The Kids Are All Right - Movie Review
Mar. 6th, 2011 08:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSaw critical darling The Kids Are All Right last night, proving once again that movie critics are unreliable and have questionable taste. Also, the problem with cultural awards - books, movies, etc...is I spend most of my time wondering "why" these things got awards or were nominated for them.
This past summer, before the film came out - there was a bit of controversy regarding it in the Queer/LGBT community - specifically on lj and dw and other blogs. It's because the tale is about two kids who hunt down their sperm donor father, who has an affair with one of their mom's and chaos ensues. A story-line that was actually done a lot better on The L Word by the way. It's not new by any stretch and is actually a fairly common and a bit overdone trope, to the point of becoming cliche. (Making me wonder if I've seen too many films and tv shows in my lifetime, not to mention read too many books? )
The reason the Academy and critics applauded this little movie is two-fold, 1) it had a lesbian relationship and strong stable lesbian family at its center (which apparently is rare for "mainstream" cinema and television, for those of us who have watched things off the beaten path...not so rare.) 2) it was an relationship film in a crowded summer of F/X laden films. (These people need to watch more tv shows.)
I can see why the film set off a controversial firestorm and offended people in the LGBT community when it first came out or rather prior to when it came out.
It's not the plot per se, but how the plot is executed. Because the same plot was done during the second season of The L Word and has been done before in other films. If you want to see it executed in a realistic and sympathetic manner - I would highly suggest renting the Showtime Original series The L Word and skipping this movie. Granted it will take longer to watch, but that series I think provides a better perspective.
In many ways this film felt like a heterosexual take on a lesbian relationship. Although being het, I'm not sure I'm the best person to truly judge that. There is a review here by someone from the Queer community that has a better take on it from that angle:
http://www.shewired.com/article.cfm?id=25336 (note she hasn't seen it)
http://www.onemorelesbian.com/blog/are-you-ok-with-the-kids-are-all-right.html (this one did and I agree with her to a great extent.)
Also many lesbians did love the film. So the controversy was short-lived apparently.
The film is about a happy family - with one parent that drinks too much, works too hard, and the other - the stay at home parent, trying to find herself and start a new business, feeling lonely and underappreciated. While the eldest daughter is about to go away to college, and the teenage son is acting out. The only twist is the couple are lesbians. The son, Laser, asks Joni, the daughter, to
call the sperm bank and find their biological father. He's curious. She's not. But since she's of age, she can call and he can't for another two years. So she does and Paul, played by Mark Ruffalo, a sort of New Agey local farmer and restauranteur, asks if they can meet. They do. Things go well enough - Joni adores him, Laser feels insulted. Laser acts out. His Mom's confront him, he tells them about Paul and they meet Paul. Apparently each Mom had a kid by Paul's sperm, which Paul donated at the age of 19 for about 90 bucks.
Jules and Nic (the lesbian couple) have problems, but they are normal marital problems. Nic works too hard and drinks too much. Jules feels lonely and under-appreciated. Enter sperm donor - and Jules decides to landscape his backyard. While working with him, she kisses him one day. The next, they hop into bed and have a rigorous affair that lasts at least a few days.
Jules and Paul have no chemistry. It makes no sense that Jules jumps in bed with him. Jules doesn't talk about being curious. Her problems with Nic aren't pronounced. We don't see her looking at men that way. If anything Nic is the one who does. And her interest in Paul seems to be professional.
It's a contrived plot device. The writers tell us they are interested. And we are shown a lot of ...unappealing sex. Why Jules would sleep with the rather unattractive Paul is hard to understand - outside of her somewhat lame explanation to Nic - I felt un-appreciated and unwanted and he wanted me. (I did not see that at all. Paul is the sort that would sleep with anything on two legs. He doesn't "want" Jules. He craves Jules kids and family.)
Later Paul says he's in love with Jules. Okay. Again don't see it.
Like many indie films - we have long musical montages with the characters brooding off in the distance, but not much happening. (Frankly dear reader, I was bored. And started surfing the net).
The best scenes oddly enough are with the kids. They are also the least cliche and the most natural.
All the other acting feels telegraphed.
The message of the film overall is a good one - Annette Being tells the sperm donor, Paul, you are the interloper, you don't get my family just because you donated sperm. But the thing of it is - I don't really see Paul as that big of a threat. Jules slept with him mostly because he was there and willing. It felt though largely out of character for her to do so.
The New Yorker's reviewer talks about how the film is almost too California Politically Correct with a holier than thou vibe, I'd have to agree. There's a preachy undercurrent that makes the story feel false and robs it of its emotional impact. It reminds a lot of other indie films.
