Released: July 9th, 2010
Rated: R
Studio: Focus Features
Starring: Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark
Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson, Yaya DaCosta
Directed by: Lisa Cholodenko
Written by: Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg
Personal Bias Alert:
liked High Art, excited by the praise the
movie received
4.5 of 10
Writer/director
Lisa Cholodenko seems very interested in the fluidity of life. In the two films I’ve seen of hers, this and
1998’s “High Art,” love, sexuality, profession, and addiction are explored, and
the boundaries that come with each are pushed.
Where is the line between recreational user and drug addict, hobbyist
and professional, cheater and strayer?
People like their boxes, but Cholodenko brings the blurriness of life
into her films, often making it the most interesting aspect of the story. “The Kids Are All Right” draws from these
questions, which only serves to amplify how pat and familiar everything else in
the film is.
At
its core, this is a story about a nuclear family: two parents, two kids, all that’s missing is
the dog. The kids are in their late
teens, and are the usual angsty but decent suburbanites. The hook is that the parents are two women,
Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore). The kids, curious about their sperm donor
father, contact the sperm bank and set up a meeting with their donor, Paul
(Mark Ruffalo). Paul’s sudden presence
shakes the family, and their functional little unit becomes threatened from
several angles.
This
could have been a fun little movie. It’s
a solid setup for the low-budget dramedy it is, but it never quite comes
together. Individual scenes are good,
including a standout conversation between Nic, Jules, and son Laser (Josh
Hutcherson). It’s funny and smart and
honest and it made me wish so much that the rest of the movie was like
that. Unfortunately, it too often falls
back on clichés and easy answers to have any true emotional resonance.
Undoubtedly,
the weakest link in the whole movie is the characters. It feels like writers Stuart Blumberg and
Cholodenko never expanded upon them from their initial pitch. Everyone fits into their little boxes and can
be easily summarized in one sentence.
Nic is an uptight career woman.
Jules is a spineless wanderer.
Joni is a pleaser who always does what she’s told. And Laser is, well, simply undeveloped. They do point out that he’s not very in touch
with his emotions, which lets them slip in some clichéd jokes about men (and
gay men). But let’s focus in on the
worst offender: Paul. He’s a laid-back, plaid-wearing, organic and local
gardener/restaurateur. Of course Mia
Wasikowska’s Joni thinks he’s cool, because that’s all he’s trying to be. Nic detests him, and I’ve got to say that
that drew me closer to her. I never
understood why everyone was so interested in him. He is nice, and I guess Nic’s abrasiveness
makes everyone want someone like him, someone who will just tell them that
everything’s fine and they’re fine and whatever. That still doesn’t make him an interesting
character.
As
I said, Cholodenko is very interested in blurred boundaries. Here, alcoholism and love is challenged, with
Nic being a borderline alcoholic and Jules cheating. Jules is the more interesting example, with her
fling being based more on the need for support than a lack of love for Nic. The boundary between straying and outright
cheating is different for everyone, with many people claiming that a physical
act isn’t cheating as long as your heart remains focused on your long-term
partner. Then there’s another version of
straying, which I think the line “I’m not unfaithful but I’ll stray” from the
song “Back in Your Head” by Tegan and Sara describes best. I’ve always thought that this refers to the
ebb and flow of a relationship and being honest about the fact that there will
be times when your interest in the other person wanes. In these instances, you become more interested
in something or someone else, but you always come back to your partner. Jules’s cheating falls at an intersection
between all these definitions, and that makes it particularly challenging to
figure out just how bad her actions are.
These
complications are interesting, but they never hide the fact that the characters
are thin and the plot is stale. I don’t
understand why this script got such high praise, and I can’t help but feel that
this film seemed more interesting to people simply because the home was headed
by two women. Of course two women can
form a family, and of course they can have the same problems as heterosexual couples. I don’t think that’s a novel idea, even way
back in 2010.
Other Notes:
Ø The
dialogue is clunky, especially early on.
There are exchanges that, while natural, are boring to watch.
Ø The
kid’s friends are clichés, and boring ones at that
Ø Like
Paul, this movie seemed a little self-satisfied.
No comments:
Post a Comment