When I got engaged at the end of August, I wondered if it would open a door onto a world of deep thoughts concerning womanhood. It didn't. Granted, much in my life has been changing. But those changes have not made me inherently wiser or more thoughtful about my identity and place in society. Life goes on and I remain mostly the same. Now I find myself wondering the same about marriage. My suspicion is that it might have some small impact on my observations and thoughts, but overall nothing earth shattering will change. I still ask the same questions; I still struggle with the same doubts; I still get irritated by the same signs of brokenness.
While my personal changes have not yet caused much writing, the world around me remains much the same and continues to provide much food for thought. I worked briefly for a woman as a "mother's helper," and I find myself pondering something she once said in conversation.
I consider this woman to be very typical of a certain American demographic. She is in her mid 30s, but looks and acts younger than what older generations would assume of her age. She and her child's father have been together for more than a decade, but are unmarried, and the baby was an unexpected surprise after many years chasing careers and enjoying life with friends. Their lack of preparation for or pursuit of creating a family has not deterred from their love for their child and they now dedicate all of their time and energy to giving him the most perfect, protected, and politically correct childhood in their power to give. They have and want "family," but in untraditional ways.
I found out they are not married through an awkward conversation about my own upcoming wedding, and it was in this conversation that she sparked food for thought. After answering many of her questions regarding my wedding, I nervously asked about her own wedding and she laughed and replied there had never been one. Her laughter eased the whole situation and we were able to talk more freely. I asked if they had ever considered marriage assuming assumed the answer would be "no," but was surprised when she replied that actually her partner really wanted to get married while she did not. I asked more about why he wanted marriage and her response went something like this, "...well, I think he believes it's something sacred," but as an atheist she just could not see any deeper significance to marriage since they already knew they were a committed family. From my understanding, neither one of them have any particular religious commitments, and yet, here she was, telling me that the only point of discussion they had concerning the value of marriage was its possible sacredness.
In the midst of our conversation, this point of sacredness was interesting to me, but it was until I drove home that the full weight of it settled through the silence of my car. Here was a couple with no real interest in or connection to the theological arguments for marriage stating the whole point of the union. It struck me that in all the "culture war" debates concerning marriage, we tend to focus on and speak to the practical or natural needs and reasons for marriage. I believe the rational is that those reasons are the only space in which Christians can speak a common language with nonbelievers, the only areas in which we even have a hope to persuade. But maybe that is not the case. Maybe the younger generations are more open to arguments based on the spiritual aspects or "sacredness"of marriage?
The more I think about it, the more interesting it is to me that faith communities are relying more and more on "practical" arguments for marriage while this very secular couple focuses more on more on the spiritual arguments for it. And it makes me mourn that the church thinks it must neglect what it believes to be the most central truths about humanity in order to speak to the broader culture. The centrality of sacredness in the meaning of marriage should be the starting point of the church in speaking to the culture about marriage, not something that is left for those who already accept the reality of a God who created marriage and therefore has something to say about the institution. I believe some are focusing on this, but the overall voice of Christianity in America does not emphasize the sacredness of marriage when arguing for it. We talk about need for commitment and the goodness of the family, but those two things are only byproducts of understanding and knowing the sacredness of marriage. It is not commitment that we should mourn the loss of in marriage. For who can remain committed to something purely secular? Who can find within themselves the capability for it? The lost meaning that should be mourned and fought for is the rich and deep meaning of marriage that goes beyond commitment and family.
~Hannah
Monday, March 5, 2012
Friday, December 23, 2011
And Mary said...
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants forever,
just as he promised our ancestors.”
Merry Christmas!
~ Hannah and Ruthie
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Dangerous, Threatening Search for True Beauty In the World of Australian Ballroom Dancing
I’ve been watching
Baz Luhrmann’s incredible, eyebrow-raising movie Strictly Ballroom since I was a little girl, but it’s only
recently that I have begun to see past the immediate appeal of the movie—the
glitzy dancing, the ugly-duckling-transformation storyline—to what Luhrmann is
trying to say. A thoughtful, innovative director who manages to avoid
pretension (perhaps because he has made only 5 movies over the past 20 years),
Luhrmann created the Red Curtain Trilogy (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge) in the ‘90s and my favorite is still the one
I’ve been watching since I was little. His first, his greatest. Strictly
Ballroom.
