I finished watching Severance last week and it goes straight to the pool room. By that, I mean I reckon it’s in the top five TV shows I’ve ever watched.

I think it’s genius. Subversive, dystopian (though perhaps not for everyone), intelligent, and laced with brilliant, absurdist wit.

The basic premise, for those who haven’t seen it (you should), is that in some undefined time a procedure has been developed to allow people to separate their work life from their home life. The worker becomes an ‘innie’; the home self the ‘outie’, and neither knows what goes on in the other’s life. They work for huge organisation called Lumon, which is strange and cult-like.

Why anyone would agree to such a procedure is beyond my reckoning, despite the examples provided, such as avoiding a tragedy. Effectively, each person who submits to this has a double-life – or, rather, two half-lives – one that never (literally) sees the light of day, the other which has no understanding of the toil and interactions that make their existence possible. For me, it’s a nightmarish concept – and it becomes so in the show.

Though there is so much strange in this show, much of it feels familiar to anyone who has spent time in an office. It’s taken to a colourful extreme, but the work of the refiners in MacroData Refinement seems pointless and mind-numbing, but no more so than what many are subjected to in their working life. We turn up to the job, do our little bit, often oblivious of the point or value of what we contribute.

Likewise, the spurious celebrations and confected excitement are familiar. In the office, they are intended to engender team spirit and loyalty, much as in the show. In Severance, they’re an amusing highlight, somewhat ridiculous – the devilled egg parties, the dance parties, the Waffle reward – but they are an extreme and absurdist version of what most of us have experienced at one time or another. There is, literally, a handbook for these things, and artificial enthusiasm is all a part of it.

Looking in from the outside it seems ridiculous, but it’s much more easily accepted when you’re the recipient. I could go on, but you get the point.

So much of this show was absurdist that I couldn’t help but think of Kafka as I watched. As with him, the absurd is made to appear commonplace. Strange things happen but are accepted because no-one knows any better. The pointless work, the odd rituals, the nonsense spouted and recited, are all of a piece. Even the vaguely retro aesthetic plays into it. But, as with Kafka, there is satirical wit and, at the heart of it, a deep understanding of humanity.

Ultimately, that’s what this story is about – the gradual, dawning realisation that they have been played wrong and exploited. It awakes a need for enlightenment, which is very human, and finally a haphazard desire to become whole again, towards true humanity.

It’s a parable that encompasses so many aspects of modern life that there will be thesis and books written about it, I’m sure. I can hardly believe it could be better executed than this production. The concept is fantastic, the writing great, the acting perfect, the production design wonderful, and the direction – by Ben Stiller – is pitch-perfect.

Like much of the world, I await with great excitement for series two to reveal the truths we yearn to know.

I remember William Hurt

Another death. They’re coming thick and fast these days. This time it’s William Hurt.

This one struck home more than a lot. He was one of my favourite actors, though don’t know why exactly. That he was a great actor is indisputable. Some actors always play themselves – Hurt inhabited a different character every time. He was one of the most versatile and talented actors of his time.

His time coincided with the era I began to appreciate movies as an artform, and not just entertainment. His hot streak was in the eighties, when I first started taking big chunks out of the world assteenager and young man.

I liked the way he looked too, though that was probably helped by someone once telling me we shared a resemblance. Outside of ticking a few physical traits we had in common, that wasn’t really true, but I was happy to believe it at the time.

Back then, fine actor he was, he was also a bit dippy off-screen – thoroughly caught up in the mysticism of the acting profession. It seems remarkable that none of that made it to the screen, but that’s how good he was.

His star began to wane in the nineties, when he became less of the leading man and heartthrob and more the character actor he believed himself to be. He became a strong figure on screen, tall, substantial, occasionally magnetic.

Now he’s dead and I feel a bit older. I was there when he was the hottest actor in town, and now he’s gone too.

