The Lasting Impact with Some of the Best End Credit Songs

Music and songs have always played an important role in filmmaking since its inception of the silent era. Whether it is a moving soundtrack or a well-placed song, music adds not only to individual scenes but to the entire movie and even beyond. We often recognize, identify, and associate movies with their unforgettable soundtrack; be it the themes of the Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, or Love Story, the soundtrack takes us right back to the movie itself and is often intimately connected with our feelings and sensations experienced while watching the said film.

As someone who has grown up with music videos having been part of the glorious MTV generation, I especially appreciate it when filmmakers make effective and full use of this. The film may at times come off as a music video or worse a perfume commercial but in the right and capable hands, all this will make us feel elated. Not that music is always necessary as the Dogme 95 movement has demonstrated, yet it paints a vivid picture and adds push, drive, and adrenaline as seen and experienced rather memorably in films like The Social Network or even Challengers (a shoutout to the talented duo of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross).

Yet, I believe that end credit songs are equally important and relevant to the movie experience, and they may be somewhat underrated or downplayed in their overall effect and influence of the movie itself. This is rather a type of after effect or of coming together of sorts. It can also accentuate or emphasize certain emotions either experienced throughout the film or be intimately connected to a given protagonist. I will briefly discuss a handful of end credit songs that I found lasting and impactful and that have significantly enriched my movie experience. Here we go in no particular order:

 

Suicide in Civil War

No, not the Marvel movie. Sure, that one was quite good and impactful but not as heart-wrenching as Garland’s depiction of what a (second!) American civil war would look and feel like. To be honest, I hated the film at my initial viewing; when it was over I thought it was mediocre at best. The plot was nonexistent, it was random scenes connected to a misguided road trip, snapshots of a conflict that was never fleshed out alongside characters that were one-dimensional; the dialogue was not well-crafted and not really memorable, and the ending was just dark and pointless.

That may have been the point you might rightly point out as the characters, both new and seasoned reporters and journalists are just taking note and documenting events outside of their control via the medium of pictures. This is undertaken perhaps for posteriority, out of curiosity, or simply for themselves, a type of self-gratification. Yet, before we get to the final shot, not unpredictably another still, there is the intro of a song that feels out of place and yet at the same time precisely augments and elevates the feelings of despair expressed in the movie.

The song in question was by a band I had not heard of before but it has been rather influential. Their name is characteristically Suicide, and the lyrics are simple but effective in their simplicity: dream, baby, dream. There was devastation, death, and destruction throughout the film’s running time, and then the film ends on rhythms that may have come from a second-rate synthesizer with lyrics that could have been penned by a high school student. In other words, it was baffling and utterly brilliant.

In fact, I had to look up the song and got a Google alert due to the band’s name and then I put it on repeat, listening to it countless times. As I was doing so, the final scene from the movie started replaying in my mind and I began to appreciate its deliberate tone and overall message. It literally helped me change my mind and feelings towards the movie and I saw what Garland was trying to show us here. In fact, it turned out to be a movie that must be watched especially in the background and context of today’s world, politics, and polarization.

Although some have criticized the film for not taking sides, I believe those critics missed out on the whole point (yes, it did have a point after all!), namely, to show us and document the brutality, callousness, and evil of a civil war and that it would not be in any way or manner a glorified war or a glorious revolution. No, all we would get is mayhem, chaos, death, and destruction, and the end of a once beautiful and promising nation. But as the song points out, we should not lose our ability to dream, baby, dream of a better future and a better more peaceful world despite it all.

 

Sinnerman in Inland Empire

Now Lynch’s Inland Empire was a baffling movie and that is a serious understatement. It also means a lot especially considering that we often equate the word “mind-bending” with this filmmaker whose films have pushed envelopes, boundaries, and our imagination, and which often represent Kafka’s worst nightmares reimagined on the screen. Throughout, his movies have been scored by the outstanding composer Angelo Badalamenti, whether it is the sad melancholic opening piece for Blue Velvet or the jazzy but equally sad and yearning intro of Fire Walk With Me.

Yet nothing compared to the ending of Inland Empire. This may be a spoiler except first, there is nothing to spoil here, and second, nothing really happens and yet everything does. The driving song is “Sinnerman” by Nina Simone, and we see characters coming together not as characters but as actors portraying them.

It is dark but weirdly uplifting and, in a way, there is a sense of catharsis not in a clear and direct way but rather in a surreal unconscious way and form. Suddenly, everything comes together, the monkeys, though random, somehow make perfect sense, and we understand on a nonverbal level why there were talking bunnies, and the film feels complete as a result.

The counterpoint and statement of this well-chosen song brings it all home and ties up the different knots or rather unties them for us and give us a full picture. Perhaps any other ending would have made me feel that I had just wasted a good three hours of my life on a movie that was disjointed and all over the place. But that was not the feeling I left with, courtesy of the vibrant and memorable song of “Sinnerman.”

 

This House is…. The House

The House is yet another surreal experience woven around the concept of a… house. It is stop-motion animated and consists of three short films that are in no discernible way connected to each other and that each feel different as they take place in different time periods and more importantly in different houses made by different filmmakers.

The first one is more like a traditional goth horror story set in the 1800s; the second one, a bizarre real estate interaction set in the 2000s involving various rats, which goes horribly and devastatingly wrong as the place becomes infested with bugs and insects (don’t ask), and the third one set in a (more or less) distant future, which ranges from anthropomorphic cat renters from hell to renters from another spiritual realm during an upcoming end-of-world disaster.

Although each vignette was well-made, I was wondering what the point of this anthology was. Then I heard the final song. It was not only thematically linked to the house and delineated the difference between a house and a home, but it was in the voice (literally) of one of the characters.

It was the second film’s real estate developer played by Jarvis Cocker singing as an anthropomorphic rat musing about how a house was nothing but a building, just a number of bricks put together, whereas a home was where the heart was. And suddenly, the house transformed into an important symbol of both estrangement and feeling at home, and I could not help but to love and appreciate how the film somehow with the aid of this final song managed to connect three random stories into one.

 

Hoist that Rag in A Most Wanted Man

A Most Wanted Man was very good throughout, but the final scene played brilliantly by Philip Seymour Hoffman, such a huge and irreplaceable loss to the world of cinema, summed up despair, frustration, and desperation in palpable ways. The song by Tom Waits only underscores the feeling of helplessness of someone being played by higher forces or simply forces that are outside of one’s control.

In the film, we see how the protagonist tries hard to make things work and to gain credit and recognition only to have everything unexpectedly snatched away from him in the last minute. He steps out the car, drives along but you can sense his nervousness and anger, and then it all ends and culminates in the mesmerizing Tom Waits song. I think of this character whenever I hear this song; they are intricately linked together in my mind, and at the same time, I realize how much I miss this towering acting legend who left us much too soon!

 

Honorable Mentions

I would like to finish with three honorable mentions. First off, Tarantino’s rather mediocre Death Proof, arguably one of this worst and least interesting films (I did like Jackie Brown but had strong reservations when it came to The Hateful Eight), but this grindhouse film ends with a brilliant piece of filmmaking and a catchy punchy end song.

It feels quite liberating and feminist as the women joyfully and gleefully take revenge on the perpetrator played coolly by Kurt Russell with the Serge Gainsbourg song "Chick Habit" in the background (originally “Laisse tomber les filles”) that is a warning to better not mess with girls (in its original not to play with an innocent heart) as they could just like that come back and bite you and even kick you in the head before you know it. This ending elevated what was a rather bland and uninteresting film when viewed and considered by Tarantino’s standards.

Then there is a Dogville that not unlike Inland Empire made us think what the hell we had just watched until the pulsating tune of “Young Americans” by David Bowie appears with images from the civil rights movement, and we suddenly understand that the film was criticizing and commenting on various elements of American history, culture, and mentality. And just like that we find ourselves back at square one.