The movie is set in
the over-the-top world of competitive ballroom dancing in Australia in the
early 1990s, and follows Scott, a dancer who wants to compete by dancing his
own moves—moves that are not “strictly ballroom.” This raises a commotion in
the world of ballroom dancing, and the only woman gutsy enough to dance with
Scott is a novice named Fran. As Fran transforms from an awkward beginner to a
beautiful dancer, Scott has to make choices about whether he wants to take the
risk of dancing his own moves.
As a little girl,
the biggest appeal of the movie was Fran’s transformation and the spectacle of
glittery costumes in bright ballroom lights. But when I watched it a couple
days ago and Hannah and I began discussing it (this is kind of a mixture of
both of our thoughts…I’m just the one putting it into words), I realized that
some of the moments in the movie that have resonated the most with me over the
years are actually quite intentional on the part of Luhrmann and his team. What
Luhrmann is really commenting on is the presence of beauty, the purpose of
beauty, and the interaction between real beauty and the cheap, glitzy
substitute we often put in its place.
It’s very clear that
Fran is the true beauty of the movie—with minimal makeup and normal curly brown
hair she stands in stark contrast to the primped and glittery cast of female
dancers who wear next to nothing. Luhrmann makes the contrast obvious by the
way the other women are filmed, and even for a little girl the movie gave a
clear message that Fran’s true beauty came from her character. But Fran’s story
is only a second application to Luhrmann’s real message, and though both make
commentary on beauty, the more important and more subtle story is Scott’s
search for beauty. His desire to dance his own moves could perhaps be taken as
a metaphor for his need to find freedom from the constraints of society, but I
don’t think that’s what Luhrmann is going for. Scott wants to dance his own
moves because he realizes the cheapness of the world the ballroom dancers have
created—a world full of beauty that decays and stagnates in its own
worthlessness.
The very first scene
of the movie shows off the disparity between Scott’s world and his desires.
Opening on shadowed silhouettes of Scott and his partner, it’s breathtakingly
beautiful to see the outline of a man and woman preparing to step onto the
dance floor, and we hold our breath as we wait for the full glory the
silhouettes promise us. But when they step into the light and march onto the
floor, we are presented with something brash and glittery and fake, and
immediately realize that the shadows at the beginning were much more satisfying
than this thing we’re
watching—punctuated by Luhrmann’s abrasive, too-close shots of the
over-makeuped and lined faces of the dancers and spectators.
That sense of
alienation stays with us through the first part of the movie, though Luhrmann
throws in enough humor and spectacle that we begin to settle into the pace of
the movie and enjoy ourselves. Scott is searching for something; we don’t know
what, but we definitely want him to be able to dance his own moves. Even when
Fran enters the movie and begins to dance with Scott, Lurhmann keeps the shots
just on the edge of something—their
scenes are shot in darkened studios, shadowy and reminiscent of the very first
scene. Maybe, we decide, that shadowy beauty is as good as it gets.
When true beauty
first invades Scott’s world, he doesn’t recognize it, and Lurhmann portrays it
as hostile, scary, and unknown. Scott is walking Fran to the house where her
Spanish immigrant family lives beside the train tracks, and the setting is
striking in its normalcy. The rest of the movie up to this point has been one
bright, fast-paced ride on the bedazzle express, and Luhrmann uses devices to
alienate us along with Scott—the barking of a dog, the frightened glance of
Fran’s grandmother. Luhrmann wants us to be just as surprised as Scott when the
moment comes.
In the next part of
the movie, the focus shifts ever so slightly. We have been constantly barraged
with close-ups, but now the ballroom dancers grow more sinister. The scenes
with Fran begin to sharpen, until Luhrmann presents us with a clear parallel of
the two worlds Scott is wavering between. As Tina Sparkle—Scott’s potential new
partner—dances on stage with her current partner, undulating in the overly
perfect and utterly fake world of ballroom dancers, Scott and Fran dance to the
same music backstage, separated from the glitz only by a curtain. In one of the
most beautiful dance scenes I’ve seen, and definitely my favorite, Luhrmann
films the couple dancing to the Doris Day classic “Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps,”
shrouding them in the shadows we’ve come to associate with real beauty.