Wrong beer

Just a small note. I watched the movie The Dry the other night, starring Eric Bana. I thought it was excellent – better than the book, actually. As an Australian, it had a lot of evocative imagery – a drought oppressed land, dry river beds and dusty soil and stark gum trees standing against an unshifting blue sky. Likewise, the script felt true to nature – laconic, abbreviated conversations with verbal shortcuts where a few words mean a lot.

There was a jarring moment in the movie, though. The Bana character, Falk, is given a beer, and it’s a Budweiser. Maybe that was done for the American audience, but I can hardly think of anything more inauthentic than that.*

I don’t think I’ve ever drunk a Bud in Australia, let alone been handed one. My local bottle-o has about 200 different beer varieties, local and international. If there’s Budweiser there, then I haven’t seen it (though I think it’s available at Dan Murphy’s). Most beer drinkers I know turn up their noses at it.

If you want to be authentic, then situated in a rural town in Victoria, the beer should probably have been a VB – though most of us turn up our noses at that, too, nothing is more Aussie.

But then, the guy that handed the beer to him turned out to be the villain, and maybe that’s the clue.

*Apparently some Budweiser is actually brewed here – tastes different, apparently. Still doesn’t make it legit.

Reflections on a rainy Saturday afternoon

It’s Saturday, and I’ve been for my long walk with Cheeseboy and the dogs, and Rigby has had his swim. A steamy morning has become a wet afternoon, ideal for taking it easy and relaxing with an old movie. That’s what I’ve done.

The movie is not so old – 1986 – but it’s a movie I’ve been thinking about watching since I discovered it on Prime a month or so again. It’s an Australian movie – Kangaroo.

I think I’d seen the movie before, in the nineties perhaps, but it’s the book I remembered better. It’s perhaps one of D. H. Lawrence’s less known works, however, it’s an interesting novel, especially for an Australian reading about his country through the eyes of a famous English novelist. When did I read it? I’m not sure. The mid-eighties, maybe. I can picture the paperback in my mind – I have it somewhere – an old Penguin edition in white.

I read the book with the fascination of a young Australian male wanting to discover something of the identity I belonged to. Much of the history I knew – Sydney in the years after WW1 – we had studied it at high school. I knew about the New Guard, which is reflected in this piece, knew of the history to come in a period after the novel – de Groot slashing at the ribbon on the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and the colossal figure of Jack Lang, the premier of NSW when the depression came along.

I read it with the fervour of a young man wanting to soak up and learn as much as I could. This was an era when I also read many of the existentialist novelists like Sartre and Camus when I searched through the words and works of great authors for something I could believe in. Kangaroo was more personal because it spoke to the place I had come from.

There was much I recognised in the novel, though not all of it pleased me. It’s in the movie, too, though with less articulation and none of Lawrences’ intense mental ramblings.

The book’s main character is Richard Somers, transparently a proxy for Lawrence himself – a controversial writer with a German wife who exiles himself from England, coming to Australia for a new start. All this Lawrence did also. In the book, Somers encounters a neo-fascist organisation of ex-diggers led by a charismatic former general code-named Kangaroo.

They seek to draw him in. They intend to re-make Australia, do away with the unions and the socialists, and make a world something loosely based on mateship and sacrifice.

There is something in Somers that is drawn towards this. Kangaroo demands love from him, and there’s something seductive in such an entreaty. In the end, he can’t, as we know he cannot, and nor does he join forces with the union movement on the other side. Ultimately he departs the land.

The politics of this I found less interesting than the human elements. The world at that time was rife with such movements – fascists in Germany and Italy and other places doing battle against socialism and those who had betrayed them. There was the New Guard in Australia, though it never amounted to much; the spin on it in this version is that it was based on brotherly love.

More interesting to me was the coming together of Somers with his Australian neighbours. He rejects the country on an intellectual level but is drawn to it sensually by fascination and desire. It’s the vitality that captures him, a sun-bronzed physicality that is essentially practical; a sensual, unassuming masculinity. Like many who live in their mind, he is attracted by those who act – and the Australian men he portrays in this are all of that type. They’re canny, robust characters with blunt natures, though capable of sophistry. To do comes easily to them, to act and be, even if it comes down to violence. They are raw spirits, as seen through his cultivated eyes. (Jack Calcott, as played very well by John Walton in the movie, embodies this).

