Dearest D,

I attended a screening of the Pixar movie Up at the ACDH last night with a friend. Of course, I thought of you before and often throughout the movie. There were several things I was struck by during the movie. One of which I would imagine you would have found interesting/amusing given you’re a photographer.

There was one scene in the move where there is a dramatic sweep across the city as Carl Fredricksen is launching his balloon tethered house. As the camera pans into the sun rise, there is a lens flare as if it’s a live action movie. That is the first time I’ve seen such a technique used in an animated movie. But then again, I don’t see many animated movies these days. So the effect may be used more commonly that I’m aware. It worked very well to create extra drama in the scene.

Also they played with some interesting ideas stylistically throughout the movie. While the movie is animated using a state-of-the-art twenty-first century animation there are several motifs which hearken back to early-to-mid-twentieth-century.  After the audience is introduced to the children (in 1939) who become the married couple that are the main story element, there is a great silent sequence used to quickly illustrate the maturing of the couple and the death of Carl’s wife Ellie to bring the audience to current time (2008).  Also, another cool thing they did during this sequence is a very sparse piano arrangement for the sound track very much like was played in the movie houses of the silent era.

Also, Pete Docter was able to cleverly give the movie a timeless kind of feel by adding futuristic ideas to the story by the way of dogs that are able to talk through assistive technology. There was also the harkening back to Carl’s childhood in having a hero return in a story arc as his antagonist for the latter part of the film. That particular construct was rather interesting given that it alluded to Carl in some way losing his innocence later in life after the death of his wife.

However, the one theme that struck me the most and was the “ah ha” moment for me was toward the end of the movie. After Carl has battled with his hero/nemesis to gain control of his (the hero/foil) dirigible to able to return home from South America, he (Carl) must let go of his balloon tethered house to which he has been clinging to able to return home unencumbered. It was such an apt and amazing allegory for idea of non-attachment.

After the movie was over I was talking with my friend about the idea of attachment. The fact that we hold onto so much stuff we really needn’t.  And the fact that we have the ability to make the choice to not attach, because as the Buddha teaches is attachment that leads to suffering. I truly believe suffering is optional.

Non-attachment is one of those things I struggle with every day. And of course part of the daily struggle in that regard is letting go of you. And as I continue to work through the process of letting you go I have to ask myself why do I continue to cling to your ghost with such fervor?  By all indications you cared very little if at all for me. You were duplicitous and dishonest with me in regard to your feelings and refused share with me authentically. But rather spoke in pop culture Seinfeld platitudes such as, “It’s not you it’s me” and “I’m not in a place to be dating”. Blah, blah, blah…

Then why do I cling? How I wish I could answer that question with something other than I fell in love with you. And as you said once about how your attempts to keep up with my non-stop madness should count for something. Shouldn’t the fact that I fell in love with you count for something?

As always, I hope this finds you well.

TGL