IT'S NOT COMPLICATED ENOUGH: The problem with It's Complicated goes deeper than its general wish-fulfillment fantasy structure which panders shamelessly to its women-of-a-certain-age target audience. Apparently, it wasn't enough that it's all about the Meryl Streep character being pursued by two desirable, erudite professional men who flatter her and insist she not change a thing, that she was physically and otherwise perfect already (as was her house, pre-renovations). Instead, it had to go further with its tunnel vision and close off any concern to the happiness of every other character in the film -- indeed, when the impact of the lead characters' decisions becomes too inconvenient, they just get disappeared from the film's universe altogether.
Spoiler below the fold (if I've figured out how to this to work) ...
Specifically, Lake Bell's character and especially her son. Okay, fine, she may not have been an ideal spouse for Baldwin, but once he decides to leave her to pursue things with Streep both she and her son cease to be concerns of the film altogether. And for a film that at least purports to care towards the end about the impact of Streep's divorce and attempted reconciliation on her grown children, the complete absence of even a nod towards what Baldwin's decision to leave his new family (and Streep's original choice to have an affair with a married man with a young son) will do to them was disappointing, to say the least. A more ambitious, non-fantasy movie would have tried.
Look, Streep's great in the film, and Baldwin does his hirsute best, but I clearly wasn't the target audience for this film, and I don't know how satisfying it was for those who are supposed to be.
Well, judging by the comments on the Charlotte Mommies forum (what? They give good advice about cradle cap and diaper rash!), for many women, it was perfect. But they also tend to love Twilight and post pictures of a shirtless Taylor Lautner and giggle and coo over how hot he is and what cougars that makes them. Do with that what you will.
ReplyDeleteMyself? No interest in seeing it.
Haven't seen it and don't plan to, but my feeling (and this is rampant speculation) is that the film is kind of a revenge fantasy for older women who have been left for younger women. So not only don't the feelings of the younger woman matter, in the universe of the film it's a good thing she gets screwed over -- she's just getting what's coming to her. (I don't know if she's the woman Baldwin's character left his wife for or not, but even if she's not, she's probably just a stand-in for "the other, younger, woman" who lacks the substance of the older woman and can't provide Baldwin's character with the same emotional connection his ex-wife can.) As for the kid, it's a little harsher, but the same dynamic is at play. The kid is not really a person in the universe of the movie -- he's just a symbol of the husband's betrayal of his original family by going elsewhere to start a new family. As such, it's of little concern that he gets shunted aside, because he shouldn't have existed in the first place. It occurs to me that all of this might be a long-winded way of saying pretty much what you said, with the small difference that rather than "inconvenient," the other characters' fates are actually an important part of the revenge fantasy. Wouldn't have the same punch if Baldwin were just single. And I agree, without having seen it, that it makes the movie a lot less appealing.
ReplyDeleteI saw it and sat through a Q&A with the filmmaker afterwards, and found both to be a bit brutal and boring. She behaved exactly how I expected her to, saying things that weren't really funny, and were, in fact, a bit mean, but laughing them off as though they meant nothing. I didn't connect with the characters at all, and found their disrespect of everyone else in the film to be the most grating thing about them. John Krasinski was the best thing on screen, even if he was a freakishly perfect future son-in-law. I'd like to think I'm a bit young to be the target audience, since I'm in my mid-30s, but many of my friends really liked the movie. Bleh. And I loved Twilight! (not the movie. It really was shit. but the books are like crack. Don't judge me.)
ReplyDelete<span style="">
ReplyDeleteI saw the movie and enjoyed it. I laughed a lot, probably more than I have at any romantic comedy in a couple of years. Like Becca, I suspect I'm younger than the target demographic (though I'm not a Taylor Lautner fan.)
I don't have a problem with the lack of closure for (or consideration of) Lake Bell's character. Personally, I was more taken aback with how Baldwin's character pursued his ex-wife with no apparent concern for the impact it could have on their their 3 children.
The movie's focus was Meryl Streep's character, her situation and decisions. And it was a romantic comedy, so I don't expect realistic closure for every character. Streep's character was shown conflicted about the affair after a drunken hook-up, eventually deciding it was a bad idea, and addressing the aftermath of the affair with their family (daughters, son and son-in-law.) Baldwin's character was the one who chose to cheat on his wife, again. If his character was the primary focus of the movie, I'd expect more time would have been spent on his wife and stepson and how they coped with the fallout. It's implied that instead of him leaving Bell for Streep, maybe she kicked him out after seeing them dance and realizing what was up.
Sure, in real life, Bell's character situation wouldn't have been funny, but since Bell's character was the other woman the Streep/Baldwin marriage collapse, in a comedy movie, it was played as a comic turn of events. I didn't see it as motivated by revenge, but a funny "now the shoe's on the other foot" moment: "I'm having an affair with Agnes LastName's husband!" And even if this had been real life, I'm not sure one of the top concerns for Streep's character would (or should) have been the happiness of the woman who had an affair with her husband.
Now I'm trying to think of other examples of adultery in comedy movies, and how the injured spouse was treated or perceived by moviegoers. I'm sure there are dozens, but I'm blanking. It's not a romantic comedy, but maybe The Wonder Boys? Michael Douglas and Frances McDormand have an affair, and their spouses don't get much compassion or concern for their happiness. In fact, IIRC, the husband's dog is killed and it's played for laughs. Lost in Translation, where Bill Murray has an emotional affair with Scarlett Johansson? I don't remember any focus on the impact to their spouses when that film came out. Maybe Sleepless in Seattle? Though Meg Ryan and Bull Pullman were engaged, not married, the movie did depict the fallout of Ryan's obession with a total stranger and its impact on Pullman.
