Obsession

 

Shakespeare’s birthday came and went – but Claudia and I met for a meal and a chat. No actual Shakespeare, though, this year, but things are looking up for THEATRE again. And, in my view of the world, without Shakespeare, theatre, as we know it, simply wouldn’t exist. As I already wrote, I have acted upon my new year’s resolution and went to London for the theatre, and - as if this wasn’t a reward in itself! - in June, “Good” with David Tennant – which I had been so pissed-off to have missed in London! – will be shown in Cineplex cinemas in Germany. Isn’t this good!!!

And then there is the beginning of a new era, as I finally decided it was time for Netflix because of the other thing I was permanently pissed off about, apart from missing all the London theatre: missing everything Richard Armitage is doing except audiobooks for quite a while now, as he seems to specialize in Harlan Coben novels for Netflix. I still cannot quite believe having been able to download “Obsession” AND “Stay Close” AND “The Stranger” to watch as often as I like - plus finding out about loads of great British series I have missed ... On the other hand: How should I make time to watch all this? And to read books on top of it??? Well, there is perks to the invariably cold and wet weather …

Not that any of what I have found so far really needs watching, including Harlan Coben. Now I have seen “Obsession” and – even though I was glad to “update” Richard Armitage – would have forgotten about it right away and moved on to the next thing, had it not been for the birthday chat. Trying to describe what the mini-series is about, I noticed that there was indeed something relevant I had been missing …

 

Relevant in the context that I am still working with the book “Gefühle und Emotionen” (“Feelings and Emotions”) by Vivian Dittmar which I think I have mentioned. It has become my constant companion and will certainly be for some time. The gist of it is that we are constantly creating our own feelings by interpreting what happens to us. Shakespeare, who knew everything about feelings, knew this, of course: “There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so”. Hamlet’s proverbial wisdom contains the theory in the bud which Vivian Dittmar – who has little regard for fiction and mistrusts its meddling with our “real” feelings – unfolds on many pages of her book. Contrary to what “we” may have learned to think (and what I have been doubting all along): At least on the more complex level that concerns us here, thinking always comes first, then feeling, but the interpretation of “good” or “bad” is usually followed by feelings which lead to actions. If we achieve to look on life dispassionately, we might be safe and content but are cut off from life and from ourselves and unable to act. (One of the main issues in “Hamlet”!) Therefore we need feelings – even and especially those we don’t really want. The feelings that are socially relevant and “powers” that shape our lives are anger, fear, sadness, joy, and shame. (I was especially pleased that she added “shame” - the feeling we use to get in contact with ourselves – as I have written a few things about this a long time before I read the book!)

 

All this is not something we wouldn’t know, by the way, if we took the effort of looking at ourselves once in a while. I was especially pleased that looking at myself was all I needed to prove the theory. And it finally explains to me in full my obsession with the truth – with having a “true” and sufficiently complex representation of the world in my mind - because only an adequate interpretation of our reality engenders adequate feelings which lead to adequate actions that may actually solve our problems. It’s as simple as that! And it works not because there is an absolute truth – in the moral or scientific sense – which we could never reach anyway, but because we got shaped in a way to fit our environment. At least if we can get our feelings to work in the way they are designed to, and this is where it gets personal and exerting. According to Vivian Dittmar we are doing all kinds of things with them except actually FEELING THEM.

 

This is where I get to “Obsession”. I didn’t feel anything watching it apart from pleasure about “updating” Richard Armitage and see his’ and Indira Varma’s great acting. They play a married couple that is very well matched, probably even because they are entirely different where feelings are concerned. A typical role distribution here – she is the warm, emotional centre of family life whereas he seems to live for his career, on the margin, slightly – or rather considerably - distanced … In fact this was the first thing I noticed with approval: how good Indira Varma is at expressing spontaneous, “genuine” feelings whereas Richard Armitage is so especially good at EXPRESSING a state of emotional emptiness and supressed feelings. Something we had already ample opportunity to notice in “Spooks”. Secret agents and surgeons – there certainly is a similarity. William in “Obsession” appears MINIMALLY pleased in the beginning to have saved the life of twins by a break-through operation, but the pleasure fades in an instant and there is just exhaustion and emptiness. And this EMPTINESS became the fascinating issue. The opposite pole represented by his wife Ingrid put it into context because it made me notice the different position in relation to family and “real life” that is the reason for the emptiness and the inherent danger. Of course career and professional success is a part of real life but one that can set people apart and lift them above the immediate social reality that, for example, a family provides. Ingrid is deeply invested in this reality, so all these feelings flow naturally and the dangerous obsession to fill the emptiness inside could never arise.

 

At this point I noticed that I have recently seen the exact same story in the theatre – with inverse sign! - in Simon Stone’s “Phaedra”: Helen develops the same kind of destructiveness, filling the growing emptiness in her live with sexual passion, whereas her gregarious husband is invested in rescuing family live. Even though we see much more of the sexual obsession in “Obsession” than in “Phaedra”, the play didn’t leave me relatively cold but created a deep uneasiness I didn’t care to analyse at the time.  Maybe mainly, as I have noticed in my recent theatre post, because I can’t watch theatre dispassionately or JUST enjoy it. I have to engage socially, respectively take a stand. Probably also because it wasn’t the usual pattern of male midlife-crisis we already know too well. - So what? Women are also entitled to their midlife-crisis …!? But what suddenly made BOTH predicaments interesting was the comparison. Comparing, as an act, makes us NOTICE things. I became aware that the term “midlife-crisis” as such doesn’t explain a thing. Or rather “explains away” a REALITY which might deserve looking into. They are two slightly different midlife-crisis’ because in Helen’s case we can see the history of the emptiness, its roots in the past, the sadness it grew from, whereas in William’s case there is just this appalling emotional emptiness at the centre of a perfect life. Great career, great relationship, great kids, great house … How the hell did this happen???

 

When we say “midlife-crisis”, we usually mean the other people. It provides a concept we use to DISMISS the phenomenon and the person who acts destructively – as a lot of midlife crisis’ result in the destruction of the family. (I quite disliked William AND Helen!) What we think of as a diagnose is just a technique of dismissal. - I was pleased by the find because I had wanted to bring FEELINGS into the “timelessness vortex” and find a peg for Vivian Dittmar. Our feelings are certainly a strong candidate for the “pre-social”. They are also – in direct opposition to the importance “we” attach to them - in an appalling state of neglect in our personal and social lives. In my experience, personal feelings in real life are rather what SHOULDN’T EXIST. Even strong expressions of happiness or pride are not always acceptable, whereas expressions of negative and inadequate feelings are not just banned in public but also a difficult issue in private. There certainly are lots of good reasons for controlling our feelings, but, on the other hand, they tend to get neglected and go away. And this extreme neglect and effective dishonesty is probably where the destructiveness stems from. I mean, is emptiness and obsession really the problem of OTHER PEOPLE??? If I really thought so, I would be kidding myself. Wasn’t the best time in my life when I was obsessed simultaneously with something and someone??? - Of course I am trying my best to fill the emptiness with “healthy” stuff now – but is there really a chance this could work? It certainly is better than nothing, but is better than nothing really enough to survive??? To my surprise, I notice that this is a question I am asking myself every single day.