Review: The Kids Are Alright (2010)
July 31st 2010 03:45
The Kids Are Alright (2010, Cholodenko)
Written July 30, 2010
Note: This review contains more personal preference and subjectivity than my normal reviews. It also contains MAJOR SPOILERS
The Kids Are Alright is an incredibly nuanced film that details the struggles of a family at a crucial turning point in their child’s life. This may sound like you’re in for something deep and dramatic; you’re not. The serious issues on screen are handled with a nice mix of humor, affection, and yes, some pain and tears as well. The Kids Are Alright, co-written and directed by Lisa Cholodenko (High Art, Laurel Canyon) details the events of a summer before Joni (Mia Wasikowska), the daughter of lesbian parents Jules (Julianne Moore) and Nic (Annette Bening), leaves for college. The film perfectly sets up each of the characters without obvious exposition; the entire film functions in this matter and that’s why it shines. When a script can provide you with insight to the characters with ease and precision without the viewer being consciously aware of the exposition occurring, you know you’re watching something special; this is even truer in the small, independent films, as many of them come off as wooden upon attempting to develop character.
We are brought into the character’s lives through little moments; Laser (Josh Hutcherson), Nic and Jules’ 15 year old son, rides his skateboard and does drugs with his loser best friend; Joni plays scrabble in her bedroom with her two best friends, one who is sex obsessed, the other a boy whom Joni is obviously attracted to. The family sits down to dinner and Nic is at the head; from this action we know immediately she’s the one in control of the household. Nic dictates when thank you cards should be sent out and questions why Jules bought a truck for her landscaping business already when she doesn’t even have any costumers yet. In nearly every scene, Nic is drinking a glass of red wine; her implied alcoholism is understated and only eluded two twice by two different characters.
On the surface, the lives of these two women seem fine. Yes, they take little digs at one another, but they’re layered with affection. It isn’t until we look closer, deeper, that we’re shown the cracks beneath the surface, many of which have to do with their own personality traits and flaws and how they project them onto one another.
Everything changes when Laser and Joni look up their biological father; an anonymous sperm donor who, through research, gains a name and a face. His name is Paul and he’s portrayed brilliantly by Mark Ruffalo. Paul’s personality is, again, effortlessly revealed. He flirts with women at work, has casual sex, and gets his world turned upside down when Joni and Nic show up. Refreshingly, he doesn’t run from them and instead embraces them; literally. When Nic and Jules meet Paul, tensions arise as do unexpected feelings. We then delve into a main theme: gratification. Not only sexual gratification but emotional
as well. Many of the characters are missing something in their lives. Joni enjoys the different parental advice that Paul brings her yet Laser resents Paul initially for being too much like Nic and Jules. For Nic, Paul symbolizes a loss of control; a shift in the balance that is her family, for which she is the head; the breadwinner.
Finally, and most substantially, there is Jules. Jules’ arc brings the sexual and emotional gratification to mutual exclusivity. Early in the film we are greeted to various scenes with the two women. As Jules and Nic make love, it seems off; Nic doesn’t appear to be getting much pleasure from it and then they’re interrupted. Later, when Nic draws Jules a bath she leaves her to get gather a new salts and when she doesn’t return, Jules finds her on the phone with a patient. We know that Jules feels as though Nic takes care of her, and thus, is in ways better than her. She’s a successful doctor and always in control. She’s anal and a perfectionist.
When Jules meets Paul, she tells him she sees her kids’ expressions in his face. Before long, they’re sleeping together and while Jules is clearly enjoying the sex, she’s also enjoying the freedom that Paul represents. In one telling scene, Jules asks him for an opinion on her landscaping ideas for his backyard. When Paul is silent she immediately backtracks and apologizes for her idea even though he was simply thinking. She tells him she’s used to silence signifying she’s said something wrong. Jules has many issues in terms of her own passiveness and self-expression and unfortunately, uses a sexual relationship with Paul as the catalyst for finally sticking up for herself. Paul, in turn, uses his love for the children and sudden desire to be part of a family as the main reason for wanting to be with Jules.
