Facebook Badge

Navigation Menu

featured Slider

Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts

AURELIUS



The gym lay beneath Mayfair like a secret chapel, a sanctum sunk into white stone and discretion. It was called Aurelius, a name chosen, one suspected, less for the Roman emperor than for the suggestion of gold without ostentation. The ceilings were high enough to allow humility to breathe; the mirrors were cut not to compliment but to instruct. Marble veined like old parchment cooled the soles of the feet, and the air carried the indistinct, subtle scent of eucalyptus and money well behaved.

 

Aurelius was not a place for improvement. It was a place for maintenance. The men who came here did not seek transformation; they sought confirmation.

 

Two young men were already in motion.

 

Sebastian Ashcombe, Viscount Mereford, ran with the bored precision of one who had been taught from boyhood that even exertion must never look like pleading. His hair—dark, civilised—refused to sweat in public. The silk-cotton vest he wore had been made in Naples and altered in Savile Row, the sort of garment that advocated athleticism without ever confessing to effort. His running shoes, scandalously understated, were the colour of old bone.

 

He ran as though history were watching and had expectations. Which, in his case, it did.

 

Beside him, adjusting the incline on a neighbouring treadmill, was Theodore “Theo” Langford-Smythe, heir presumptive to a banking fortune so old it had once funded wars and now funded quiescence. Theo’s build was slighter, his elegance more scholastic. He wore black—always black—not as rebellion but as a philosophical position. His vest bore no logo. Logos were for people who wished to be recognised.

 

Theo believed admission was a form of moral failure, second only to enthusiasm.

 

At a polite distance stood their butlers: Pembroke for Sebastian, a man whose eyebrows alone could convey a memorandum; and Huxley for Theo, taller, greyer, and so composed he seemed less employed than eternal. They hovered with chilled Voss bottles wrapped in linen, towels folded with the tenderness usually reserved for newborns or treaties.

 

Sebastian increased the speed and said, conversationally, as though discussing the weather in Provence, “Have you ever noticed, Theo, that Cédric Klapisch does not make films about people meeting, but about people colliding politely?”

 

It was an opening gambit of the sort perfected at Oxford: apparently casual, actually diagnostic.

 

Theo smiled, though his breathing remained steady. “Ah. L’Auberge espagnole as social physics. Erasmus students as subatomic particles.”

“And therefore unstable,” Sebastian added contemplatively, “decay is built into the premise.”

Theo slanted his head. “Yes. They arrive believing Europe will enlarge them. Instead it dissolves them. Which is far more honest.”

“Europe,” Sebastian said, “is always honest after the fact. Before that, it prefers theory.”

“Precisely,” Sebastian replied, “everyone thinks it’s about youth and chaos and Spain. It isn’t. It’s about borrowed spheres. Temporary identities. The terror of discovering that you are provisional.”

 

Provisional, like governments. Like marriages. Like convictions held before thirty.

 

Theo reached for his towel, nodded once to Huxley, dabbed his forehead. 

 

“And that, of course, is why we liked it when we were insufferably young. We thought ourselves permanent.”

“Youth,” Sebastian said, “mistakes duration for depth.”

 

They ran on. The mirrors multiplied them into a small dynasty of exertion.

 

“What I find rarely remarked upon,” Sebastian continued, “is that Pot Luck is not European optimism. It is administrative melancholy. Forms. Passports. Bureaucracy as fate.”

“Kafka,” Theo said, “but with better wine and inferior despair.”

“And worse consequences,” Sebastian replied, “the tragedy is not oppression, but compliance. Everyone fills out the forms willingly.”

 

Theo laughed, a low, dry sound.

 

“Trust you to romanticise paperwork.”

“I’m serious,” Sebastian said, “the flat is not a home. It’s a holding pen. They orbit one another not out of love, but because the walls are thin and the rent is shared. It’s accidental intimacy. The most candid kind.”

“Accidental,” Theo mused, “and therefore intolerable to people who believe intimacy should be curated.”

 

Theo adjusted the incline again, punishing himself marginally.

 

“That explains Russian Dolls, then. Everyone thinks it’s about growing up. It’s actually about discovering that one’s emotional furniture no longer fits the room.”

“Which is the true cruelty of adulthood,” Sebastian said, “you keep the furniture, lose the room, and are blamed for the inconvenience.”

Sebastian glanced sideways, approvingly. “Yes. The sequel is not temporal—it’s spatial. Paris instead of Barcelona. Maturity instead of exuberance. Same souls. Less noise.”