</span>
As a younger woman married to an older man (who was not married when we started dating, nor did he have kids from the previous marriage, so I'm really not that bad I promise!), I can say that I'd rather not be portrayed as dispensable in the movie, but that this reflects the ways that older women talk about people in my situation in front of me on a semi-regular basis. Including my own mother. I think there's just a lot of generalized anger at younger women who come in and steal their men, generally, even from women (like my mother among others) who are still married to the father of their children. Even though I would argue that anger should be directed at the Alec Baldwins, not the Lake whatever her name is.
ReplyDeleteAnd so not having seen this movie, I'm not surprised, but am still disappointed, esp since it seems (from all I've read) like Alec Baldwin just gets away with cheating on his wives and gets to go back to what is supposed to be his top choice without consequences.
Mary, it's actually left unclear. Baldwin says he's left his wife, but once Streep rejects him for Martin he too disappears from the film's concerns.
ReplyDeleteFunny People? We definitely see more responsiveness from Eric Bana in that film than Lake Bell here.
ReplyDeleteYour blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
ReplyDeleteLove the new design.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right, Adam, in that "It's Complicated" is a fairytale. And while it's far from Nancy Meyers' best film, I was oddly moved by the scene where Alec Baldwin puts his stepson to bed and the little bouy does not stop clutching Baldwin's hand. It was the only moment when Baldwin was selfless. And, yeah, Krasinski rocks.
I haven't seen "It's Complicated" yet, but I find Meyers pretty scattershot. "Something's Gotta Give" was a couple of very nice performances wrapped around a nothing movie, "The Holiday" was a mess, and "What Women Want," while making Mel Gibson work well doing charm/comedy, was pretty damn sexist. Her best work is probably still "Baby Boom." Sounds like she's done another one along the lines of SGG--wish-fulfillment helped along by strong performances/casting.
ReplyDeleteI saw it last night in a packed theater with lots of men as well. There was actually applause (not from me) at the end, and much laughter from all throughout, so I'd say any exit poll would have brought glowing reviews.
ReplyDeleteI'd say thumbs-up too overall, if just to watch Baldwin and Streep do their thing. But I was bothered by:
1) How much of a bitch Lake Bell's character was portrayed as.
Seeing how awful she was made Baldwin's character even more pathetic... he was so overwhelmed by her hot physical appearance that he MARRIED her without realizing how awful her personality was? Come on. I felt he was running away from her more than running toward Streep.
Bell had him absolutely whipped, so he'd have cheated on her/left her anyway- it was only a matter of time. That the "other woman" turned out to be Streep was more a result of convenience and the easiest way from Baldwin to salvage his ego- it barely counted as a conquest, but it did the trick for him.
2) Baldwin's character- who was he?
He went from suave smooth-talking player to sneaking in the bushes and back again. He went from lecher to Lipitor. I never got a sense tht he was a real person except for the aforementioned putting-kid-to-bed scene, the last tree-swing scene and maybe a couple others. He just always seemed to be "playing Alec Baldwin."
3) Those missing 10 years
Supposedly there were 10+ long hard years where Streep/Baldwin could not even be in the same room together. Really? ( a la Poehler/Meyers on SNL). Sure fooled me. She melted like a souffle after 2 seconds at the hotel bar. I have been divorced for 8 years and as soon as I saw MY ex at the end of that bar I'd have been back to my room so fast it'd make your head spin. So- I never truly bought that their divorce was all that acrimonious. The only thing that might hav esold me was if more of the revenge fantasy aspect had come into it- THAT would have at least made sense from the wronged woman angle. But that never happened.
4) Remodeling that awesome house
Really? My dream kitchen needed to be improved on? Really.
5) Streep's explanation to her kids/Baldwin's apparent ignorance of the effect of his actions on said kids
Adam touched on this... Neither of them EVER ONCE talked about how what they were doing might effect the kids. REALLY? The kids didn't even matter except as plot devices until we needed to see earth-mother Streep make everything right again with her gimme-a-hug speech. If Baldwin had walked in behind her and been part of that pre-hug conversation... and it had been a real conversation, offering the opportunity for some true resolution... it wouldn't have been a romcom. OK. I get it.
Krasinski was terrific. Martin was underused/possibly miscast. Or switch Martin and Baldwin- that might have had some possibilities.
And lastly...
When did "architect" become the de facto desirable job for men in movies? Was it Hanks in "You've Got Mail?"
Sorry- Hanks in "Sleepless in Seattle." My bad.
ReplyDeletei don't understand older chick flicks.
ReplyDeletecome to think of it maybe what i don't understand is diane keaton...i'd say meryl streep--but she at least gets to play different characters in every movie.
If this movie had starred Diane keaton--you can bet i'd have avoided it like the plague instead of thinking ehhh maybe i'll see it maybe i won't. (I say Diane Keaton because the characters she always plays are the kind of self involved me first kind of characters who always get seen as lovable despite the fact that they're complete ego-maniacs and deserve to be alone...which going from what i've already read about this film seems to tie in to Meryl Streep's character. Why does Nancy Myers write these characters the way she does??? is this really what women want??? ugh.
Nice post & nice blog. I love both.
ReplyDelete