I heard two women chatting in a cafe the other day. They were talking about a friend who was changing her hours at work. One option for the friend was to work on Friday mornings, but not Friday afternoons. She declined this option, however, because her husband didn't work on Friday afternoons and she "didn't want to spend any time with him".
Similarly, I remember years ago, when I was doing a holiday job at the Royal Mail sorting office, getting talking to a female co-worker who worked full time at the sorting office. She worked nights. Her husband worked there too, but he worked days. She commented that they were like ships passing in the night, but that this situation suited her perfectly as she didn't want to spend time with her husband.
I wonder how people end up in such sad, unsociable relationships, especially in this day and age when it is usual to test the waters by living together first. I am lucky enough to have a husband who I actively enjoy spending time with -- and that seems to me how things, ideally, should be. After all, your spouse is meant to be your partner for life and someone who you don't talk to and don't want to spend time with isn't much of a partner. I know that my life would be much less rich in the absence of the relationship that I have with my husband.
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
04 July, 2015
21 March, 2015
Blood is thicker than water...or is it?
The old adage that blood is thicker than water runs deep.
Many people adhere to it, or at least understand it. But for a whole tranche of other people, this adage has no bearing whatsoever on their personal reality and they struggle to understand what it means. I fully appreciate their point of view.
I am an only child. My parents separated when I was very young. My father left
the family home and, once he had gone, I barely saw him again. My mother's mental health has always been poor, which means that we have a fractured and difficult relationship. My contact with other family members was very limited (non-existent on my father's side), and they showed little familial interest in me.
As a result, 'blood is thicker than water' was a meaningless phrase in the context of my childhood. The idea that blood relations mean more that friends was an alien concept, since I had not had the experience of a nurturing family on which I could rely.
I have been lucky as an adult, however. I married into a large family whose members are supportive of one another and who welcomed me with open arms. I gradually learnt that I could trust and rely on these people in a way that was inconceivable with my blood relations. And my children have been raised in this supportive environment. There are two of them and they are extremely close, which is wonderful. But, what is more, they are very close to their paternal grandparents and they love meeting up with their aunts, uncles and cousins. They have a strong sense of family.
I wouldn't wish my early experiences of family on anyone, but they have undeniably given me an insight into a different kind of life. I am glad, in spite of that, to have been able to raise my children in a close, supportive family environment. For them, I guess, the adage that blood is thicker than water rings true.
21 February, 2015
Valentine's Day
I had a lovely Valentine's celebration last weekend.
The week before, I received an invitation through the letterbox from 'a mysterious admirer' inviting me to dinner at my own house. Of course, it was from my husband. He cooked a beautiful meal for me on Saturday evening complete with champagne, roses and chocolates. I felt very spoilt.
The kids were complicit, refusing to tell me anything about the invitation in advance, despite me asking, and very considerately watching TV in the snug on the night while we ate our meal together.
I really am very fortunate to have such a lovely husband and children. My husband and I have been married for 18 years and together for 25 years, so this just goes to show that romance doesn't have to die, no matter now long your relationship has been going!
The week before, I received an invitation through the letterbox from 'a mysterious admirer' inviting me to dinner at my own house. Of course, it was from my husband. He cooked a beautiful meal for me on Saturday evening complete with champagne, roses and chocolates. I felt very spoilt.
The kids were complicit, refusing to tell me anything about the invitation in advance, despite me asking, and very considerately watching TV in the snug on the night while we ate our meal together.
I really am very fortunate to have such a lovely husband and children. My husband and I have been married for 18 years and together for 25 years, so this just goes to show that romance doesn't have to die, no matter now long your relationship has been going!
15 November, 2014
The changing definition of 'friend'
A while back I heard an article on the radio about a woman who had set herself the target of phoning a certain number of her Facebook friends over the period of a year. Her aim was to reconnect with people she hadn't spoken to for years. She missed the kind of relationship which she (and I) remembered from her teenage years where she would get in from school and then pick up the phone and chat to one of her friends. She missed the intimacy and nuanced voice-to-voice conversations that you can have by phone, but which are almost impossible to have on line.
What surprised me, though, was the number of people she was proposing to phone. I can't recall exact details, but I know that it was in the high tens. How could all these people be friends, I wondered, and how on earth would she find that she had anything to say to all of them. Conversations by phone are considerably more in depth and demanding than communicating via someone's Facebook wall, for example.