“Less noise,” Theo said, “but more echo. Which is infinitely harder to ignore.”

 

Pembroke stepped forward, handed Sebastian a bottle. Sebastian accepted it without breaking stride, murmured thanks as one might to gravity. 

 

Theo went on, “What strikes me about Les Poupées russes is the cruelty of its tenderness. Klapisch allows his characters to succeed just enough to feel the embarrassment of having wanted more.”

“Success,” Sebastian replied, “is merely desire that has learned to apologise for itself.”

 

They ran in silence for a moment, the machines humming like discreet confidants. And in that silence, oddly, other areas seemed to open.

 

A Parisian apartment, for instance. Tall windows. Late light. Somewhere between takes, an actor sat alone, listening to the hum of his own refrigerator as though it were dialogue. He had been instructed not to perform loneliness, only to withstand it. Klapisch had said very little to him—only that loneliness was already articulate and did not require emphasis. The actor grasped, with a shiver of humility, that he was not playing a role but lending his body to an abeyance. Cinema, here, was not spectacle but moral listening.

 

Listening, in Klapisch’s cinema, was a radical act—almost impolite in a culture addicted to declaration.

 

Back in the gym, Sebastian slowed his pace, stepped off with aristocratic finality. Pembroke was already there, towel presented like a sacrament.

 

“And then,” Sebastian said, wiping his hands, “there is Paris.” 

Theo exhaled. “Yes. The film everyone pretends is an ensemble piece.”

“It’s a city contemplating its own mortality,” Sebastian said, “the characters are symptoms. The heart patient merely gives Paris permission to be afraid.”

Theo nodded. “A city on the examination table. Streets as veins. Cafés as capillaries. Everyone rushing, no one listening.”

“Listening,” Sebastian said softly, “would require Paris to accept limits. Cities, like empires, find this undignified.”

 

Another expanse. Another life. The actress from stared at her phone’s darkened screen, her own face faintly reflected. She thought of how radical it had been to play a woman whose interior life was not redeemed—no grand ambition, no cinematic salvation. Klapisch had trusted stillness. He had trusted her face to remain unresolved. She understood then that he filmed the unfinished not as failure, but as dignity.

 

Sebastian slowed further, leaning against the machine. “What people miss,” he said, “is that Paris is the first time Klapisch admits time will win.”

“Which is why Back to Burgundy feels so restrained,” Theo replied, “no city this time. Just land.”

“Land,” Sebastian said, “has never believed in progress. It merely tolerates it.”

 

They moved to the free weights, iron cold and judicial. Theo lay back on the bench; Sebastian stood above him, attentive but unintrusive.

 

“Ah, Burgundy,” Sebastian said, “heritage without nostalgia. Siblings circling a vineyard like reluctant heirs to a crown they did not ask for.”

Theo lifted, controlled, precise. “It’s a film about succession where the vines understand continuity better than the people. The land is patient. Humans are seasonal.”

“And therefore melodramatic,” Sebastian added, “we experience entropy personally.”

 

On another set, years later or earlier—time was uncooperative in Klapisch’s world—actors moved through time, the colours of it. Between scenes, one of them felt something uncanny: as though the future itself were watching, taking notes. Klapisch spoke not of narrative, but of obligation. You are not acting for now, he said mildly. You are acting for what comes after us. The actor understood then that this was not cinema as memory, but cinema as stewardship.

 

Stewardship, Theo reflected, was merely aristocracy stripped of ardour and forced into ethics.

 

Huxley handed Theo his water. Theo drank, reflective. “And then comes Deux moi. Which everyone calls small.”

“Only because loneliness is quieter than tragedy,” Sebastian replied.

“And because it refuses to announce itself,” Theo added, “loneliness has dreadful manners.”

 

They re-racked the weights.

 

Someone, Somewhere,” Theo said, “is the most aristocratic of his films.”

Sebastian raised an eyebrow. “Do explain.”

“It’s about parallel lives never touching,” Theo said, “which is essentially our entire class structure rendered tender instead of brutal.”

Sebastian laughed softly. “You are suggesting we live in a Klapisch film?”

“I am suggesting,” Theo said, standing now, closer, “that we are always one misaddressed email away from familiarity.”

 

Around them, Aurelius continued its muted ballet of privilege. The mirrors observed without dictum, as though aware that judgement would be redundant.

 

“You realise,” Theo added, “that Klapisch is doing what Michelangelo did.”

