In keeping with the way of isolating a couple of scenes of a movie with an eye on purposeful dissection, I'd love to determine what the older tragedy flick bus can inform us about a specific notion that psychologists call"companionate love". Clearly this implies I am not herein worried about"disaster movie" crap or Grand Hotel kind characterizations.
Please let me paraphrase John W. Santrock's paraphrase of the famous Triangular theory of love as exhibited by the distinguished psychologist Robert J. Sternberg:
"A connection marked by closeness and devotion but low
Or lacking in enthusiasm is 'companionate love','' a pattern frequently found in
Couples who've been married for several decades."
I am interested from the scenes in Airport which include D.O. Guerrero and his wife Inez, played by Van Heflin and Maureen Stapleton (Stapleton's functionality, at least till her personality must interact with other people in the ensemble cast, is completely gut twisting - it's among the best in the history of American movies, in my humble view.)
Let us be clear - that this movie is meant only as entertainment, not art. Certainly not. (Though I will point out the other types of love that psychologists frequently classify are myriad from the movie, at the relationships such as between Bakersfeld along with his spouse, Demarest and his spouse, Demarest and Gwen, and Patroni along with his spouse.) Yet these scenes serve as a fantastic illustration of the monumental power of the cinema to convey abstract ideas, especially ones who, once employed to sensible presence, greatly touch our emotions.
And, if I could add, in such scenes every facet of filmmaking is a player - acting, directing, the collection decorations, the art direction, the songs, the basically still camera, the minimalism of this dialogue - it all.
I can not say enough about the job of this collection decorators - Jack D.Moore and Mickey S. Michaels, along with also the art directors, Alexander Golitzen and F. Preston Ames, in building the destitute, poverty stricken air of this Guerrero apartment along with the desperate atmosphere of this café at which Inez works. Initially we are believing, along with who is this man, where's he? It is obviously not anywhere from the airport, where the majority of the scenes have happened so far - though there are several shots in different areas, all of these fine looking and quite cheerfully presented to us the Bakersfeld house, Bakersfeld's father in law's team, a banquet hall, the Patroni house, Gwen's apartment, along with the dining area of one of those houses that is too near Runway 22. Allow me to say again - these other locales are very attractive, therefore our radar instantly goes up when we experience the most shocking gray-brown shabbiness of this Guerrero apartment.
He has been on the telephone with the airline, confirming the trip to Rome remains on schedule. (As an aside - that is among those few telephone conversations in the movie that Seaton chooses to not reveal as a split screen - I have included a visual appendix at the end of the guide to record this.) He hangs up and moves into his flat. Already there are many questions - that he does not have a telephone in his flat? What type of place is that he living in? What's he doing visiting Rome? Why is the flat so run down appearing? As he moves to the sack and we view the bomb paraphernalia about the mattress we start to comprehend his relation to, and his role in, the bigger story - particularly as he assesses the bomb rigging in the attaché situation a few occasions and also the ominous music plays on the soundtrack. Maybe more importantly for this discussion, it will help us comprehend the size of the lies he's telling his spouse.
We see him trudging through the snowstorm to the small coffee shop where his wife works. Again, the collection and the art management are sensational, right down into the OCCUPANCY BY MORE THAN 53 PERSONS... sign.
As they sit for some time and discuss the degree of his sanity - known to us but maybe not to her makes us feel profoundly for her since she feels deeply for him. Throughout the brief, terse expository dialog we piece together the details of the life together. He operates in something such as excavation and demolition and is seemingly not able to maintain a job due to his temper - he keeps getting into discussions with his managers.
Her easy, innocent faith - her companionate love - for him is indeed sincere and accurate she does not ask for any sort of confirmation or evidence of this new occupation, even if he gets the statement"I could draw on an advance on my wages tomorrow" What? Really? On the very first day of a brand-new job, you want an advance on your wages? That is not a red flag into your new company's face?
Let us eavesdrop on a few of her remarks in this dialog.
"This is not going to become another one of those hello-goodbye jobs, can it be?"
"This time do me one favor - if your boss says two and two is six, concur with him."
"Do not lose your temper."
"Nothing is how it was. I am not whining... for worse, I meant exactly what I said."
After he melts to a despairing pipe dreaming she states:"Cease. Quit dreaming. Only continue to the job"
"I will give the landlord a second hard luck story.
He leaves and finally boards the airplane; via a string of plot contrivances she has to understand just what's happening and races away throughout the night at the dreadful blizzard to attempt to prevent him from dressing. As we all follow this dazed travel of hers we all come to plead with her completely, to be transferred by her unbelievable devotion to a person who's with no rational estimation no great for her in any manner. And now we still do not even understand all of the pitiful information about him which we finally will, following Bakersfeld queries .
After her run throughout the airport, then watching her shocked face pressed against the glass in the gate because she sees the airplane go, it is hard not to be stirred by her not merely companionate but also (we understand now) heterosexual love. What a task of behaving!