Authenticity, Role-Playing and Leading Double Lives in Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris

One of the movies that had been on my watchlist for a very long time, we may be even talking decades here, is Bernardo Bertolucci’s notorious and controversial Last Tango in Paris. Bertolucci was known to often push the envelope, yet in this case, it may have backfired a bit. It seems that the film got a lot of attention and publicity for the wrong reasons and for its somewhat shallower and superficial aspects, which overshadowed its different strengths alongside the depth expressed in this idiosyncratic film.

The frankness and vulgarity can feel shocking and even jarring to this day, whereas the graphic nature and the explicitness in terms of sexuality fail to compare with other films that have radically pushed ahead and passed and surpassed many taboos and boundaries since the inception of this film. Arguably, this may have been due to the existence of Bertolucci’s groundbreaking Tango and let us not forget that famed French enfant terrible filmmaker Catherine Breillat appears briefly in it; still, there is more than meets the eye and much more to this movie than its controversy.

In fact, the strength of this film lies in what it has to say about its characters and their relationships with themselves and with others, including but not solely pertaining to issues of sexuality and the physical expression thereof. Furthermore, the film brings up and touches upon various themes that play with notions of reality versus fiction, lived versus imagined lives, and wishful thinking versus the reality of things. On the surface, it is an anti-romantic and anti-idealistic film but somehow it ends up holding and containing certain elements and seeds of romance and idealism within its dark heart.

To further explore this, the symbol of the double is of relevance. Interestingly, the word double has in fact two meanings. On one hand, it is a copy or mirror image of something or someone, while on the other hand, it is a splitting and separating into two, which may contain unequal or unwanted parts.

In the first instance, we have a type of doppelganger, someone who looks, acts or thinks as we do. The focus is on similarities, which can be eerie in some cases, and it is not unlike being identical twins. A cinematic equivalent of this would be Kieslowski’s The Double Life of Veronique where it seems that the same person is simultaneously living in two different parts of the world (Weronika in Poland and Veronique in France) as a type of carbon copy or duplicate of the other. This double life is as if the same soul had been split into two equal or equivalent parts of the self with each leading its own separate existence miles apart.

Yet sometimes, the double is the shadow or the shadowy self, the parts within us we don’t acknowledge or do not wish to, and this has been exemplified in the push and pull of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, for instance. The personalities lead a double life as there are two different sides to them that for one reason or another are hard to reconcile within the same person and their shared environment.

In fact, the art of filmmaking falls somewhere between both realms. Some filmmakers may create an alter ego, a character that shares many similarities with its creator, say Guido in Fellini’s 8 ½. At the same time, no matter how faithful the representation may be of the real person or real things and events, the film only manages to reflect them and can only be based on them as it is not able to fully and accurately capture the entirety, the same way a snapshot does not give us the full picture.

The problem is that the event cannot be identical with its representation, no matter how hard one tries, and the closest you can come to a potential replica would be to do a documentary on it; and yet, focus, editing, and other filmmaking choices can slightly - or significantly - distort the issues and facts at hand.

Let us now discuss the different doubles and their reflections, deflections, and mirror images in Bertolucci’s film. Please be aware that from now on there will be major spoilers and do proceed at your own caution. You can of course watch the film first and then return but again, you may need to proceed with caution.

 

The Double Life of Paul

The main protagonist played by Marlon Brando creates a double life for himself. His wife has just committed suicide, and he feels angry, lost, and in limbo. He is looking for a place to stay and then meets Jeanne by accident. It is not that he is sexually attracted to her (at least not initially) as he shows little interest in her or anybody else for that matter. Both are just taking or filling up space in an apartment that feels as dark and gloomy as Paul’s soul.

Yet suddenly and with little warning, he grabs her and makes love to her. It is instinctual and animalistic and has very little to do with any type of feeling. She goes along and does not resist him. Then both walk out, each their own way. But something lingers within each of them, so they decide to continue meeting for these clandestine sexual trysts, but he sets the ground rules from the beginning.

It is essential, he proclaims, to stay away from personal details and information with absolutely no names whatsoever. Each would remain anonymous in this artificial space, and they would agree to never meet outside of the confines of the apartment. After a while, Jeanne finds this frustrating as she has become curious about this strange enigmatic man. Oddly enough, it is this air of mystery that makes him so appealing to her. It is not difficult to see and understand why she is intrigued by Paul, especially after we meet her fiancé, the bland and self-absorbed Tom. But more about their relationship later.

As to Paul, he is grieving but he also displaces his anger, frustrations, and personal failings upon this young woman who has happened to cross his path at an importune time. He is cruel to her at different points of their time together. This makes Jeanne uncomfortable and yet she keeps returning to him and continues taking the abuse and humiliation that he inflicts upon her. This reaches its most extreme point when he anally rapes her while spouting nonsensical phrases about family and religion.

When taken in conjunction with his request to being fingered by her and then spouting vile and disgusting images of pigs and bestiality involving Jeanne, it made me wonder whether the character had been abused by the clergy. In another scene regarding his wife’s funeral arrangements, Paul vehemently opposes his mother-in-law to have priests present at the service while in another scene he almost beats up a man while angrily calling him a “faggot.” There may be homosexual tendencies or traumatic experiences that these scenes and situations insinuate or point towards, especially when taken and considered in connection to each other.

The sexual frustration and the double motif also existed on the side of his wife. For a handful of years, she, the hotel owner was living with one of the guests, an ordinary and insipid-seeming man called Marcel. In fact, she turned him into a stand-in Paul as she got matching bathrobes for each and re-lived and re-enacted similar or the same routines with either one of them.

The scene where both Paul and Marcel are sitting next to each other in identical bathrobes after the suicide of their respective wife and lover has a surreal touch to it; it also underscores the hinted double life that Rosa had during her marriage with Paul. Her lover Marcel went along with the charade and did not counteract or oppose Rosa’s wishes and desires. Soon enough, the passion ran out, but they still pretended to be a duplicate version of the joyless marriage she had with Paul who was residing a few hotel rooms away from there.

After Paul, in a moving and emotionally stunning scene, pours out his heart to the corpse of Rosa surrounded by an array of flowers and with make-up on her pale motionless face, he seems to change his air. Suddenly, he comes to or becomes more himself and then passionately pleads Jeanne to stay with him. Jeanne who up to then had merely been a projection of Rosa with all his bottled-up hatred and resentment aimed at her suddenly becomes a different person to him. Although he had previously turned her down and even mocked her for confessing her love to him, he now wants to start anew and begin an actual relationship with her.

At this point, Paul breaks all his made-up rules, goes up to her on the street, gives his name, tells her his age and that he is a widow and that his wife has committed suicide. All these intimate details pour out in a frenzy and in less than a minute. He also shares with her later that he owns a hotel and that he would now like to be and live with her.

This sudden move has its opposite effect. Jeanne may realize that she was never in love with him but that she rather loved the persona, this fictious double that he had created for her. As a result, she loses interest and decides to break up their relationship (or whatever it was that they had previously). Instead, she prefers to get married to Tom. In typical fashion, Paul cannot accept this and starts chasing her down the streets of Paris in another surreal scene that borders on the comical in its emotional overreach and intensity.

Before the film and Paul, the American, reach their respective end in her Parisian apartment, I would also like to point out the fact that Brando did not stick to the script but added his own flourishes and lines throughout the movie. The infamous and humiliating use of butter, something that the actress Maria Schneider had not been aware of was indeed his idea. There are other lines that stand out and look and sound improvised and probably were not part of the script.

Instead of simply being an actor that plays the character, Brando was modifying the role as he went along by adding a more personal dimension to Paul. This is Paul as imagined by Bertolucci and reinterpreted by the actor Marlon Brando. The alter ego becomes another double that is split apart from what the original character was supposed to be like and this occurs and evolves during the process of acting and filmmaking.