Sebastian paused. “Removing excess?”

“Exactly,” Theo said, “Michelangelo carved tension between flesh and eternity. Klapisch carves it between people and time. He doesn’t impose vision—he excavates it.”

Sebastian considered this. “A modern Michelangelo of the visual medium,” he said, “working not in marble, but in glances.”

Pembroke cleared his throat, guardedly. “My lord. Your meeting.”

Sebastian nodded, then looked at Theo. “Another day?”

Theo picked up his coat, impeccably cut. “Always.”

 

As they walked out—two young men shaped by affluence, reflection, and a cinema that refused easy answers—the mirrors behind them multiplied their absence. Somewhere between Parisian kitchens, Burgundian soil, lonely apartments, and future-facing sets, time seemed to halt, uncertain whether it was being remembered or anticipated.

 


 

Sebastian: Mayfair to Kensington

 

The Bentley accepted Sebastian without comment, as it accepted everything: authority, inheritance, fatigue disguised as taste. The door closed with that particular sound—less a fuss than an agreement—and immediately the world softened. Leather. Walnut. Taciturnity trained to obey.

 

Mayfair released him slowly, as it always did, like a host who believes too much haste is vulgar. Brook Street, then Davies. The geometry of wealth held steady: clean lines, doors that did not explain themselves, façades that inferred permanence without ever promising it. Sebastian watched it all pass as though from a great height, though the car barely moved.

 

Klapisch had taught him—though no one would ever say such a thing aloud—that places were not settings but arguments.

 

Berkeley Square drifted by, trees dark and disciplined, their winter branches presenting patience. He thought of L’Auberge espagnole again—not the flat, not the jokes, but the terror beneath it: the moment when a place stops welcoming you and begins asking what you intend to become. Sebastian had first felt that terror not in Spain, but here, years ago, when Mayfair had stopped feeling like a birthright and started feeling like a test he had never revised for.

 

The car turned west. Park Lane opened itself like a thesis statement: Hyde Park to one side, the hotels to the other—nature methodical, luxury impersonating hospitality. He remembered Russian Dolls then, not as a sequel but as a reckoning. The realisation that one does not outgrow one’s earlier selves; one merely relocates them. They follow. They sit muted in the back of the mind, like old furniture kept for reasons one no longer remembers.

 

The lights along the park smeared smoothly across the glass. Manoeuvre without drama. He thought of Paris, of the way Klapisch had filmed the city not as a romance but as a body—ageing, self-conscious, suddenly aware of its own breath. Sebastian understood now why it had unsettled him so deeply. It was the first film that had allowed him to imagine his own life not as a trajectory but as a circulation. No climax. No redemption. Just movement and cessation.

 

At Knightsbridge, the shops were already closing, their windows still lit, performing relevance for no one. Consumption as afterimage. He recalled Back to Burgundy, the vineyard, the siblings circling something older than their ambitions. The land had not needed them. That had been the shock. Sebastian had spent his life believing that buttressing implied necessity. Klapisch had suggested otherwise: that continuity was indifferent to intention.

 

The car slid into Kensington, broader streets, softer certainty. Houses that pretended to domesticity while practising prudence. Somewhere behind him, Mayfair folded back into itself, already forgetting him.

 

By the time the Bentley stopped, Sebastian understood why those films had mattered. They had given him acquiescence to stop mistaking arrival for meaning. They had named the unobtrusive verity he had never dared articulate: that his life, for all its polish, was comprised of crossings—corridors between radiuses he would never fully inhabit.

 

Klapisch had not judged him for this. That was the mercy.

 


 

Theo: Under the Shower

 

The water came down hard at first, unnegotiated, striking Theo’s shoulders with a blunt uprightness he preferred to mirrors. Steam gathered quickly, blurring the lines of the domain, reducing it to heat and sound. He stood still, feet planted, letting the temperature settle into something bearable.

 

Water ran over the collarbones first, traced the shallow hollows he had never filled out, no matter how carefully he trained. His body had always resisted exhibition. It was built for endurance rather than declaration. The water followed that logic, sliding down his chest, over the ribs—each one briefly announced, then forgotten—before collecting at the waist and moving on.

 

Theo closed his eyes.

 

Someone, Somewhere had undone him not because it was sad, but because it refused to insist that sadness required resolution. Under the spray, he felt the same truth play itself out physically. The body, like the film, did not ask to be saved. It asked only to be acknowledged.