Reading all those years ago, I recognised the type, and it made for a conflict in me. Much is admirable in that character, and it’s a character the world has come to love – easy and amiable. It’s what is lacking from it that dismayed me.

I share some of those attributes being an Australian, and I’m glad of many of them – the directness and honesty, the casual masculinity, I think. But, very clearly, I’m someone for whom the life of the mind is precious.

It’s all very well to be peopled by men of action, but it’s the thinkers that take us forward. It’s what fails Somers in the end – there needs to be more to it than this. We need more than instinct – there needs must be thought and reflection also, and imagination. I read it back in the eighties and recognised then the suspicion of anything fancy or intellectual – as if they were a bit dodgy, a bit soft.

We have moved on from then, and it’s not as pronounced now perhaps, but it still dismays. How I wish we had an intellectually curious culture like France or Germany. I’d love for us to engage with ideas and make the discussion of them a public affair. I yearn for that personally, and I believe it’s what we need as a nation at a cultural and intellectual level.

This movie triggered me for those reasons, but mostly because it got me thinking of our government. It has been a deliberate ploy from the day that Howard assumed power in 1997 to discourage that kind of curiosity. I think John Howard, a very stiff and proper type, felt uncomfortable with such things, but there were also excellent political reasons for it.

If people don’t think they won’t question. If we pander to their appetites and speak in their language, they won’t stir to make trouble. If we give them someone to vent their fear and hostility against, they won’t turn it on us.

With this current government, we have reached the apogee of this. It feels like a betrayal of what we could be and should be, and Morrison ultimately a subversive who is prepared to pander to our baser selves to the detriment of our cultural soul. He cares nothing for that, perhaps because he is without qualities himself – a shallow, opportunistic man who seeks only power, not justice. Like many, like Cheeseboy today, I hate him. I hate him because he is mediocre and selfish and without a skerrick of true patriotism.

I hate him because he is deliberately anti-intellectual and is happy to mock such pretensions as if they were unworthy. He plays to the simple mentality, and it suits him if we aspire to nothing more ambitious or worthy than a comfortable living. Our leader should be seeking to elevate us, as a nation and as a people, but such a nation would have nothing of such a superficial nonentity as him (and much of his party), and so instead, he manipulates opinion to his own ends. He is deplorable, as so many recently have been.

We deserve better leaders than this. We deserve to think and wonder for ourselves. We deserve to live in a country enlarged by possibility and the excitement of becoming more as a people. A true leader would encourage us to become bigger, not smaller.

I think ultimately, the likes of Morrison will be found out. I think we live in a time when many established attitudes are being challenged and turned on their head, despite the likes of Morrison. Bit by bit, old ways of being and thinking are being chipped away at, as they must be. We live in a time when leadership has come from below because there’s such a lack of it at the top.

As an Australian and someone who always wanted to be proudly known as an Australian, I hope this movement catches here as well, as there are signs that it will. In the end, we need the leadership from above to seize the moment to allow for all of us to be better. Right now, that’s just hope, but I live for it.

Funny, I started off writing about an old book and movie and turned it into a diatribe. Everything is political these days.

Building my legacy

There was a TV program on Tuesday night called Building a Legacy which I tuned into and loved. Fundamentally it was about architecture – one of my favourite topics – and featured notable Australian homes built over the last 80 odd years. It told the architect’s story and the inspirations for the buildings and took us on a tour through them, with interviews with the architect or, more often, their surviving relatives or current residents.

There were some beautiful homes, some quite simple, and others quite bold. I love these things so much that I felt a sense of yearning as I watched. I’ve thought that given my druthers I might have elected to become an architect instead. It appeals to a sense in me perfectly combined of creativity and science. I missed that boat, but as I watched on Tuesday night, I thought to myself I would happily settle for living in a home like these.

