"Maybe Not Today, Maybe Not Tomorrow..."

Originally Posted 2/21/08:

Alternate post title: "Play it, [me]" Or: How I learned to stop worrying and love old movies.

This is kind of a long one, and I barely even talked about two of the movies. Well, you know, get me started on sex…

Casablanca
This was the second time I saw Casablanca, and it may or may not be my favorite movie ever. It really has everything: It’s funny, it’s suspenseful, it’s exciting, it’s clever, and it’s emotionally deep, not to mention that it stars the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen (seriously, have you ever seen a woman as physically gorgeous as Ingrid Bergman? I bet she’s got the Golden Ratio all over the place). And it’s got a funny, unambitious, Jim Crow-style black dude that calls Rick “boss”! (I’ll forgive them for that, and Sam actually is a pretty strong character—it could’ve been a lot more racist considering the time.) It certainly compares favorably with my other three favorites—American Beauty, Adaptation and Pulp Fiction.

The story is, I suppose, not extremely complex, and you could argue that Rick’s transformation is somewhat predictable and cheesy, but I really don’t think so. The “Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life” speech is really affecting, and I think it would be even more so if it wasn’t platitude-icized by being so conspicuously in the American canon of film.

What is particularly great about Casablanca is that you have a very strong sense of the emotional lives of the characters while in only seeing them in a couple of challenging moments. For instance, Rick’s conversation with Lazlo that ends with “You love her that much, huh?” tells us a lot about Lazlo in very few words, without him even getting to a deep emotional place. And we have a strong sense of Ilsa just from the few moments with her in the flashback scene, even before she spills everything to Rick when she comes begging for the visas. This is a sign of very strong acting and, particularly, very strong writing.

The acting is solid, particularly from Bergman, who is far from just a pretty face and owns the room every time she’s on stage. If the nebulous “it” that Hollywood famously seeks is real, she most certainly has it. I’m less impressed by Humphrey Bogart. His performance is, I think, a little wooden and flat, but he’s of course more than passable, particularly in a role that doesn’t require him to be much more than a hard outer shell—even in his most expressive moments, it’s still the expression of a man who’s not very good at it, which is the way it should be.

So, yeah, Casablanca is awesome. It’s really one movie that everyone should see at least once. A+

Goodfellas
I watched Goodfellas almost two weeks ago, so I don’t have a lot to say about it, but it’s certainly an excellent movie. I’m still having trouble recognizing what makes a movie without a ton of emotional growth great, so it’s not an all time favorite or anything. Still, I really enjoyed it, and it’s clearly extremely well-made. The characters of Tommy (Joe Pesci) and Robert DeNiro are particularly well drawn. A/A-

Kinsey
Kinsey’s not a great movie, but it’s a pretty good one and deals with a subject in sex that is vert close to my heart*. Liam Neeson and Laura Linney are great s the main characters, and while this really is a biopic, the purpose of which is to tell you the life and effects of the great sex researcher, it has its own nice thematic choices, and the ending especially is well-done. B+/B.

*Watching how Kinsey was thwarted over and over again in his attempts to make sex a thing that could be talked about openly but also how eager people were to read his books at the same time got me thinking about the way things are today. In one sense, things are the same, only less pronounced. People still get tongue-tied in having honest conversations about sex (i.e. ones that don’t include the word “fuck” or “bitch” etc.); we’re terrified to have sex (or any other sexual/romantic activity) the first time(s) we do it; we’re embarrassed for our parents—part of the baby-boomer generation and products in some ways of the sexual liberation of the 60s—to know anything about our sex lives; in some at least at least subconscious way, we regard sex and normal sexual things as dirty or disgusting (it’s not an accident that “dick,” “asshole,” “pussy,” “cunt,” “fuck” etc. are derogatory terms); for men, masturbation is still a dirty little secret or an uncomfortable joke, and women aren't, for the most part, even that willing to talk about it; and we still all desperately want to know we’re normal sexually (Kinsey’s most basic finding) like we want to know we’re normal in all ways.

In another sense, our sexual mores are the opposite. While I think it’s a noble thing Kinsey is doing in rebelling against the prudish (and destructive) sexual opinions of his time, the same way I admire what Heinlein does in regards to that in Stranger in a Strange Land, if there’s anything we should be rebelling against today, it is the marginalization of sex. Youth culture regards sex as a conquest, and as a desire that should be sated, and, in maybe its best form, should be done at least with someone you like a little bit, but that’s not even a given. Why has learning that sex is a wonderful, normal, beautiful thing come to mean that it’s essentially no big deal? And I’m not even talking about pregnancy or STDs. I think people by now have realized that stuff actually is a big deal, we just haven’t realized how important the emotional element is too.

My orientation toward sex is that while yes it is great and a joy that should be cherished, but that doesn’t make it something to be just tossed away on a whim. There’s been nothing in my life that I have been more terrified of than sex, and that orientation boiled down to, if I got past my fear enough to do it with anyone I thought was attractive, I would do it. I never thought about what I really wanted, only what I could get. Now that that fear has diminished significantly I’ve realized that I only want a sexual relationship when it can be aligned with a profound love. I hope to have any kind of sexual interaction (from kissing on down) with only one more woman the rest of my life, and I’m happier and more satisfied with this orientation.

Now, I’m not saying that my orientation is the right orientation or anything like that. I make no claim to be able to lay down moral pronouncements (in fact, I don't consider this a moral issue at all, just one of satisfaction in life), nor do I ever try to tell someone how to live their lives (or if I do, I regret it afterward). My only intentions with saying all this are both to write down in words what’s going on in my head, if only to quiet my thoughts so I can do real work (as is really the main intention of all these notes), and also to say that I think sex is something that should, at least, be thought about more, so you really know what you’re choosing. Then, even if you stick with the way you live now, at least you’ll know that you’ve made the decision consciously rather than by some of osmosis of culture beliefs.

Basically what I'm saying is, in sex like in everything else, it is essential to an effective, satisfying life to know your beliefs and to have genuinely chosen them yourself. Otherwise you will be at the whim of what others think without even realizing it.

Whew. I'm done. Sorry about that. Hope you made it to the end. Thanks.

*Edit*: Also, I'm reading the Nicomachean Ethics now, and I think they're relevant to this conversation. What's so great about Aristotle is that he's not shaking a stick at you telling you you're a bad person if you're not virtuous and everyone should look down on you. Instead he's saying, "Look, if you want to be happy, then this is the way to do it: be virtuous." I love that about him, and I think it might be my favorite book I've read in school this year so far (I'm only a third of the way through).

I mean, I dig the transcendental stuff of Plato, but I like Aristotle's pragmatism even more (it's that Yankee pragmatism, man). Plato asks "what is virtue?" and never answers it, implying it can't be answered. Aristotle gives a simple, incomplete definition and says "why do we need a more complete definition? We know what virtue is well enough to do it." I guess, I just like his intentions a little better.

He did make one major mistake though. He says "Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue" when happiness has been demonstrably proven to be a warm gun. But other than that, he's great.