 

The Double Life of Jeanne

Jeanne seems like a person full of energy and zest for life who has unfortunately settled for an artificial relationship with wannabe filmmaker Tom played by Jean-Pierre Léaud. In this sense, I cannot help but think of Bertolucci, the director who is trying to express his desires, wishes, and fantasies alongside his pain and confusion via the medium of images, words, and sounds.

Yet, there is a hint of criticism there as Tom is as shallow and vapid as they come. He does not seem capable of true feelings and in fact lives in a world of fantasy in which there is nothing else but he himself and the movies. This can be seen from the moment they first appear together where he wants his crew to film everything they say and do, no matter how private and confidential. She is, according to him, the main subject of his next film.

There are various other scenes in which he supposedly explores Jeanne’s childhood and past including her first experiences of love and romance, but it is serving only the purpose of making an “authentic” documentary-style film. In this case, what is real is turned upside down and is put on its head. Although Jeanne expresses her feelings, he is less interested in her than capturing all this to make a movie out of it. It is exploitative in nature and serves only his own purposes instead of appreciating and respecting her feelings.

In that sense, Jeanne is just a character he happens to marry for the intents and purposes of making a movie about a man who decides to get married to a woman like Jeanne. He does not explore her because he is not interested in her as a person while he himself has little if anything to offer because he does not have a self or personality to speak of.

What is it that Bertolucci intended to say or show with this film? Part of it is of course the desire to make a film that pushes boundaries but also it talks about how we create doubles in different shapes and forms in our lives. It could be a double of ourselves, where he split into two seemingly incompatible beings, Paul in his two versions, Jeanne as Paul’s lover and Tom’s fiancée, Rosa as Paul’s wife and Marcel’s lover.

In each of these cases, this lack of authenticity creates a vacuum that accentuates the pain and suffering underlying each life. At the same time, since each of them fails to connect with their own nature, they are incapable of connecting with other people and their relationships become a bundled mess that lacks honesty, integrity or any type of sincere feeling or sentiment.

Final Thoughts?

In the end, we can create works of art via sublimation, but we must be aware to distinguish one from the other or at least not get confused between the two. Reality is a tricky thing and the moment you try to capture it, it seems to fly off the handle. Yet at the same time, we do not want to live in a world that is purely of our own making; we ought to rather find or settle for a comprise and integration of the two while continuously trying to find or be ourselves or remain authentic to what we believe to be our true nature.

Otto Rank and Thoughts on Individuality, Education, and Indoctrination

All absolute viewpoints, positions, and actions are fallacious; moderation is the key to everything, and we ought to question all things and matters. Although I believe in that statement, I am also aware of its inherent fallacies and contradictions. It is in and by itself what it claims to denounce, and it is like the statement that reflects on itself by saying that this statement is true. In other words, it is an absolute statement that wishes to eliminate or at least sow some doubts into all statements, beliefs, and thinking that are deemed absolute but at the same time, it is essentially and inherently a paradox in and of itself.

Secondly, this also underscores the importance of moderation and although we can counter that the practice and statement itself should be also taken in moderation, i.e. everything to be taken in moderation including moderation itself, yet it should be seen as a more balanced way of refraining being taken or rather being taken in by any radical one-sided viewpoints and lifestyles. Lastly, we should question everything including questioning whether we should question all things, or not. The main aim here is not to confuse or play with words but to point to serious issues and reach some potential and hopefully clearer understanding of them.

Otto Rank in his book Beyond Psychology points at the internal conflict and dilemma of the educational system, which at the same time becomes a microcosm and symbol of the paradox of human existence. On one side, education aims at general knowledge and the formation and development of the self, as in the inspirational Greek call for self-discovery, namely, to search for and “know thyself.”

Yet on the other hand, there must be necessary limits, restraints, and compromises for society to co-exist together in relative peace and harmony, a type of social contract or acceptance of laws and responsibilities to be able to live together. This is the other aim of education to help and guide us by living the life the way we want while also balancing it with accepting and respecting others to be able to do the same. It is individuality pitted against social conformity, or the individual good versus the common good, and education is the playground where this is played out.

It is a balancing act between what Otto Rank calls the psychology of difference versus the psychology of likeness and it affects us all in one way or another. We want to stand out and be different in terms of our own personality and ways of thinking and being, yet not to the extreme idiosyncratic degree where we would have nothing in common with others. We do need others not only as a foil or point of comparison, but we need them in the sense of our own identity formation be it via groups, clans, nations, families etc. all making part of that which we personally identify with.

It is an existential push and pull (the duality of being an individual) and if taken to its extreme on the side of individuality it can lead to eccentric behavior at best and utter madness at its worst, while conformity in its extreme would strip us of everything that makes us unique, and we would, again at its worst and most extreme, be nothing but a mindless cog in the machine or a humanoid instead of a full-fledged human being.

Education finds itself at this crossroad. On one hand, at least ideally, it wants to help us put ourselves on the path of self-discovery to find ourselves and to bring out not only our unique ways of being but aid us in expressing this via speaking and writing and to guide us towards thinking for ourselves, commonly referred to as critical thinking. That said, I much prefer the term thinking outside of the box and in that sense to be authentic, steadfast, and even revolutionary in one’s own thoughts and viewpoints.

Yet, left on its own and unharnessed, this could potentially lead to chaos and dissonance, and even further left field to anarchistic tendencies, hence education wants to also help us maintain and adhere to social order. This is not meant in the fascist or communist sense but rather as its opposite, to uphold democracy and democratic tenets and not to give sway to forms of totalitarianism of any stripe or color.

As Otto Rank put it, communism and fascism are two sides on the same coin. It is in either case, a denial of freedom and choice by means of force and violence. In communism, the ideology that we are all the same and equal is enforced and imprinted upon everyone whereas individual difference is not only frowned upon but intentionally stifled.

In the case of fascism, we have the opposite end of the spectrum; it is the individual and their differences that are underscored alongside the belief that a given collective group, entity, and ethnicity is not perceived as equal and as a matter of fact deemed superior to others. In both situations, the individual and their rights and choices are disregarded and trampled upon for the sake of what each ideology sees as the common good.

Education plays a crucial and often unspoken role in all of this by ways and means of indoctrination. Ideologies are then inserted, consciously or unconsciously, into the curriculum or the institution. Education ought to be free of any politics or ideologies but, in practice, this is often a different story. A particular ideology may hold sway at a given time and/or in a certain environment, and, as such, the school or university would not be educating people anymore but molding and even brainwashing them.

This is not limited to the realm of education but also applies to psychology. The current norm is upheld as a golden standard and everything that goes against it in one way or another is shunned. The individual who does not fit the particular mold is then fashioned and molded to get rid of the parts that are in conflict with it. This could be achieved via different means and methods, ranging from medication, institutionalization, or on a more common basis, by changing thoughts and views through cognitive therapy. The given patient or client is adjusted and re-adjusted to what is considered to be the current standard of sanity or normalcy.

Certainly, in many cases, this is indeed helpful and necessary as I would not want to state absolute statements or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yet, the problem lies exactly in the mistaken belief that one’s view is and must be absolutely correct, whether we are talking about the patient, the psychiatrist, or the mental health expert.

This can be evidenced in what was considered abnormal in the past, including any difference or deviation in terms of sexuality or sexual preferences. What was considered abnormal and even illegal has become more accepted and commonplace because our views, values, and ways of thinking have changed. We have in addition to the conflict between the self and the other, the individual and society, another factor that is rigidity versus openness and flexibility.

That is another element of a delicate balancing act, and it should be a staple not only in psychology, politics, and education but also a personal practice of each and every one to move from fixed beliefs and mindsets to one of curiosity and empathy so that one is not held captive or hostage by the latest trends and fashions of the day. 