It stirred up memories also. When I was just a young boy, my parents built the house that would become our home. I can recollect being picked up from primary school by my dad and on the way home stopping by the building site as our home to be went up. I can only imagine the satisfaction it must have given him to see it come together. It’s a rare pleasure to observe all your plans and careful designs come into being. As a kid, I remember I felt excited too – but then, most construction sites are exciting to boys.

I have memories too of our family group venturing out on weekends to visit display homes. That was once quite the thing. I don’t think I always enjoyed this quite so much – being dragged around to view empty homes every weekend. I’m not sure when this happened – my dates seem muddled. Logic suggests that it must have been before we started building our house, but I’m sure it was later than that. It begs the question – was there plans to build another home? I can’t recall, though I remember there was a house from one particular architect or builder that they were keen on – and I can see the house in my mind, modern and stylish.

I should have asked my dad the other day.

By chance, the first thing on Wednesday morning I finally interviewed for the role I applied for over Christmas. It’s with a company specialising in urban design.

Apparently, recruitment did what recruitment often does best – it overlooks the best candidates. When my application came through, it was put in the do not contact pile. It was only picked up when the guy filling the role asked what had happened to my application. I’d sent him my CV initially, and so he knew of me and asked HR to track me down.

The interview went well, and apparently, I’m now on a shortlist of three. From what I can gather – and this is from my mate who works there – the frontrunner is someone who has direct experience with their (quite obscure) ERP system, as well as Power BI – I don’t have either. I’m behind the eight ball there, but they see me as someone who can get things done.

The thing is, when they asked what appealed to me about the role I was quite honest in telling them I had a great interest in their industry, and actually made reference to the program I watched the night before. It’s too late for to become an architect, but to be in a position to facilitate great things and feel some part of it would be very satisfying.

Right now it’s my standby option. In theory, the promotion should come through where I am now, though nothing is ever certain with them – a point I reiterated to their face yesterday. It’s at a higher level than the role I interviewed for, and common sense dictates that it should be the preferred option. I’m not always sure about that, though.

Let’s see how things play out. I could be offered both. Neither may eventuate. As so often, fate will decide.


I finished reading Mephisto last week, written by Klaus Mann, son of Thomas. It’s probably better known these days because of the movie made of it about 40 years ago – which I went and watched straight after finishing the book.

The story is about a German actor in the 1920s starting out in Hamburg who, through a combination of talent, ambition and the right connections makes his way to Germany as the Nazis come to power. Once a Socialist, he becomes complicit with the Nazis to serve his career.

His famous role in the book is Mephisto. If you’re familiar with the story of Mephistopheles – or Faust – then you’ll recall that Mephisto was the diabolical character to whom Dr Faust sold his soul to in return for earthly success. In terms of this book, Hendrik Hofgren may play Mephisto, but it’s he who has sold his soul to the Nazis.

It’s rare I say this, but I thought the movie was better than the book. I found the book quite pedestrian and pretty obvious for the first two-thirds of it. I thought the writing a bit muddy. It really becomes compelling only when Hendrik achieves some measure of success in Berlin, and is drawn into the clutches of the Nazi hierarchy.

In my view, the best villains are those with a conflicted soul – neither all bad, or all good. Hendrik Hofgren is such a man. His overweening desire, and the ultimate justification for his betrayals, is his love for the theatre. As he says many times, he is not a political man. Art and theatre are above politics, as he often proclaims as if to ease his conscience. That isn’t true, and you suspect he knows it in his heart. As the Nazis showed better than anyone, art is a prime tool of propaganda and submission.

I preferred the movie because I thought the themes were tidied up and better expressed. Hofgren is presented more sympathetically, but in so doing the ambiguity of his personality and situation are highlighted. He’s not a bad man – in fact, he’s probably pretty normal in many ways, but that he has a particular talent and an ambition that matches it. He’s not without conscience, nor a kind of courage, but ultimately he is damned because he plays along.

The choice he faces is to make a stand against creeping fascism or complying with it. Instead, he attempts to compromise with it, giving something, and trying to take something back – but you can’t do deals with the devil. While some resist and pay for it with their lives, and others exile themselves abroad, he becomes a part of the system. For convenience and ambition, he has sold his soul.

