Review: The Kids Are All Right

Somewhat flaky Julianne Moore, and doctor Annette Bening are a couple of many years whose two children were both conceived by the same anonymous sperm donor. When their 15 year-old son Laser (Josh Hutcherson) becomes curious of his identity/lineage, he gets his older sister Joni (Mia Wasikowska) to track the donor down. This leads to laidback, aging hippie Paul (Mark Ruffalo), who whilst taken aback by the results of a sperm donation he made many moons ago, is nonetheless agreeable to a meeting. When he meets the kids, he’s nervous but generally enthused and interested in getting to know them. Moms’, however (and yes, that’s how they’re somewhat grammatically awkwardly referred to), are unsure of how to respond to all of this. Bening, in particular, seems to be awfully territorial about Paul’s presence. Moore eventually eases up, perhaps a little too much, as there seems to be some kind of attraction going on between supposed lesbian Moore and this new stranger (who both have somewhat similar personalities). Needless to say, you better fasten your seatbelts for this one folks, it’s gonna get bumpy as hell.

Most reviews of this film tend to offer a pretty frank discussion of the film’s plot without any prior warning, but just because I’m a nice guy- and I hate reading spoilers without warning, I’ll forewarn you **** SPOILER WARNING **** from here on in. Oh, and this is gonna be a long one, so I hope you don't need to go anywhere soon. I’m giving this 2010 relationship drama from Lisa Cholodenko (“High Art”, “Laurel Canyon”) a good score because although it has flaws, it was never for a second boring. Many of its flaws are so trivial that they wouldn’t impact my score too much, and the biggest flaw with the film is one that I’m really not even sure is real or just my overreacting imagination. And if it is real, I’m not sure if it’s an unconscious flaw, or even simply a case of bad timing, politically. Even as I write this in late December 2011, gay marriage and the issue of gay people having kids is still a pretty hot button issue, especially in the US. The film also seemed to get Conservative ninnies and gay haters in a twist at the time of its release and eventual Oscar buzz. The passage of time (especially when coupled with the knowledge that Cholodenko herself is a lesbian raising kids with her partner) might result in my biggest qualms about this film being moot. I mean, we’re all looking at the film through the current political frame of mind, which may or may not be what is intended by the filmmaker. Does every film about a special interest group have to push the interests of that group? Not necessarily, but here I think maybe it should have. Also, the film’s ending, whilst way too easy, goes some way to reassuring any doubts I might’ve had about what Cholodenko was saying here. But there’s some seriously weird shit that I picked up on in this film, that made it a very bumpy ride, and I doubt very much the fact that Ms. Cholodenko co-wrote the film with a guy really had anything to do with it, either (especially since they are apparently long-time writing partners, so it’s not like he could covertly insert an anti-lesbian agenda on his own).

But seriously, What the hell? If Cholodenko is a lesbian, then she’s made the least pro-‘gay family’ film imaginable, or at the very least, the most confusing that I’ve come across. I’m not saying that all gay people need to support gay marriage or gay couples having kids, but since Cholodenko does have kids and apparently is gay...like I said, What the hell? And why make such a film now? Should a film have to play politics? Not necessarily, but I’m surprised that this one seems to bat for the other team, so to speak. The film’s champions suggest that the brilliance of the film (or part of it) is that this could be any couple, gay or straight. That it’s about a couple with kids (via a sperm donor) whose perfect marriage slowly unravels, proving that it wasn’t so perfect after all (And that it would be just as prejudiced to actively exclude homosexuals from facing any of the same problems as normal people- a point that I suppose I could concede in any other political climate). The problem is, the couple are not straight, they are a lesbian couple. A couple of more than 20 years, in fact. Cholodenko has gone out of her way to make that so, and one must assume that there is a reason for it. One of them cheats on the other with a man, despite the fact that we are not given any reason whatsoever that this person is bisexual or straight. Perhaps she is meant to be bisexual, but at no point are we given any indication of it at all.

This is a murky, potentially dangerous body of water to enter into, and an odd one for someone who themselves is a lesbian, as the director is. I just think the film would’ve been better had the gay element not been involved, or if the infidelity had not been involved. Putting the two things together merely seems to serve to reinforce the misguided and offensive stereotype that lesbians are just confused and simply need a good stiff cock to set them straight. They are clearly defined as a lesbian couple, albeit a lesbian couple who watch gay male porn- but I’m reliably informed that many lesbians in fact do watch gay male porn (and many also do not). I don’t know why, I’m just telling you what I’ve read (BTW, Bening at one point says bitterly that she needs Ruffalo’s insight like she needs a dick in her arse. Another gay male reference? I know it’s not exclusively so, but still, why say it like that? Why not say ‘pussy’ or ‘mouth’? These little things just seemed odd to me). But nonetheless she has an affair with a man...more than one sexual encounter. The person she cheats with is the sperm donor to both of their kids, whom said kids have sought out. I honestly felt like Cholodenko was setting this up as a complete and total attack on gay marriage, or at the very least, gay couples who conceive children via a sperm donation. If not, then answer me this, why did Moore have to cheat with a man specifically? I get that the marriage wasn’t perfect, and there’s a bit of a mid-life crisis thing going on, but why a man specifically? Is it because Bening is meant to be butch (despite Moore dressing more like a typical ‘male’ if you ask me. Bening has a haircut, and is the main breadwinner and disciplinarian, but that’s it) and masculinity is Moore’s ‘thing’? No, that still doesn’t explain why she craves penis. And this is Lisa Cholodenko, why would she of all people write such a potentially inflammatory thing as this?

