Eschewing the obvious choice to take neither seriously, she falls for the older man. She lets him enjoy her, teach her, corrupt her, all for what? The possibility of stability, and wisdom? This is debunked pretty quickly for her. He leaves for a business trip to England, has his wife change the locks on their trysting place (How much she's in on it remains a small mystery, but there's evidence that she gets it, is okay with it, and, because of her moral flexibility, benefits from the arrangement.), and unceremoniously ends it (He says after he rebuffs her following their first sexual encounter, that he's protecting her from him, which is true, but he takes her for a spin or two afterward, because she's willing and, because he thinks she's bright and open-minded enough not to fall in love).
So, when this fails, she turns to the second, Paul, though her heart remains with the older Charles. One can't help but see the frailty of sentiment. Paul, knowing that he's the second choice, can't live above it. Though he gets his dream girl, he has visions of her with Charles, etc. Haunted by his knotted past, and a twisted personality, he refuses, radically, to be circumspect. If all's fair in love and war, then it must include the possibility that one party can go to war with himself, as well as his rival. Paul does it, and ends up in prison. Not long after, the once bright Gabrielle, testifies to the truth of the matter, believing that the truth will vindicate all. It does not. It leaves her, its most trusting ally, on the short side. So it goes.
From what I've read about the nature of love and sexuality in France (Mitterand's had several mistresses and they attended his funeral, along with his wife.) I wonder if the film isn't a discussion of the possibility of a change from these "old values" of the flexible and pragmatic sexual more of the older set, that understands infidelity to be a norm to be born and forgiven - as compared to the sexual idealism of the younger set, that somehow has stumbled into an old-fashioned romanticism that plays for all or nothing. If that is a reasonable way to see this movie, then its statement is clear: the young will pay with heartache and disappointment, while the old will move along, jaded but unsurprised.
I guess I'm old. Though I'm not anticipating infidelity of any sort, I hope that when passions are in play I am able to maintain my presence of mind, rather than falling into self-indulgent despair. Disappointments will come. Our best defense is reflection and practicality. It's not too romantic to say it, but romantics are far more likely to find themselves broken-hearted (and then it's only a matter of time until tears, or blood, is shed). It's better to seek self-control, to keep things together.
Indirectly the movie asks about the nature of love. It's a good question. The answer? I don't know. I'm tempted into a pithy either or. Here goes: Stay for the delusion, or stay for the principle. But whatever you do, stay. If you leave for the delusion, or for the principle, there's too much evidence that you're simply out. And with love, it's better to be in. I think.
2 comments:
But wouldn't a romantic argue that the tears, or bloodshed, if it comes to that, is an acceptable price for allowing oneself to feel with limitless intensity?
Well maybe, but in this film, the final portrayal is that she is symbolically (literally) cut in two in front of a live audience, on a magician's table, by a giant-sized, stainless steel circular saw. At least it seems to me that the "limitless intensity" of the sexual encounters she's experienced with the older man were, to her, a means to an end: a long term love affair with him. It seems to me that, in most things, "the ends do not justify the means," or to put it positively, "how you get there matters." The challenge of being in the moment is abandonment, without, I think, attachment. Perhaps the romanticism (hedonism) of Byron, Whitman, et.al. works for them. But they are men, who seem to be able to flit from one intensity to another, in a quasi-limitless way. I don't often see women seeking this sort of experience. There may be a few Lady Gagas out there, but I'd suggest that it works for them because of their social status and their personal power; they can afford to just blow things off as individual moments of "limitless intensity." But anytime you catch yourself, using your physical, human voice, saying words like "limitless" be very afraid. There's a deception in the air. Someone will pay whenever the laws of physics are ignored. I suspect that the universe has a parallel set of laws of the spirit too.
For what it's worth. And thanks for reading and responding! I love the conversation.
Post a Comment