Monday, November 21, 2005

Spanglish

I went home this weekend. Before I went home this weekend, I was certain that going home this weekend would provide me with an opportunity to focus on work. I have the same thoughts whenever I decide to go home for the weekend. Everytime I do go home for the weekend, I end up sitting around and watching hours of TV. This is both satisfying and frustrating.

It always starts out the same - me sitting in the living room with my parents. This time it started at 10p.m. At around 11, my mom dropped out. My dad thought he could roll with me, run alongside the hours I keep, but by 12 he was fading. As always, I was left alone in the living room, HBO on Demand in the palm of my hand.

After catching up on all the missed episodes of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," I decided to watch "Spanglish;" I can safely say it's one of my top 20-30 movies of all time (I have roughly 9 movies I'd rate a perfect 10, and another 20-30 I'd rate a 9; "Spanglish" falls into that 9 category).

I have a lot of good things to say about the film, such as how great all the actors were, and how well the story developed. But outside of its "artistic" value, I wanted to quickly discussed some real world notions it helped me realize (some spoilers ahead):

1. Nice guys get screwed - Adam Sandler's character is a top chef, a good dad, and a loving husband, but he gets screwed (his wife cheats on him). He has an opportunity to get a revenge of sorts (get together with the Spanish housekeeper), but chooses not to take it, which is what the nice guy would probably do. He ends up as the moral fiber of the film, but I question whether this was the right decision. Do nice guys cease being nice if they get back at the people that hurt them? I think it's always best to maintain the moral highground. If you're good to someone, and they hurt you, what do you really gain by getting back at them (in this example, sleeping with someone else in response to their cheating on you)? The assumption is that getting back at them will hurt them as they've hurt you, but beyond that, what's the result? What is the aim of hurting them back? What do you hope to accomplish? The way I see it, revenge in this scenario never works the way you want it to. For instance, if the person who hurts you is truly apologetic, getting revenge will only numb their apology and might delete it alltogether. Women especially would look upon the revenge, not as getting what they're due, but rather as justification for what they've done, even if the revenge comes after their act; they're irrational in this way (no offense girls). On the other hand, if the person who hurts you lacks remorse, then revenge loses all its value. Unless your looking to break yourself away from the person, in which case "revenge" serves the purpose of making you feel as if you don't care about them either; it's almost a way of showing yourself that your anger is stronger than your love. Of course, all this can backfire if the result of the revenge is incredible remorse for your actions, regardless of the actions of the person who hurt you. Overall, if it's a nice guy who decides to get revenge, he's often liable to feel this guilt even when the revenge might have been merited.

2. There's Something to be Said for Unrequited Love - the movie is great at building the sexual tension between Sandler and Vega (the house keeper). At first she can't even speak English, but as she learns, they begin to communicate better. In each other they find a person who can understand them, and they start to fall in love. In many scenes, Sandler and Vega seem on the verge of jumping each other, but totally resist it. At the climax, when Sandler finds out his wife has been cheating on him, he runs off with Vega to his restaurant, where they brief kiss and lie in each others' arms, contemplating their next move. Sex or no sex? Both have kids, both have responsibilities. Sandler can't help but love his wife even though she's insane. There's a moment where the two of them are sitting on a couch, holding each other, and he says something like, "don't go. As soon as our feet hit this floor we'll be thrown back to reality." They sit their, feet dangling. Vega looks at him, and says, "I love you." Then as he's about to say something he runs away. I discussed this scene with Ariel and he said he hated that they didn't get together, but I thought it was great. The final scene between them, when she's leaving her employment at his house, she hugs him, and as she's walking away, the gate closing behind her, she whispers, "mi amore."

It might be frustrating, but this is what would probably happen in real life under the film's circumstances. I understand the whole idea of following love and removing yourself from a bad situation, but Hollywood often ignores the role of responsibilities in decision-making, as well as the sanctity of the "what-if."

Granted I don't know how I'd react in a similar situation, but it seems to me that when you have kids, you gotta put your personal desires aside. As much as he might have wanted to run away with her, to try out their love, fact is he has a family with a woman he still loves, despite her insensitivity. I'm not saying kids can't grow up well in a divorced family, but the obvious best-case scenario is having a married mom and dad. I was glad to see him make a decision that he'd try to work on the relationship, rather than just surrendering to what felt right in the moment.

