when i first saw the Once trailer, i remember thinking: i need to watch that; i'm going to like it.
i've been meaning to for months, but i missed it in the theaters and just hadn't gotten around to it. until now. i gave Once to my good friend Katie for Christmas and borrowed it last weekend (note the craftiness...) for my [relatively] solitude retreat.
i was right: i absolutely loved it! beautifully shot and beautifully tragic. if you haven't see it, you need to. you might as well buy the soundtrack too. it's amazing!
and yes, Dublin is now on my places to experience list.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Followers
About Me
- Two Guys Good Health
- Kansas City, United States
- This is the blog of Graham Ripple & Kyle FitzGerald of Two Guys Good Health. www.rallysupplement.com Natural, healthy solutions for a better day – every day
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(88)
-
▼
January
(18)
- redemption
- worship
- in-breaking freedom
- my latest musical obsessions
- imagination
- my new loves.
- i suppose i'll share my answers
- rome friends
- Once, finally
- it's cussing cold (PG version)
- bursting through clouds
- a weekend away
- in case you wanted to know...
- Fairy Tale
- Leadershipity
- addicted. tempted.
- merry new years
- favorite Christmas picture.
-
▼
January
(18)
25 comments:
tragic? really? you thought it was tragic? i agree it was beautiful, i'd be interested to hear why you think it was tragic.
well, i dont know. i suppose it's how you look at it.
i think there is something tragic about two people who connect, draw the best out of each other, and then decide to go back to old, destructive relationships.
certainly there is a lot of hope in the movie as well. hope of new beginnings and hope of renewed romance.
actually, that may be part of the reason i like it so much: it's multi-dimensional and really draws out the tension of love and choice.
what do you think Luke? anyone else?
i think it can be seen as tragic in that sense, yes, but i was more inspired by the fact that this new romance spurred them on to the things they had committed to before...maybe those people weren't the best for them, but there was hope in the idea of being able to love beyond what is comfortable. that maybe this renewed sense of self and ability to love would in fact draw out the good in the old partners, just as their love for one another drew out this beautiful thing.
maybe.
hm sarah i'm not sure that i agree...because i think loving someone 'better' won't change or really ensure those previous relationships. also because their love for each other is not an abstract concept or ability of love, but attached to a person.
it is multi-dimensional, and i liked that as well. you do have the idea that things might work--but i don't think they would be whole people. graham i think you're right, it is tragic. they brought out the best in each other and then gave that up.
but then again, she was married. so would it have been better to quit her marriage because of it?
i appreciate this conversation guys... please, anyone else chime in.
it's funny, our conversation brings me back to the fact that love is risky. it just is. and not merely romantic love, all love.
i agree with what you're saying, Sarah, that love has a transforming power. something happened with those two people: they connected in a deep and real way coming more alive in the process (and making some kick ass music!).
yet Luke, i know what you're saying; the change they experienced may or may not have any influence over their future relationships.
but really, i'm intrigued by your comment that their love was attached to one another. it makes me ask the question: is the love we experience with one able to be transfered to another? (i think you may have already tipped your hand, luke! but i still want to hear your thoughts) does being changed by romantic love allow you to love another better or is that change reserved solely for the object of your love?
i think our experiences of love greatly influence and enhance our ability to love in the future--a ton!
more of what i was saying is that their ability to then love better isn't going to change the way the other partner is able to love. in the movie his girl in london cheated on him, and her guy in czech let them leave.
so maybe i'm jaded by my experience, but i don't think loving them better alone is able to transform the other person. disagree?
hmmm. i dunno. i know that i have been transformed by the love of another..i think we all have. Jesus? even with my kids that i teach...i have seen how when they are loved as they are...when they are poured into, there is sometimes (not always) a change in their behavior, their actions, and yes, their love towards you. it's tricky...because not every person you love will necessarily love you...and sometimes no amount of love can spur a person on to change...my mother and stepfather are a prime example, luke, and in their case, you are correct.
