BEFORE: I got this one a few months back to pair with "The Squid and the Whale" - both films seemed to center on New York pre-teens and their problems, from their parents' point of view, so even if the two films didn't share any actors in common, it seemed like maybe there might be some common ground in the subject matter. But of course, I couldn't know for sure since I hadn't seen either film yet.
It seemed like it might be a little tricky to link to this one, since it only has four main characters, and Jodie Foster isn't appearing in many movies these days, so I'd have to find some combination of two films with Kate Winslet and John C. Reilly in them, that would need to be linked together. Instead I'm going to sandwich this one between two films with Christoph Waltz, who carries over from "Downsizing".
THE PLOT: Two pairs of parents hold a cordial meeting after their sons are involved in a fight, though as their time together progresses, increasingly childish behavior throws the discussion into chaos.
AFTER: Just like "Proof", it's patently obvious that this film was based on a play - there are a minimal number of characters, they're in one closed space that the never seem to venture out of (a Brooklyn apartment, in this case) and there's a lot of repeated and overlapping dialogue. There's something very Pirandello-meets-Sartre about this one, the characters can't quite bring themselves to leave this apartment, though they keep trying they're drawn back in again and again, and forced to spend time with the other characters, though they come to hate each other and their situation over the course of these 80 minutes. Perhaps they are dead and trapped in hell with each other - or maybe that's just how I felt, being forced to spend time with these awful people.
They seem nice enough at first, they are drawn together because the son of one set of parents hit the son of the other couple with a stick in a Brooklyn park, so they're forced to come to some kind of legal and moral understanding about what happened, what it all "means" and what should happen as a result. The problem is, they're never going to get on the same page here, because the actions of the child somehow reflect on the actions of the parents, their discipline rules or lack thereof, and so things are going to tend toward being taken personally, and therefore things will be complicated and eventually spiral out of control.
If only this incident had taken place at a school, then at least there would be some standard procedure implemented by a teacher or the principal, with perhaps some investigation done into what had happened, and maybe some indication about which child was at fault. Or is that wishful thinking on my part, to assume that school officials might know what they're doing? But at least then the parents wouldn't have to meet outside of school and try to determine what disciplinary actions, if any, need to be taken. There are several schools of thought on this these days, with some saying that discipline was too harsh in the past, and today's kids need only positive reinforcement. Of course, I disagree on this point, because I see the value in the days when people not only hit their kids, but also when it was OK to hit OTHER people's kids. While I'm against child abuse, it's also true that some out-of-control kids today could learn a thing two from a little corporal punishment.
Anyway, I found it hard to believe that after drafting their statements about the incident, one couple could literally be in the hall, with their coats on, having stated the need to be somewhere else, and could then be brought back into the apartment with the offer of coffee and cobbler. Really? The hosts JUST realized, after their guests wrapped up the conversation, got their coats on, walked out into the hall and pushed the elevator button, that they forgot to offer their guests espresso and something to eat? This didn't occur to them WHILE they were talking, or drafting the statement? And then, after stating that they have to be somewhere else, their guests come BACK into the apartment? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
This happens AGAIN once they've reached another resolution point, the guests put their coats on, the lawyer/husband expresses AGAIN that he really, really, needs to be somewhere for a meeting, and this time the hosts offer coffee, and the guests come back in? Coffee? After espresso? How many times do you hear someone say, gee, thanks for the coffee, but what I really could go for now is some MORE COFFEE! And this time it's an offer of "real" coffee. WTF, isn't espresso real coffee? Gad, I feel so manipulated by this constant going-and-coming, if they need to leave, let them leave already! But no, they keep coming back - and later attempts to leave are met with more frustration, because by this point the insults are flying, and every time they leave someone mutters another derogatory statement, and they have to fly back in to the apartment to defend themselves or their parenting skills again. Wait, I thought he said he had someplace to be?
But it's a game of sorts by this point - like how many times can you get a character to say "Meow" in a sentence or something. How many times can we drag these characters back together so they can argue some more? Too many times, if you ask me. And then sometimes they're on the same side as their spouses, sometimes they disagree, sometimes everyone is friendly and then sometimes they're at each other's throats, either blatantly or subtly. Like, people just don't offer cigars and scotch to people that they hate, so things end up being very inconsistent. And you just don't keep guests around after they puke all over the expensive books on your coffee table.
All in all, these people are very rude to each other, and I hate them. Like who knocks on the bathroom door when a guest is inside, and then waits half a second before opening the door anyway? What did she knock for, if she was going to just walk right in when her guest was drying his pants, and standing in his underwear? What the hell is going on here? And which couple is ruder to the other, or can we just call it a tie? I wanted to throw all of them out a window.
When I was a kid, I had a Star Wars metal lunchbox, and one winter day we were outside after school (I think) and a bunch of kids were playing an impromptu game of "kickball" by sliding our lunch boxes across the ice on the basketball court. I slid my lunchbox, and this other kid kicked it - I mean, he REALLY kicked it, and it got all bent out of shape. I brought it home and my mother got really upset, because those things cost money after all. I figured I was in trouble unless I told her what happened, and I blamed the other kid, thinking I was now off the hook, and my mother would just buy me a replacement. But she got mad and called the other kid's mother, and I never told her I was complicit in the destruction of the thing. I don't know if that kid got punished or what, but he had to buy me a new lunchbox, and I ended up with some kind of football-based lunchbox, and I didn't even like football at the time. That "Star Wars" lunchbox would be worth a lot of money right now, assuming it was in mint condition and hadn't been kicked (or I hadn't screwed up and put sandwiches in it...) so that was a tough lesson for me, to not destroy my things, and also not to snitch on others.
But the overall moral of the film seems to be, at least from my perspective - don't have kids, they're not worth all the trouble. And then as a bonus, you won't have to ever deal with other kids' horrible parents.
Also starring Jodie Foster (last seen in "Maverick"), Kate Winslet (last seen in "Collateral Beauty"), John C. Reilly (last seen in "Dolores Claiborne"), Elvis Polanski, Eliot Berger.
RATING: 4 out of 10 interrupting cell phone calls
No comments:
Post a Comment