Change is a constant that we experience in our daily life but at the same time, we are often enticed and driven to latch onto the most current view by eschewing anything that went before because we feel we are at a vantage point, which we deem superior to the previous one. Regardless of the truth and value of this, issues may arise when this is done in a radical and absolutist way and by denying or ignoring the necessary nuances and considerations that come with it.

You may also be interested in the following post and the podcast below:

Otto Rank The Soulful Psychoanalyst: From Psyche to Beyond Psychology

 The Work, insights, Influence, and Legacy of Otto Rank with Robert Kramer and Kirk Schneider

On Labels, Boxes, and Memes: Being Open and Non-Judgmental

Most of the time and throughout our lives, we tend to label things and people. It is a natural tendency of the brain to organize and structure information, which aids memory, learning, and retrieval. We need to define and classify the input to make sense of the data points and information and then to expand and expound upon them.

Labelling per se and on its own is neither good nor bad but it is generally efficient. Imagine going to a nameless store that has no labels whatsoever on any of its products. Where the heck are you at? What kind of meat or cereal are you buying? What’s inside the given product? Does it contain any allergens, gluten, or trans fat? And how much does it cost?

Many years ago, when I was working at a store, someone had mislabeled the price of an electronic item. It turned out that it was at a significantly reduced price. The person’s accidental error came at a cost for the store, but it was an unexpected boon and surprise for its clients who walked out smiling and grinning from end to end with the afore-mentioned item in hand.

Now my memory is a bit hazy on this matter, but I sincerely hope it was not an error of mine as there were times when I was not at the cash till but was designated to price items, a rather monotonous and mindless activity that lacked interaction of any kind. I also hope the store’s manager does not read this. It is highly unlikely but stranger things have happened indeed.

Hence, when it comes to labels, we want to make sure and verify to the best of our knowledge that the information is accurate and true. As an avid reader of cereal boxes, I found the details provided to be somewhat educational as I would learn about the breakdown of vitamins and minerals in relation to portions as well as how all this would change with the addition of skimmed milk.

Yet as a high school student, I was shocked to find out that anything that ended with -ose was essentially sugar. Why not be honest and upfront and label it as it is without trying to trick and deceive us? Sugar by any other name would taste as sweet, and we should not overlook, kid ourselves, or dilute the fact that most cereals are sugary in nature and purpose.

Yet, even when labels are correct, they may have adverse effects and repercussions, especially when they are put on living beings. The label that most of us tend to be comfortable with and often willingly and consciously identify with is our profession. Although it is a label that we generally accept and perhaps embrace, we may wish to peel it off during our off times.

Yet some jobs are considered constant and on a 24/7 basis. This applies to police officers and medics, for instance. They appear to never have an off switch as they are constantly thinking and are always preoccupied with health and safety. When someone is in medical distress, we call out for a doctor; when there is a violent incident, it is police officers who instinctively act and react often without thinking as it is their second nature.

On the other hand, we would blame either one of them on civic and moral grounds for not interfering or intervening despite them being off work at the time the same way we would reproach a lifeguard for not intending to save a drowning person on their break or day off.

As a language instructor, my cases tend to be much lower stakes, but I have been able to help tourists and foreigners with directions or with expressing their thoughts and wishes at different agencies and offices. At times, I may not feel so inclined – again we are not talking about emergencies or urgent situations – and I feel only slightly guilty afterwards, but occasionally I may not feel like helping others out despite having the ability to do so. That should not be an issue on moral grounds though most of the time, I tend to help and do oblige willingly.

This gets juicier and even more interesting when it comes to psychologists. The moment you mention that profession, people tend to tense up, hold their breath and visibly swallow. The assumption is that these professionals may be able to see through us, read our minds, or more realistically, infer and get information from our words and behaviors. The ones who have secrets they prefer to keep hidden under the rug or locked up in the closet will not feel free or willing to continue the conversation at that point.

But what I wish to express here is not just how jobs and professions affect others but the labels that come with them and the effects all of this has on us and on our psyche. Some of these labels seem permanent. Once you are a police officer, you will always be one. You may say that you are an ex-cop, but something generally remains.

An ex-doctor is something you rarely hear; we might say that the person is not practicing any longer, but it is not something you can or would want to just shake off. And then, on the other side of the spectrum, there are spies, drug lords, and criminals who cannot or would not divulge or talk about what they do for a living and must come up with lies and tales to cover it up.

Job labels can come at a cost as we can see, yet they are, of course, not the only type of labels we must cope and deal with. There are labels and stigmas associated with our gender, sexual orientation, marital status, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion and political beliefs, to name a few. Sadly, these tend to be fixed and inflexible and are often filled and peppered with hearsay, anecdotes, and stereotypes. There are often untested and unexamined assumptions and preconceived notions associated with each of these labels.

Apart from the labels that we carry and that we may or may not identify with, there are also those that we impose upon ourselves. We may come to see ourselves as a product of them and not feel free in our choices and decision-making. For instance, I may feel pressure to conform to the lack of punctuality of my ethnic group so that I do not stand out like a sore thumb or offend others who expect me to arrive late.

This is evidently a rather humorous example of the link between label, expectation, and peer pressure; nonetheless, there are much more serious cases and occasions where people go or feel they have to go against their own nature to appear a certain way so that they can gain approval or avoid and circumvent disapproval.

Labels are like fashion, and they can change, or new ones can be created anytime. When I was growing up, people who dressed or acted oddly or who tended not to be in conformity with the norms of society were seen as weird and labelled rather pejoratively as “weirdos”.

Flash forward to our modern day and age, and they are not seen as outcasts but are essentially celebrated as heroes that everyone must accept for inclusivity’s sake; they are even put on pedestals so that others (feel pressured to) emulate them. People may claim they are being progressive and liberal-minded by removing all labels whatsoever but, as a matter of fact, they are just replacing one label with another, while, for better or for worse, they encourage discriminating and going against anything that is not weird, i.e. the norm in this case. No, there is nothing wrong with being normal or even slightly boring and mundane.

The one place in which labels continue to have negative effects as they box people in and where despite goodwill and intention only little advance has been made is that of mental health. There is an equal tendency of completely going the other way of seeing (or at least claiming and pretending to see) mental illness as normal, which is too extreme and harmful both to the individual and to society at large. It is not akin to celebrating obesity for the sake of aesthetics and inclusivity while ignoring, disregarding or even turning a blind eye to the myriad health risks and complications that are associated with that condition.

Although things have somewhat improved and people talk more openly about their emotional and psychological struggles and feel generally less conflicted about seeking help to maintain, boost, and improve mental health, this has been of course also exploited or taken advantage of by many and for different, often harmful and nefarious purposes.

For many, mental health has become an empty word, a slogan, an excuse, or a political rallying cry. We are far from fully accepting it and of taking away the stigma and label attached to it but, at least, we are more aware of it, and it has become a topic of conversation instead of immediately being swept under the rug or rapidly dismissed.

Labels may designate the box, but they are not the box. In any ways, labels are just that, yet we exaggerate their importance and relevance and feel boxed in. We are then afraid to think outside of the box but rather feel restricted in our thinking and behavior and essentially vis-à-vis our unique way of being. Conformity can create the feeling and illusion of harmony, but it comes not only at an individual cost of freedom, but it is also not something that is healthy especially if done over a prolonged time.

Notwithstanding, these same labels and boxes have now become a meme. A meme can be anything that goes viral, that is, it is repeated on a seemingly endless loop without much thought or consideration. It is the modern earworm where notes seem to get stuck in our head whether you enjoy them or not. The same way, not only images and posts can become memes but also words, ideologies, or ways of thinking.

Not only are they being accepted and taken as is, but they are also endlessly and mindlessly repeated until we give up and accept and embrace them, be it consciously or unconsciously. This goes hand in hand with Nazi propaganda claiming that for others to come to accept a certain falsehood, it is important to bombard them with it on a continual basis, i.e. drill them with carefully chosen and selected memes. These memes then become lodged in our brain and are not based on critical thinking nor are they checked for their level of truth or falsehood, but they become stuck and keep crawling in our heads like the earworms of old.