The events described in the book and the movie both conclude in 1936, with most horrors still to come (Mann published in 1936).

At the heart of the movie is Klaus Maria-Brandauer’s performance, which is magnetic, and a good reason why the movie is so good.

The book has a great, though plain-drawn and simplistic story. At least in translation, it’s not as good as you think it could be. The movie cleans a lot of that up and adds a layer of complexity to the storyline that makes meaningful for many more of us: how normal people come to collaborate.

Old TV

Last night, I finished watching the BBC series of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy, starring Alec Guinness. It was made in 1979.

I suppose I must have seen it before. Certainly, I was familiar with Alec Guinness as Smiley (I used to picture Arthur Lowe as Smiley when I read the books, but Guinness is perfect). I have no memory of it otherwise, and the reason I chose to watch it this week was curiosity and because it is a great story – but also, nostalgia.

It always strikes me watching the difference between observing an era as defined by programs contemporary to that era instead of those made years later, looking back. Oddly, it seems to me that there is more detail in productions made decades after the actions portrayed. That’s probably because there’s such an effort in production design to make it authentic and to ramp up the atmosphere after the fact. Contemporaneous productions take it for granted, and it’s all very matter of fact.

Watching a BBC production from the seventies highlights some differences very quickly, starting with the aspect ratio. The video quality is poorer also – no HD in those days for TV. Otherwise, it’s a bit drab to look at – the colours used, the skies overcast – but then that’s both England and the BBC, I suspect.

Everything is a bit less glam, and I would guess that is authentic. England was struggling at the time, and much of the wealth and the polished lifestyle we’ve become accustomed to since would have been a very remote possibility. A lot of the interiors look like they could have been decorated by my grandmother.

I need hardly to say that the show was great. I’ll be watching the follow-up, Smiley’s People, sometime over the next few weeks.

Now that I’ve come across a whole bunch of old TV, it’s my intention to revisit a lot of it – and mostly out of fascinated sentimentality.

There’s a bunch of Australian mini-series from the eighties available for viewing. Mini-series were the big-ticket item back then, and there were heaps of them. I would have watched many, if not most, and to go back and watch them again would interesting to see how I respond to them all these years later. Do they hold up? What do I recall?

I’m also rereading Dune at the moment, about 30 years after I read it first. It’s good. I remember of it coming out in the eighties and thinking it was crap. There was a mini-series made of it in 2000 which I never saw, and have mediocre expectations of – but I’ll look to watch that also once I’ve finished the book.

Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.

The Bond of my youth

The news came yesterday that Sean Connery had died at 90. It was sad news for much of the world, and certainly for me.

Without having to think about it too much, I’d have to say that Sean Connery is my favourite actor of all time – as much for the man he was as the movies he made.

I grew up on the James Bond movies, and Sean Connery was always the best of them. He became a bit of a style icon for me because I wanted to be just like him. He even had the sort of handsomeness that appealed to me, a heterosexual male – hard-edged, rather than pretty.

Connery had an aura that went beyond his screen performances, though in some ways 007 epitomised a lot of that. He combined great masculinity with wit and charm. He was capable and confident and never flustered. It was the model of a man I aspired to be.

James Bond appeals to many men, especially when they’re at that impressionable age. I only ever felt that myself with Connery, though. It was the man that drew me. There seemed an edge of danger to him, even violence, cloaked within an ever-stylish and attractive exterior. It made him interesting and hinted at an inner-substance – the real man playing a part on the screen, but knowingly.

On-screen he was always charismatic, off-screen he could be gruff and gave the impression that he didn’t much care what anyone thought of him. He had his own mind and his own views and went his own way. In the old parlance, he was his own man, which is what every man (and woman!) should aspire too.

The funny thing is, the day before I downloaded one of his mid-career movies, Outland, which I think is pretty underrated. Then I heard that he had passed away and it felt poignant.