 

Water gathered at the small of his back, then ran lower, indifferent, democratic. His muscles loosened, the tautness he carried without vanity finally conceding. He thought of the characters in Deux moi, how they existed inches apart, connected by nothing more vivid than proximity. How radical that had felt. To be seen not as incomplete, but as analogous.

 

Klapisch had trusted the body to think.

 

Theo’s thighs bore the convincing, livid marks of effort—training not for beauty, but for inconspicuousness. The water traced them without interest, as it traced everything else. It did not flatter. It did not accuse. He remembered an actor’s stillness in Paris, the way a man could simply sit, breathe, and allow the city’s clamour to pass through him without interpretation. That, Theo comprehended now, had been the lesson: that presence was not performance.

 

The water thudded against the tiles, relentless. He let it run over his hands, the long fingers, the trivial tremor that came not from weakness but from thought. He had spent his life mastering abstraction—numbers, systems, legacy so vast it had lost narrative—but Klapisch had returned him to the material fact of being alone in a body, in time.

 

As the steam thickened, the space lost its edges. Theo thought of Colours of Time, of acting not for now but for what would follow. The water, he recognised, was doing the same thing. It was not cleansing him for the evening. It was preparing his disappearance. Every drop moved on. None stayed.

 

That was why the films had mattered. They had not promised connection. They had dignified distance. They had hinted that to exist alongside another life—unmerged, unresolved—was not failure, but a form of grace.

 

Theo turned the tap off. The sudden lull was absolute.

 

Water slid from his skin and was gone.

 


 

The Bentley idled for a moment longer than necessary.

 

Sebastian did not step out at once. He remained seated, hands resting nonchalantly on his knees, as though awaiting authorisation from something older than habit. The street outside was still—not empty, but settled. A single window glowed across the way. Somewhere, someone else was also not yet finished with the evening.

 

It came to him then—not as revelation, but as recognition—that belonging was never conferred by place or lineage or even by love. It arrived askance. It was granted in intervals: in collective calms, in quarters borrowed for a period, in conversations that did not conclude but simply learned when to stop.

 

Cédric Klapisch, gently and without pageant, had taught them all the same lesson: That life is constituted not of arrivals, but of crossings. That meaning resides not in resolution, but in adjacency. And that the future, like art, watches us even when we pretend it does not.

 

Sebastian understood now that this watchfulness was not surveillance but care. The future did not demand greatness of him. It required only attention—an ethics of noticing, a willingness to remain present as time passed through him rather than over him.

 

Elsewhere, Theo stood by the open window, his body cooling, the city breathing back into the amplitude. The night air touched his skin with unremarkable kindness. He felt, for the first time in a long while, neither alone nor accompanied, but properly situated—one life among many, streaming coequal, held together by nothing more fragile or more durable than closeness.

 

He thought of the people he would never meet, whose lives would nonetheless brush his own through shared films, shared streets, shared hours lived honourably. The thought did not diminish him. It steadied him.

 

Belonging, he realised, was not being known completely. It was being held incompletely, by a world willing to make latitude for unfinished selves.

 

And so the night continued—automobiles moving through lit avenues of masonry, water drying on warm skin, orbits settling into their shapes—each moment passing into the next without ceremony.

 

No conclusions were drawn. None were required.

 

There was only the reticent assurance that somewhere, between scenes, between people, between now and what comes after, they were already home.

 

  



SEX ON – SEX OFF




A woman visits her doctor and tells him she has terrible discharge. “Ok, take your knickers off and let’s check it out,” he says. She drops her knickers and he has a feel around. “How does that feel?” He asks. She says, “Fucking fantastic, but the discharge is from my ear!”



Your first reaction to something like that would be to have a hearty laugh, and then blurt out – What a twat! It is here I would say, pause a little before judging anyone, since isolation, socially and otherwise too, is known to make people behave in ways that are mostly unexplainable. And given the current circumstances, where a fierce and yet faceless enemy seems to have taken siege of our daily lives, one is beginning to observe an assorted array of feelings take birth in the populace, and one such behaviour we are witnessing amidst people is that of sexual urges: some are using it as a coping mechanism, whilst some others are abstaining from it. 

The New England Journal of Medicine says, ‘In a time when the rational–emotional scale is tipping to the emotional side, we begin relying more heavily on anecdotes, particularly personal experiences that may carry inordinate weight in our minds. Journalists use the power of stories to connect with readers and tug at their emotions. Physicians, trained as scientists, are expected to follow a hypothesis-driven, rational, evidence-based approach to clinical decision making, but we, too, can be swayed by stories under the pressures of a crisis.’

