What Happens in Between Sunrise and Sunset

 Edvard Munch, Separation (1900), Oil on Canvas

I have seen Before Sunrise more than any other movie, save Amadeus (about nine times for Before Sunrise, about fifteen times for Amadeus).  In fact, it was at one time my favorite movie, before Lost in Translation came along and knocked it from its pedestal.  Still, it remains one of my favorites.

In this film, Jesse (Ethan Hawke), an American man, meets Celine (Julie Delpy), a French woman, on a train. Due to a argumentative couple, Celine moves to a seat opposite Jesse.  They strike up a conversation.  He invites her to the cafe car.  They talk some more.  When they reach Vienna (Jesse's stop), he has a crazy idea: since he was just going to wander around the city until his flight left the next morning (having no money for a hotel), why doesn't she join him?  She agrees, and the rest of the movie chronicles their conversations and encounters with Viennese locals, and their growing attachment to each other.  But, they also know that, when the morning comes...

In its own way, Before Sunrise is a perfect movie.  The conversations are interesting, the characters are likeable and well-drawn, the scenery is gorgeous (Vienna!), the music complements the mood, and the movie accomplishes its purpose as an ode to young, idyllic love, a love that is made perfect by its brevity.  This type of love, however, cannot endure.  Or can it?

Enter Before Sunset.  When I first heard that Richard Linklater was filming a sequel to Before Sunrise, I cringed.  How could they make a sequel to such a great film, especially since part of that greatness concerned an ending ambiguous enough that the audience could decide for themselves the future fate of Jesse and Celine?  And yet, Before Sunset complements Before Sunrise perfectly.  While the earlier film takes place mostly at night (hence the title), Before Sunset takes place during the day.  While the first film takes place in Vienna, the second film takes place in Paris, where Celine lives.  While the first film celebrates young love in all its innocence--in its images, in Jesse and Celine's conversations, in their naive belief that they can keep the relationship going--the second movie deals with its effects.  How would such a love affair affect the rest of someone's life?  Would other relationships measure up?  And, if these characters were given a second chance, would things turn out differently?

The same types of philosophical conversations are spoken in both movies, but in Before Sunset, they seem like shadows of the first movie's conversations, much like the characters have become shadows of their former selves (both characters appear gaunter in this film, with faces that have become lined with the responsibilities of everyday life).  Perhaps the characters, in their conversations, are trying to pretend that everything is the same as it was the last time they walked through a European city together.  But it isn't.  Jesse is married now and has a kid.  Celine is still single, but that is because she has never met a man to measure up to Jesse.  At one point, she tells him that their one night spent in Vienna "ruined" all future relationships for her.

Here is stark reality, the movie even occurring in real time.  Unlike Before Sunrise, there are no fringe theater actors, no fortune tellers, no poets by the water, no man playing harpsichord in the basement of his house nor wine drunk in a park from filched glasses and a bottle received on the promise of future payment.  In fact, there are no people to disturb this revelry, but none to add to the magic, either.  Any people that Celine and Jesse address--outside of each other--are either off camera or in the background, and they are addressed briefly.  The longest interaction that either character has with someone else is when Jesse responds to reporters' questions at the beginning of the film (he is on a book promotion tour, having written a novel based on his experience in Vienna).

What both movies have in common is that they are dialogue-intensive, yet both characters say the most about themselves when they aren't speaking.  Celine hesitates before getting off the train with Jesse in Before Sunrise.  In Before Sunset, she reaches out a hand to comfort him, then withdraws it.  With Jesse, notice how he acts in the record booth in the first movie.  Or when he asks Celine for a kiss.  In the second movie, notice how his eyes react to Celine at the end of the movie.  Another similarity between both films is that Jesse is operating on a schedule.  He has to catch a flight from Vienna in the first film.  He has to catch a flight from Paris in the second film.

Though Before Sunset is much shorter than the first film (eighty minutes compared to one hundred and five), it digs deeper into its characters' souls.  In Before Sunrise, Jesse and Celine were carefree twenty-somethings; now, they carry the baggage of being adults with responsibilities.  Before Sunrise is the more crowd-pleasing of the two, because it projects what we wish real relationships (and life) were like.  Before Sunset is less likable not because it is a lesser film, but because it disappoints us in the way that sequels (in life and in movies) often do.  And yet, unlike most sequels, Before Sunset does not disappoint due to lack of quality.  If the first movie is a projection of what our lives should be like, the second movie is a projection of what our lives are like.