This is not a political issue of left versus right as propaganda and falsehoods are perpetuated by both sides on the spectrum if not at the same level and quantity. They further undermine our freedom of action and thought and the expression of certain ideas that soon become taboo. This leads to a type of self-censorship and peer pressure in which many do not utter certain words or unpopular statements out of fear of retribution or attacks.

It also makes some scientists and researchers either willingly drop research interests due to their potentially polemic nature or in other cases when they attempt to do so, there will be no funding or grants for that line of research for the very same reasons. In such cases, the box is synonymous with a noose muzzling and even killing not only research and science but also putting a stranglehold on creativity and humor.

The consequence of all this is ironic. In a time that we are claiming to be most diverse, we are less so. In a time when we claim to be open-minded, we become more bigoted. In a time when we claim to stop judgments, we are being judgmental. In a time where we claim to abolish boundaries and combat stereotypes and prejudice, we essentially foster and encourage them.

It is more than ever important to embrace and feed our creativity and to not let ourselves be boxed in by thinking outside of the box. In fact, the box represents our own limits and limitations that we and others have set for ourselves. We can choose to accept the labels and boxes, or we can discard them and connect with who and what we truly are.

Labels are just that; they do not compare to the actual product. At best, they would be the trailer to the movie, but you are the real thing and are not the label unless you choose to identify as such. If it helps, you can expand a label to become a box. That way, it would be less limiting because a label sticks to you but with a box you have at least some legroom and you a have a bit more freedom. Plus, boxes come in different shapes and sizes and can be easily expanded.

And as you are considering and weighing your options and responses, you would do well to take things easy and take them with a grain of salt. Moreover, allow yourself to have a good time, to enjoy the process and the journey, and, most importantly, remind yourself to have a good laugh every now and then.

Don’t Bank on it: Neoliberalism with its Reckless Pursuit for Money and Financial Gain

Before reading the insightful and eye-opening book “The Quiet Coup: Neoliberalism and the Looting of America” by Mehrsa Baradaran, I was under the impression that neoliberalism is synonymous with capitalism. Part of it is because neoliberals have presented themselves in a broad light and they have touted not only market freedom with healthy and productive competition, hallmark signs of capitalism but also claiming to be free and independent from government control and intervention.

Yet when I think of freedom, it is essentially democracy that comes to mind in which people are the emblems of the society, nation, and community and, as a result, they keep politicians accountable for their decisions, seek transparency and demand honesty from the elected members of the parties. The views and opinions of the people enshrined in the constitution as a collective “we” would matter because they are (or at least ought to be) the ones that are calling the shots and that select and determine who is going to be at the helm of the government.

Yet since the coup of neoliberalism, there has been more instead of less government intervention; the laws have been surreptitiously tipped in favor of the big corporations. At the same time, because there are fewer legal limits and limitations, there is less pressure and accountability on the side of these corporations, and they have become – or at least they claim to be - too big to fail and hence must be bailed out at all costs and regardless of the circumstances. It is no longer an issue of left versus right but is now deeply embedded and ingrained within legal bureaucracy essentially and effectively holding both parties at bay and in the palm of neoliberal hands.

At the same time, there is no longer much competition to speak of as large corporations have either bought and engulfed the smaller businesses or they have run them into the ground and out of business, or in some cases, they have done both. What is touted as freedom is now a subject of control, and where there seems to be a plethora of choice, it all comes back to a handful of companies that are essentially running the show and pocketing all the money and profits.

There is not much in terms of rule of law and much less in terms of fairness and justice as the prime objective of neoliberalism is the darkest side and corner of unbridled capitalism itself, to make maximum profit in the shortest amount of time with little consideration or respect for the environment or people’s lives.

Anything that would bring in a quick buck or two, namely, an increase in financial capital and monetary value would be all good. The easier, the better, and, in addition to the ubiquitous loopholes, specific rules and regulations have been set in place to protect the companies from prosecution, failure, and even bankruptcy. In other words, and as Mehrsa puts it herself, the game is rigged.

Matters of fairness and justice are being ignored ever since this economic ideology has infected politics, and now mega corporations are running our lives. Democracy is on the decline as money, to borrow from Bob Dylan, does not speak, it swears, and reaches and extends its spiky tentacles in practically all areas of life and existence. What was seen and presented as market freedom has delivered its opposite, not a state-controlled economy but a corporate-driven state turning everything into minable commodities.

Add to that corruption and cases of unchecked and even unlimited lobbying, and everyone’s hands become tied and sullied with mud. As Mehrsa explains, it is not necessarily single individuals that are responsible and to be blamed but it is a system, a big dumb machine that has been the culprit and like memes, it keeps incessantly and mindlessly reproducing itself with the aim of increasing profits up to unimaginable heights and draining the pockets and livelihood of honest and hard-working people everywhere within its reach and vicinity.

In fact, this is eroding and undermining the middle class and thus creating a larger divide between the super wealthy and the very poor. Not only do most people need to work harder to barely make ends meet but they are also bending under the burden of serious amounts of debt. Without regulation and skyrocketing debt, usury, a practice frowned upon by major religions across the world since time immemorial, is not only good but excellent for business. It is dumb money in action as capital reproduces itself at high speed with little effort and not much productivity to speak of.

And yet, to my surprise, it has not always been like this. Previously, with the help and aid of government rules and regulations, corporations were made aware of the duties they have to the public. Often with various government contracts pending and at stake, corporations aimed to address social problems while equally contributing to the overall wellbeing of society. This was another dimension of corporations because it was actually good for business.

Embracing their role of corporate social responsibility made economic sense and it was not driven out of the goodness of their heart but for more practical reasons. They were seeing and treating people as their prospective clients and treated them with a certain amount of respect or tact. Yet in the world of absolute power, the same people are just viewed as mindless consumers that can be and are exploited in various ways and via different, often shady and even nefarious means.

In fact, modern day corporations seem to take people and their influence and their many contributions for granted. It is because of the honest and hardworking taxpayers that corporations have the infrastructure to move their goods and services across the world as well as police and security in each of the towns and cities to ensure safety, safe transport, delivery, and consumption. It seems so unfair and frustrating that while citizens are pulling their part and paying their dues, corporations seek tax havens to escape paying their much needed and obligatory share to us, the people.

Yet it is not corporations alone that are causing issues and ripple effects across the economy to the detriment of ordinary citizens. Banking, which used to be restricted and constrained in its operations to ensure that it would give less cause or occasion to abuse and to provide additional layers of protection to the public became another corporate structure piece under the helm and guidance of neoliberal stewardship.

As a result, banks started taking reckless risks with other people’s money. And it did not stop there since it gave rise to “shadow banks” that, not unlike corporations, are driven by financial benefits and profits. Enter the derivatives, which are seen as “synthetic” as opposed to what are considered “real” assets. There is no productive value in this except the possibility of increasing one’s own financial assets at the expense of others.

Yet this erodes what has been the staple of the banking system and the currency itself, namely people's trust. It was the erosion of trust that was a significant catalyst for economic crises, be it the Great Depression or the Wall Street crash of 2008. Banks need and bank on people’s money for their own investments, which can incur considerable risks and losses, yet when there is distrust, bank runs become more likely and possible.

The problem is that banks cannot guarantee the availability of each patron’s money at the same time. If everyone takes out their money within a short time span, the bank will not be able to pay out the necessary and requested amounts and would essentially become bankrupt. This is what Roosevelt was concerned about when he talks about perceived fear being potentially more dangerous and threatening than actual and real threats and dangers.

This is additionally troublesome because money, with the absence of any guarantee after the elimination of the gold standard is essentially only paper, or in the digital world, flickering numbers on a screen. The economy runs on trust and so a lack thereof can trigger or be its downfall.

