7.25.2010

From desire to where

According to the Bible, no truth is possible until you empty yourself of desire. Therefore, all commitment is fake, lies, or economic convenience.

—A little note I scribbled after finishing MAGNOLIA (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1999) for the umpteenth time

7.16.2010

Parenting is forever

I don’t know how I should address Shel Silverstein now. A genius? No, that would be too mundane. Just in thirty pages of words and images, he explained the human condition in a simple yet fulfilling manner. The man is a writer of countless children stories and poems. Personally, he was a familiar name back in my high school days. Due to the difficulty of finding his books back then, his name slipped off my reading list. Last week a dear friend of mine lent me her Silverstein’s poem collection, Falling Up. The book impressed me so much that I scouted the Net for his other works. This was how I found The Giving Tree, a children fairy tale that shall haunt me with some smiles and lots of regrets.

The book is about a long-lasting relationship between a boy and a tree. The tree loves the boy very much, and would gladly provide the boy with what he wants: branches to swing on, shade to sit in, and apples to eat. As the boy grows older he requires more and more of the tree.  In the ultimate act of self-sacrifice, the tree lets the boy cut it down, so the boy can build a boat. The boy leaves the tree, now a stump. Many years later, the boy returns as an old man. The tree sadly says the she has nothing left to give. The boy replies he doesn’t need much, now that he is old and lonely. The tree suddenly exclaims, "Good! A tree stump is a great place to do just that! Come boy, sit down and be happy." The boy agrees and the tree is happy at last.

For a children book, The Giving Tree is a bit misleading. Who could guarantee that young readers wouldn’t imitate the boy’s selfishness? After all, the boy is the most recognizable character kids could aspire to. But then, as an adult reader who had his share of bitter and better times, I couldn’t be that narrow-minded. To me, the book simply shows that childhood is a time of relative happiness, compared to the sacrifices one has to make in adulthood.

True, the boy is greedy. To the end of the book, the boy acts as an insatiable entity, who constantly receives and never gives anything back to the tree. But then, the tree doesn’t mind. The tree loves the boy. As long as love is involved, life could not be seen as a matter of good versus evil. Nor could it be seen as one long economic transaction. Love is what makes the tree keep giving freely to the boy, and waiting hopefully for the boy’s return. The tree wants the boy to be happy, that’s why it tries hard to give what the boy needs. It is only sad when it could not give.

Based on the perspective above, I believe this book is about parenthood as much as it is about childhood. Imagine this: the tree is your mom and dad, and the boy is you. Would you dare not to call yourself selfish now? The more you blame the boy, the more you have to fault human existence. The more you blame the tree, the more you have to fault the very idea of parenting.

Yes, The Giving Tree is a sad tale. Yet it is sad in a way that life is tragic. We were children once. We were all insatiable entities, who constantly receive and never give anything back to our parents. As time goes by, we grow old by using others and getting used up. But still, our parents would always be the ones we use up the most. After all, they are our first capital in our worldly existence. Our limitation as humans however should not be regretted or despised. Being incomplete is what makes giving and receiving possible. Should our fathers and mothers count the cost before caring for us, then we would all be doomed.



—A review of Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree, which is written after watching YI YI (Edward Yang, 2000). Dedicated to my family, which at times looks like breaking up. Together, we survived the ordeal.

7.14.2010

Remembrance of things past

Yang fana adalah waktu. Kita abadi:
memungut detik demi detik, merangkainya seperti bunga
sampai pada suatu hari kita lupa untuk apa.
"Tapi, yang fana adalah waktu, bukan?" tanyamu.
Kita abadi.

Time is transient. We are eternal:
plucking seconds, one by one, arranging them like flowers
until one day we forget what for.
"But, time is transient, is it not?" you ask.
We are eternal.

—A Sapardi Djoko Damono's poem that I really love. Unfortunately, its English translation is not as good. I dedicate this poem to my family, which somehow mirrors the family in THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS (Denys Arcand, 2003)

A design for life

People always use symbols to represent the end of things. Questioners put a question mark in the end of their questioning, and writers put a dot in the end of their writing. There is a symbol that musicians use in the end of their sessions, but I cannot remember what. But, what if people just do what they like to do, and never think a second when things gonna end? I imagine there is a room that has just the right vibe, the right energy to push, pull and cajole questioners to keep questioning, writers to keep writing, and musicians to hold that last note until they couldn’t even remember they held it that long. I imagine it like a wedding anniversary, stretched to a hundred years or so. The couple died, but the bliss lives on through generations. When there’s a world record for everything, there must be a symbol for mere things like this, a symbol that represents not moratorium but efforts to leaven tedium. Don’t you think so?

Baffling, I know. Beautiful though.

Again, another sophomoric prose found in the uncharted region of my hard drive. This one is inspired by SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK (Charlie Kaufman, 2008)

7.04.2010

Home is where the heart is


À nos amours, that’s what you have in mind
La demeure, that’s what I want to find
So pack your romantic mind
Be sure to leave with mine

—A nonsensical and sophomoric poem found in my old harddisk, inspired in name only by A NOS AMOURS (Maurice Pialat, 1983)

7.03.2010

Gypsy death and you

"Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me..."