And yet, as I said, these films complement each other.  Even the endings (and no, I won't spoil the endings for you here).  I will only say this: both characters are older and wiser in Before Sunset than they are in Before Sunrise.  So, being older and wiser, will Jesse allow Celine to drift out of his life again?  Will Celine allow Jesse to leave hers?  Will reality allow the fairy tale to continue?

A Portrait of Seattle By a Young Man

Puget Sound

The past few days have been a mixture of rain, then clouds, then sun, then more rain. At times, the rain has been heavy, matching the strength of the sun's rays which come after. So it is that the city is balanced evenly between hope and despair.

I have not explored all of the city yet. I'm staying in West Seattle, a suburb of Seattle, at the bottom of a road that looks like a steep staircase with few steps. In Downtown Seattle, in the heart of the city proper, the road often drops in waves to the water, some sections of road dropping steeper than others. On clear days, Puget Sound sparkles. On cloudy days, the Sound sits there like a large black beast.

Downtown Streets, Sloping Toward the Sound

Most of the streets in downtown run straight and parallel to each other, jointing at the next neighborhood over (Pioneer Square or Seattle Center). Each section has its own personality, and sometimes certain blocks do, too. Near the water is Pike's Place Market, where Farmer's Market is located.

Farmer's Market in Pike's Place Market

Pioneer Square is south of there, past Columbia Street, and includes the oldest structures in the city--most of them underground. The International District is east of Pioneer Square, and is near Qwest and Safeco Fields.

Chinatown/International District

Qwest and Safeco Fields

Then, on the other side of downtown, heading north, one encounters Seattle Center. I took a monorail to there, from which one can see a great view of downtown as it slides past. The Space Needle is in Seattle Center, as is the Pacific Science Center and--most importantly--The Experience Music Project and Science Fiction Museum.

The Monorail and Part of the Experience Music Project

The Space Needle

I have seen people wearing suits downtown, but not many. When I wore a suit on a mid-morning bus, I got stares. Most people dress casual to semi-casual. Most are Caucasian, with the rest being black, Southeast Asian, or (a few) American Indian. Lots of people smoke at bus stops, but no one smokes inside buildings.

And then there's the food.

A Home Cooked Meal, Courtesy of My Hosts

I haven't eaten out much, but what I've eaten has been delicious--even the food I ate at a buffet. I don't drink beer much, but I've been told that that will change while I'm living out here, since they have so many varieties. While that was being said to me, however, I couldn't help but be reminded of an English major telling me that I would start smoking before I graduated college, due to my major. I still don't smoke (and never will), and while my reasons for rarely drinking have more to do with personal preference than my health, I don't want to develop a beer belly, like the one I saw someone sporting on Halloween, clashing with his Harry Potter costume.

Like most cities, Seattle can be a lonely place, especially when you know few people and not so well, and when your best friends are flung here and there across the globe. I am looking into volunteering at theaters around here, in order to meet more people and return to my theatrical roots, though the big theaters in Seattle tend to draft members of the geriatric society into their volunteer army. Most people who volunteer are in their sixties, probably retired. If that is the case, it means that the youngest of them are older than my parents by at least several years (I take back the geriatric comment and replace it with this one: the volunteers tend to be old). But I shall not meet them for another two weeks. At least the theater people I've met seem friendly. And Seattle Center, where the Seattle Repertory Theater sits, reminded me a little of the Big E, with its open spaces and roller coasters. In essence, it's an asphalt prairie with slabs of grass that seems many miles removed from the shopping district downtown.  And it has a musical fountain.

A View from the Monorail Platform

The International Fountain

Until next time...

Why I Do What I Do

I have some stuff to report on Sunday concerning my job search and life in Seattle, but today, I've decided to figure out what my mission statement is.  In other words, why do I do what I do?

The idea of a mission statement came from a program called "Project Hire" that I took a while back at Manchester Community College.  This was in addition to three free workshops I took there, which were called "Interviewing Skills," "Job Search and Cover Letters," and "Effective Resume Writing"--each class being, with questions, a little under 90 minutes in length.  Project Hire, on the other hand, was composed of brief opening remarks, and then two classes (we had a selection to choose from) covering similar material as taught in the workshops, but by different people (and for job hunting, some additional techniques to use).

