I looked at my recent DVD purchases and realized I'm in a wave of Longing for Romance. 
Yesterday was so hot and oppressive I couldn't find the energy to do anything (oops, sorry, said I wouldn't complain about the heat anymore for a while) so I stayed inside right under a vent with my ice water and spray bottles and cooling neckerchiefs ... and watched romantic movies.
Sliding Doors, Love Actually (which I thoroughly enjoyed), The Cooler, which I didn't care for. I thought I would, but it was disappointing. Down and out guy with bad luck flowing through his fingertips meets a girl, finds love, and bad luck turns to good. But it was trying hard to be kind of romantic "film noir", and it didn't quite work. And it had way too much gratuitous flesh. Weird that they kept the blood and violence to the shadows mostly, but put in all this graphic sex.
That made me stop and think about my standards for romance, especially in movies. What am I looking for in these movies, in the books I read? Romance and sex are not mutually exclusive! In real life one usually leads to the other. Same with the best romance novels and romantic movies. But somehow seeing it in a movie in a graphic way spoils the romantic feeling for me and turns it into porn. There's a line there. A schizm.
Maybe the filmmakers don't know the difference. That led me down another road of thought (just flow with me here, it's a circuitous route...) about the differences between men and women and romance and sex.
No big duh there that there ARE differences. I've known a scant handful of romantic men - I mean truly romantic men, not just men who bring flowers and light candles in trade for sex. But there's always evidence of that split, no matter how truly romantic the man is. For instance - glaring example here - one man I know became enamored of romance, addicted to the feeling of longing and the process of wooing and pursuing. Once he got the girl, he became bored. If he could manage to fall in love with somebody who was with another man or otherwise unavailable, so much the better. But his ability to woo and romance was impressive, overpowering, totally seductive. Unfortunately, in bed he was another person. He became a porn king, slamming and dunking without so much as a thank you ma'am. Come to find out he had a secret porn addiction too. Two completely different parts of his personality. Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, romance and sex. It was the strongest example of the split I'd ever seen in anybody.
I don't mean he was a multiple personality. I think we all have these kinds of schizms within, parts of ourselves that we keep in the shadows, for one reason or another. Many men are similar to this man. There's sex, and then there's love. And the twain don't shake hands. They don't even go have coffee. They are strangers riding on opposite sides of the bus.
Another man I knew had an aversion to love. Being in love was not fun for him, he got none of the endorphin high that most people talk about, no elevated sense of self or oneness with the universe. For him being in love was pure torture, a vulnerability that made him weak. Like Sampson and his hair, this man believed falling in love would drain him of his manhood, his strength. I gather that's not an uncommon view either.
The hubs and I never really had a romantic "falling in love" period. We were friends, then good friends, and I knew I loved him then. But I wasn't either sexually attracted or falling in love. I just loved him. And then suddenly we were together. There was one night with the table set with a rose in a vase in the center, and dimmed lights. But he never was very good at romance, he was not a wooer. And maybe because we'd been friends for so long, he thought wooing wasn't necessary. And I set aside my need to be wooed because I also knew how damaged he was, how much his heart had been trashed by life, and what an amazing thing it was that he could let himself love me at all.
I felt his love for me, I knew he loved me, it wasn't that. But longing for romance is also longing for a feeling of ... what... being desired, I guess. Of feeling that overwhelming whoosh that happens when somebody WANTS you, and they pull you toward them with their eyes full of love AND desire. It's magnetic and powerful and wonderful and uplifting.
And I don't buy the argument that it's just a chemical process. Form follows feeling, is what I say. The heart feels, the soul desires, the body manifests.
BUT on the other hand, I know how seductive the feeling is, and I understand why some people get addicted to falling in love, trying to generate that high over and over again. There's something missing there too, as much of a hole and a schizm as the sex / love split.
I never really let my desire for romance be apparent or known. I never have. For many years now, I've sat on this little place in my heart that longs for romance. This little pink flower in my heart, a little pink fairy of a girl, not a vixen, not yet. She's a young woman, still hopeful, still believing in love in spite of all the childhood darkness and damage. How the hell did she survive all that? How is it that she still lives there, inside me? Lord, she seems so naive compared to other parts of me. A sweet little powder puff of a girl. And her need for love and romance is legitimate!
I don't have it in me to act on my desire for romance, it's not in my nature to have an affair or anything like that. And I know better than to ask the hubs for this kind of thing. It always feels forced and unnatural, something he does only because I asked.
So. I turn once again to the movies and the books. Let's see, what can I watch today? How about Romeo and Juliet? No, I guess death isn't the ending we want here. Well, we can just do a drive-by on certain scenes, just the dance and balcony scenes. Yeah, that might work. But maybe it's time to pull out the big guns. Go for the sappy and syrupy. On today's menu, fairy tales and Victorian love stories: an appetizer of Rodgers & Hammerstein's Cinderella, for salad, Ever After. Main course: Emma, and Pride & Prejudice. And maybe Love Actually (again!). And then, if we're still hungry, or need some dessert, bits and pieces from The Last Mohican, Untamed Heart, Shakespeare in Love, The Quiet Man, and whatever else strikes our fancy. Come on Little Pink, let's go get romanced.
Wonderful post. As for romantic movies, Bridges of Madison County is one of my all time favorites. Phenomenon another. Somewhere in Time is wonderful, also. Have your tissues closeby for all of them. :)
Posted by: Nancy | July 18, 2005 at 07:13 AM
Phenomenon, that's with John Travolta, right? I think I saw that a long time ago. I don't recognize Somewhere in Time. Who's in that? I'll have to go to IMDB.com and look it up. Thanks Nancy! Three more to add to my romance list ... but do they all have sad endings?
Posted by: Christine | July 19, 2005 at 08:54 AM
Phenomenon has a bittersweet, unexpected ending. Somewhat sad. Bridges...well, that depends on how you define sad. It is gut-wrenchingly sad in places, but the ending may surprise you. :) If you've never seen it, I highly recommend it. Somewhere in Time stars Jane Seymour and Christopher Reeve. It's a 1980 film--an incredible story that has developed a worldwide "cult" following. It personifies "romance".
Posted by: Nancy | July 20, 2005 at 08:47 AM
Wonderful, wonderful - as always!
I've never classed myself as a romantic, but I do have my own set of romantic movies I fall into as often as I need to: Chocolat, Better Than Chocolate, Immortal Beloved, and, strangely enough The Saint.
Posted by: Cin | July 21, 2005 at 07:53 AM
I love Chocolat! That's one of my favorites too. I've never seen the others. Today I went out and bought two that I was missing from my collection: Groundhog Day and Hope Floats. I couldn't find Somewhere in Time. I guess I'll have to order from Amazon. This list is great, thanks guys. Any more suggestions?
Posted by: Christine | July 22, 2005 at 11:55 AM