still. i believe that love is a transforming force...i believe that it is a powerful thing and that is why Jesus calls us to love God and love others...knowing that that act would be the catalyst of movement in ourselves and others towards becoming as we were supposed to be.
and beyond that, we don't know these character's counterparts...why she cheated, why he let them leave. there are always two sides. but imagine how she felt to hear him coming back, offering not only his forgiveness but continued love. that is humbling and possibly life-altering.
you're right graham, it is a risk. a darn scary risk for sure. there are so many what ifs and unknowns. and yet this relationship, the marriage of two people, is a picture for us about how we relate to Christ...it certainly changes the way i used to think about following Jesus! and my life has attested to this truth, of a life lived according to His will does not always mean comfort and security...often times it is devoid of both. but i am finding that in His will there is unadulterated joy, unbelievable peace and a satiation beyond this world.
luke, do you think they would be whole people with each other?
you're definitely right sarah. love is and has to be the most transforming force in the world. it does completely change people. but i wonder if romantic love, or eros is different in that respect. you can't make someone love you in that way, no matter how hard you try or all that you do. it springs from some other place.
so i think for their partners the love is not strong enough for our two movie characters (to stay faithful in whichever way). they could change, but even the most 'romantic' experiences cannot change their hearts. but maybe they did truly love and just made mistakes. that is possible.
i don't think they will be whole people then, well, besides being without jesus, the love and completeness they found was specifically attached to one another. if they were together...maybe. a relationship is not made by initial sparks or inspiration, so who knows? but probably would have a better shot than the old relationships.
probably too far into the unknown, but still interesting to think about. do you think that is a fair distinction of love? thoughts? graham?
it's interesting, as i read yalls comments, i have two distinct thoughts:
first, what role does love play in bringing about change? typically, i think of it as a catalyst: input love, output transformation. but what if it's more of an environment; love is a breeding ground for change. or, using an agrarian metaphor... is love the soil (environment) which creates space for a heart to change? is love the sun (an external nutritious force) which prompts a heart to change? is love a seed planted in one's heart by another that springs forth a new and fresh reality?
second, i wonder if love is one thing or many things. often i've heard love spoken of as if it's multiple things with the same label (eros, agape, philia, storge). instead i wonder, is love one thing with multiple aspects, dimensions or functions? and if it is then by increasing one dimension (maybe familial love... storge) are we in fact increasing another (possibly erotic love... eros)?
so to bring it back to Once... assuming that love is both an environment and one thing with multiple dimensions (my latest grasping of love)... could it be that their connection together provided an environment for personal change & healing for each of them? furthermore, could their interaction with eros (and possibly others: familial? friendly? maybe even agape) have increased their capacity to love more fully their old lovers? and lastly, if their love did increase, could they then provide an environment for change and healing for their old lovers by their new found love?
i would say that your questions frame my understanding of the situation perfectly. but i also realize that this is the hopeful side and maybe not the realistic side.
refreshing discussion my brothers... i love this kind of stuff.
mmm discussion on the nature of love--that's an easy topic.
in terms of the oneness or the multiplicity of love, i think, yes. buechner has a lovely chapter on the unity of eros and agape in The Hungering Dark. In a lot of ways love is one thing with many expressions. At the same time we are shaped so much by our language, and I don't know if those Greek distinctions are just aspects, dimensions or functions of one thing. They certainly effect one another at times, as hope increases faith or something like that. But their distinction is still important often. So, yes, both.
and yes, love is also an environment, or at the very least it creates one. but it is also not an abstract concept. it is deeply connected to its object. so i think their finding that connection in one another does not help them because it raises their love i.q. (if indeed it was love). in fact it probably hurts it more than anything, because it fractures the object of that love. will they be left thinking about the other person in moments of intimacy or moments of isolation? probably i would think, because there was no closure, no resolution to that spark. i don't think love can just be a soil, but it is the unity of the soil and the plant--and it is less one-sided than that of course; they give to each other. there needs to be healing and refreshment. but of course in that picture the soil is not only love, but the heart.
