Sense and Sensitivity.

At the beginning of the summer, I watched my first HINDI (or should I say Tamil) movie at the Freer Art gallery. Basically, it was a take on the Jane Austen novel, "Sense and Sensibility." Let me give you the basicrundown of the Jane Austen inspired plot, minus the dance sequences, the overacting, the unnecessary dramatic twist and turn of events, and of course, the prolonged "I'll stare at you and hide while you stare at me and hide" sequences

Two women who represent two basic types of people (the smart/responsible and the beautiful) go for two types of men (the idealist and the pragmatist), but who eventually end up with the idealist and the random, ugly but totally loving guy.

Even if Jane Austen spins her personal views on love through her female characters, I think it speaks about love in general, specifically about the choices we have or do not have. In this movie, we are given a choice-either you go for the idealist who will hold on to his/her dreams or you go for the person who loves and takes care of you for the rest of your life.What a choice-what does that tell you about love? Either you end up with person who will forever be dreaming and working towards latter success (the idealist) or you eventually fall in the love (?) with the person who physically repulsed you earlier.

Hmm. And people wonder how Anna Nicole married her rich yet about-to-be deceased husband?

Okay,Jane Austen may be rolling in her grave by my simplistic analysis based on a Tamil interpretation of her work, especially since there is some explicit irony to the situation because the beautiful one finally admits her love to the unsightly, but loving guy in the end. But while this may present a somewhat disparaging view about women in love, (I am sure a feminist would swallow the notion that the physically gifted and talented woman ends up, in this movie, with a former disgruntled, handicapped general who was a former alcoholic), I am more concerned about what this says about love.

Maybe Ms. Austen is applying the adage "opposite attracts"--that we can never predict who we love because they may be totally opposed to who we are. Or even, that love supercedes any preconceived notion of beauty, attractiveness, and rational explanation. Maybe. But I think to subscribe to this view as a cookie-cutter model, a rule of thumb for the spontaneity of love is a bit dangerous. Can we truly love someone that we cannot agree with or we are not attracted to?
Should we just give up and surrender, should I be satisfied with "okay" because of some inner conflict between sense and sensibility?What I'm wondering is whether the question truly is the fact people we love are the ones who may be unlovable?

First, let me tackle senses and sensibility, because I think the latter collapses into the former. Moreover, let me discuss the role of sensitivity in all of this brouhaha and offer it as an alternative.

Between senses (our sensual faculties) and sensibility, I do not see any real differentiation between the two. By its own definition, to be sensible is not necessarily to be rational, but rather, to be able to perceive. In Jane Austen's view, these are mutually exclusive, when in reality, they are not. In the movie, both women did not initially pick any, ugly man off the street--they were drawn to attractive men, differentiated by their idealism and pragmatism. Sensibility, is having the ability to sense. In this case, the beautiful singer who later picked the ex-general as her  husband is shown to be going beyond her senses (and hence, sensible) when in reality, she still uses her senses because to deny one's senses, in my view, is to acknowledge their presence. Hence, in the movie, the beautiful woman swallows her pride, and turning towards the man who originally was not the one because of his physical appearance.

What I offer as an explanation is not sensibility, but sensitivity. I honestly believe that the unattractive but loving man appealed to the beautiful woman not because of her "sensibility" but because of his sensitivity. I believe that sensitivity is the key to Jane Austen's question. It is not a question of relying of our senses. Yes, I concede that, when one truly feels for another, that appearances cease to exist. But, in order to appeal to someone, I think it's one's sensitivity, not a perceived conflict between sense and sensibility (at least, as shown in the movie), to another that draws one to another. Sensitivity, even if it is based on one's senses, differs from being sensible because the former is responsive while the other is not. For instance, having the ability to drive a car is not the same as driving a car when I need to go to the grocery.

There are no binary choices between this and that, based on how he/she looks or does not look, or how sensible they are, but rather a free choice towards the person who succinctly empathized with the other, who cared and loved for the other when they needed it the most.

In the movie, the ex-general cared for woman, even when she did not need it. He looked after her and schooled her, even when she did not see any potential. In the end, he was sensitive to who she was and what she felt. And in the end, that is what drew her to him-- the fact that he loved her, not because she denied her senses at all, but because he knew the "rhythm of her heart."If you look at the other storyline, it fits as well. It is not that she was more sensible (or not), but rather, she was sensitive to acts of the idealist because she opened her heart (almost the point of prying it open) to the man who loved her, but did not realize how sensitive he was to her love (or lack of it).

In the end, I guess it's extreme to say that we love those who are unlovable. But rather, love is a feeling caught in the field of sensitivity--that while senses may guide (or lead us astray), there is no conflict between our senses and being able to sense (non-SENSE!), but rather, our ability to sense and our ability to be sensitive to others, because the latter will always be stronger than the former.Why? Because we ignore the biggest "sense" of all when it comes to love--our heart--which will always guide our sensitivity (manifested in our potential response to others) and never our pure  senses, which are automatic and mechanical like any other machine or animal.

Can anyone who read "Sense and Sensibility" give me some insight before some Jane Austen fan sends me hate mail? :D