The Meaning of Love

This past weekend herald the return of the Oscars and it's put me in a contemplative mood with regards to films and books. Ok, that's not quite true: I'm always contemplating books and movies.  I spend quiet a bit of my time immersed in the art of characters developed for the screen and scroll. My ruminations typically involve some theme (love, magic, perseverance, etc.) and the books and films that address these themes.  Recently I've been thinking about two thing: the nature/meaning of love and the concept of faits accomplis.  This first post deals with Love. I will talk about Fait Accompli in the next post... after all, it's already written.  

I recently re-watched "Hancock".

Most people who have seen the film probably enjoyed it because it was a film about a [reluctant] superhero. However, what I found most endearing about this movie was the underlying love story.  You see, Hancock--portrayed by the ever enigmatic Will Smith--and his true love/wife Mary (the always regal Charlize Theron), were gods/immortals with superpowers. However, if they decided to settle down and enjoy the domestic lifestyle, their love would make them humans/mortals.  Hence they would be vulnerable to feeling pain and death like other humans. 

There is an exquisitely profound beauty in the idea that a love is so powerful it can transform two souls.  Yet it, there is also something that can be very frightening in the fact that love can make us vulnerable in ways we would never experience if we remain isolated and emotionally impervious to its influence. Ultimately, Hancock and Mary lead semi-autonomous lives that allow them both to remain supernaturally strong (after all someone has to be here to save the humans every time they screw up).  Mary continues a romantic relationship with her human husband Ray (Jason Bateman, aka, the chameleon). I loved everything about the film except for this aspect.  I think if one ever has the chance to experience a love as powerful as Hancock and Mary's, it's a disservice (not a noble sacrifice) to settle for anything less.

I'm not sure very certain that I would  not want to be in a relationship if I knew that my significant other was never able to really and truly love me because someone else occupied his heart. I'm not talking about the fact that relationships sometimes end and one person may still love the other who has moved on, but they are willing to seek out love again.  I'm talking about a situation wherein two people have the opportunity to choose love and be together, but instead they choose "duty' or whatever the hell else there is to choose beside being with the person you love.

If I'd directed this film then Ray would have done himself a favor by not remaining married to Mary.  He would have found another human who could love him and his son, more completely.  Mary and Hancock would have maintained their immortal love affair--albeit while living an a fortress worthy of Tony Stark. After all, if/when the world needed saving just creating physical distance appeared to be enough to restore their superhuman strengths, so there was no need to live separately.  

In addition, just because they opted to live separately did not guarantee that their lives would be any safer. There's always the evil mastermind ready to go to any length to cause the superhero pain/grief.  Is worth it to alter your behavior in fear of what someone else might do to the point you deny yourself the relationships that are most important in your life? 

It would be a lot more courageous to live boldly and fearlessly, and to send a message to the haters and hate-filled that they do not and can not ever control who you choose to love and how you choose to embrace a life of co-existence with that person.

Sidebar: On the off chance that some sexual deviant reads this post:  please note that this notion of loving and living freely does not apply to inappropriate relationships with children, animals or anyone who is being coerced into remaining in a relationship against their will or via brainwashing.