The distrust and frustration with mega corporations are already present, their influence and control upon politics is suspect, and with it, democracy is at stake. This can only forbode impending disaster, and it becomes more important than ever to change course and to ensure that faith and trust of the people are slowly and carefully upheld if not restored. Otherwise, it will not merely be the end of democracy but the rise of totalitarianism, and we already know from painful experience what it can do to the social and human fabric and existence.

The Iron Claw of Trauma and Toxic Masculinity and Going Beyond the Family Cult

It is rather strange that someone who does not like wrestling or fighting should enjoy movies about them. Oddly enough, I am not referring to David Fincher's Fight Club, a classic for many, a masterpiece for others but which failed to impress me, and I thought that, at least in some ways, it contributed to instead of being critical of toxic masculinity. Yet, when it comes to family drama/trauma, two of the best movies out there are Gavin O’Connor’s Warrior and Sean Durkin’s The Iron Claw. Both films tackle fighting and competing in the ring, and both have endings that broke my heart and made me cry.

As usual, there will be spoilers galore and then some, so proceed with caution; it is best to have already watched the movies and trust me they are worth your time. While Warrior focuses on mixed martial arts, a sport that I find violent and abhorrent, The Iron Claw tackles wrestling, and yet interestingly, both are driven by dysfunctional families with flawed fathers at the helm. While in the former, the father is an alcoholic former boxer, played stunningly by Nick Nolte, who fails to hold the family together, in the latter, the father is an imposing figure that demands unconditional loyalty and unwavering obedience and respect from all its members.

While Warrior focuses more on the sibling rivalry between two rather different feuding brothers, the impetuous and rebellious Tommy (Tom Hardy) versus the family man Brendan (Joel Edgerton), in The Iron Claw, it is the unity and the cultlike adoration of the father that is its focal point. What moves us more is the fact that the latter is based on a true story and the various devastating and heartbreaking tragedies are not just a figment of the imagination but are grounded in real-life flesh-and-blood people and experiences. While Warrior moves us, The Iron Claw cuts deep.

Fritz Von Erich is the glue that not only holds the family together, but he is also the existential driving force of every individual within this circle. He projects his own dreams and failures onto his family. Essentially, he wants each of his sons to succeed where he personally failed, namely, to make themselves a name in the field of wrestling. The Iron Claw is his signature move and his legacy, but it is also symbolic of the tight grip he has on all his sons and his wife.

Not only are they to be blindly obedient to his wishes regardless of their own desires and passions, but they must be disciplined and hard-working throughout. There is no room for individuality or finding your own talents or even creating your own life; they are supposed to do as he says without doubts or hesitation. The ideology or reasoning is that the world out there is not a safe nor a fair place; yet there are two ways to protect oneself and to reach success: one, it is important to be physically and mentally strong to thwart opposition and challenges, and two, the family must remain united and support each other to the max.

The Von Erich family is a brand and a cult-like entity. Interestingly, one of filmmaker Sean Durkin’s previous movies Martha Marcy May Marlene dealt with the repercussions of identity and trauma after having been in an abusive religious cult. The gospel in this case are the sayings and proclamations of the father and the ring is the place where salvation can be attained. The tenet is masculinity in its rawest and most muscular form, men who fight and bully themselves to the top with an iron will and with no room for emotions or vulnerability. When in pain, be it physical or emotional, one must man up and suck it up as Kevin (a brilliant Zac Efron) is painfully reminded of throughout the film.

Not all the sons commit to this ideology because they believe in it but all of them accept and embrace it because they want to impress their father and yearn for his love and respect. In the case of Mike, the youngest of the clan, he would much rather be a musician, and yet, he is discouraged from doing so and is thrown into the ring against his will. Each of them suffers the consequences and breaks down from the physical and emotional tolls, and sadly, only one of them manages to eventually stand up against the abusive father and break away from this cycle of trauma.

To rationalize the amount of tremendous suffering they must go through as a family unit, they catch and hold on to the belief that the family is cursed. At first glance, it may look like it but when we look and dig deeper, we see that the curse is trauma itself, a trauma that is propagated by false and unhealthy beliefs and lifestyles. Everything becomes centered on wrestling with the coveted belt as the Holy Grail, the same way others may blindly and unquestionably worship religion, money, or political ideologies to reach their aims and purposes. Neither of them is bad per se, but when it becomes an obsession and a compulsion at the expense of life itself, then it poses a serious problem.

So much so that two of the Von Erich brothers (three in real life!) commit suicide. They are unable to continue living under the tyranny of such an utterly restrictive, bleak, joyless, and pointless world. Slowly, the family unit becomes more and more disentangled and fragmented, and only Kevin is left at the end. He who had dedicated all his life to the support and wellbeing of his brothers whom he loved dearly and whole-heartedly was on his own now with all his brothers having passed away.

Yet, fortunately, he manages to break away from this vicious cycle and from the grip and power of his father. Anyone who has not experienced abusive relationships or a dysfunctional family of that ilk may criticize its members for staying and holding on against rhyme and reason. But it is much easier said than done.

Your family is the starting point of life. Views and values are shaped by its members, and they become embedded and embodied by each person. As you take them at face value and for the God-given truth, it is very hard, but not impossible, to shake it off and look beyond it. Cults tap into that mindset and often claim to be your ersatz family to better control your mind and behavior while they restrict the contact with others who are not likeminded. This is because often a close third-party outsider could serve as a sounding board and can encourage one to move away from the abusive and toxic environment.

In this case, a lot of credit must go to Kevin’s wife Pam (Lily James) as presented in the movie. She is the very opposite of toxic masculinity and unlike Kevin’s subdued and submissive mother Doris (Maura Tierney), she does not go along with it, nor accept or tolerate it. She is a strong, determined, and independent woman who knows from the get-go what she wants. This becomes apparent in the first meeting of the two. Like other fans, she asks Kevin for his autograph, but then, she basically makes him ask her out. Kevin is shy and has had little contact or experience with women (he is a virgin), but none of this poses a problem here as she makes up for all that and rectifies the situation.

But it is not just this determined quality that makes her stand out; it is also and further bolstered by her empathy. She understands and supports him. On their first date, after he talks about the pain of losing his elder brother (yes another one!) at a young age, she hugs him and gives him what his mother is unable or unwilling to provide him with, emotional support.

At the same time, he supports her and her ideas and lifestyle. She bluntly tells him on that first date that she wants to have children but that she also wants to work as a vet, and if he would be all right with all that. He does not hesitate and accepts. We can see that the toxic masculinity is not ingrained in him; it is just used as a means or a tool to please and wring and wrestle love and respect from his father.

When Kevin finally goes against the will of his father by not only giving up on wrestling but also selling the company, he ends up becoming a stay-home Dad. He seems much happier in this role and embodies this lifestyle and in a sense also transmits it to his two boys. The trauma bolstered and fueled by toxic masculinity has come to an end. He can tune into and be himself with a healthy sense of being male albeit with muscles and a bad haircut.

And then, there is the unforgettable and heartbreaking ending as he is watching his kids. They are engaged in playing sports, and he suddenly begins to cry. His sons immediately come to his side. For the first time, Kevin processes his grief and immense pain and tremendous loss. He says that he used to be a brother and that was his raison d’être before having his own family. In an impulsive act and show of beautiful empathy, his sons tell him that they could be his brothers if he wants.

And that makes him (and us!) cry even more. When Kevin apologizes for crying, as it is not a masculine thing to do, the kids, i.e. the new generation, tell him that it is in fact quite a natural thing to express one’s emotions and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. And they are right, and with them all, we can cry freely regardless of age and gender, and be free to be ourselves while loosening the iron grip and bolts of toxic masculinity and letting it rest in peace.

 

The Dark Side and Misguided Passion of Bizet’s Carmen

Prelude

I have now been to various opera productions by the Vancouver Opera and have enjoyed them all, some more than less, but they have been excellent experiences, nonetheless and regardless. It turned out, not by design but by fortuitous circumstances or maybe even impulsivity, that this year and season, I ended up attending each and every one of them.