Brokeback Mountain this baby isn't. It fails in developing the rich complexity of character and inter-relationships that Brokeback managed to pull off. Chlodenko's script is fairly cliche in structure, provides nothing new to the scene, and goes over old tropes. The only successful bit she has - is that a marriage between two people of the same-sex is stable, normal, and healthy. But I've seen healthier same-sex relationships portrayed on television. And the whole infidelty bit is getting old.
I regret that this film wasn't braver, didn't take any risks. It doesn't. Granted it doesn't play up the melodrama of the infidelty and that is a good thing, but it also doesn't really spend much time exploring it. The infidelty happens towards the end of the film and is quickly resolved and in a somewhat cliche and pat manner, it rang false.
Chlodenko never quite explores the mixed emotions of both characters. Jules didn't have an affair with a woman, but a man. This is explored far better in other films, where the couple is straight, and
the man or woman has an affair with someone of the same sex. Here...it's sort of shrugged off.
It's almost as if the writer is afraid of offending anyone. So she stays polite throughout.
Granted same-sex marriage and LGBT relationships are a hot-button topic right now, but they can be explored in an interesting and complex manner, as series from The L Word to Queer Ass Folk to Brothers and Sisters to Greys Anatomy, etc have demonstrated. And there are other films - as this list demonstrates: http://gayinfo.tripod.com/film.html. There's also La Cage Aux Falls or the Bird Cage. It is admittedly rare to find a family friendly film about gay relationships, but if this is the case - why the plot device that one of the two mom's has an affair with her sperm donor? Why not do it with another woman (which makes more sense)? And why is this always the case? It would be one thing if this particular plot thread had never been explored, but it has been explored to death. So much so, that some television writers have tried to avoid it. It's almost as if the film is reacting to the heterosexual culture surrounding it - specifically the male culture, where the guy believes that whoa, of course the gay gal will find me hot. Notably in homosexual films and tv shows, if infidelty occurs it is often with another male, not a female. I've only seen it with a female once or twice and that was in a fiction written by women for women. Which begs the question - is the sexism in our culture so deeply ingrained in all of us that in a film about a lesbian couple - the infidelty explored is of course going to be with a guy?? While in a film with a homosexual couple - it is also, hello, with a guy? Does the guy always have to be part of the picture? While women, don't? And why aren't we questioning that??
The Kids are All Right doesn't pass the Bechdendale Test - because the whole film revolves around their relationship with the guy. The sperm donor and their son. Even the daughter - her relationship with guy she's dating. It's a film that ends up being more about men than women, which is sad.
Not recommended. Do yourself a favor. Go check out Desert Hearts, or The L Word instead. Or something else from the list.
This past summer, before the film came out - there was a bit of controversy regarding it in the Queer/LGBT community - specifically on lj and dw and other blogs. It's because the tale is about two kids who hunt down their sperm donor father, who has an affair with one of their mom's and chaos ensues. A story-line that was actually done a lot better on The L Word by the way. It's not new by any stretch and is actually a fairly common and a bit overdone trope, to the point of becoming cliche. (Making me wonder if I've seen too many films and tv shows in my lifetime, not to mention read too many books? )
The reason the Academy and critics applauded this little movie is two-fold, 1) it had a lesbian relationship and strong stable lesbian family at its center (which apparently is rare for "mainstream" cinema and television, for those of us who have watched things off the beaten path...not so rare.) 2) it was an relationship film in a crowded summer of F/X laden films. (These people need to watch more tv shows.)
I can see why the film set off a controversial firestorm and offended people in the LGBT community when it first came out or rather prior to when it came out.
It's not the plot per se, but how the plot is executed. Because the same plot was done during the second season of The L Word and has been done before in other films. If you want to see it executed in a realistic and sympathetic manner - I would highly suggest renting the Showtime Original series The L Word and skipping this movie. Granted it will take longer to watch, but that series I think provides a better perspective.
In many ways this film felt like a heterosexual take on a lesbian relationship. Although being het, I'm not sure I'm the best person to truly judge that. There is a review here by someone from the Queer community that has a better take on it from that angle:
http://www.shewired.com/article.cfm?id=25336 (note she hasn't seen it)
http://www.onemorelesbian.com/blog/are-you-ok-with-the-kids-are-all-right.html (this one did and I agree with her to a great extent.)
Also many lesbians did love the film. So the controversy was short-lived apparently.
The film is about a happy family - with one parent that drinks too much, works too hard, and the other - the stay at home parent, trying to find herself and start a new business, feeling lonely and underappreciated. While the eldest daughter is about to go away to college, and the teenage son is acting out. The only twist is the couple are lesbians. The son, Laser, asks Joni, the daughter, to
call the sperm bank and find their biological father. He's curious. She's not. But since she's of age, she can call and he can't for another two years. So she does and Paul, played by Mark Ruffalo, a sort of New Agey local farmer and restauranteur, asks if they can meet. They do. Things go well enough - Joni adores him, Laser feels insulted. Laser acts out. His Mom's confront him, he tells them about Paul and they meet Paul. Apparently each Mom had a kid by Paul's sperm, which Paul donated at the age of 19 for about 90 bucks.