Year by year, a bit more of what I knew is chipped away.


For a couple of years, I went to school in Sydney after my dad got a transfer there with his job. I started in term two, which was in Year 10 for me. School was a bit different, both in terms of curriculum, and culturally – I was known as the kid from Melbourne and stirred, generally, for being a supporter of ‘aerial ping-pong’.

I settled in pretty quick though and made friends, one of whom remains one of my best mates now. I did English, Maths, Physics, Art and History.

I liked History and was good at it. I still like it. (In the history exam that year we had a selection of five topics from which we had to write three essays. I finished my essays early, and rather than sit around and wait decided to write the other two essays as well).

The following year (I think – Year 11) we studied the Russian revolution, which I found fascinating. Our teacher was Mr Wolfers, in retrospect probably not much more than a dozen years older than his students. In memory, he’s short and plump, though very much an enthusiast.

We went way back into the 19th century to learn about the Tsars and serfdom and the origins of the discontent that led to the revolution. We covered, naturally, the events of 1905, the coming war, and then the revolution itself, the government of Kerensky initially, before the Bolsheviks seized power.

Perhaps not much has changed, but my sympathies were very much with the Russian people – historically docile, downtrodden and mistreated, finally rearing up.

In our class discussion, Mr Wolfers touched upon a famous book written about the Bolshevik revolution in St Petersburg – Ten Days that Shook the World, by John Reed. Later I would read it, and it’s a vivid and exciting account of the Bolsheviks coming to power.

John Reed was an American journalist and communist. He’s not someone much remembered today, though you might be able to picture him as the protagonist as played by Warren Beatty in the movie Reds.

Last Friday I was subdued and weary after a long night at the vet and disinclined to exertion of any kind. I allowed myself to lay on the couch, from where I watched Reds – and all these memories came back to me.

It’s a good movie, directed by and starring Beatty, a famous progressive. It’s a movie that had to be made because Reed was such a fascinating character, and seminal in the telling of the Russian revolution.

It’s also a very long movie and as I watched I set about editing it in my mind. It’s all interesting, but the real guts of the story is when he heads to Russia with his wife, Louise Bryant. And so, I thought, I would cut the first hour in half, lose a couple of plot threads, and tighten up the others.

The movie was made in 1981, a year after I studied under Mr Wolfers. I didn’t watch it then, nor for many years after. I don’t remember when I did, but I’m sure I would have watched with studious attention.

I tried to remember my 1981. It was my final year of school, back in Melbourne. I was a defiant student at school, for whatever reason, though generally bright. The things I recalled were mostly sporting.

I remember one Saturday afternoon laying in a bath listening to the radio as my footy team kicked 4 goals in the last 5 minutes to win a famous victory against our arch-rival Carlton, at their home ground (we won 15 in a row that year playing thrilling football).

I remember waking up to the news of the so-called miracle at Headingly when on the back of some Botham heroics England had scraped an incredible victory against the Aussies. I was devastated and depressed for days.

I remember kicking the footy around on one of the school ovals when I should have been in class; and poring over The Age in the study room, which I would read from front to back every day. I remember another occasion when I stood up and argued a point with my English teacher and was banished from class; and another time, bored, how I climbed out an open window mid-class while the maths teacher was writing on the blackboard, and headed home.

I was way into girls, as you are at that age, but I can’t recall any particular crush I had. Realistically, I probably wanted to get in the pants of all of them.

Strangely, it was only later that I remembered that 1981 was also the year my parents separated. I went with my mum – my dad hadn’t uttered a word, or even acknowledged me, for months, so it was an easy decision. We moved into a brick unit in Main Road, Eltham. My dad started speaking to me again.

And thus, that’s how memory associate things.

Where is the great beauty?

