Dear Friends:
Recently I had the opportunity to view one of, I feel, the best romantic films ever produced. That movie was 1995’s “Before Sunset” starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. Ethan Hawke plays Jesse, an all American boy on
a European gallivant. Celine (Julie Delpy) is a French student returning home to Paris, France. Anyway, Jesse and Celine serendipitously meet on a train to Vienna, Austria and immediately forge a friendship (The chemistry between Hawke and Delpy is phenomenal by the way). When the train stops it is morning and Jesse has to wait, in Vienna, all day long, for the next train (which will subsequently get him back to America) to arrive. So, instead of meandering around Vienna alone he invites Celine to join him (he persuades her to just take the train to Paris in the morning, along with a funny reason); and the love story takes off from there.
In only hours Celine and Jesse fall in love. However, this romance is doomed from the very start. Celine is from France and Jesse is from Texas. They don’t even attempt to labor under the delusion that this long distance romance could POSSIBLY work. So instead of mulling over the inevitable the star crossed lovers seize the proverbial moment…all Before Sunrise.
Alright, I’m a sucker for stories like this, seriously (got all misty at the end). However, this isn’t a film review. This is a question. And I would like to know your thoughts on this.
If you had a choice between lasting commitment or fleeting passionate romance, which would you choose?
Yes, I know the politically correct answer will always be lasting commitment; however, let’s talk about it for a second…
Okay, If you met someone, that you were intensely attracted to, and you knew that–within a week–he or she would be going to live on Pluto, forever (never to be seen on Earth again), would you forgoe the possibility of true, passionate, erotic, respectful, and mutual love, however fleeting it maybe? Or would you settle for someone that you truly cared for, marry them, and live happily ever after, simply because it’s practical? True, a fleeting romance is just that, fleeting (blink and you missed it). But however brief it maybe you know, in those precious moments, that it was worth every second.
Yes, you and your long term monogamous mate would be the best of friends…But by then the passion and spontaneity would be gone. The two of you would be like brothers (or brother and sister), moreso than lovers…
Honestly, even though I want a lasting relationship, I would opt for the seven day rendezvous. I’m a huge romantic so such an endeavor would give me writing material, for one. But after those seven days I would always look back on that person with fondness and adoration. He would never grow old; he would never die; he would never get redundant; nor would he ever be anything less than perfect, and likewise for me (whenever he would reminisce about our affair). Although the romance was brief it would remain with me for the rest of my life. And the fact that I had the opportunity to love so completely, profoundly, and perfectly would be a beautiful thing…That is definitely something that leaves an indelible impression on the soul.
I know, I know, that is flighty whimsy. However, I do think growing old together is highly overrated sometimes…lol.
So: Fleeting Passion or Lasting Commitment? Which one and why?
