20 December, 2007

• I cannot pass the guitar hero battle w/ Tom Morello on Hard! #
• its an early bedtime for me… #
• heading out to the theater #
• heading out to see a special screening of sweeney todd #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Recently, I received 2 tickets to screen the upcoming motion picture:  P.S. I love you.  I’m not much on romantic comedies or romantic dramas, but my wife wanted to see this movie.  And, I should add, there’s never a time when I say “NO” to spending time w/ my spouse!  So, I mentioned in a text message that I had received 2 tickets for this screening, and within seconds, the reply came back:  WOW!  I knew she wanted to go!  We had to do some tossing around of appointments and so forth [her hair appointment and get the dogs taken care of], but we were pretty sure that everything would work out-or, at least we were hoping it would!  The salon accommodated my request for a last minute chang-a-roo, and we were all set to screen this film.

Side note:  Have you read the book, P.S. I love you by Cecelia Ahern?  I hadn’t, and so the film caught me with much surprise.  Many of you know that I read a certain and select group of books and disciplines for my own work.  Philosophy, Theology, Anthropology, Cultural studies, Feminist & Queer Theories.  Nowhere in that list do I have romance novels. 

Back to the film

I will not give “away” the film, but what I will do is provide my processing of the film’s narrative-my sense of the filmfrom an ideological or theoretical framework.  So, let me begin…

Each time I see a film, I consider my own social location in terms of how I approach the film and process the film.  In this case, this is a narrative concerning a couple [a woman who is partnered to a man], their journey of love and the question of memory and belonging.

I didn’t find myself repulsed at the “love” story of this couple, as I often do.  I didn’t find myself struggling with the perpetuation of whiteness of the narrative, as I often do.  I found myself struck at the reality of the question and struggle of belonging, memory, and identity.  I am looking forward to pursuing research around the ideas and realities of belonging, identity, and the ways in which borders play into the formation of our identities.  This film, though having a very particular point of departure, serves as an interesting place for me to process the questions of belonging, memory and identity formation, including the role borders play.  Though, the borders stuff will, I’m afraid, need to come in a separate post.

For this couple, they were from world’s apart-one who was reared in Ireland, and whose family of origin is Irish, and the other from a place of parental displacement.  Her father left at an early and formative age during adolescence and so there was a constant search for that parental belonging and subsequent search for finding that special place of love that is often associated with qualities of “american” parenting.

The film took me on a journey-a journey that was filled with devastation, tragedy, memory, reality, and then offered me a way of developing a conceptual practice of love-which resided both in the here & now and beyond.  The film questioned teleology in that the film privileged a sense of final cause that seemed inherent to both characters.  And, interestingly, the narrative seems to support the achievement of both characters realizing this final cause or inherent purpose.  Now, I want to steer clear of my sense of teleology which is understood from a Christian theological perspective.  In many ways, though, I’m unable to completely steer clear of it for my understanding of the teleological analyses is rooted in the systematic theology of Christianity.

Aside from teleology, there is an interesting current of the epistemic principles of love and memory embedded in the narrative from the very get go.  These epistemological currents seem to inform the culture of love and coupledom for the main character-not so for the rest of the characters.  Epistemology, for me at least, ties into the sub-plot of memory in this film.

Memory is an important piece in this film.  Memories held many of these characters captive to their own frustrations and yet memories also served to liberate.  Memory here in this film is quite dialectic, though I’m not sure how Hegelian the dialectic is.  Perhaps?  I’m just not sure.  Dialectic or not, memory seemed to be a very important piece to this film.

On a more personal note, I am a survivor of a brain aneurysm and lived through 2 brain surgeries.  The aneurism was the result of a congenital arterial malformation and not discovered until it leaked and then finally ruptured; I was 16.  I survived this episode, though I know many do not.  In fact, those who do survive a rupture and the surgeries may or may not experience life in the same way.  I am happy and blessed to say that I made a complete recovery and have very little side effects or visible damages/disabilities.  I am grateful. 

I am grateful that I survived because I get to spend the rest of my known life [which is largely unknown to me, I might add] with someone who helps me understand myself in this world and continues to create places of belonging for me.  So, while this film that I saw on Tuesday evening at the River East AMC Theater in Chicago created moments for buckets of tears for me and the rest of the theater, I find myself walking away from the film knowing and understanding my social location better.

I understand that we should seek to create life and retain/remember its memories.  I understand that the way we use and/or practice the politics of epistemology is very dependent upon the ways in which we understand ourselves and teleology.  This film is a place for us all to consider the culture of life and death and the philosophical principles undergirding our beliefs and practices.  This film is concerning the politics of life.

I’m glad I saw this film!
p.s. I love you!