Read the headlines of any newsworthy site and you'll find multiple stories using the word, "love."
For war: "For the love of my people, I shall exact revenge."
For propaganda: "What I do, I do for love of my country."
For casual sex: "I love her body."
For
cause celeb: "I love helping people." (Sometimes genuine)
For crimes of passion: "I killed her because I loved her so much."
In my journey as a reader, novelist, blogger and poet, I've seen the word "love" diluted, deconstructed, dissipated into absurdity. Eugene Ionesco, if still with us, would have plenty of fodder for his plays of the absurd: "We have not the time to take our time." No truer than today. For this post, I'd like to focus on how "love" has been thrown around without thought and diffused of meaning.
Today we've reached a period in our cinematic and television history where romantic comedies have become so cynical; sophomoric, embodied in "classics" as
Hangover (and its sequels) and
Two Broke Girls, that they are taken at face value. Their popularity as comedic entertainment is arguable; however, young and some older fans often take away the commonly accepted mantra: "Who needs love, when you can have sex?" Any meaningful moments in contemporary romantic comedies are either ignored or left to a few lines of dialogue at the end of the movie or episode: words glossed over like the lighting speed listing of names during the end credits.
I'm no prude, and certainly not a hypocrite, like many growing up during the sexual revolution, I wanted to explore that new-found freedom but I hesitated. During my teens and college years any romantic notions splashed across the big and small screens, along with personal demons, undermined any attempt at being non-chalant. Subconscious vibes of wanting "commitment" turned away most boys and it wasn't until I moved to New York City, after college, that I accepted love wasn't part of early stages, if at all, so why not accept what most other women had: "Stop thinking and just have fun!" "Lower your expectations and take control." "Life is too short. Find happiness when you can."
Decades later, limited excursions have barely produced a feeling of "freedom." Romantic notions that feminists and experts have dismissed as childish have left me spent. I've even become a proponent of
Peter Pan or
Wendy, the syndromes, I mean. Watching
When Harry Met Sally today makes me cry because I can't believe in romantic love. Let me emphasize, though, that I
am fulfilled in my career and life experiences; I have few regrets.
Still when I remember my childhood before
The Kardashians had taken over cable television and the Internet; when stars tattered relationships weren't splashed in garish detail in once respected newspapers and news programs; to a time when the words of the Bard or the songs of Sondheim/Bernstein were among the first I read or heard, I have faint recollections of what real love could be. Love may be thwarted, broken in these great interpreters of romantic tragedy, but it lives and continues to do so underneath the disillusionment. Yes,
another film remake of
Romeo and Juliet is soon to be released and I'm surprised that I'm rejoicing. I have extolled the classic story of young
lover's; however, I'd also argue, as have others before me, that
Shakespeare's intent hadn't been to romanticize love but to warn his audience of love's consequences, a theme explored further in the musical
West Side Story.
I hope the
Romeo and Juliet box office take will soar the opening weekend and beyond. That more people will see movies such as
Silver Linings Playbook or
The Notebook, or earlier films such as
Monsoon Wedding or
Bright Star, where love isn't always easy, complete or happy but always present. Better yet, indulge in Shakespeare's love dramas and comedies or a modern drama like Stoppard's
The Real Thing. See the remake of
Porgy and Bess. All of these dramas embody the meaning of real love in all its guises.