This got me thinking about the nature of friendship and the change in the meaning of the word 'friend' that has been precipitated by Facebook and other social networking sites. In my book a friend is someone I know well, who I can trust, who I have things in common with, who I can sit down and really talk to over a cup of coffee. But a Facebook friend is none of these things -- not by definition, anyway. It is possible that a 'real' friend (as per my definition) can be a Facebook friend too, but a Facebook friend does not have to have any of the characteristics of a 'real' friend. And that, of course, is how people manage to have so many Facebook friends. . .but they're not really friends at all!
I've noticed something similar with LinkedIn. I had someone connect to me the other day who categorised me as one of their friends. This is someone who used to work in the same unit as me. We didn't work together as such, and we certainly weren't friends. Not in my book, anyway -- we had no social relationship separate from work. In my book we were colleagues. Yet this colleague is twenty years younger than me and so I wonder whether, being fully of the social networking generation, his definition of 'friend' is simply different from mine. His definition is informed by Facebook, and mine is not.
So, it seems that the on-line world really is affecting all aspects of our lives -- even the semantics of concepts as old and basic to human nature as friendship.
What surprised me, though, was the number of people she was proposing to phone. I can't recall exact details, but I know that it was in the high tens. How could all these people be friends, I wondered, and how on earth would she find that she had anything to say to all of them. Conversations by phone are considerably more in depth and demanding than communicating via someone's Facebook wall, for example.
This got me thinking about the nature of friendship and the change in the meaning of the word 'friend' that has been precipitated by Facebook and other social networking sites. In my book a friend is someone I know well, who I can trust, who I have things in common with, who I can sit down and really talk to over a cup of coffee. But a Facebook friend is none of these things -- not by definition, anyway. It is possible that a 'real' friend (as per my definition) can be a Facebook friend too, but a Facebook friend does not have to have any of the characteristics of a 'real' friend. And that, of course, is how people manage to have so many Facebook friends. . .but they're not really friends at all!
I've noticed something similar with LinkedIn. I had someone connect to me the other day who categorised me as one of their friends. This is someone who used to work in the same unit as me. We didn't work together as such, and we certainly weren't friends. Not in my book, anyway -- we had no social relationship separate from work. In my book we were colleagues. Yet this colleague is twenty years younger than me and so I wonder whether, being fully of the social networking generation, his definition of 'friend' is simply different from mine. His definition is informed by Facebook, and mine is not.
So, it seems that the on-line world really is affecting all aspects of our lives -- even the semantics of concepts as old and basic to human nature as friendship.
25 October, 2014
Boyhood
During the summer my husband and I went to the cinema to see the film ‘Boyhood’, directed by Richard Linklater. If you read my blog regularly you may remember that I am a fan of Linklater’s films, especially the ‘Before...’ trilogy.
‘Boyhood’ explores the notion of growing up, and filming took place over a period of twelve years with the same actors. The themes covered include how people change over time, how relationships develop, how people move on during the course of their lives, and interaction between the generations. So, as with the ‘Before...’ trilogy, Linklater’s interest remains with the passage of time, although this time he deals out a sustained study, rather than snapshots at nine-year intervals.
I really enjoyed this film. It is a considerable achievement to maintain momentum and focus over such a long, yet fragmented, period of filming, and this certainly strikes you when watching. It is also interesting to see how the actors themselves change over time—how they age or grow up, depending on their starting points. And there were a couple of points made in the film which certainly resonated with me. One, when the mother of Mason (the boy of the film's title) breaks down in tears as her son is getting ready to leave home for university, saying that she’s now passed all of life’s major milestones, bar one—her own funeral. And the second, where Mason comments that, although his mother has had so much experience and has worked really hard to get the job she yearns for, she still doesn't know what she really wants out of life and deep down is just as confused as he is.
So, eighteen or forty—it makes no difference to how you feel. Linklater is spot on, as usual!
‘Boyhood’ explores the notion of growing up, and filming took place over a period of twelve years with the same actors. The themes covered include how people change over time, how relationships develop, how people move on during the course of their lives, and interaction between the generations. So, as with the ‘Before...’ trilogy, Linklater’s interest remains with the passage of time, although this time he deals out a sustained study, rather than snapshots at nine-year intervals.
