All men are animals, some of them just make better pets.  ¶ 17:14

 
This morning, while J. was with T. in Madison, I went to Beans for brunch. I saw the most incredible Maori face tat on one of the kitchen staff, and had a sudden burst of inspiration. A photo series entitled "ink", capturing compelling tattoos and the people who wear them.

While most of the tat shots I've seen tend to focus on the work, I want to include the faces of those who choose to adorn their bodies in such a fashion. The humanity of the canvas is more important than the art, and I want to try to capture this.  ¶ 14:12

 
Late last year, maybe September or October, I had this idea that I wanted to create a film through which I could share my viewpoints and opinions of open marriages. My idea was to create a compelling story that featured a couple in an open relationship as the main characters. Much like "Crash" featured James Spader and Deborah Kara Unger without calling attention to the openness of their relationship, I wanted to create a healthy, open dynamic.

Since then, I've been rolling plot ideas around in my head periodically and have been quite unsuccessful in finding something that's a compelling story that doesn't showcase an open marriage vs. societal norms as the primary conflict.

So at DAMN last night, when I heard B.'s voice from across the room asking why marriage was ever relevant anymore, I made a beeline for that conversation instantly.

They asked, "Why are you married?"

"Insurance," I replied.

And it was true. J. and I married when I needed insurance benefits. Other reasons we cited were having power of attorney over each other's health care (especially in light of her realtionship with her family) and the tax implications.

The interpersonal reasons for coupling had never entered into the marriage equation. Our commitment to each other as life partners had been solidified long before that part, and it was only for the societal recognition that we decided to participate in the social construct.

I've always been skeptical of societal constructs. In Against Love: A Polemic by Laura Kipnis, she discusses how marriage, once a tool to solidify political alliances or combine the wealth and power of families was becoming decreasingly relevant in our era. The historical construct which made marriage relevant has eroded, and marriage for love, a foreign concept until very recently, has taken its place.

But it's still a construct. Love does not require a contractual obligation as binding as a marriage contract over property and wealth. So how relevant is the traditional concept of marriage anyway?

At one time, I read an issue of Utne Reader that explored the concept of non-traditional family structure, and that really opened my eyes even more to the constructs under which we lived, and further validated my suspicion of said constructs.

So all that talk about how relevant marriage is got me thinking. How about a documentary about alternatives to marriage? Much like the Utne article validated me and showed some valid alternatives, perhaps a similar exploration of alternatives to traditional marriages would be in order.

I can think of several ideas: polyamory of course, marriage sabbaticals, couples who live apart due to work or military service, couples who live apart like F. & D. in their duplex, perhaps even gay and lesbian unions (though that's a whole different bucket of political worms)...the variety of ways in which people choose to permanently couple and make it work for them could be a very interesting documentary. So right now, I've got that rolling around in my head, and plan to toss around some concepts and see what sticks.
  ¶ 14:15

 
I've got a really interesting photo series I want to pursue, but have no idea how to do it without it getting overly politicized. The concept is simple. Women, photographed from neck to waist, naked with their arms bound behind their backs with various devices and materials. If I were a female artist, I could do this without a problem, but as a male artist, there's no way to do this without it turning hightly political. And that double standard is one of the reasons I want to do it.

Of course, it'll probably morph into women and men in the same pose. I'm an equal opportunity oppressor.  ¶ 10:16

 
Gwyneth Paltrow plays Helen in this 1998 film by director Peter Howitt. The film opens with Helen’s hectic morning routine as she prepares for work, spills tea all over her favorite book, and leaves her boyfriend Jerry sleeping at home. Little does she know however, that he’s planned a tryst, and is on the phone to his lover Lydia mere moments after Helen locks the door.

After she arrives at work and bursts into a meeting, Helen discovers that she’s been sacked from her public relations job, and decides to return home. She just barely misses her train, and is left standing on the platform, only to hear the announcement that there are unexpected delays in the system, and commuters should consider alternate means of transportation.

Helen goes to catch a cab, is injured in a purse-snatching attempt, and returns home from her terribly bad day as Jerry covers evidence that Lydia had been visiting. He decides to take her for a night on the town to console her.

But what if she’d caught the train? “Sliding Doors” explores the two divergent stories. In parallel tellings, we see both possibilities in Helen’s life. In the version of her life where she caught the train, she meets a charming man, James, and comes home early enough to find Jerry and Lydia in bed together. Helen leaves to stay with her best friend Anna, and begins the task of recovery.