Jules and Nic (the lesbian couple) have problems, but they are normal marital problems. Nic works too hard and drinks too much. Jules feels lonely and under-appreciated. Enter sperm donor - and Jules decides to landscape his backyard. While working with him, she kisses him one day. The next, they hop into bed and have a rigorous affair that lasts at least a few days.
Jules and Paul have no chemistry. It makes no sense that Jules jumps in bed with him. Jules doesn't talk about being curious. Her problems with Nic aren't pronounced. We don't see her looking at men that way. If anything Nic is the one who does. And her interest in Paul seems to be professional.
It's a contrived plot device. The writers tell us they are interested. And we are shown a lot of ...unappealing sex. Why Jules would sleep with the rather unattractive Paul is hard to understand - outside of her somewhat lame explanation to Nic - I felt un-appreciated and unwanted and he wanted me. (I did not see that at all. Paul is the sort that would sleep with anything on two legs. He doesn't "want" Jules. He craves Jules kids and family.)
Later Paul says he's in love with Jules. Okay. Again don't see it.
Like many indie films - we have long musical montages with the characters brooding off in the distance, but not much happening. (Frankly dear reader, I was bored. And started surfing the net).
The best scenes oddly enough are with the kids. They are also the least cliche and the most natural.
All the other acting feels telegraphed.
The message of the film overall is a good one - Annette Being tells the sperm donor, Paul, you are the interloper, you don't get my family just because you donated sperm. But the thing of it is - I don't really see Paul as that big of a threat. Jules slept with him mostly because he was there and willing. It felt though largely out of character for her to do so.
The New Yorker's reviewer talks about how the film is almost too California Politically Correct with a holier than thou vibe, I'd have to agree. There's a preachy undercurrent that makes the story feel false and robs it of its emotional impact. It reminds a lot of other indie films.
Brokeback Mountain this baby isn't. It fails in developing the rich complexity of character and inter-relationships that Brokeback managed to pull off. Chlodenko's script is fairly cliche in structure, provides nothing new to the scene, and goes over old tropes. The only successful bit she has - is that a marriage between two people of the same-sex is stable, normal, and healthy. But I've seen healthier same-sex relationships portrayed on television. And the whole infidelty bit is getting old.
I regret that this film wasn't braver, didn't take any risks. It doesn't. Granted it doesn't play up the melodrama of the infidelty and that is a good thing, but it also doesn't really spend much time exploring it. The infidelty happens towards the end of the film and is quickly resolved and in a somewhat cliche and pat manner, it rang false.
Chlodenko never quite explores the mixed emotions of both characters. Jules didn't have an affair with a woman, but a man. This is explored far better in other films, where the couple is straight, and
the man or woman has an affair with someone of the same sex. Here...it's sort of shrugged off.
It's almost as if the writer is afraid of offending anyone. So she stays polite throughout.
Granted same-sex marriage and LGBT relationships are a hot-button topic right now, but they can be explored in an interesting and complex manner, as series from The L Word to Queer Ass Folk to Brothers and Sisters to Greys Anatomy, etc have demonstrated. And there are other films - as this list demonstrates: http://gayinfo.tripod.com/film.html. There's also La Cage Aux Falls or the Bird Cage. It is admittedly rare to find a family friendly film about gay relationships, but if this is the case - why the plot device that one of the two mom's has an affair with her sperm donor? Why not do it with another woman (which makes more sense)? And why is this always the case? It would be one thing if this particular plot thread had never been explored, but it has been explored to death. So much so, that some television writers have tried to avoid it. It's almost as if the film is reacting to the heterosexual culture surrounding it - specifically the male culture, where the guy believes that whoa, of course the gay gal will find me hot. Notably in homosexual films and tv shows, if infidelty occurs it is often with another male, not a female. I've only seen it with a female once or twice and that was in a fiction written by women for women. Which begs the question - is the sexism in our culture so deeply ingrained in all of us that in a film about a lesbian couple - the infidelty explored is of course going to be with a guy?? While in a film with a homosexual couple - it is also, hello, with a guy? Does the guy always have to be part of the picture? While women, don't? And why aren't we questioning that??
The Kids are All Right doesn't pass the Bechdendale Test - because the whole film revolves around their relationship with the guy. The sperm donor and their son. Even the daughter - her relationship with guy she's dating. It's a film that ends up being more about men than women, which is sad.
Not recommended. Do yourself a favor. Go check out Desert Hearts, or The L Word instead. Or something else from the list.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-08 09:58 pm (UTC)