I happened across The Great Beauty in about January 2015. I was house-sitting at my uncles and aunts house way out in the sticks in a time when I was still homeless and unemployed and, seemingly, few prospects. Being there was like a holiday for me. I had a good-sized and fully appointed house to myself for six weeks. I had space at least, and a decent bed and time to set aside some of the fears that haunted me. By day I was writing my first book and watering the tomatoes and walking the dogs and cooking – I had a full-sized kitchen at my disposal also. By night I would sit on the comfy lounge with a dog to either side of me and explore what there was to watch on TV, or on the hard-drive of movies I took with me. That’s how I found this film. One balmy summer’s night, I was flicking between channels when I came across it. I stayed to watch for a few minutes, then kept watching. By the end of the movie, I could feel it inside me. It made me think and wonder. It made me remember myself. I went to bed, knowing not all was done.

It’s an Italian movie about a man who wrote a great and famous novel when he was young and not written anything since. He’s now 65, an elegant, sophisticated, witty man about town. His friends are intellectuals and artists and each night they gather at different places for different events and party until the early hours of the morning. It’s a hedonistic lifestyle full of intellectual discourse and sensual delights. Jep epitomises it. He’s charming and fun and touches lightly wherever he goes. (A generation before it’s a role that Marcello Mastroianni would have played with detached aplomb). As it is, the role is very well inhabited by Toni Servillo.

On the surface, it’s hard to know quite why I was so drawn to the story. It’s a great movie, no doubt, intelligent and vivid (it recalls Fellini in style), with great set-pieces and photography in general, and brilliant acting (and the musical selections are perfect and haunting). But I had a personal response to this, which is rare. I found something in it that seemed relevant to my existence – it seems unlikely.

When I first saw it, I had nothing, and the future looked bleak. But there I was, sitting in a house on the outskirts of Melbourne, kangaroos hopping by beyond the back fence, watching the story of rich and decadent Italians in the eternal city, Rome. Jep, the protagonist, I could relate to in some undefined way, but even so, his life appeared the polar opposite of my own, and even his style – some of which felt familiar – was ultimately different.

I watched the movie again last night and felt much as I did before though – thankfully – my circumstances are much improved from that time. I watched, trying to understand what it was that resonated in me. At one stage Jep says that his was always going to be a life of sensibility. No matter how much he engaged in the elegant, sometimes decadent, lifestyle he was part of, there was always something in him that was an observer. He had reacted to that with a dry and sometimes biting wit, as if to put distance between what he felt and what he wanted to portray. He had achieved early success and made himself light since as if it was an aberration. He skipped along, enjoying the fruit his wealth and celebrity gave him, but ultimately he can’t ignore that sensibility – the knowingness I’ve written of before.

This is the movie. He’s living this enjoyable life when he hears that one of his first loves from many years before has passed away. It affects him deeply and sets him off as he continues his life of episodic sensuality. He looks at the things he never had, the things he shunned but might have had if things had been different. He searches for some meaning amid the great ‘blah, blah, blah’, and returns again and again in his mind to the scene of his very first love.

In short, he undergoes a journey. The pristine and engaging facade he’s lived behind develops cracks. He finds himself wrought by unexpected emotion. The old, almost cynical formulas fail him. He wants a meaning to it. He searches for it outside, then turns back within.

This is probably something many of us can relate to. It may even be a condition of life – certainly for those who have any sensibility. And I think that’s what I recognised both before and now. My circumstances were just that – circumstances. My self, my sensibility if you like, was contained within me like a bubble independent of the circumstances I was in. I still thought, deeply, still wondered and felt, still questioned. What had become lightness in Jep had become heavier in me, but it was just a different way of responding to similar things. And I recognised his hedonism, knowing it well, drawn to the more simple life of sensation – would be if I could be. Though my path has taken me somewhere very different, I could appreciate his dandy-ism as self-expression and relate to his love of women – fleeting though it ever is. And the images of him wandering the empty streets of Rome in the early hours and as dawn breaks – that’s straight out of something I wrote 20 years ago. I know it.

So, what does it mean? I think we see beneath the surface reality and respond to what lies beneath. I think, like Jep, I’ve hidden behind a way of being for years. Many of us have. Ultimately, they’re the things we are. In our case, it’s a sensibility we can’t escape, and it’s bittersweet.