i guess that's a good concrete way to express that idea: that love is not just a concept or feeling or ability applied to a person, it is the heart--it is concrete and tangible and personal and relational. love cannot be separated from the heart, and the heart in that love is only whole with that specific person. does that make sense?
i realize all this might be the more pessimistic side, not the hopeful side to the movie as sarah mentioned. and of course i also realize i don't really understand all this enough to be all that confident in my present understanding. so please, correct me as you see it necessary.
you've mentioned a few times that a person's love is directly tied to and grounded to the person they love...can you explain that more to me? i guess i understand, but i have thought of love as more of an ability, a giving, a sharing, but not necessarily uniquely specific to that person...maybe i haven't loved like that yet. i mean, i know what it is like to love someone and it be very specific to them, but i don't feel like that love is "lost" or broken or gone when that relationship is over...i see it as a pruning or refining of my ability to love and a loss, for sure, one that demands a grieving sometimes. i don't know...i feel kind of silly, maybe like i'm missing the point, but if you could expound on your view of love, that would be helpful :)
don't feel silly. i'm not sure i'm right about this in any event.
but i guess i think of it like this: does someone who has been married three times, for say 7 years each, love better than someone married to one person for 10 years? i don't love someone i just meet greater because i have one who i loved deeply the past years of my life. that new love takes time.
of course we learn a lot about 'love' by loving others. and our experiences of love will, or at least should lead us to love better. but why? i think maybe it is more because we know how to create that environment for it to grow, to know what things push people away and hurt them and what things draw them into intimacy.
ultimately, love must be relational. it grows not so much because of the things we do--those are the ingredients, the nutrients to the plant. but it grows by a connection, a sharing. that's why i think "love at first sight" isn't really deep love, but perhaps that first spark maybe, if it can be called love at all. the romantic in me wants to say it is, but probably not. in short, love takes time--but that's a bit of a tangent.
does that make sense?
luke, i love what you're saying because again and again you're hammering home the reality: love is relational, love is relational, love is relational. how often i refer to love as an ambiguous reality rather than something that is deeply tied to the person(s) in front of you.
im also appreciating the talk about love creating an environment. spaces are so important (im realizing... as someone who is currently doing their room for the first time in years! i need a freaking chair!), and so i think about love being that perfect environment which allows other good things to flourish and come forth.
i understand what you're saying about 'love at first sight' possibly not really being love and certainly not the full expression of love. but i dont know... haven't you ever meet someone for the first time and thought: i love you, or at least, i could love you? i agree that the fullness of love births out of time & trial, but i wonder, can you bump into someone and it all fit so right that youre able to love them instantaneously? i feel like ive felt that.
dude, i'll see what i can do about your chair. my car is small, but maybe...
i think the word that best expresses that relational nature of love is "union" (thank you mr. tillich). love is a union (two become one flesh), and of course, being the mystic that i am i guess there probably can be some sort of mystical union created by 'love at first sight.' union is a state, but so also it is a process--we are always searching for more of it. great paradox!
i once wrote a story about that idea kind of, about a guy who's first meeting with someone was so magical/impacting it seemed greater than his current struggling marriage. kind of the reverse order of this movie in a sense. and the story was a question, not a statement. do you think that mystical union can be more powerful than one built on time and sharing? of course i have thoughts but i'll throw that one out there.
ooh. those are some tough ideas to wrestle with...my first reaction is no. simply because i know that my heart is fickle...but perhaps that is because i have not learned to live out of it in way that it was meant to be lived..a result of trying to tame what He has set within us. all of this coming from the sacred romance stuff i'm reading....it really makes sense to me. however, i do know there are some "long-term loves" that really aren't love...they are these agreements, to live and allow to live with some degree of warmth and care...but not real love. i honestly don't know any couples that are 70 and madly loving one another...but i also don't have a wide repertoire of options either. i think that sometimes people choose to marry because they are in lust, or in love with convenience or in love with the idea of a person...but i believe that if you find yourself in a love that is for who that person is and vice versa...not who they might become or the function they serve in your life..then i think that would be more powerful than a first time connect...however, my guess is that that kind of love comes with a first time spark...you know "the connect" i find myself talking about and hearing others discuss.