In using the power of stories to connect with their readers, we are witnessing a conflicting reportage that ranges from the brashest to the most unreliable. What is alarming is that several respected publications too are allowing such inane write ups where one says that the rash on the skin can be a sign of the onset of the virus, another says that flatulence can cause the virus to spread, and the latest one claiming that masturbation boosts your immune system, helping you fight off infection and illness. I cannot help imagine what such misinformation can do to those already wallowing in a state of fear and depression, as they are quite literally under a mental as well as physical state of house arrest. 




Sex has been the greatest occupation of mankind after food and these accounts about how the COVID-19 may affect their sex lives is accentuating their anxiety. Some claim that the anxiety is playing spoil sport, while some claim that they feel a rather heightened state of arousal. So let us take the help of medicine and psychology to examine the two sides of the coin. 

It would be safe to say that both are not wrong in what they are feeling as psychological studies state that no two people act and react in the same way, and that sexual necessities and wants vary from person to person.

Isolation terrifies us, and we can draw a great deal from Terror Management Theory. Such a theory explains that when we are reminded of the prospect of our own mortality, that is when we are confronted with the fact that eventually everybody will die, we cultivate to change our communicative pattern and thoughts in a manner so as to help us cope with this inevitable end. The unrest and the death that one is learning from the various forms of media about the virus that is affecting people of all age groups, from across the globe, seems to have increased the awareness of our mortality more than ever. As an unswerving effect, each of us are dealing with an underlying wisdom of angst about death, and like everything else, every individual is coping with it in their own capacity.   




Whenever studies were conducted where the subjects were asked about the vista of their death, a fair number of them exhibited an increase in sexual longing, while some others took to it casually, like any other activity they would engage in without giving it much emphasis. Some theories rationalise that those with a positive body image and not intimidated by physical intimacy display an amplified interest in sex. I, however, think that it is rather discriminating to encourage generalised statements like this because one cannot quite measure the level of a human beings sexual craving based on factors such as body image, comfort with physical intimacy, etcetera, as one can harbour an interest in sexual closeness without boundaries sketched by research. When I probed a bit more, I learnt that such information in a surge in sexual activity in a time like this had been collated from the number of times people were accessing pornographic sites. Such numbers may possibly matter, but they are not concrete data to support why we have been feeling a bit more frisky when left indoors. My practical theory on it is perhaps that when any two individuals spend a reasonable amount of time together, the epithelial layers seem to peel away, and the said individuals begin to bond and bind deeper than when they had been distracted by the diversions of day-to-day routines. Given the physical proximity, they feel less constrained, which they would customarily feel, as they are normally engaged in physical intimacy as a couple, just that those moments, as they are busy doing other things are spontaneous, or planned, with abundant pressure to let off steam and satisfying carnal hungers by resorting to lovemaking; but when you are jammed with someone for twenty-four hours, for weeks together, the dynamics are indeed different, and once the initial awkwardness of being thrown together without escape is overcome, such individuals begin to actually explore their feelings, and as an outcome, their bodies are far more open to frequent engagements of sexual activity.   

Now on to the other side of the coin. Research illuminates that some individuals clearly use non-sexual methods of relieving their disquiet. And like the Terror Management Theorythere is also the theory of Dual Control Model of Sexual Response. This theory explores the belief that we all entertain varied bents for sexual excitation and sexual inhibition. I was reading a fine example that explained it fittingly thus: We all have a “gas pedal” and a “brake” when it comes to sexual arousal. However, some people have a gas pedal that is always partially pressed (which makes it easier for them to get turned on), whereas others have a brake that is always partially pressed (which makes it harder for them to get turned on). For people who are easily inhibited, stressful situations like the one we’re currently in are likely to slam the brake. These individuals will probably find that it’s hard to get in the mood for sex right now unless they can find a really potent distraction or another way to get in the moment.  

Another medical paper expressed something else of note, and I prefer to quote it here verbatim – By contrast, for those who are easily excitable, stressful situations don’t necessarily create the same roadblock—and they could potentially even have the opposite effect. How? We know that fear and anxiety sometimes have the effect of amplifying sexual arousal rather than supressing it. Indeed, strong emotions are often mistaken for sexual attraction. Furthermore, “excitation transfer” can potentially occur, in which strong emotional states end up amplifying a sexual response. In fact, this is precisely why a lot of people say that “makeup sex” is the best sex—residual arousal form a fight with a partner is probably intensifying sexual arousal in those cases. 