The one that was highest on my list was The Magic Flute, which I absolutely loved and actually saw for the second time, the previous one had been put on by the UBC ensemble various years ago. To Don Pasquale I went by accident and did not regret it all. Both, I went to by myself, reason forthcoming below.

And then, there was Carmen. This opera was never high up on my list, which is a bit ironic for someone who has studied 19^th century French literature and who loves and relishes in unbridled passion and romance and the bright and dark side of desire. The music has wonderful bits of course, but overall, it did not manage to sweep me off my feet. And yet, as my wife had her eyes set on it and reproached me (among a host of many other things) to have missed a previous production some years ago, I felt compelled and obliged.

 

Overture

Like concerts, these types of events one is fond of and tends to look forward to. One ensures that nothing encroaches upon the date and expects and hopes that it will be a resounding success. And as I am wont to do, I meticulously plan things in advance, leave little to chance and (try to) ensure that nothing goes wrong. Well, many things can still go wrong.

For starters, I have the tendency to arrive much too early to events. Usually, I attend the pre-talk but, on that day, I did not feel like it, and yet, I had allotted a good solid hour to get to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre, which is about a twenty-minute bus ride and a thirty-minute walk. The weather forecast included some rain after a few sunny days, but I assumed we should be fine.

The annual BMO marathon scheduled for the same day was in the back of my mind, but previous events of that caliber had not interfered in significant measure and led to only minor delays. We had a lot of extra time factored in just in case.

Yet when we stepped out, we noticed that this time it was different. There was an insane amount of traffic on our street and a noticeable lack of buses in the direction that we were planning to head. I suggested to grab umbrellas and walk, but it was immediately and forcefully vetoed. My wife chose to call a cab. I doubted that would be fruitful and merely pointed at it but was attacked on the spot. Like often, I shrugged and went along.

The cab ride was a disaster. It turned out that others were attempting to take the side roads as well and we were often caught in traffic that moved at a snail’s pace. Time was dangerously approaching showtime and bottled stress and frustrations culminated during this slow-motion ride through hell. The accusations flew from both sides, and although the cab driver did not speak Spanish (I presume), he could feel the tension between this quarreling couple.

And that was the exact reason I had gone to the opera by myself. The day I told her that I would go to Mozart on my own, there was an argument as well. I just did not want her to cast shadows on my enjoyment of that masterpiece; I was aware that it could and would happen with Bizet but was not as fazed by it. And this is not limited to the opera, watching Barbie with her was an ordeal as well, yes, Barbie for goodness’ sake!

All stress and worry for nought, we arrived there on time, but she gave me, as is wont to happen in such situations, the silent treatment. She would not even give me mono-syllabic responses. I could not wait for the music to start but felt sad and let down that I would not have anyone to talk to about and on the event. Lo and behold, two charming women sat by my side, and they were very pleasant and easy to talk to.

I do not know their names (I kind of wished I had asked them, but I wanted them to remain anonymous here; notwithstanding, I did tell or rather warned them that they would be mentioned in my post) and will refer to the first one as the German lady and the other one by my side as the first-time opera attendee.

We talked about how opera was such a unique and immersive performance that involved a high level of expertise in multitasking. Not only were the people on stage asked to sing, often challenging arias and had to do so quite often in different languages, but they were also supposed to act, move about, and in some cases even fight with each other and do minor stunts. In fact, they even had a knife fight in this opera.

The German lady told me how she was interested in learning Italian to be able to understand opera from the region and she also mentioned an Italian singer by the name of Giovanni Z. (for the life of me I cannot recall his full last name) who would turn and transpose German folk songs into Italian, which sounded interesting, daring, and challenging.

Meanwhile, our cherished first-time attendee was looking forward to this event and I was hoping, almost praying that it would turn out to be a thoroughly positive and enchanting experience for her (sadly, it was not) so here is to hoping that she will still continue to visit operatic events even after this letdown of Carmenic proportions.

 

Love for the Exotic, Uncommon, and Unattainable

In the opera, Don José is presented with two options. He could choose filial duty, his mother an invisible yet imposing presence via her letters brought by the charming messenger Micaëla, a village maiden who his mother suggests as a potential mate and spouse, and on the other side, the passion and desire for the attention-seeking and -grabbing Carmen who bursts on the stage and turns the head of all the soldiers present.

While the reasonable choice would have been the good and faithful girl sent by his mother, he chooses to go for the person that attracts him much more and on the spot. But duty and doing the right thing is one thing, following one’s desires and passion is another. He is smitten with the fiery Carmen, her appeal apart from her unparalleled beauty and uninhibited demeanor also comes from being a foreigner, having Spanish and Gypsy blood in her.

When she gives him the eye and the rose and basically encourages him to pursue here, there is no way back for this young soldier. He is even willing to go to prison for her (twice actually but the second time is for a completely different and much more sinister reason) and he consciously commits a misdeed for her by letting her escape from the shackles of the law.

This sacrifice of his does not go unnoticed by her so when he is released months later, she awaits him. She professes her love to him, which should be taken with a grain of salt as she has a long list and history of pervious lovers, but he takes it in completely, and again, against all odds and reason.

Yet when she discovers that he was planning to return to his post, she feels slighted. She wants all his attention and asks him to go even further and sacrifice his duty and livelihood for her. They would roam the mountains on horseback together living a fulfilling life of crime if only he deserted his post. For someone with narcissistic tendencies, it is always a matter of all or nothing and even all is just not enough or good enough for them.

When put on the spot, Don José hesitates for a moment, and she gets annoyed and angry. She even questions his love for her because if he really loved her, he would do absolutely anything to be with her. Ironically, he does show her at the end what is willing to do in the name of what he perceives and designates as love.

At this point, the impulsive young soldier gives in to the domineering Carmen and decides to go along with her fantasy; he is under the impression that he is in love with her, and worse, he believes that she loves him back. We already know and feel that it is not going to work out as there is another boy in town, the flashy and overly confident toreador Escamillo.

Leading a life of freedom and adventure is a recurring theme of this opera. In her view, she represents both; she gives no man her heart at least not for a long period of time, and she is free to reject anyone as she feels fit. Love is a free-roaming bird that is unbound and can go and land wherever it pleases, she sings with gusto.

As such, Don José is certainly not a good match. He is a go-between because the toreador just seems so much better suited to her temperament and lifestyle. Escamillo is a free spirit and a rebel who does not believe in rules and boundaries. In comparison, Don José is bland and boring and utterly naive. In this production, there is really nothing special about the young soldier, neither his looks nor his costume design, he is wearing jeans, and as one my opera companions stated, he looked like a “country bumpkin.”

Add to that the lack of chemistry between the two leads in this opera, perhaps due to the last-minute switch as the person destined to do Carmen had to cancel, and it seems implausible and even improbable that she should choose him.

The problem is also that we as the audience do not buy it, and even worse, cannot feel it. The actors sang very well and were proficient and professional throughout, but the main relationship never came to life and did not convince us and when they fail to resonate with us, the opera suffers as a result.

Neither me nor the charming ladies beside me felt the passion and love that was portrayed here, and it took away from our enjoyment and identification with the two characters. Yet, when she chooses Escamillo, it makes perfect sense, but he is just a foil and counterpoint to the rather insipid Don José, and we know too little to care about the toreador, merely that he appears to be the male version of Carmencita. But his entry on a motorcycle was quite impressive and it was easy to see and understand why everyone was a fan and was cheering for him, and if anyone was worthy of Carmen’s infatuation, it would have to be him.

Finally, since we find it hard to feel for and understand Don José, the ending makes little sense to us and does not have the emotional impact it should have had. She does seem to entice him and to egg him on by repeating that she would rather die than to be with him, but the fact that he commits this horrendous deed what is commonly referred to as a "crime of passion" seems rather far-fetched in this production.