As for the "what-if," I think there's beauty in a pure love that has no chance to get tainted. The most Sandler and Vega do is kiss once, lie around together, and talk. Sex complicates things, and it is unnecessary to consumate your love for someone. Often, the more you love someone, the less you want to "taint" that love with various physical desires. Of course it's amazing to have sex with someone your in love with, but there's an incredible intensity in feeling that desire, and yet not acting on it. And what if they did get together? What then? Chances are, a relationship like that wouldn't have worked in the real world. Of course in real life the idea is that you should pursue love, even if it might cause heartbreak in the end. But in terms of the film, and the life positions of the characters in it, I think there's so much more power in those perfect moments that they have.

I've written on this topic before, but it's like the idea of the "love glance." You pass someone on the street, your eyes meet, and there's some weird connection. You can't take your eyes off each other, and in that moment there's a transmission of every possible future the two of you could have together. You get closer and closer to each other, transfixed, awed. And then you keep walking one way, and she walks past you. Neither of you turn around to look back at the other because the moment has passed. On the one hand, you can chase her down, find out more about her and who knows? On the other hand, the moment was perfect, infused with all the secrets of the world, so why ruin it? She can forever remain your perfect woman, because there was never time or opportunity for anything to go wrong. This is sad on one hand, because "hey, why not go for it?" But it's also magical.

3. I Have a Strange Attraction to Neurotic Women - Tea Leoni's charcter in the film is this off the wall, insane, neurotic, hyper, emotional mom. She's running around all over the place, butting in where she shouldn't, making remarks she should keep to herself, and being generally crazy.

What is it about her that I was strangely attracted to? I thought about it and came up with an idea. I'm a relatively balanced guy. I mean I get worked up about things, but I don't really get super angry or sad or excited. I've gotten "emotionally cold" plenty of times, but this is a misrepresentation, because I'm very emotional, I just don't exhibit it in typical ways. For instance, if I'm psyched about something, I'm not going to run around jumping up and down, although I will start talking really fast and won't shut up, yet all the while maintaining a relatively balanced demeanor. But there's something about neurotic and emotional women that catches me off guard. Maybe it's the intensity and the passion that just overwhelms me and knocks me off this perfect edge I walk on. Thing is, the passion and intensity aspect of it is what really gets me, and it just so happens that neurotic women tend to have both. I love it when someone has the power to make you question yourself, to become confused and dazed at their behavior, to push you out of the range of emotions your used to. Whenever I talk about love, I get excited about its ability to take you higher and lower than you've ever been before. It takes special people to be able to effect you in this way, and passion/intensity in someone's character plays a crucial role. Inevitably, my lust for this offers a lot of the "low" moments that come with the territory, but I can't help but feel it's worth it if you can make it work in the end. I'm a victim of circumstance; pity me.

8 comments:

Daniel Levesque said...

This is an interesting review. I saw Spanglish myself and thought it was okay. I'm more of a Jurasic Park kind of guy.

www.ravingconservative.com

Anonymous said...

You have an interesting perspective. This read was a great distraction. I can’t agree with your deeming Sandler’s character as a ‘nice-guy’ nor at this situation being a realistic portrayal. You write that he’s a good dad and a loving husband, and I am thinking where are you coming from? First of all, when imagining a great dad, I imagine this man as being strong, with a strong moral fiber, not someone who’s passive when dealing with destructive behavior. For example, he witnesses his wife making his daughter ashamed of her body, and what does he do? Complain that she doesn’t need this right now. Is this what a good dad does? Then you argue if cheating can ever be rationalized? Well, of course it can. I can say that I am allowed to hurt the person who hurts me, but in reality would I want to be that person, one who lashes out? The moral highroad isn’t determined by what I can get away with, what can be socially accepted, but instead morality is determined with what a person is made of, how they choose to live, and most importantly how they act regardless of external forces. Sandler isn’t a strong man, he isn’t a nice guy, he’s a guy who’d rather not do the work that creates a satisfying relationship or even a satisfying life. His crazy wife is used to testing boundaries, and so far her tests have proven that there are no consequences to bad behavior, they don’t have an equal relationship; they have a coexistence. Who wants that?

You then transition to this perfect idealized moment. This moment in which there is an ideal glimpse of love, a passing look, which is caught in eternity and not tainted by reality. Part of the journey, our journey, is reality. You seem to get this, as you discuss the pendulum that is created in relationships, in which you experience a high beyond your norm, but also the low that creates the balance, but you seem to shy away from this and actually prefer this idealized moment. Life is about the journey, and unfortunately, we learn from pain and suffering, it adds dimension to our being. Imagine any great lesson you’ve learned, if it was powerful lesson, it didn’t come easily. Love / passion are intense, it hurts, its powerful and wonderful. You’ll be flying through the clouds one second, and completely grounded and lethargic the next. But that is what happens when you’re feeling, and living. You can deem to be the ‘nice guy’ who’d rather not rock the boat by taking the safe route with no challenges or growth, or you can live life fully. Live life!