I would like to say that whatever way you end up analysing to what extent your own needs require a pause, or an augmentation, especially in the frequency of your physical involvement based on the situation, there is no compunction. Remember that love, happiness, being adventurous, positive thinking, dreaming, hope, believing, being crazy, laughter, tipsy nights, gratefulness, joy, moonshine, chasing dreams, peace, singing, bird songs, motivation, meaningful conversations, thankfulness, blooming flowers, being proud, music, braveness, exciting books, the sound of rain, the fragrance of rain, optimism, celebrating life, funny movies, soulmates, sunshine, being strong, honour, freedom . . . these are some of the true joys that no studies or research can take away from you, and the same would apply to your sex drive too. Do not let time or inhibitions hinder you from exploring what you want to explore, and as many times as you want to explore it . . . so go on and get under (or over) the sheets! 

To end, leaving you with . . . well, you decide what it means, for each one interprets things owing to the elasticity of their aptitude and attitude.

We hear alcohol may prevent the virus... We hear direct sunlight might quickly kill the virus... So, if you come across some bloke standing in the front garden buzzed-faced and naked, leave me alone. I’m conducting important medical research!






References

Taubman-Ben-Ari, O. (2004). Intimacy and risk sexual behaviour – What does it have to do with death? Death Studies, 28, 865–887

Goldenberg, J.L., McCoy, S.K., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2000). The body as a source of self-esteem: The effect of mortality salience on identification with one’s body, interest in sex, and appearance monitoring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 118–130.

Bancroft, John, Graham, Cynthia A., Janssen, Erick, Sanders, Stephanie A. (2009). The Dual Control Model: Current Status and Future Directions. Journal of Sex Research, 46 (2 & 3): 121-142. 

Ivry Zagury-Orly, Richard M. Schwartzstein (2020) Covid-19 – A Reminder to Reason. The New England Journal of Medicine 

Image Credits: An erotic realm, clockwise from centre: Ellen Barkin and Gabriel Byrne in ‘Siesta’, Richard Tyson and Sherilyn Fenn in ‘Two Moon Junction’, David Duchovny in ‘Red Shoe Diaries’, Carré Otis and Mickey Rourke in ‘Wild Orchid’, and Audie England and Costas Mandylor in ‘Delta of Venus’. Rex / Eureka / New Line Cinema 


HAPPY - 2015



The Oxford English Dictionary describes HAPPY as an adjective denoting a feeling of pleasure or contentment.

Jacques Attali in We, Europeans, Are Alone, said, since the twenties, Europeans gradually became accustomed to the idea that, even if they made a thousand mistakes, there would always be someone to save them from their own turpitude. And the United States also gradually settled into the role of Deus ex Machina. And indeed, they saved us (with Stalin) from Nazi monsters with their army; they saved us from our economic sclerosis with the Marshall Plan; and they saved us from the Soviet threat with their nuclear missiles. He further elaborated, this support has always been carefully managed and limited: the Americans had done everything so that their Allies could continue needing them. It was out of the question for the Europeans to be independent militarily, financially, culturally, industrially or technologically. There was not a single strategic industry in which the United States did not seek to either maintain control, or deprive the Europeans from doing so. Similarly, there was not an area of law where the Americans did not try to set the rules. And there was not an area in innovation where the Americans were not pulling the strings. Today, everything has changed. Europeans can no longer afford to not see that they are alone; that the Americans are no longer there to defend them; that the American President makes his decisions without taking into account either the point of view or the interests of their allies.


You might as well wonder what I am trying to arrive at by drawing a corollary to something as commonplace as politics when the composition of this piece was meant to be on film. What people hardly ever understand is that a great deal of film has to do with what is around us – it is a medium that rather mirrors existence. While America did manage to militarily, financially, culturally, industrially or technologically control the Europeans, one thing it failed to control was their art and cinema, more so due to the tenacious temperament of the creative people not succumbing to any sort of external coercion, and this is what HAPPY, written, produced, and directed by Jordan Goldnadel is fundamentally about.


