“Love and representation: not love together with representation, representation of love or represented love, instead, chronological graduation, first love but afterwards representation”.

A difference is something strange: it exists but it is nowhere. It doesn´t  belong to anyone, it´s just a property of the relationship between things and strictly speaking, it can´t be seen because it isn´t something that is there.

Various moments of Manu-Pía do not seem filmed to be shown, but instead just to fix the vision of moments of private pleasures. Birgit-Thorsten, by contrast, is obviously acted, almost overacted. The story that seems to commence in Carmen-Kandi is frustrated in Javi-Edurne and only an industrial murmuring in the background provides unity and runs through the entire narration, but none of all this is definitively significant. Therefore, The Film is fundamentally that which constructs the differences between the parts, that which is not there, that which filters and goes on developing between cuts, between the shots  that carry the lovers´ names inscribed in them. The film that is there, seems to respond to love by form, to love by representation. This other film that is not there, seems to represent love. And love itself (what love?) could be an attribute of the relationship between the first and the second. Now the phrase “Give that which one doesn´t want to one who doesn´t  want it” rings in my head. Why not just concentrate only on Manu-Pía?

Manu-Pía is the beginning following a brief introduction. After it, the passion disappears and the story opens: the need for sense waves the final goodbye to happiness and the battle to reconquer it commences. It´s true that happiness is only possible when it is undeserved, when we do nothing to gain it, but the creators of adverts know this only too well.

We can not represent love itself through any structure of an agreed and assumed type. The fight with this form is necessary; attack, the lack of continuity, the primitive appearance, crude, ungainly and on occasions a little pedantic are all indispensable, precisely because it is about love. Only love, because of its form can give rise to other forms of love. Camera in hand, or without it, we always construct the fantasy that allows us to love.

In spite of everything we continue to want a direct relationship, a one to one without intervening screens. We long for animal vision, to look and not know what we see. We try to undo the connections between stimulus and understanding to allow an encounter there, of what we have here. But, can there be a greater love than to fuck while you name fashion brands with a childlike voice?

I know that love only appears through representation and when it is directly unrecognizable. There is no possible encounter, there is no sexual relationship. Darlings: it would be better for us to learn to love the screen.