what love is meant to be - it's in the present; it's happy; it recognizes no obstacles. But it has to exist with all the other moments, and that is when things get complicated. We stuff so much into love - duty, responsibility, expectation, ideas about existing lives like career, money, security - that we forget what it is and make it into some monster of a messed-up rangoli.
Maybe, if we were to let love rule the world - as it is; no introductions or interpolations - everything would be all right.
All you need is love?
***
*It differs because it's directed to different people, and we expect different things from them.
5 comments:
Leetal wanderer watches many movies.
Thanks much for the reviews.
(Hint, hint, I blog too :-) )
Much lowwe,
Seeker
@theseeker:
Lou back. :)
So much lou all over this place, I almost slipped on the stuff. Ugh. :)
But Lost in Translation is a brilliant movie. It has a wonderfully lethargic feel, but is never boring. Yus, the Kyoto shrine scene was a highlight :)
The relationship between Scarlett (of slutty fame!) and Bill Murray is quite weird. Some kind of transient father-daughter vibe there. But yes, lots of love (as per your definition) going around.
Lou in the present? if only. But it's an ideal, like you said. All the world needs is love? Perhaps, yes. Again, an ideal I guess.
Enough of this lou business, I'm off to listen to some super-nihilistic, ultra-kvlt Black Metal. :D
P.S. Your theme change is an improvement. I like!! But perhaps you should consider switching the archives and blogroll column to the right. Just a suggestion.
Ah. You seem to have changed it just when I commented.
I like new one very much. Yes. Keep, keep! I approve! :)
@verun:
No?! I also caught father-daughter vibe. Only I thought of it more as a "I'd love to take care of you and make sure you're okay. I'd worry about you if you weren't." sort of thing.
Glad you like new one. I'm still experimenting.
Post a Comment