Though painful, catching her unfaithful boyfriend is a catalyst for Helen to reinvent herself; to explore someone she wants to be, but perhaps has never had the opportunity to discover. She changes her long brown hair to a short, blond style. She begins a new relationship with James, and at his urging, Helen decides to start her own public relations company. Her first client, a friend of James’ is thrilled with the success of the restaurant launch he has her take care of.

Meanwhile, the Helen that didn’t catch Jerry and Lydia in bed has an unfulfilling job as a waitress while Jerry continues his affair. He pretends to work on his novel on ‘research trips’, when in actuality he’s with Lydia. He’s so preoccupied with Lydia that Helen can never seem to find time to tell him that she’s pregnant with their child. When Lydia becomes pregnant with Jerry’s child, she manipulates a situation to tell both Helen and Jerry simultaneously. Helen is shocked and angry, and falls down the stairs while running out of the building. Unconscious, she’s taken to the hospital.

In the parallel story, Helen is pregnant with James’ child, but due to a silly misunderstanding, they’re not on good terms with each other. They finally make up, when Helen is hit by a car and rushed to the hospital.

At the hospital, both James and Jerry are informed that their respective Helens have lost their babies, and James’ Helen doesn’t survive her injuries. It’s at this moment where the two parallel stories return to a single one. Jerry’s Helen recovers, and when she does, she asks him to leave and never come back.

Like her counterpart in another place, another story, she is beginning to reinvent herself. She realizes that she’s been turning a blind eye to Jerry’s infidelities and makes the choice not to take it anymore.

Weeks later, when she’s released from the hospital, she runs into James in the elevator and they glance at each other with a familiarity…but from where? Perhaps a memory from the other Helen, still in her subconscious makes her realize that James is a good man and worth getting to know.

Maybe some memories of what her life could be like if she were to be reborn as a different person of her choosing are surfacing at that moment. Whatever the magic is, we know she’s going to be alright.

This article is the third in a series of film reviews based on the major arcana of the tarot. It was published in the Diana's Grove Mystery School Newsletter in March of 2004.
  ¶ 20:27

 
With Valentine’s Day just past us, it’s only fitting to take a look at one of the more endearing love stories ever told on the silver screen. I’m talking about “Harold and Maude,” Hal Ashby’s 1971 film starring But Cort and Ruth Gordon in the title roles.

Harold is a young man from a wealthy family who just happens to be obsessed by death. He drives a hearse, stages fake suicides in front of his mother, and attends funerals for fun. It’s at one of these funerals that he meets Maude, an energetic elderly women with a joy for life. Neither of them knows the deceased, but they bond over their respective fascinations with the event.

Harold’s there for the morbid curiosity. Maude, on the other hand, sees the funerals as celebrations of life, where happy memories are interspersed with the tears. As Harold and Maude spend more and more time together, Harold becomes more and more enthralled with this woman. She’s excited to live her life fully, to live it with enthusiasm and gusto.

Surprised that Harold doesn’t know how to sing or play a musical instrument, Maude gives him a banjo. The two of them have adventures stealing trees from the city and replanting them in the forest. She teaches him to sing and dance, and to enjoy all that life has to offer.

Discussing their respective philosophies, Maude imparts her wisdom on Harold’s obsession with death. “A lot of people enjoy being dead,” she says, “but they’re not…they’re alive!” Later, she adds, “Live as well as you can, otherwise you’ve got nothing to talk about in the locker room.” Harold is captivated by her lust for life, and listens with rapt attention.

Harold has fallen in love with Maude, and asks for her hand in marriage on the night of her eightieth birthday party. She’s touched, but respectfully declines, because she won’t be here much longer. The pills she’s taken will be kicking in soon, and she won’t wake up in the morning. Horrified, Harold rushes her to the hospital, but it’s too late. He’s left to understand what it all means. After all, she loved her life so much, how could she end it?

Maude has taught Harold two important lessons. The first is about the transience of life. We are here a short time, and can’t escape death. Life’s end is inevitable for each of us, and when it comes, there’s nothing we can do to stop it. We can only make a choice about how we’ll respond. Will we approach death reluctantly? Or will we choose to face it gladly, as just another phase of our existence? She has also taught Harold that while we’re alive, we have a choice to live with joy and passion for life. Her choice to do this made it easier for her to leave. Without regrets for paths not taken, she found it easy to leave the party while she was still having fun.

Harold has been affected by his relationship with Maude, as short-lived as it was. As the film ends, he destroys the hearse-like car he’s been driving. He’s made a choice to live his life in a way that Maude would be proud of, and we can almost hear her voice singing along with his as he plays his banjo and dances along the cliff.

Harold and Maude is available at video stores around town, as well as at the Milwaukee Public Library.

This article was published in Riverwest Currents, March 2004. See the article here.   ¶ 18:46