8.31.2010

Farewell, my cubicle


If there is one thing that explains the awkward feeling of living in modern society, it must be The Metamorphosis. It is a novella by Franz Kafka, first published in 1915 and often cited as one of the seminal literature of the 20th century. The story begins like this: Gregor Samsa wakes up one morning and find himself has turned into a bug. Rather than lament his unfortunate transformation, Gregor worries about how he will get to his job as a travelling salesman. He is the sole financial provider of his family. Therefore his ability to work determines the comfort of his family. The more he works, the more money will come, the more possible for his family to live comfortably. Now that he has turned into a bug, Gregor feels himself is no use anymore. He is depressed. Infinitely.

I won’t tell the rest of the story, because that is not my intention. What I want to underline in this fragment of the sorry tale is the longing to be ordinary. What I mean by being ordinary is living like ordinary people: doing what ordinary people do, think what ordinary people think, and be happy with what ordinary people happy with.

To be ordinary is to be similar with others. Modern life is marked by the repressed ambition of such longing. Therefore, people work and then spend their money to buy the same stuffs from the same stores. The stores then advertise new stuffs to buy, and the same things happen over and over again. It is a cycle that only changes in names. Turning in the cycle are lives trapped in a rat race between cubicles. Terminally.

On this thought, I wish I could wake up and be a bug.

—A fuck-you-world note after a phone call from a relative. Partly inspired by FEAR AND TREMBLING (Alain Corneau, 2003)

8.30.2010

A brief study in forgetting and remembering


Our understanding of memory often lies in the overwhelming tension between preservation and loss. We tend to reduce the everyday flow of our lives into a series of fragments. Brief passing moments and images remain completely intact despite the passage of time, but the overall framework destined to disappear, to be worn away by ageing and unknown interventions of fate. In this perspective, memory is a form of conflict, where the desire to retain the past as it was runs up against the inevitability of change. Or, a set of counter desires that seek to erase and alter some aspects of the past.

To see memory as a tug war between recovery and dissolution is to blur the boundaries between the individual and the collective, between what is most intensely personal and what is held in common. If we do so, that is because in recent years there has been a shift in terms. Memory has come to stand alongside history in both popular and scholarly discourse. We speak less of the power of the historical processes and change, and more of the fragile resistance of memory and its attempts to preserve what is no longer.

Perhaps we speak so much of memory because there is so little left of it.

—My small note on the nature of remembering, derived from some books and  AFTER LIFE (Hirokazu Koreeda, 1998)

Before the damage is done, I confess

I wish I could have loved you before a world war does to us whatever it will do.

—A line from Arcade Fire's song and a prayer I've been reciting after gulping down four hours of LOVE EXPOSURE (Sion Sono, 2008)

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)