Luhrmann presents two options to us
When the couple is
spotted and Scott’s family intervenes, we begin to feel claustrophobic. This is
largely because of Luhrmann’s less than subtle filming, and he throws off all
question of who the bad guys are as Fran sits in a chair, surrounded by women
who are shot in bright lights, close-up, at an upward angle that seethes with
hostility. This is the world Scott is struggling to escape. This is beauty,
this is correct. But by now we know, along with Scott, how untrue that is.
Beauty?
When Scott leaves
the competition and follows Fran home, he has no idea anymore what he’s
searching for. Again, we’re struck by the simplicity—the boringness of Fran’s
home. Her family is having a fiesta, and Scott stands beside the garbage cans
and calls to her to come join him. Come dance, he tells her. I want to dance
with you. What is it about Fran that is so alluring to Scott? And then her
father sees them, and his hostility is frightening after the niceness and
glamour of the dancing world. But for the first time in the movie, we realize
that he is sincere. This man, living a normal life, is so starkly in contrast
to the rest of the characters that we’re thrown completely off balance.
When Scott tells him
he and Fran have just been dancing, he asks Scott to show him the Paso Doble.
This is something Scott knows. We breathe a sigh of relief. Scott knows how to
dance. We’re alright. We won’t be harmed by this strange, real, too-honest man.
But when Scott and Fran begin to dance, surrounded by the friends and family of
the immigrants, Fran’s father and the others laugh. We are tempted to laugh
too; somehow, without the bright lights and the skanky costumes, the ballroom
moves are ridiculous and laughable. But we, like Scott, are frustrated. “What’s
so funny??” Scott yells, and the crowd immediately stills.
“Paso Doble?” Fran’s
father asks. He stands and takes off his jacket. “Paso Doble.” And then, before
we’re ready, he dances. He dances a Paso Doble beyond Scott’s skill. Alien,
commanding and magnificent, this man completely wipes away every dance move
that has been done up to this point. When he is finished, he looks Scott in the
eye and once more repeats, “Paso Doble.” Double-step. Out of your experience,
and exactly what you’ve been searching for.
Luhrmann bends all his
skills toward showing us that this is where the true beauty lives. From the
colorful streamers to the tapping of a cigar against a cup, to the beautiful
release as Scott is invited to dance with Fran’s family, we know that we have
found it. Scott’s spinning, arms-raised moment of delight, punctuated by the
bright light of a train passing through the train yard echoes our own
delight—our realization that here, in the dirty world of real life, Scott has
found the beauty he was seeking. And it’s neither in the neon lights of the
ballroom nor the shadows of backstage.
What really makes Strictly
Ballroom great is not just the
fact that Scott finds true beauty, but that Scott does something with it. The
final part of the movie is about Scott learning to dance like Fran’s
father—pushing past the cheap beauty of the ballroom dance world to the harder,
elusive beauty that, as Fran’s grandmother puts it, “Comes from the heart.” And
lest this sound like a cheesy “believe in yourself” kind of movie, that’s not
it at all. The movie isn’t about feeling good about oneself. It’s about not
settling for easy beauty, and about truly searching for the things in life that
are worth it and then using them to inform your art. The world of ballroom is
cheap because it has settled, instead of realizing that true beauty is found
not in escaping and masking the things of this world, but in taking the time to
notice them and expending effort to transform them into something that’s worth
it.
Luhrmann himself has
done just this with his first—and best—film. He takes us on a journey with
Scott, uses the beauty of the real world to showcase the cheapness of our
illusions, and then makes the statement that art, whether it be dancing or
filmmaking, can only truly be beautiful when it is based on things that matter. When the world of ballroom dancing makes one
final last-ditch effort to draw Scott back into its embrace, the colors and the
bright lights and the even more over-the-top face paint is almost nauseating,
compared to the simple beauty we’ve just witnessed at Fran’s fiesta.
Though Scott still has
about thirty minutes of decisions to make, we’ve already made ours. Just as
Luhrmann intended, we are through with strictly ballroom. Not because we’re on
a power trip, or because we’re trying to assert our free will. Because, like
Scott, we’re bored with the mockery of glitz and the façade that everything is
perfect. We want to see real life, and we want to stop and take the time to
notice the headlights on a train and the simple lines of tree branches. We want
to notice these things and then allow them to inform our art and our
interactions with others, just as Fran’s father allows them to inform his Paso
Doble. Just as Scott and Fran allow them to inform their final, fabulous
ballroom dance together.
~Ruthie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