The resolution to these conflicts and the film’s ultimate final arc is beautifully laid out, without melodrama, and the ending is pitch-perfect without being sappy. The performances are all wonderful, particularly Bening, Moore, and Ruffalo. Ruffalo definitely has a difficult job in his role, and pulls it off with flying colors. His character is likeable until the end of the film, even given his misguided actions.
On a personal level, however, I happened to take issue with the turn the story ultimately took in terms of the affair. My main problem with Jules sleeping with Paul is not inherently tied to the script and has nothing to do with whether or not makes sense within the function of their characters (because it does). My problem with it comes on a much broader canvas: I feel it plays into the sad misconception of most people which is that homosexuality is a choice. Jules sleeping with Paul with ease and enthusiasm serves to further perpetuate this ideology.
My audience laughed greatly throughout their entire affair; and while the portrayal of the entire film does take a lighter tone rather than a melodramatic one, I’m still not so sure that if it were a man and a woman cheating with one another it would have been greeted with uproarious laugher to that degree. Nevertheless, the direction of the storyline did not deter my enjoyment of the film, just nagged a little at me like a sore tooth due to my own projection of other people’s conceptions.
Cholodenko is not trying to conform to hetero-normative culture; she’s not attempting to achieve the response of ‘See! This is just a lifestyle choice! All she needed was a man!” Not at all, not with a film like High Art under her belt and her own sexuality as a lesbian. It’s only the people whom are uncomfortable with gay relationships or moreover, gay marriage, that will succumb to this mindset. It’s an unfortunate reality, but unavoidable to the status quo if you throw a lesbian having sex with a man into a film.
As mentioned above, Paul is simply the catalyst for the deeper, un-discussed issues that lie dormant in Jules’ and Nic’s relationship. If Paul hadn’t come into their lives, Jules most likely would never have been unfaithful. And in a way, her indiscretion will most likely improve the women’s relationship as it allowed their issues to float to the surface.
The Kids Are Alright is a great film, and despite these personal issues and my own wish that I’d seen it with a smaller audience, I highly recommend you see it as soon as you can.
| 72 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Catherine Stebbins
Cinema Enthusiast
Thoughts from a Cinephile
Thoughts from a TV Watcher
I definitely see what you are saying about your issue with the film in a broader sense. I think if it had been handled differently I would agree. I like that Cholodenko takes that risk and that as a lesbian director has the confidence in her audience to have sense. Jules saying she was not in love with Paul and saying "What? No, it has nothing to do with that" in response to Nic asking if Jules was straight now should have been enough for the audience to understand the situation. Also, it is really obvious that Jules is using Paul for a very specific type of rebellion against Nic. I would hope an audience would understand.
I actually disagree about the reaction of the audience with their affair. Those scenes were so incredibly light in tone and edited to purposely be funny. When I picture Nic being a man and wonder if those scenes would have played out differently, I really don't think that would have. The audiences' reaction was what she was going for; all the seriousness of the scenes were purposely beneath the surface. The sex is amusingly sloppy, Paul is clearly entertained at first by the whole thing and its edited in a way that evokes comedy. Jules and Paul are in denial of the implications of thier actions which I think also contributes to the tone. If they don't understand what the consequences of their actions are, the scene understandably lacks the maturity that the situation needed to be looked at by them. I definitely see your point but I think Cholodenko makes everything work really well here because of the circumstances of it all and that those scenes were so interesting because the director chose to push down the seriousness of the situation just as Jules and Paul were doing every time they met up.
I agree that its unfortunate that some of the audience will undoubtedly walk away with really inaccurate assumptions about what happens in the film. It's a lot more unfortunate though that more than half of America would blatantly refuse to even sit through this film. I really hope this gets any semblance of a mainstream audience. At least that would be something good.
Comment by Linh
Celluloid Fun
Cheers!
Comment by Cinema is Truth
Cinema is Truth
Cinema is Truth