As neither character is particularly likable, none of us shed a tear for them, which is unfortunate because good and classic opera is supposed to be a focal point and magnifying glass for the feelings and passions of life. Here, we did not care for either and were not particularly moved by their actions. One of them ends up dead, the other in prison, and neither is or was free nor was there much to speak of in terms of passion, adventure, and let alone, love.

The Serendipity Plus Synchronicity Equation and the Dilemma and Challenges of Finding True Love

Call it coincidence, happenstance, or fate, but often, there seems to certain elements missing from the equation of love. This goes beyond emotions and connections and even further past attraction and infatuation. When it comes to love, there are different shades and colors that come into play as there are so many different kinds and types of love, but here, I will be focusing on romantic love and meeting the person one is meant or destined to be with.

Before we take a closer look at the special someone, let us talk about love itself. I see love as something that cannot be willed or brought into existence. It is more akin to the allegorical representation of Cupid hitting us with an arrow. Often, it is unexpected and can happen in an instant. We may run into someone and suddenly feel a warm feeling around the heart.

It can also appear unexpectedly. We may be suddenly feeling differently about a friend or a co-worker. This may be initiated through a specific word, gesture, action, or moment, merely a shift in feelings and perception, or an epiphany. In other words, how we see and feel about a person can suddenly and unexpectedly shift. It is like having the rug taken from under your feet and you are left floating in the air. Love almost always has a weightless air about it, and as Kundera might attest, the lightness can be unbearable if it lacks a calibrating counterpoint or influence. Love can also suddenly fly out of the window and leave us emotionally stranded.

Some people believe that there is a soul mate out there, the “perfect partner”, the designated person who wholly understands us and fully complements us. Others say that such a concept, entity, or person is merely a figment of the imagination and wishful thinking. That does not however preclude that any relationship must go through difficulties and challenges and only with the right amount and level of care, communication, and commitment, one can turn it into gold and attain lasting joy and happiness.

Yet not just anyone can do the trick for us. The problem, if you want to call it as such, is that each of us is unique, not only in personality but also in our past experiences, and we are often strongly influenced by unconscious negative thoughts, feelings, moments, and narrative patterns in addition to the constant rewiring and readjustment that our mind and heart go through due to living in and traveling through time and space. Put differently, we are not only different to begin with, but our experiences constantly mold and shape us in unique and idiosyncratic ways.

Notwithstanding, there is an underlying and utterly complex network of connections and requirements necessary to meet someone special, let alone the one. First off, there is the matter of timing. To physically meet someone, we need to occupy the same time and space. This could be a café, a bar, a workplace, church, or a party, but we need to be there at the same time.

Secondly, we need to notice each other. How many times have we walked past someone who has looked at us with sparkling romantic or longing eyes, and we just did not register it and walked on. There is a level of awareness and mindfulness necessary that goes beyond merely occupying the same space.

Let us say that our eyes do meet. If it is a stranger in a public place, the next step can be very difficult, again relative to personality characteristics and personal experiences. One or both may be too shy or timid to initiate the interaction. How many thousands and millions of people pass each other with a half-smile but do not utter a single word. How many matches and connections could have been potentially made if one of them had the guts to utter a simple hello to the other. Ironically and sadly, we find it much easier to express our anger and dissatisfaction than our interest and curiosity.

But we are going to assume that all these hurdles are met and overcome. We meet the other person, we perceive and notice the immediate chemistry, we strike up a lively conversation, and a connection is made and established. What is the next step?

It depends. This is where another facet of synchronicity is at play. We have had the fortune to meet the person we are meant to meet and both of us noticed and realized this. It is for a lack of a better word, love at first sight. We are going to assume that there are no other complications, they are not tourists, do not have visa issues, do not live too far away, etc.

Yet what exactly is each person’s relationship status? To claim that two people who are soul mates would meet in the prime of their lives while both happen to be single and do not have any other major concerns and impediments in terms of entering a life-long relationship seems like a bit of a stretch. At the least, one of them may be in a relationship, serious or not.

This is an added complication, especially if one has been in a longer intimate relationship or if one or both is married and even has a family. Serendipity may in fact bring us together at any point of our lives and what if we had an established path and were now asked to make a serious detour. Should we drop and abandon everything to engage in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity or should we just ignore it and let it fly? Should we fight and repress it?

The cynic and the realist would not engage in such a risky if not reckless undertaking. We may feel the spark and chemistry, but we do not know the other person. To take a leap in such a way and manner can be akin to suicide, the potential ending of everything that went before. Do you put all your money on a single card? Are you fully aware of the chances and probabilities at play and what a loss would and could mean to you and others around you?

And yet, like anything worthwhile and fulfilling in life, one must make a decision and even sacrifice or give up a thing or two in the process. It is never easy and that could be a sign that it is a potentially meaningful choice. So far, we have considered synchronicity, various coincidences and happenstances putting us on the same path of life regardless of our current circumstances, relationship status, and other types of considerations.  

The good news is that if you believe in fate or destiny, it tends to be, thankfully, stubborn and insistent. It does not just let go or drop the endeavor but will give you various signs and signals like Gatsby’s flashing green light on the bay or other more hidden and subtle clues. Dreams may also play a role and guide you in a certain direction. It is, however, each individual’s responsibility to see and recognize this and then to decide what to do about it. Fate cannot, and of course will not, force you to be with the ideal mate; love though a forceful feeling is much too precious for that and can be ignored, downplayed, and repressed at one’s own cost and peril.

Love is also rare. Although some claim to fall in love every other day, that may be doubtful because love is not a common or ordinary thing or feeling. If you are asked to think about a person that you have truly loved, that is with emotion, passion, and abandon, there tends to be only a few or perhaps just one person that comes to mind.

If it is the person, you are currently with, then count yourself lucky, but the relationships we have are not always based on true love. There are other factors that are being considered, which factor in this choice and equation. Some of them may be unconscious like the quest for a father or mother figure or replacement. Others are more practical as certain types of evident benefits, such as finances, status, looks, or connections.

Even if you have married your high school sweetheart, you may have doubts now, whether they are justified or not. Or you may meet someone else who makes your heart skip a beat, and you are certain it is not merely attraction but goes much deeper than that.

Many hearts are broken on the path of life. Some of the people may not have been a good fit for us; we may feel a lack of love, interest, difference in priorities, or even a clash of personalities that can become more pronounced over time. And some people change. It could be us or the partner, or both. If the path we are talking about is significantly different, one or both would suffer in the process.  

As can be seen, love is fickle, precious, and has a mind of its own. It can come out of nowhere and drop and enter into our lives unexcepted, perhaps even wreak a little or a lot of havoc, or it might never cross paths with us. At the same time, we might be too occupied and preoccupied to see and feel it. We may be set on a routine that gives us comfort and safety and are not willing to budge even a bit despite not feeling fully alive throughout.

In that sense, love is a bit like vocation. You may be engaged in work that is pleasant, brings in sufficient amount of money and that you are good at, but it just does not fulfill you in a profound sense. It is not the dream job you had imagined in your childhood and so something will feel amiss, and you may not find lasting joy and fulfilment. Love is not that different in the sense that you know when it is there but unlike vocation it cannot be conjured or realized with work and effort only. There is a magical and even mystical aspect to it that can be often out of reach. While we have a certain say and can influence certain actions, some things will remain out of reach no matter how hard we try.

But when you are fortunate enough to have serendipity knock at your door, listen up. Consider answering, if only out of curiosity at first or because it is the polite thing to do. Unlike coincidence, serendipity tends to be fortunate, and it often includes elements of synchronicity. It is not commonplace and may not occur again. It is the universe communicating with you and trying to get through to you. It has the best intentions in mind. But in the end, you are the one who has to respond and take action, and it is your call after all.