I really enjoyed this film. It is a considerable achievement to maintain momentum and focus over such a long, yet fragmented, period of filming, and this certainly strikes you when watching. It is also interesting to see how the actors themselves change over time—how they age or grow up, depending on their starting points. And there were a couple of points made in the film which certainly resonated with me. One, when the mother of Mason (the boy of the film's title) breaks down in tears as her son is getting ready to leave home for university, saying that she’s now passed all of life’s major milestones, bar one—her own funeral. And the second, where Mason comments that, although his mother has had so much experience and has worked really hard to get the job she yearns for, she still doesn't know what she really wants out of life and deep down is just as confused as he is.
So, eighteen or forty—it makes no difference to how you feel. Linklater is spot on, as usual!
26 July, 2014
Le Weekend
My husband and I watched an interesting film, 'Le Weekend', this weekend (excuse the repetition!), starring the phlegmatic Jim Broadbent and the lovely Lindsay Duncan. This film is gentle and relatively slow-moving, but gives the viewer quite a lot to chew on.
Nick and Meg have been married for thirty years. They return to Paris, where they honeymooned, for their wedding anniversary in an attempt to reinvigorate their fading relationship. Things get off to a bad start when they find that the hotel they have booked (the one where they spent their honeymoon, of course), is not quite what they had hoped for -- shabby and run down, the bedrooms without a single view of any of the beautiful Paris landmarks. (I do wonder whether it is memory rather than the hotel which is letting them down -- and, of course, the fact that as you go up in years, your standards seem to rise at a similar rate!)
As the film unwinds and events play out, we see why their relationship is strained -- they are no longer physically intimate; Nick wonders whether Meg might be having an affair; Meg wants to enjoy herself and reinvent her life, whereas Nick is much more settled, only really wanting to be reassured that his wife still loves him. Despite their annoyances with one another, there is still something strong between them -- we see that they are capable of laughing and having fun together (successfully escaping from an expensive restaurant without paying the bill sees them running along the street together in stitches, every bit like a young, carefree couple).
Towards the end of the film, Meg makes a significant point. She explains how, one day when she was out with a friend, her mobile rang. When she hung up her friend asked her who was on the phone. 'Was it your lover?' she asked. 'You were laughing so much, having so much fun, that I thought it must be.' 'No,' Meg replied. 'It was my husband.'
And this, I think, is one of the fundamentals of a strong relationship. No matter what life throws at you, if you and your partner can laugh together and have fun, then you're still on track. It wasn't clear from the film whether Meg and Nick's relationship would survive in the long term, but it seemed to me that they were certainly still moving in the right direction.
Nick and Meg have been married for thirty years. They return to Paris, where they honeymooned, for their wedding anniversary in an attempt to reinvigorate their fading relationship. Things get off to a bad start when they find that the hotel they have booked (the one where they spent their honeymoon, of course), is not quite what they had hoped for -- shabby and run down, the bedrooms without a single view of any of the beautiful Paris landmarks. (I do wonder whether it is memory rather than the hotel which is letting them down -- and, of course, the fact that as you go up in years, your standards seem to rise at a similar rate!)
As the film unwinds and events play out, we see why their relationship is strained -- they are no longer physically intimate; Nick wonders whether Meg might be having an affair; Meg wants to enjoy herself and reinvent her life, whereas Nick is much more settled, only really wanting to be reassured that his wife still loves him. Despite their annoyances with one another, there is still something strong between them -- we see that they are capable of laughing and having fun together (successfully escaping from an expensive restaurant without paying the bill sees them running along the street together in stitches, every bit like a young, carefree couple).
Towards the end of the film, Meg makes a significant point. She explains how, one day when she was out with a friend, her mobile rang. When she hung up her friend asked her who was on the phone. 'Was it your lover?' she asked. 'You were laughing so much, having so much fun, that I thought it must be.' 'No,' Meg replied. 'It was my husband.'
And this, I think, is one of the fundamentals of a strong relationship. No matter what life throws at you, if you and your partner can laugh together and have fun, then you're still on track. It wasn't clear from the film whether Meg and Nick's relationship would survive in the long term, but it seemed to me that they were certainly still moving in the right direction.