Ruvym said...

Point, Counterpoint:

I'm sticking with my description of Sandler as a nice, moral guy. I think we was a good dad because he had to balance his relationships. In other words, his wife hated if she undermined him, if he played things his own way, and I can't necessarily blame her. You can't have a good cop/bad cop situation with your spouse in relation to your kids, so the fact that he didn't attack his wife in front of his daughter was the right thing to do. His wife was definitely crazy, and I didn't agree with her at all, but her point of prsenting a "unified front" to the kids made sense. Also, his kids loved him, and knew that he loved them back.

The fact that he was weak is a whole different story. His wife had an overpowering personality, and he loved her, but he wasn't able to make her change. I also think he had a problem with communication and was afraid of her, which are definite faults, but doesn't take away from his nice guy status. I don't know how you can say he doesn't want to do the work that creates a satisfying relationship because he's there for his kids when they come to him and when he knows he has to step up and fix the things she's messed with. Again, he doesn't do it to her face, but he does it enough so his kids know where he stands.

As far as rationalizing cheating, I never said it couldn't be rationalized, only that it doesn't necessarily make sense in response to someone cheating on you. Especially in the context of a marriage where I'm working with the assumption that you want to still try to make it work - how would cheating in response help anything? A woman especially would simply take this "revenge" and use it to justify her prior act - "you see, I knew you had it in you, that's why I did it," or something like that.

In terms of my idealization of the perfect moment, this is just my romantic notions. I'm not meaning to say that I'm a conservative guy who doesn't want to "rock the boat," but only that those perfect moments have value as well, especially when, for whatever reason, you CAN'T pursue them. As I saw it, Sandler's character knew that he couldn't and shouldn't dump his wife and go for Vega's character. He was too committed to her and trying to make their marriage work to just drop it. But this doesn't mean that the brief moments with Vega are valueless; rather they're fused with meaning that comes from their eternal perfection, since there will be no opportunity to mess them up.

In my personal life I like to say that I take risks when it comes to this kind of stuff; when I have a really strong feeling about someone I don't let it pass and never pursue it. I've known people that secretly get crushes or "fall in love," but never act on it out of fear of rejection or just general lack of confidence. I definitely don't fall into that category. But to be fair, right now I'm a young single guy, and I can't say that I'd be the same risk taker with love if I was already married with kids. As a practical matter, I think that sometimes you'll find yourself in a certain position in life where responsibilities will have to counteract the desire to follow your heart. That might be sad, but that's the sacrifice I think we make when we have kids. I'm not saying someone should stay in an awful, abusive relationship for the sake of kids; obviously in this scenario staying together would probably do more damage than good. But I think people in our society are easy to give up on making marriages work.

Ari J. said...

Ruv, you know I disagree with you here. You say "the obvious best-case scenario is having a married mom and dad." This is not necessarily so. I'm sorry, but I just can't see how having a marriage where the parents argue all the time and hate each other is somehow better than having divorced parents. I just don't see it.

Moreover, I, myself, get only one shot at life. If I'm truly unhappy in a marriage, why should I stick around, sending unhappy vibes to my wife and kids? Seriously. I would NOT be happy in Sandler's position in the movie - not happy at all. I would've left my wife, if I were him. I wouldn't necessarily get into a relationship with my housekeeper, but I'd have left her, and taken the kids with me. She's a neurotic, annoying, terribly selfish, evil woman, and both my children and I should not have to be subjected to her just because I "made a _religious_ vow."

Moreover, you say that Vega and Sandler's times together had value, even though nothing came of it. I disagree. Just because you a "moment" with someone doesn't mean that somehow value is imbued into the relationship. Guaranteed the girl you met eyes with walking down the street doesn't remember what you look like. She never knew your name. She never knew your likes and dislikes, your wants and your needs, your desires and life plans. She knew nothing about you. How does that have value? You have gained nothing substantive from the glance - the only thing gained a fleeting feeling of "what if" that you chose to ignore.

Similarly, I found Vega's and Sandler's relationship frustrating. Why couldn't they end up together? Why do we have to assume that it wouldn't work out? Why couldn't it work out? The same things I dislike about Lost in Translation I dislike about Spanglish. It's too many "what ifs" and not enough "let's try this." Life is too short to be unhappy...