—A line from an Emily Dickinson's poem which reminds me of GLOOMY SUNDAY (Rolf Schubel, 1999)

7.02.2010

Silence tells the truth about a lie so beautifully


The first language humans had was gestures. There was nothing primitive about this language that flowed from people's hands, nothing we say now that could not be said in the endless array of movements possible with the fine bones of the fingers and wrists. The gestures were complex and subtle, involving a delicacy of motion that has since been lost completely.

During the Age of Silence, people communicated more, not less. Basic survival demanded that the hands were almost never still, so it was only during sleep (and sometime not even then) that people were not saying something or other. No distinction was made between the gestures of language and the gestures of life. The labor of building a house, or preparing a meal was no less an expression than making the sign for I love you or I feel serious. When a hand was used to shield one's face when frightened by a loud noise something was being said, and when fingers were used to pick up what someone else had dropped something was being said; and even when the hands were at rest, that, too, was saying something.

Naturally, there were misunderstandings. There were times when a finger might have been lifted to scratch a nose, and if casual eye contact was made with one's lover just then, the lover might accidentally take it to be the gesture, not at all dissimilar, for Now I realize I was wrong to love you. These mistakes were heartbreaking. And yet, because people knew how easily they could happen, because they didn't go around with the illusion that they understood perfectly the things other people said, they were used to interrupting each other to ask if they'd understood correctly. Sometimes these misunderstandings were even desirable, since they gave people a reason to say, Forgive me, I was only scratching my nose. Of course I know I've always been right to love you. Because of the frequency of these mistakes, over time the gesture for asking forgiveness evolved into the simplest form. Just to open your palm was to say: Forgive me.

Aside from one exception, almost no record exists of this first language. The exception, on which all knowledge of the subject is based, is a collection of seventy-nine fossil gestures, prints of human hands frozen in midsentence and housed in a small museum in Buenos Aires. One holds the gesture for Sometimes when the rain, another for After all these years, another for Was I wrong to love you? They were found in Morocco in 1903 by an Argentine doctor named Antonio Alberto de Biedma. He was hiking in the High Atlas Mountains when he discovered the cave where the seventy-nine gestures were pressed into the shale. He studied them for years without getting any closer to understanding, until one day, already suffering the fever of the dysentery that would kill him, he suddenly found himself able to decipher the meanings of the delicate motions of fists and fingers trapped in stone. Soon afterwards he was taken to a hospital in Fez, and as he lay dying in his hands moved like birds forming a thousand gestures, dormant all those years.

If at large gatherings or parties, or around people with whom you feel distant, your hands sometimes hang awkwardly at the ends of your arm. If you find yourself at a loss for what to do with them, overcome with sadness that comes when you recognize the foreignness of your own body, it's because your hands remember a time when the division between mind and body, brain and heart, what's inside and what's outside, was so much less. It's not that we've forgotten the language of gestures entirely. The habit of moving our hands while we speak is left over from it. Clapping, pointing, giving the thumbs-up: all artifacts of ancient gestures. Holding hands, for example, is a way to remember how it feels to say nothing together. And at night, when it's too dark to see, we find it necessary to gesture on each other's bodies to make ourselves understood.

—A passage from Nicole Krauss's The History of Love, which motivated me to stay awake through the entire 3-IRON (Kim Ki-Duk, 2005)

On rubber souls in Murakami's Norwegian Wood

I once had a girl, or should i say, she once had me....isn’t it good, Norwegian wood?


No wonder Murakami named his novel after the famous Beatles song, Norwegian Wood. The song not only goes nicely with the transient mood of the book, but also encompasses what Murakami really wants to say. The song opening pictures the ambiguity of man and woman relationship, while its closing draws parallel to the existential emptiness of post-war Japan. In the middle of it all stood Toru Watanabe, a university student whose youth Murakami chronicled in 300 pages or so.

Toru is an archetype of Murakamian protagonist: a passive middle-class male who claims that his life is downright ordinary, and hopes that it stays that way. In short, a middle man in the middle part of society: not low enough to be pitied, not high enough to be appreciated. The ordinariness of Toru’s life is apparent in his job: a part-time clerk in a rundown record store. Sure, Toru’s reading is pretty impressive for his age: Scott Fitzgerald, Truman Capote, and Thomas Mann. So is his musical taste: Bud Powell, Theolenius Monk, and other jazz luminaries. All of that however was nothing in the face of increasingly modern Japan, whose flavor of the week was local literature and contemporary pop. In them, Toru found an equal opposition. Toru found something wrong in the society he lived in and chose to ignore them. On the other hand, society found something wrong in Toru and chose to ignore him. The mutual ignorance was enough to doom Toru into lifelong mediocrity.

Unfortunately, in Murakami’s universe, nobody lives ordinarily. Something irrational is bound to happen. In A Wild Sheep Chase, the protagonist is forced upon a daunting task: hunting down a mad mutant sheep who seeks world domination. In Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World, the protagonist must stop a group of evil robots from accelerating the end of the world. In Norwegian Wood, that something is falling in love with a girl called Naoko.