Anyway, I am now trying to figure out my mission statement.  I've done PAR (problem-action-result) statements, but have yet to really think about my career objective (to retire?).  My career objective apart from being a novelist, poet, and playwright, that is.  And I think that is why I am having trouble with my mission statement.

Having just finished Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, I can't help but question whether or not I'm going about my job search correctly.  After all, the point of that book (among others) is to not follow the crowd when the crowd is wrong, and Phaedrus's search for Quality is familiar to anyone in any career who chooses to measure success on how good their products are, not on how much money they make.

And that's another thing I find a little disturbing about the whole key to success in a job search: not that you are marketing your skills, but that you are, in effect, marketing yourself as a product.  Not a human being.  A product.  While I don't disagree that thinking that way about oneself will allow one to see the skills and attributes that one can bring to a company--and will help in bringing about a successful end to a job search (at least temporarily)--I don't like comparing myself to an inanimate object on a shelf, devoid of personality or life.  Perhaps it would be better to follow the old mantra "know thyself," for that is essentially how one not only lands a job, but lands the right job.

But I am getting away from my mission statement.  According to my brochure, "It should quickly convey who you are, what you do and what you are trying to accomplish.  It is about what you believe in; what makes you passionate about doing what you do every day."  Well, I am passionate about writing.  Why?  Because I enjoy telling stories, I love communicating with others, and the sense of accomplishment after creating a really good piece of literature--whether it be a blog post, a short story, a poem, a play, a novel, or parts of each--is indescribable.  It's when Igor Stravinsky finds that note on the piano.  In some ways, it creates something new that wasn't there before, or reveals something that was there all along.

What do I believe in?  I believe in a job well done.  Even if you have the shittiest job in the world, you should do that job to the best of your ability.  Why?  Because even the best job has parts of it that are not enjoyable, that are tedious, and that need to be done to continue doing the parts you do enjoy.  I don't mind editing and proofreading my novel, but doing it again and again and again is not that fun.  And sometimes, I'll come across a section that I don't know how to fix.  So do I just leave it?  Maybe for the moment, but eventually, I know that I'll come back to it and figure it out, because by breaking through that one tedious edit, I may vastly improve the entire novel.  And while I can occasionally slack off, I am not lazy, and I am not a quitter.

What do I do?  Besides writing, I read books, magazines, and poetry, watch plays (though, since college, this has been a too rare event), see movies, enjoy the outdoors on nice days, learn about different cultures on TV and through my travels, study Japanese (hopefully I'll start doing that again this weekend), and hopefully begin to study French again someday soon (Vancouver is just a car ride away, though Quebec would be better for French-speaking--and listening--purposes).  I also love meeting new people, especially from foreign lands or different ethnic backgrounds than me.

What am I trying to accomplish?  Simply put, I want to make a positive difference in this world, whether it's through my writing or by my example.  Working with a nonprofit to feed starving children in Africa (heck, to feed starving children in America) would be right up my alley.  I also would prefer to work for a company that treats its employees and customers with respect, not one over the other, or neither.  It would also be nice if I could work for a company whose bottom line was people instead of money.  If your main goal is customer service, the money will come, but if your main goal is making money, at some point, the customers will dry up, and so will the money.  So really, companies should focus on the people they serve and employ if they want to make money long-term.  The problem is that too many people within companies only care if they make money, screw the long-term consequences.  Of course, paying executives 400 times what their employees make for bankrupting companies (when it used to be 40 times for a job well done) seems to serve neither the goal of servicing customers nor the goal of making money.

Who am I?  I've saved this question for last because it's the toughest of the bunch.  I'm sure my friends could give you a great answer to this question, but I'm too close to the action.  Still, let me try: I am a principled, artistic, creative, intelligent, hard-working, spiritual, knowledge-hungry, passionate, loving, kind, somewhat shy, humorous humanitarian who would love to have a job that pays well, but not if it requires me to break my principles (I will bend them, but not break them).  In fact, I would rather have a job of which I feel good about that pays nothing, that a job of which I feel terrible about that makes me wealthy (then again, isn't that my situation now?).  I also tend to be a bit frugal with my money (I hear you laughing, people who know me!), which is why I've been able to save enough of it to move out to Seattle and try my luck at finding a job here.  That, and money from a will and a house sale.

