BEFORE: This time Julianne Moore carries over - she'll be sticking around for a couple more days, I think. (Let's hope...) Also, the lesbian theme carries over - why, it's just what this blog needs, more lesbians! Always sure to increase the hit count...
I'm guessing I'm in L.A. tonight, but the TCM world tour is covering the South Seas, and southeast Asia. I'm passing on "Mister Roberts" and "The Year of Living Dangerously", and I've already seen "The Bridge on the River Kwai", but I am picking up "Mutiny on the Bounty", both the 1935 and the 1962 versions. I should be able to work those in with other sea-faring films, like some notable upcoming pirate-based ones.
THE PLOT: Two children conceived by artificial insemination bring their birth father into their family life.
AFTER: You know, some people are a bit surprised when they learn I'm for gay rights, especially if they know about my history. But it just seems simple - gay people should have the same rights to get married and get on each other's nerves as straight people do. Otherwise, it just doesn't seem fair, to them or me. I'm for gay marriage, as long as there's gay divorce, gay custody battles, etc.
But this is the right way for a film to foster the liberal agenda - don't shove the gay rights thing down our throats (sorry, bad turn of phrase there) but instead show gay people who are regular folks - meaning they have similar hang-ups, similar faults. They're human, they make mistakes. We the audience can extrapolate from there. By showing gay people acting "normal", it's actually quite a bit more subversive, in its own way.
This film from just last year shows the effects on a two-mom family when the kids take the initiative and contact their sperm-donor father. (One of the cable channels ran a show last year on a man who was a long-term donor, who turned out to have, like 85 kids...so it's odd, but it does happen) The kids meet their father, and then once the moms learn about this, they want to do the same.
The relationship between the two women is in a vulnerable state, simply (one assumes) because they've been together so long - and as we've seen, familiarity breeds contempt, or at least boredom. And boredom leads to fantasy, fantasy leads to curiosity, which leads to infidelity. Putting gender aside, it just reinforces that relationships are hard, and demand some effort.
I won't spoil the twists and turns, though if you read any reviews or saw any trailers for this last year, you probably already know some of them. But I found this to ring pretty true-to-life, and a good mix of groundbreaking subject matter with an inherent universality. Certainly better than some of this week's earlier movies.
Also starring Annette Bening (last seen in "The Siege"), Mark Ruffalo (last seen in "54"), Josh Hutcherson (last seen in "Cirque du Freak"), Mia Wasikowska (last seen in "Amelia').
RATING: 5 out of 10 organic cucumbers
EDIT: Upon further reflection, I realize that the film may not have gone far enough in explaining the WHY of the situations depicted. So like last night's film, it's also (somewhat less) guilty of not getting into its characters' heads. I think I can spot the reasons given for the infidelity - as a combination of neglect in the marriage plus a personal connection with another person. But she re-connects with her partner - WHY? What steps were taken, what reasons for being sorry, for being forgiven?
Where "The Hours" contained forced cause and effect, this film is all cause, no effect. What happened between the teenage daughter and her male friend? Are we just not going to follow up on things? What are the long-term implications for the family, after it got shaken up? It's a less egregious set of plot-based sins, but I still feel the need to acknowledge them. The rating stands.
No comments:
Post a Comment