Jordan plays the protagonist Florent, 23, an upper class Parisian. He is intelligent, kind, and dressed with a philosophical smile. He meets Alessia (Isabelle Ryan), 23, a continually fuming, strangely sophisticated and nonsensically naïve lost American photographer in Paris. Bored in a society that praises the failures of men and women who give each other what they ‘need’ and not what they ‘want’ with the result that love becomes infected, Florent feels fossilised in Paris, and dreams of America. Alessia, on the other hand is trying to separate herself from her typical origins, far from the artistic and adventurous life she intends to lead, and dreams of achieving it in France. As luck would have it, Florent and Alessia meet at a park, where Alessia begins to take photographs of Florent without his consent. Amused at her brazenness, he asks her if she isn’t aware of image rights, and instead of finding herself engulfed in a pail of shame, she grins and asks him by virtue of gestures to move his face a little to a side in order for her to take more pictures of him.


Life is small, I had read somewhere, and our routines are rote and nearly imperceptible. Often, in writing classrooms, we’re told that it’s this smallness that makes a piece of literature. It said that most of our lives are basically mundane and dull, and it’s up to the writer to find ways to make them interesting (that’s Updike). Or, Life is not plot; it’s in the details (that’s Jodi Picoult). Usually, though, this sentiment ends up seeming as hollow and insincere as: write what you know because we do cherish plot, we do fetishize the arc, the action, and the twist, in nonfiction, we also fetishize the about-ness. We openly question if the reality of a writer’s subject is worth discussing. We prioritize a weighty topic over the force of an author’s gaze, the clarity of prose, the sincerity of emotion. Underneath it all runs that same droning question: Who cares? Who cares? Who cares? Virginia Woolf really cared about that poor moth, and Didion really cared about her notebook, and Montaigne really cared about, well, everything. That is Jordan as a writer to me – inventive, and not some celebrity who lands up on a talk show and narrates a story about their kids as though no other child has ever existed. Admire how he cares about the close ups of objects – of the food, of expressions, of the waiter cleaning the table at the café, the book lying on the table. Every little element has something that is stunning in Happy because movies merely like to concentrate on the extravagant. They like to light up every frame like people are dressed up to go to a party. And anyone who has lived well enough to understand life understands that we are not always our best all the time, and life is certainly not a party, (despite us wanting to present to the world that we each live in this gorgeous, near perfect life in a predominantly ‘social media’ driven world). On a larger stance the attentiveness to such detail was a befitting symbol of stopping awhile and taking note of things that we generally tend to overlook whilst going about the drudgery of day-to-day survival. The further attention to art and artefacts, the artistry of the etching on the whiskey glasses, the scarlet Cartier lighter, each of them that are brought into cinematic focus are there to tell us a story within a story. Florent disrobing the shrimp at the restaurant as Alessia begins to speak is a strapping allegory that leads to the robust manner in which her feelings are denoted in the setting. The fascinating part: where she utters ‘and’, pauses, and then utters another ‘and’, and concludes it with, “Oh, my mother just died.” reminded me of The Outsider by Albert Camus. Although the scene sports an easy demeanour, it is not easy in the least. I urge you to read Camus in order to appreciate why I say this about the writing of Jordan.


The creative canvas that Jordan Goldnadel draws up for Florent and Alessia who are shown at a crucial crossroad of their lives, very anchored in their generation, and are yet torn is an thought-provoking curve of human psychology. They ask – Who am I? What will I do with my life? Where will I live? Does the right person exist? Do I want what’s expected of me? Such questions do tend to assault us at various stages of our life. “What’s the use of falling in love if
 you both remain inertly as-you-
were?” Mary McCarthy asked her
 friend Hannah Arendt 
in their correspondence about love. A derivative of the same question is what Jordan undertakes to answer in Happy. These queries resonate the current state of the mind, because love, as someone once said, 
speaks to a central necessity of 
our life — at its truest and most
 potent, love invariably does 
change us by de-conditioning our 
painful pathologies and elevating 
us toward our highest human
 potential. Love tells us that  in the romantic ideal upon which our modern mythos of love is built, the solidity of that togetherness is taken to such an extreme so as to render love fragile, and when lovers are expected to fuse together so closely and completely, mutuality mutates into a paralysing co-dependency — a calcified and rigid firmness that becomes brittle to the possibility of growth. In the most nourishing kind of love, the communion of togetherness coexists with the integrity of individuality, the two aspects always in dynamic and fluid dialogue. The philosopher Martin Heidegger captured this beautifully in his love letters to Hannah Arendt: “Why is love rich beyond all other possible human experiences and a sweet burden to those seized in its grasp? Because we become what we love and yet remain ourselves.”