So, now I just have to compress all of that into a ten-second spiel.  What could be easier?

The Mozart Personality and the Beethoven Personality

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was timid in his dealings with his benefactors.  That could be why he had so much trouble securing a job while in Vienna.  Other factors included the unpopularity of his father, Leopold, and Salieri's jealous guarding of his position as court composer (though the two were rivals, theirs was not the heated rivalry portrayed in the film Amadeus).

At the time Mozart lived, composers were considered servants.  Leopold was under the employ of the Archbishop of Salzburg, as was his son, and when Wolfgang broke off ties with the Archbishop to pursue a career in Vienna, he, in essence, became a freelancer.  Still, in all of his dealings with those of the noble classes who commissioned works for him to write, he was considered of a lower class than they.  This is not to say that the nobility heaped scorn upon Mozart, for they did not, but they also did not treat him as their equal, for those his gifts rivaled theirs, in the society of the time, they were of a higher pedigree.

Beethoven was different.

Ludwig van Beethoven refused to be treated like a servant.  He is considered a transitional figure from the classical to romantic periods not only because of his music, which threatens to break all classical constraints at times but never does, but because of his view of his music and his status in society.  His music was art.  His status was that of the greatest living composer.  As such, he was not one to be treated as a mere servant.  He demanded to be paid what he felt he was worth, and would often withhold compositions if the person who commissioned it did not pay him the agreed-upon amount.

In Harold Schonberg's Lives of the Great Composers, Schonberg has this to say about these two musical geniuses (and I'm quoting from memory here, so if anyone owns this book and can provide me with the actual quote--in the chapter on Beethoven--I would greatly appreciate it):
           While Mozart would timidly knock at the servants' entrance, 
           waiting to gain admittance, Beethoven would kick down the
           front doors, sit at the head of the table, and demand to 
           be served.
It is this quote that inspired today's post.

I think most people with talent--any talent--fall into one of these two categories better than the other one (I should make it clear that people who have these personalities may or may not have the talent of these two artistic giants--the personality type has nothing to do with a corresponding level of talent).  The Beethovens of the world have such powerful personalities that people forgive them their idiosyncrasies and cater to their every demand.  The Mozarts of the world, meanwhile, are often championed by a handful of people who recognize their talent, but are largely ignored by the powerful or the populace until after their deaths--and sometimes, not even then.

There is a third type of personality, too, which I'd like to call the Wagner personality.  While Beethoven types demand that the world recognize their genius, Wagner types demand that the world recognize their divinity.  Not that Wagner really fit this type, himself (his was more of a strong Beethoven personality), but he did inspire religious fervor in many of his supporters, and so we have Wagner types today, who try to create a religion around their work, complete with objects to worship.  The more common name for them is prima donna.

Unfortunately, I have a Mozart personality.  I'd like to imagine that, deep inside, resides a Beethoven personality, but he only comes out in the company of friends and family.  In public, I knock timidly at the servants' wing door, waiting to be admitted.  Still, I have enough of a Beethoven personality not to leave until someone opens the door.

Things I Don't Understand

Today was a crappy day, a demoralizing day, for me, so I thought I'd cheer myself up by doing the one thing that never fails me: writing.  In this case, it's on my blog, but any writing will do to lift the spirits.

So now, things I don't understand:

-The first Rambo movie was called First Blood.  The second Rambo movie was called Rambo: First Blood, Part II.  So why the hell is the next movie called Rambo III?  And then they made a Rambo IV!  Shouldn't the third movie have been called First Blood: Part III, and the fourth movie First Blood: Part IV?  Because, technically, Rambo III is actually Rambo II: First Blood Part III, and Rambo IV is Rambo III.  So if you want to see Rambo III, you really should say you want to watch Rambo II, which wouldn't be the second movie, because that was the first Rambo movie, whereas the first Rambo movie was First Blood.  Got it?

-You have Rocky I-V, but the last movie is called Rocky Balboa.  Why not just call it Rocky VI: We Promise It's Better Than Rocky V?