28 December, 2013
Before Sunrise/Sunset
A couple of my all time favourite films are "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset", starring Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke. For those of you who don't know, these two films are set ten years apart. The first, "Before Sunrise", sketches the two protagonists who, in their early twenties, meet on a train travelling across Europe and, strongly attracted to one another, alight together in Vienna. They have a few hours in one another's company--before sunrise--before Hawke has to board a plane back to the States.
They spend this time wandering the streets of Vienna, getting to know one another, weaving in and out of music shops, parks, and bars. At the end of their few hours together, Hawke sees Delpy onto a train home and they hurriedly agree to meet again in exactly a year's time in the very same place (no texting or Facebook in those days!).
"Before Sunset" catches up with the couple ten years later in Paris when Hawke is doing a book signing at Delpy's favourite bookshop. Delpy turns up at the signing and surprises Hawke (predictably, they didn't manage to meet again in Vienna). Both are unhappy--Hawke trapped in a loveless marriage and Delpy still seeking that elusive perfect relationship.
This time they wander the streets of Paris and talk. The attraction is still there. The film closes with Hawke in Delpy's apartment, laughing, already having missed his plane back to the States and his wife and son.
What I love about these two films is the dialogue and the oh-so-recognisable depiction of how people change over time. In "Before Sunrise" you can really see the couple becoming closer and more relaxed with one another as they talk about anything and everything. In true twenty-something fashion they cover the 'big' issues -- the environment, women's lib, the nature of love, reincarnation. They are open, optimistic. They have nothing to lose and everything ahead of them.
By the time we meet them again, they have lost that optimism. They have become jaded; they have acquired some hard edges. They have come to realise that life is not that easy and that whatever they thought at twenty-one, life is no longer their oyster. They can still talk, though, but this time their conversation is more direct, more gritty. The romanticism of early youth has dissipated.
I recently liberated my Before Sunrise/Sunset box set (yes, sad, I know!) and watched the films again. I still love them and my husband and I got talking about what might have happened to Hawke and Delpy next. I did a quick bit of internet research the next day and was delighted to see that another film has just been released--"Before Midnight"--in which we meet the couple another ten years on, in their early forties. "Before Midnight" went straight on my LoveFilm list and I can't wait to see it!
I wonder whether there will be another film in another ten years, when the couple are in their early fifties--and what the title of that one might be?!
They spend this time wandering the streets of Vienna, getting to know one another, weaving in and out of music shops, parks, and bars. At the end of their few hours together, Hawke sees Delpy onto a train home and they hurriedly agree to meet again in exactly a year's time in the very same place (no texting or Facebook in those days!).
"Before Sunset" catches up with the couple ten years later in Paris when Hawke is doing a book signing at Delpy's favourite bookshop. Delpy turns up at the signing and surprises Hawke (predictably, they didn't manage to meet again in Vienna). Both are unhappy--Hawke trapped in a loveless marriage and Delpy still seeking that elusive perfect relationship.
This time they wander the streets of Paris and talk. The attraction is still there. The film closes with Hawke in Delpy's apartment, laughing, already having missed his plane back to the States and his wife and son.
What I love about these two films is the dialogue and the oh-so-recognisable depiction of how people change over time. In "Before Sunrise" you can really see the couple becoming closer and more relaxed with one another as they talk about anything and everything. In true twenty-something fashion they cover the 'big' issues -- the environment, women's lib, the nature of love, reincarnation. They are open, optimistic. They have nothing to lose and everything ahead of them.
By the time we meet them again, they have lost that optimism. They have become jaded; they have acquired some hard edges. They have come to realise that life is not that easy and that whatever they thought at twenty-one, life is no longer their oyster. They can still talk, though, but this time their conversation is more direct, more gritty. The romanticism of early youth has dissipated.
I recently liberated my Before Sunrise/Sunset box set (yes, sad, I know!) and watched the films again. I still love them and my husband and I got talking about what might have happened to Hawke and Delpy next. I did a quick bit of internet research the next day and was delighted to see that another film has just been released--"Before Midnight"--in which we meet the couple another ten years on, in their early forties. "Before Midnight" went straight on my LoveFilm list and I can't wait to see it!
I wonder whether there will be another film in another ten years, when the couple are in their early fifties--and what the title of that one might be?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)