Naoko is the warm little center on which Toru’s life revolves. On first impression, Naoko indeed looks ordinary. She is just a shy girl, who attends a public school and changes her hairstyle regularly. What makes her unique is her affinity to absurd stories. In the beginning of the book, she speaks of a hole in the woods. “that hole is bottomless, but nobody knows where is it,” says Naoko, “I bet each year people fall into it and disappear instantly.” Her story haunts Toru so much that when Naoko really disappears, Toru falls into a long period of self-hating. What frustrates Toru is the fact that the hole in which Naoko falls is not really a hole. It is a secluded sanatorium, where Naoko spend years rehabilitating herself and commits suicide eventually.

Before her demise, Naoko had a promising relationship with Toru. Admittedly, their relationship is not something that could be perceived as normal. The romance is there, but it is too uneven to be called a romantic relationship. Toru could only watch, while Naoko does whatever she pleases. When taking a walk, for example, Toru is left reeling and Naoko just walks without a care. Toru tries to catch up, but Naoko is just too absorbed in herself. Several times Naoko turns around and makes some random comments. These are Toru’s only chance in making a progress in their relationships, and he takes it. His response however is erratic. Sometimes he just nods silently. Most of Naoko’s statements are not meant to be answered anyway. Sometimes he forces himself to squeeze out a reply, however absurd it might sounds. Eventually a dialogue occurs and their relationship tightens. Later in the story, when they are on level terms, Naoko asks, “if you have understood me, then what?” Toru replies, “It is not a matter of ‘then what’. Some people enjoy observing the railroad timetable. Some have fun from making boats out of matches. What is wrong then if there is one person in this world who take comfort in understanding you?”

Murakamian love affairs thrive on the self-negation of men. Women act as an egoistic and impulsive agency that looks exotic in the eyes of men. Men in turns become objective observers and keep all their feelings to themselves. However they try to show their feelings subtly through the books they read and the music they listen to. In Murakami’s universe, it is men’s moral duty to understand the women, even when the women fail to understand themselves.

That is why Naoko’s disappearance hurts Toru so much. It happens right after one sweet moment in their doomed relationship. For the first time Naoko admits how comfortable she is with Toru. This leads to several minutes of melodrama, when Naoko suddenly breaks down and hugs Toru. Naoko hugs him silently, then starts taking off her clothes. Toru could only return the favor by doing the same thing. They have sex for that one and only time.

In Naoko’s absence, Toru meets Midori. She is the opposite of Naoko: active, talkative, promiscuous, and not insane. Her only similarity with Naoko is her ability to turn all Toru’s attention to her. No wonder this new relationship is just as doomed as the previous one. Several days after their first meeting, Toru found himself with Midori on the window of her bedroom, singing gibberishly while the house next door nearly burns itself to the ground. Minutes after that, they kiss. Then came the big question: “would you come with me to Uruguay?” As it turns out, Midori’s father has left his family to become a farmer in South America. Should she go after her father, Midori wants Toru to accompany her. Toru refuses flatly.

Like Naoko, Midori disappears too. It also happens right after one sweet moment in their doomed relationship. Toru then visits Naoko in her sanatorium. Back from his travel, Toru finds himself again with Midori. Their relationship progresses, while Naoko stops writing letters to Toru. Then Midori disappears, and Toru is back on Naoko’s arms. The cycle goes on violently.

At this point the disappearance of women reveals the profound truth of Murakami’s stories. Men merely act as transits for women to cure their existential grief. The passivity of men functions as a basis for women to make initiatives and improve themselves. Midori says so in one of her lines, “You are different, Toru. I could do anything i want with you. I could not do that to my boyfriend.” Naoko says the same thing more explicitly, “Seeing you makes my genital wet. Even my ex could not do that. I always know you are different, Toru.” 

Both statements sum up the central theme of Norwegian Wood: comfort as a zero-sum game. Being a pillow for someone’s broken heart is one thing, keeping yourself from suffering the same fate is another thing. That is what happens to Toru, and he realizes it too late. He helps Naoko and Midori to stand on their feet, but burn himself out in the process. When both of his beloved disappears, Toru lost his orientation. All this time he confuses the pain of others as an incentive for him to go on living. Without their pain, Toru only has his own pain to deal with. Ironically, he has put so much effort in caring for others that he does not know anymore how to care for himself. In the end Toru is left alone without any solution, only memories and a song to reenact those memories.

—An old review of Haruki Murakami's Norwegian Wood, written in anticipation of the film adaptation, NORWEGIAN WOOD (Tran Anh Hung, 2010)

7.01.2010

Film lovers are sick people

"Is it so wrong, wanting to be at home with your film collection? Collecting films is not like collecting stamps. There is a whole new world in there: a nicer, dirtier, more colorful world that the one I live in. There are history, poetry, and countless other thing which make me realize that I am good with the past. I am just not comfortable with the present."

—My belated confession for being a manic cinephile. Mostly inspired by the three cinephiles in THE DREAMERS (Bernardo Bertolucci, 2003)