my question is, when you find that spark, how do you allow and enable it to become love? i find that fear and insecurity squelch it so often...or it is felt within one, but how do you know it is within the other? and what if you are the woman, as myself? it is rather unappealing, i've heard, for a woman to boldly declare her interest...yet i see so many men hiding and not following through with their affection...how do any of us end up together at all? i'm afraid this might be opening a whole other can of worms...but how does one create the space for that spark to blossom, without blowing it out in haste or frightening the prospective....or in the case of a "true" spark, there are none of these issues?
luke, i would love to read that story if you would allow me to, and graham, i appreciate your enjoyment of space...i don't find many people outside of my architecture/design friend who can discuss spatial things...i think that space, both the actual physical reality and the emotional and spiritual counterparts are a vital part of relating. and quite fun to study for myself. you should check out dwell magazine.
yeah sarah, i agree. i've seen so many poor examples of love/marriage that my reaction is almost: i have to look forward to that? and yet there are a precious few that give me hope. their stories arent glamorous or easy, but I could listen to them all night because they're good.
i remember a conversation with Dean when he was just engaged with Jenny. he was describing how all these people had been telling him how difficult marriage was, trying to prepare him. i asked him how that made him feel, how he responded. this is what he said: forget that man, our marriage is going to be awesome. (no... those weren't his exact words). he went on to say that by focusing on the difficulty, he was robbing himself (and jenny) of the joy and fun of engagement, the honeymoon, etc. i deeply appreciate that subversive posture, and think it's really true. If we enter marriage with the idea that it's going to suck and be a battle, I think it will be. If we enter saying it's going to be a beautiful adventure together, again, I think it will be. Or, at least, I hope it will be.
Sarah, I really dont know have any sort of answer to your questions... but, I appreciate them. They make me think and wrestle, which is always a good thing.
Here's my hunch though: you just live it. You ride the wave. It's risky and scary and tempting to not even attempt. But really, is there anything in life that's good that isnt risky, scary & tempting to not even attempt. And furthermore, what's our expectation of the rest of the relationship? I think things get more risky as we grow together, not less (I mean this in a very positive light!).
(the last paragraph is the reason I will never ever ever write a 'how to' book. I just don't think I could. I believe the struggle and joy of 'working it out' is part of what it means to be human... how could i rob anyone of that?).
For me, I suppose Im waiting for the spark that makes me want to risk it. The sort of person that draws me out and makes me realize: "yeah, this may not turn out well, but it's worth the risk. it's worth the potential embarrassment, worth being shot down. Worth being ignored." Personally, Im tired of attempting to set things up that makes sense... I'd rather just live out and let the chips fall. I will most likely end up looking quite foolish.
Thanks for the Dwell suggestion... I actually already had it; the latest issue is in my bag. And technically, Civil Engineering is a design field. Who knew!?!
And Luke, I remember that story... I dug it. Will you send me another copy of it? I think all I have is 'the pearl.'
i like what you said about that spark drawing you into risking it...instead of trying to set it up yourself. i think that's important.
i should have known you'd already have dwell. good stuff.
oh, i just now got dwell like a week ago. your comment was a total affirmation of my spending hours and hours imagining!
yeah, i'll probably become a subscriber... im tight like that. or rather, id like to make myself tight like that!
I'm just going to post a few thoughts, which probably won't at all tie into the discussion above, since I'm a straggler.