Meanwhile, Cholodenko also boggles the mind in her direction and choice of what to show on screen. For instance, when Bening and Moore are in bed together, it’s all very ‘normal’, boring, middle-aged couple stuff and fully-clothed. But when Moore and Ruffalo have sex, it’s all naked, seriously hot, sexy stuff. Hell, we get to see more of the gay porno than we do Moore and Bening. OK, so Cholodenko is making a distinction between a comfortable, but possibly stale marriage and the excitement of an affair, but given the politics involved, it doesn’t play that way. It plays strangely homophobically (I’ve just invented a word, according to Microsoft Word- Yay!). Strange, because of the director herself and her own sexuality. I just couldn’t get my head around it.

Examining the characters she has populated this film with doesn’t help ease my mind, either. Neither of the lesbian characters is frankly all that likeable, and what happens in their relationship, would obviously affect their kids and thus seems to suggest that Cholodenko is making a statement on the capacity gay couples have for child-rearing. At least, that’s how it would look if you didn’t know Cholodenko was gay. The fact that she is gay suggests she has another idea in mind, but I’m not sure what it is. Julianne Moore and Annette Bening as actresses seem to me like they’d make the perfect lesbian couple, for reasons I cannot quite put my finger on. They just seem to go together. But playing these particular characters? Not so much. They’re the kind of wine-sipping, arty-farty, hippy-dippy types that (gay or straight) I frankly cannot stand. For starters, Bening’s character loves Joni Mitchell. I loathe Joni Mitchell with a passion. They’ve also named one of their kids Laser. Shut up, that’s a fucking stupid name and I find parents like that to be cruel and irresponsible. Give you kids normal names or expect lots and lots of schoolyard taunting that you’ll have to feel responsible for in the coming years. I wish hippie parents would bear that in mind. Julianne Moore’s character is flaky and adulterous, and Annette Bening, is frankly a bit of a monster. She belittles and is condescending towards not only Ruffalo (even when she discusses their mutual love of Joni Mitchell, the way Bening plays it makes the character seem forced and phony), but her supposed love, Moore. I can think of absolutely no constructive or admirable reason why such a ruthlessly driven, pretentious, cold, condescending, selfishly over-protective, domineering character as the one Bening plays would stay in a relationship with the flaky, somewhat directionless Moore, and vice versa. Notice I said ‘constructive’ or ‘admirable’, it’s obvious that Bening likes being the Alpha in the relationship, and that is clearly a big part of the appeal for her. It helps make her a right royal bitch in the audience’s eyes, though. She’s a heavy-drinker, overreacts to the point of nastiness (Yes, you should be concerned about your kid riding a bike. But an 18 year-old is an adult and Bening is using it as a mere excuse anyway), and never once earned my sympathy. And she’s the victim! Sorry, but she’s just a thoroughly unlikeable person, and given that Moore is an adulterous, wishy-washy type, there’s not much pull towards her character, either.

Don’t get me wrong, Ruffalo’s character comes across as douchy and alarmingly out-of-his-depth for the situation that he helps cause, but Moore’s the initiator here, and Ruffalo ends up by far the most sympathetic character out of the central trio (which is part of the reason why the ending doesn’t work as well as I wanted it to because he ends up so poorly treated, possibly unfairly) because Moore, as the party already in a committed relationship ought to know better even moreso than the openly free-and-easy (i.e. Career womaniser) Ruffalo. Perhaps that reveals a bias in me, I’m not sure, I’ll let others decide that. But the fact that there’s very little (or at least not enough emphasis on the) hesitation/regret/confusion showed by Moore is also completely unrealistic for such a situation, even if one were to accept that such a thing would occur in the first place. It makes one wonder just who wrote the characters, Cholodenko or co-writer Stuart Blumberg? My guess is a messy, incestuous combination of both of them.

Let me make it perfectly clear, though, that none of the acting in this film is anything less than solid. Bening perhaps overplays her character, but I rather equate that with the character being poorly written than overplayed. Whilst I found her character’s behaviour in one scene towards Ruffalo to be phony, it’s not Bening’s fault, and the subsequent scene when she finds out about the betrayal is actually very well-done, just shy of going into cliché without stepping over. I hated the character (who also seems too self-absorbed and career-minded to have two kids, I might add), and found it odd that I was meant to sympathise with her (victim or not), let alone did I buy that the kids eventually reject Ruffalo in favour of her (yes, she’s their mother, but at no point prior do they express any positive feelings towards her at all, alarmingly so). I think the character was poorly written (you almost feel like you’re meant to think that she deserves to be cheated on), but Bening is perfectly fine in the role.

Ruffalo, meanwhile, gives for me the best performance of his career. I’ve never liked his quirky, affected acting style before, but he’s spot-on here and a perfect casting choice. His character is basically a nice, well-meaning guy who is surprisingly relaxed in his acceptance of the new situation he’s in (and the fact that his kids’ parents are a lesbian couple), even if he ends up in over his head and making some dumb-dumb mistakes that he deserves definite criticism for. I especially liked the scenes where you can tell he’s clearly loving the possibility of being a real dad, and being a part of these kids lives, naive as these thoughts might ultimately be.

I’ll give this film a positive score. It’s largely well-made, it’s consistently interesting and thought-provoking, but I ultimately don’t quite know what to make of it. I’ll let you make up your own minds, in fact, maybe that’s what the director herself wants.

Rating: B-