TAKING GOOD CARE — Lost In Translation (2003)
Are Love and Friendship really that different?
Lost In Translation (2003) is an American film that takes place in Japan. It was directed by Sofia Coppola, starring Scarlett Johansson as Charlotte and Bill Murray as Bob Harris. The production got multiples indications to different awards — winning, among many others, Best Original Screenplay (Oscar 2004).
When putting thought into the greatest love stories ever written or told, we, as a society, tend to forget about the little things, always giving more importance to the so-called grand gestures. Those rely on a romanticized idea of Love, neglecting the reason why two people would and did fall in love in the first place, or even how that came to happen.
That is, the pathway is commonly ignored — as we fall into some kind of fairy tale, we leave the starting point behind. Thus, we value more the goal when already reached rather than its pursuit.
As storytellers or mere listeners, we just keep on leaning towards this happily ever after fantasy.
Truthfully, getting into the core of things can be scary, sometimes cruel. The fact is that Love, as we know, is a newly born concept; also is Marriage, as the former's realization— since the latter was always just a plane contract deal, based on financial and family-wise interests, never actually about having a good relationship and deciding something for your own life.
Looking to nowadays life through Occidental lens, this new Love seems about nothing more than a forever hide and seek game between the two subjects — the picturesque suggestion of soulmates is a fair example of that.
However, the Oriental lens can show us a mixed point-of-view: some parts are as fairy-tale-ish as the Occidental, some way more realistic. For instance, a Chinese folklore, known as the Red Thread of Fate, will explain that destined lovers, who are supposed to change each other lives for good, are actually linked to one another by some kind of mythical red thread wrapped around their fingers.
But, by letting fate into the discussion, the pursuit becomes unnecessary, since it is already destined — the value of the little things is lost again. And this is what the Japanese culture took care of, by bringing intensity, connection and involvement to the table. For example: in the Japanese language, there is no equivalent of “I love you” — simply because Love, for them, is to be felt, not to be verbally expressed.
Love has traditionally been regarded as disruptive to social harmony and in the past was sometimes more likely to occur between a prostitute and her customer than between husband and wife. Japanese literature has more stories about love between unmarried couples than married ones. There are also lots of double suicide stories involving geishas and their lovers. — From Facts and Details. LOVE IN JAPAN (2014).
As an American film that takes place in Japan, Lost In Translation (2003) explores Love as traditionally portrayed by the Asian country perspective. The suggestion that Marriage happens because of Love does not exist, thus meaningful and out-of-paper relations became The ones. That is the case with the main characters.
Bob Harris, a former movie star who is promoting a Whiskey line in Tokyo, first locked eyes with depressed and lonely two-years-married Charlotte in a crowded hotel elevator. Following some kind of red-thread-of-fate-ish thing, they kept on bumping into each other — in the spa lobby, the bar, everywhere…
The little things made them want to spend time together — the fact that they understood each other like no one else; they had fun, made their day better. By the first time they talked, the idea of Them was already clear; what they would be or become, wasn’t.
Throughout the movie, Bob and Charlotte started to cultivate care and nurture attentiveness for each other. Since Harris’ wife and kids were in America, and Charlotte’s husband was always working, these two left-alone souls found company, friendship and (who knows?) true Love in one another.
So, this is where it gets complicated: as two individuals compromise with other people, what is the acceptable limit to define what they are? Are Love and Friendship really that different?
Some would say Friendship is a relationship without falling in love, while others, that it is nothing but a romantic fling without physical consummation. Then, the battle between body and mind is in question.
As a post-Romantic and post-Modern society, our morals can be really conflicted. The nature of thinking of both historical periods is opposite to one another, which makes the whole debate on what is passion and what is carnal way more difficult…
The pocketbook As paixões (2013), by the Brazilian historian Tessa Moura Lacerda, explains that, in Modern times, philosophers of the 17th century separated instincts, desires, and passions from what would be the proper nature of the human soul — differently than what Romantics would do:
Passions are considered “disturbances” (perturbatio animi). Francis Bacon (1561–1626), for example, considers that a passion infects the understanding; John Locke (1632–1704) states that we must distance ourselves from passions so that Reason remains impartial. — From the pocket book As paixões (2013), by Tessa Moura Lacerda. (freely translated).
