haiii :3 miscellaneous thought dump
yez.
this night is flawless; don't you let it go.
i'll spin forever, wondering if you knew i was enchanted to meet you.
chasing shadows in a grocery line...
"it's math." stilted yet succinct, dakota johnson's lucy m. from celine song's materialists is a meditation on what it means to pursue truth over freedom in the game of love. caught between a highly eligible bachelor with infinite sums of "fuck you" money (pedro pascal) and chris evans (john) cosplaying a starving artist, lucy embarks on a convoluted journey to fulfill that ache most all of us possess for companionship and understanding.
ultimately, materialists is unable to explore either of these characters or what they represent in a satisfying way. harry (pedro pascal) and lucy's relationship is incredibly bland to watch, while john never quite convinces you that there is something more behind his charming devotion. while i appreciate song's sentiment, there is nothing groundbreaking about the idea of choosing your heart over tangible wealth. the characters are bland, the story is shallow, and yet i haven't been able to get this film out of my head. something deeper than this tepid attempt at depicting a "modern love story" compells me to write.
recently, i'd been juggling these two ideas (freedom and truth) as it pertains to various aspects of my life. if love is to be viewed through this quantitative lens (it's math!), then, given the choice, is 'freedom' (which in our modern society is largely derivative of your personal wealth and assets) more valuable than your 'truth'? if you picked truth –– if you picked love –– is that really all you need? being in love for 5 years wasn't enough to save lucy and john's relationship when every day was an uphill battle for these two broke 20-something-year-olds. but if you picked freedom, is companionship and happiness achievable even if love isn't on the table? after all, despite being made to feel valuable by pedro pascal, lucy decides to walk away from the security and comfort his immense wealth ensured because of that crucial missing variable. or maybe there's a third, secret question: must love and truth be mutually exclusive with freedom? or can you, in fact, have your cake and eat it, too?
turning to la la land, a (much better) film that has etched itself in my consciousness over the past decade, i'm reminded of the cynicism i'd viewed this dilemma with since i watched it on christmas day in 2016. love is not enough, i'd affirm over and over, if it cannot fix this broken thing deep within a relationship. but i think my heart has grown more hopeful since. every viewing of la la land, i've always found myself drawn to mia's character and her story, resolute in thinking that she would always have to have been apart from sebastian in order to flourish in her acting career. but this last watch, i found my heart aching deeply for sebastian. despite being sidelined by mia after her play fails, he finds something in him to chase after her, reminding her of childhood dreams she wanted to forget. and sure, maybe love couldn't be on the table for mia and sebastian in this moment (which may have cemented my feelings in the past towards their relationship) but what is love if not spurring someone to chase their own happiness despite not knowing if you might be in the picture? daring to drive to boise on a whim for no other reason than knowing your heart couldn't be settled otherwise? what is more romantic than that? what could be more devastating? isn't that the truest thing? isn't that freedom?
where i believe materialists fails to stick the landing is its inability to properly portray any stakes in love. dakota johnson loses pedro pascal, but there is no fear; we aren't able to see how walking out of this textbook-perfect relationship (that she'd dreamt of for years!) affects her at all (which makes her choice of chris evans to be bland at best). and though john does seem pretty desperate for the opportunity to love lucy again, we aren't shown any glimpses into what made him so disgustingly in love with her in the first place. love, truth, and freedom –– what meaning does it have if there is no palpable risk on the line? being immensely afraid of love and its consequences, and chasing it anyway, i find that to be the most romantic notion of all.
"I'm a beggar for you. When I see your face, I see wrinkles, and grey hair, and children who look like you... I can't help it."
"You asked how I could love you. I just do; it's the easiest thing ... Here's the offer. I love you now like I loved you before. I'll love you till the day I die. It's a lifetime guarantee. And I won't forget it the way I used to, even when things are shit. I'll make a calendar item everyday reminding myself that I love you. <-- [tbh this part is a little baffling] I'll be your certainty. It's my final offer. You can't negotiate because I don't have anything else to offer you. [actually this final part also made me ???]"
you've made it to the bottom of this page. hi. to go back to the homepage, click on the site title 𓆝 𓆟 𓆞