1) I thought the story was tragic. I didn't cry until the last 20 seconds, and then just lost it. Love is a choice, and in this case, they chose against something that could have been really beautiful - and I had to mourn that. Yes, in turn, they chose a different path (and different people), which could be seen as a good thing. But I had no context for those stories - only the story between the two of them. So for me, the viewer, "Once" was a painfully tragic story.
2) I think that our experiences and past relationships definitely inform how we love, and even WHO we love, for better or for worse.
3) I don't believe in "LOVE at first sight." But I am a big believer in an instant connection, an instant spark, that can be the base for something amazing to grow. I've felt it before. I hope to feel it again.
4) Love shouldn't be hard. Challenging, yes. Painful, sometimes. A choice, of course - if it's going to have any kind of longevity. But it shouldn't be hard. I've experienced my fair share of relationships where every day felt like a struggle - like I was trying to fit into some sort of mold that I wasn't made for. I hope that the real deal will feel natural and comfortable and easy.
5) "Once" was amazing. The music was incredible. "Falling Slowly" is one of those songs that makes me feel like someone is taking my heart and stretching it in every direction at once. I can't tell if I should be elated or pained.
Um. That's all.
annie, wow, you think you can just throw in your comments at the very end and the conversation will suddenly be resurrected for you? ;)
i dig what you're saying about past loves not only informing how you love, but who you love. never thought about that, but i think i agree. we're changed by love, for better and worse, and therefore who we're willing to extend our love to is changed as well.
im curious, you're down with the spark, but not love at first sight. for you, what's the difference?
I know, I'm so behind the curve, it's embarrassing. If you post one more blog, this one disappears from the main page, and no one will EVER KNOW that I've been commenting here.
I don't know that you can actually love someone from the very first moment that you see them. Well, I mean, I don't think that *I* can - I guess I can't speak for others. But it seems to me that love HAS to DEVELOP - it can develop quickly, but it can't just materialize out of thin air. There has to be SOME kind of progress.
But there IS that thing. That spark. That hum. It hardly ever happens, but when it does, you know it right away. And I guess that for me, the spark is what enables love to develop more quickly. The spark allows love to... uh, catch fire?
(super lame, Annie, so dumb)
lameness aside, i think that's really well said. there can be a spark, but love has to progress, grow, develop.
all this talk about love at first sight (do yall think it can happen through other interactions as well? love at first phone call... love at first blog post... love at first text message... haha, oh, i could go on!) has got me thinking about my experiences where 'lightning has struck' or my head has been turned. really, i'm not sure if i can recall it ever happening to the depth that we're discussing (or like in that coffeeshop scene from Meet Joe Back). Which makes me wonder... is it that I've never had the experience of the spark or that I've forgotten because the spark hasn't ever grown to love?
When have yall experienced that spark? Has it turned into love for you?
although i have no problem with figurative language, i am a bit curious about this 'spark.' not that i don't know what we're talking about, because i've had it and seen it developed into love. but is the spark more than just the mutual attraction? yes, it's something of an occasion is it not? some relationships develop after a long friendship, but there is still a spark there at some point, right? but it seems like that spark that comes on a first encounter, like that is maybe something more.
is that truly the case? or do we just uphold that because it's more romantic? i had quite the 'spark' story, on top of a mountain in greece, and yes it grew into love--but can the spark be so strong that you mistake it for a flame?
maybe that's not what happened. but i guess what i'm saying is that even the most romantic things are not what love sparks from. it comes from some sort of deeper connection that you find, usually after that initial spark.
so no graham, you can't spark wirelessly. :)
given the latest developments, this is increasingly funny to me :) i know that luke is probably enjoying this too much.
spark....i know it happens, and i've seen it flare. but there has to be a choice to pursue it, to fan it, to allow it to become love. i've seen it missed or squelched at all stages of "spark" - from first encounter to very large and flammable spark.
who knows why it goes that way? are all the other sparks not the same as "the" spark that ends up in marriage? the development and architecture of relationships is really intriguing to me...mostly because much of it remains a mystery to me.
Post a Comment