-In the first Friday the 13th movie, Jason Voorhees's mother is the villain.  In the rest of the series (minus an imposter in one of the films), the villain is a grown-up Jason Voorhees.  My question: how could a kid age after he died?  Second question: what the fuck is up with the aliens and the family curse in Jason Goes to Hell (in order to spare myself the horror of bad movie making, I had my brother tell me the plot)?  Third question: if it was the Final Friday, why were there sequels?  Final question: Why were there any sequels?

-Why were there any sequels to the vastly superior Halloween?  The ending was perfect.  Leave it alone!

-Why aren't titles that include the word "final," when referring to movies or video games, actually final?  Examples: Final Fantasy, Final Fight, Freddy Dies: The Final Nightmare (glad they made New Nightmare afterwards, though still not as good as the original), Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, all the Final Destination movies (well, okay, that one makes sense).

-Why did Rob Zombie remake Halloween?  What was wrong with the original?

-Why aren't temp agencies temporary?

-Supposedly there are websites that can match me with my "perfect mate," so why can't websites match me with my "perfect job?"  I mean, I know there are job search websites out there, but all of their job suggestions--based on my skills--are shit.

-Why did we still have a stock exchange after the 1929 crash?  Why do we still have it?  Wouldn't a little less greed in the world be a good thing?

-Why can't I be paid by the hour to write my novel?  People are paid at work to Facebook each other.

-If Roland Emmerich can continue to make shitty films that gross millions of dollars, how come magazines won't pay millions for my shitty stories?  Okay, but seriously, the fact that Roland Emmerich is still allowed to make shitty movies BECAUSE they make millions of dollars should be deeply disturbing to all of us, especially to those people who buy tickets to his movies.  Go see Ingmar Bergman, folks!  Or Steven Spielberg.  Hell, rent some Hitchcock, or (if you want the anti-Roland Emmerich) watch some Yasujiro Ozu.

Greetings from Seattle!

Greetings from Seattle, everyone!  I landed a little before eleven yesterday morning (PST) after a somewhat turbulent flight from Chicago (though seeing the Cascade Mountains in all their glory made up for it, I think). The flight from Hartford to Chicago was slightly worse in that, after waking up from a nap, I felt nauseous, being slightly dehydrated and having not loosened my sneakers before I dozed off.  Untying them and taking my feet out of my sneakers, while taking deep breaths, prevented me from "fainting upright," which happened once before on a flight.  Of course, lack of sleep the night before was also to blame.

Today I was treated to a typical Seattle day.  In other words, it rained.  Most of the day, the rain was a slight drizzle, to be broken up by sun, which was then covered by clouds, which fell again as rain.  At least it wasn't too cold outside, and I did see the sun twice.  Plus, the foliage here reminds me of Connecticut, though there are more pine trees here than there.  Particularly stunning was the foliage along a boulevard near the University of Washington, which reminded me of that day, almost two years ago, when I took the Japanese Proficiency Test at Tokyo University.  Same trees.  Same color leaves.

As of today, I have yet to explore the city proper (I'm staying in a suburb on the West Side), though I did get to experience city traffic today--again at the University of Washington, which is apparently called "U-Dub" by the locals.  So, I have nothing really exciting to report, except to say that, even though I have seen little of the city, and interacted with few of its inhabitants, I'm already really liking this place.  Maybe it has to do with all those good luck symbols that I saw in the week leading up to my flight--including an influx of lady bugs.  Lady bugs!  Maybe it's the more laid-back attitude I've noticed here.  Maybe it's the landscape.  I know it certainly ain't the 9.5% sales tax, though there is no state income tax, which means that if one were to live and work in Washington, and live near Oregon--where there is no sales tax--then one could, technically, only pay federal taxes.  I wonder if some people do.

I'm not sure if this post will substitute for my Sunday post or not, since I'm not in any sort of job searching routine yet.  I have a feeling my posts will be sporadic and short, but more frequent--for a time--than they have been in the past.  I should be getting into a routine by the time November rolls around, so my posts should become more regular around that time, too.  Now that my mom is reading my posts, however, I'll have to be more careful in what I say. ;-)

FYI: I've now switched over to Pacific Time, which apparently affects every post I've written on this blog.  The dates shouldn't be affected, but the times for all of my previous posts are earlier by three hours.