The irony of modern life is that love stories have become horror stories and horror stories, love stories. Like the ageing Hollywood crowd, films are thin and flabby, in bad taste, ostentatious, vulgar. Either they are inadequately overdressed or expensively undressed. There was once a time when in Hollywood the houses began to become as plush as hotels, and yet the people who lived in these houses began to make hotels their residences. That is quite the difference between the American and European cinema, its experience. This is the point where one can almost hear the words of Mary Oliver echo – “All of it, the differences and the maverick uprisings, are part of the richness of life. If you are too much like myself, what shall I learn of you, or you of me?”


In recent years, largely due to the uncertainty of the producers about what will draw the audience based more so on the fickleness of the audience, films at the very stage of scripting may shift several perspectives and may be finally cut into a product that is not appealing to the people who come to enjoy a film. This is where Happy was sombre and stylish. It was quite a rhythmical vision. The characters were developed without any highbrow pretentions. You got what you saw, and what you saw was quite the slice of an impersonal and abstract atmosphere, mixed with frankness about a film that took itself seriously.


Also, we live in times where the younger audience does not react to love on the screen. They are eternally distracted and talking amidst themselves, until of course ghastly images of blood and gore make them shut up and take notice. Why don’t they react to love one may ask? They don’t perhaps react to love because they are not used to the idea of love, they are married to their gadgets, they find a dopamine high in bursts of likes and shares on social media, and they are depressed when nobody reacts to their posts or their shares, and as an extension of such vacuous lifestyle choices the very idea of having to be in a real flesh and blood relationship makes them squirm with fright. What about the older audience then one may ask? The older audience on the other hand care less for the storyline. They go to the movies merely to watch the sex. So what happens to the rest – the intellectuals? Unfortunately, they are left with nothing, unless of course people like Jordan Goldnadel shape scripts like Happy that are packed with a profound sense of contemplation.


Television, and the internet, with all its breaks and cuts, and the inattention, except for action, and spinning the dial to find some conflict, is partly responsible for the destruction of the narrative sense – that delight in following a story through its complications to its conclusion, which is perhaps a child’s first conscious artistic pleasure. The old staples of entertainment – inoffensive genres like the adventure story, or the musical, or the ghost story, or the detective story are no longer commercially safe for moviemakers, and it may be that audiences don’t have much more than a TV span of attention left: they want to be turned on and they spend most of their time turning off. Something similar and related may be happening in reading tastes and habits too: teens have often read Salinger and some Orwell, Joyce maybe, and sometimes even Dostoyevsky, but they are not interested in the ‘classic’ English novels of Scott or Dickens, and what is more to the point, they don’t read the Sherlock Holmes stories or even the modern detective fiction that in the thirties and forties was an accepted part of the shared experience of adolescents. Perhaps they want much more from entertainment than the civilised, but limited rational pleasures of the genre pieces. And more likely, the box-office returns support this; they want something different. Audiences that enjoy shocks and falsifications, the brutal series of titillations, they want one thrill after another, don’t care any longer about the convections of the past, and are too restless and apathetic to pay attention to motivations and complications, cause and effect. They want less effort, more sensations, and more knobs to turn.  


Sexuality is depicted in various films with an innate rationale, or imposed upon by time-tested, accepted ideologies. Happy is the only film where I found that the people who made love to each other did so without attempting to intellectualise it. As adults what we do with each other, regardless of the societal clichés or labels, is entirely up to us, and we are not obliged to offer anybody an explanation for it. Culture has mortared certain stubbornly trifling guidelines on us, and it judges us by those barren strictures, and this is where we must break that die and be undaunted by the world’s assessment of our actions. We must do exactly as our heart desires, because desires aren’t lead by intellect but by instinct, and instinct isn’t erroneous.


Actor and director Vladimir Perrin as Thomas is strong and opinionated. He can take to different ideas but is intolerable to assumed stupidity that branches from half-baked wisdom rather than from learning or experiences in Happy. Léa Moszkowicz as Marion is impressive as a friend. A Marion is needed, most urgently, in people’s lives, a life that is seeing the line blur between what friendship is, and how friendship ought to be. The camerawork of Jean Sotelo is appropriate for the tone of the movie. The music by Izzy Gaon is effective. The soundtrack includes some great Amanda Palmer songs and the surprise of surprises is the lilting number Ek Ladki Ko Dekha To Aisa Laga by Rahul Dev Burman from our very own Indian film 1942: A Love Story.



When the final credits begin to roll, Happy leaves you with a feeling of pleasure and contentment, and one recollects Leo Tolstoy who said, if you want to be happy, be.