Ruvym said...

Ari, let me just clarify a few points:

1. In saying having married parents is better, I was working with the assumption that the two could make it work well for the benefit of the kids. Obviously if you have a fucked up wife and your relationship with her is screwing over your kids, then it's healthier to be divorced. Clearly not all marriages are good for the kids, but I'm thinking that if you can make it good, being married is a better situation.

2. I think it's a lot easier to say in our current places in life, that we'd simply get up and leave our spouse if they cheated on us. I know I'd leave a girlfriend, but a spouse that you have kids with? That's a harder question. It becomes even more complicated if the spouse admits it all, is very remorseful, and is desperate to make it work and fix the problems. Given the presence of the kids, it's almost as if you have obligation to at least try to make it work.

3. When I said the fleeting moment had value, I meant that perfection has value. In the real world, nothing is truly perfect, and so it takes this momentary, unelaborated, simple moment in order to say that something was perfect. It doesn't matter that the girl passing you on the street doesn't know you or forgets about you a few minutes later, because in the instant where you guys connected, that was totally pure. Again, it's a very romantic conception, and it occupies a very fringe space in terms of life experiences. But I think it's nice to have those untainted moments, if only to give you material for imagining what possibilities exist.

D said...

So I decided I would pony up and focus long enough to read these last few post (which were basically novellas).

And I'm glad I did. I liked this post for a couple of reasons.

1. I am going to go rent this movie and watch it. I'll let you know what I think after I watch it.

2. It sparked some interesting responses. People have different views on the world. I often agree with your view, so it was nice to read some counter points.

3. I totally agree with your comments surrounding the "love glance". I thought I was the only one who did that. It nice to know that someone else knows what I am talking about - too bad you're not a hot female who knows about the glance, but hey, we can't win 'em all. Anyhow, I totally agree with everything you wrote about the glance.

4. Can we get a working list of the "10 movies" and "9 movies"? I'll make the list if you make the list. Let's do this, for uniformity sake, "My Top 25 Movies of All Time." Any time period, any genre, any movie - lists to be posted on our respective blog this Friday. You game? We should get some other people down on this. Spread it around. Top 25 Movies on everyones' personal blog this Friday. Holy shit! We can call it "25 on 25"! Excellent...

Anonymous said...

Did you boys ever consider the possibility that you're misreading what you so surely call the "love glance?" Maybe that girl you saw on the street, who was making sincere eye contact with you, was only doing so because she saw YOU staring at her, consequently felt a bit weirded out, and so-decided to stare back. While you conjured various romantic notions, through tightly locked eyes, she was engaging in a battle of "who can out stare the other first." She doesn't know why you're staring- 'Is there something on my face?' 'Did my messenger bag hike up my skirt?' So just keep that in mind.

I do, however, believe the "love glance" exists ( if it is occurring.) I think beauty is found in the potential (in the what if?), but at the same time, I think it is that potential which is absolutely heart-breaking. Rarely do either parties act on this alleged connection. And the possibility of a potentially great love being lost-scratch that- never even HAD, is sad, to say the least.

Ruvym said...

D, I personally like to consider them "mini treatises" although "novella" also has a nice ring to it. In either case, I thank you for getting through them. I don't necessarily intend to write so much, but I just get lost in it. Afterwards I'm frustrated because no one likes to read things for too long; a consequence of our 5-minute attention span culture. Let me know what you thought of the film when you get a chance to see it. Also, I never realized we agreed so much on so many things. Aren't we supposed to be on different ends of the political spectrum? Come to think of it, I actually think you're right. Never noticed that before.

As for idea #4 - genius! The 25 on 25. It even has a nice ring to it. If 25 is a bit too much, we could always cut it down to the 10 on 10, or the 20 on 20. I'm game though. Although you have to admit, 25 is no easy task; everything kind of gets jumbled around when you get past 15. I'll see what I can do.

Anon, no waya re we misreading the love glance. I mean come on. You just know when someone is communicating with you through their glance. I figure a "is there something on my face" or a "can you see my underwear" glance would look a whole lot different. But you're right, that if you dig down to the meaning at it's core, it's heartbreaking. But isn't heartbreak also a necessary element of love. I question whether we'd ever have the capacity to truly love someone if we haven't experienced heartbreak; I think you need to feel both sides of the coin. In this way, heartbreak can sometimes be a good thing, as much as it's weird to admit that, and as much as we'd rather have as little of it as possible.