If passions are disturbances, then letting yourself into a romantic relationship is nothing but a vicious and pathological path. And, just like that, establishing limitations between you and someone else would be a healthy way to pursue life and love.
But is it possible?
René Descartes (1596–1650) imposes the separation between soul and body, through the radical distinction between thought and matter. He would say that the body is always playing against the soul's will: what is an action body-and-matter-wise, is a passion (in its pathological nature) soul-and-thought-wise.
Since the distinction between what we want and what we do exists in human nature, logically, it would be possible to not do what you want. As a result, even if the idea of a romantic involvement lives rent-free in one's head, it may never really come to happen.
It is a matter of self-control, but, more importantly, a matter of boundaries-setting.
In a study on friendship, the Japanese ranked their "best friend" as being closer to them than "a lover". A married person needs friends because their partner isn’t supposed to be their only connection with the outside world. Having a different point of view, hearing diverse stories, getting to know more and more… are all part of human nature, and one person cannot provide such enlightenment as the marriage-culture wishes.
Moreover, it is known that the amount of comfiness one person can have with another does not always cross the line of friendship. For instance, a lot of married couples could state that they don't see each other in private situations, or aren't used to escalate in tough and emotional conversations with one another.
The thing is: if being in a marriage doesn't qualify to have a deep connection to another human being, then, it’s possible to conclude that the financial interests, that led into the stable unions in the past, were now replaced by some kind of emotional availability — not Love itself, as we would like to believe.
In fact, we are just so afraid of creating real connections to others (just to be let down and never to feel fully euphoric and complete) that we decided to be content settling down for less. Being able to say "I am married" became more important than saying "I am happy".
Both Harris and Charlotte felt miserable in their marriages. A twenty-five-years stable union and a two-year one ended up giving each of them the same scar: unhappiness.
One of the reasons they bonded in the first place was the fact that both couldn't sleep well. Harris would be found drinking in daylight, and Charlotte would be crying and smoking all night long; Harris would skip channels in the TV and, if he ended up seeing himself, he would feel nostalgic, but mostly hopeless; Charlotte would walk around Tokyo, observing cultural manifestations and wondering where her dreamy and professional self went after she graduated and moved in with her husband.
“I don’t know, I went to this shred today and there were these monges and they were chanting and I didn’t feel anything, you know? And, I don’t know, I even tried ikebana and John is using this hair products… I just, I don’t know who I married [anymore]…” — piece of Charlotte’s monologue on the phone with a longtime friend that never calls her
After the two met, those vicious behaviors did not disappear. But, at least, now they had found in each other s safe space. They had someone who was going through the same, someone they could talk about everything they thought they were experiencing alone.
Reliance translated to care; care, to happiness; happiness, to love. Love that came from the little things. True type of love, even if not a happily ever after one. Love that was made by honest intentions, honest connection. Love that was about caring and sharing. About being there to each other.
Finally, just like that, not sleeping, drinking in daylight, crying and smoking, switching TV channels, and walking around town became amusing again. They became happy again. And as Charlotte once said:
"Let’s never come here again, ‘cause it will never be as much fun".
References
Lost in Translation. Directed by Sofia Coppola. Japan: American Zoetrope, 2003. Available at: https://bit.ly/32KG52D. Last access in: January 30th, 2022.
Facts and Details. LOVE IN JAPAN (2014). Available at: https://factsanddetails.com/japan/cat19/sub127/item2885.html. Last access in: January 30th, 2022.
LACERDA, Tessa Moura. As paixões. São Paulo: Editora WMF Martins Fontes, 2013. — (Filosofias: o prazer do pensar / dirigida por Marilena Chaui e Juvenal Savian Filho).
Did you like it? Click on the Applauses — they go from1 to 50 — and leave a comment below!
For more publications from Victoria Silveira in Cine Suffragette, click here.
