I reviewed the lesbian mom movie The Kids Are All Right when it first came out, a little over a week ago. At the risk of overdoing it, I want to write some more.
Many other lesbian bloggers have also turned their pens to reviews, including Dorothy Snarker at After Ellen, Julie Goldman and Brandy Howard at AutoStraddle, Lesbian Dad, Scribegrrrl, and Kathy Wolfe at SheWired. As is clear from some of the comments on Dorothy’s post at After Ellen, however, and Jill Bennett’s op-ed at She Wired, however, many people are feeling everything from concern to anger over the “lesbian sleeps with a man” part of the plot. I tried to address that in my review—the film is not “about” the opposite-sex relationship and it is clear the character isn’t “converted” to being straight. Yes, a lesbian sleeping with a man is an old film cliché—but as both Dorothy and LesbianDad have pointed out in the After Ellen comment thread, too, director Lisa Cholodenko turns the trope on its head. (If you’re interested in even more of the debate, check out the follow-up posts by Dorothy and Scribegrrrl.)
In this vein, I want to point out a review by Mark Harris of Entertainment Weekly (not yet online). He gets that the film is about human relationships. He gets that it is not about a lesbian sleeping with a man—in fact, he doesn’t even mention the affair. Dana Stevens at Slate has a similar take, but Harris rightly stresses just how rare a look at marriage the film provides—and not because it involves two women. He writes:
I couldn’t remember the last time I saw such a good film about being married. . . . I was startled to realized that the best ones that occurred to me—The Awful Truth, His Girl Friday, Kramer vs. Kramer, Shoot the Moon—were all (a) about divorce and (b) at least 30 years old.
He can recall movies where the protagonist’s marriage forms the end of the story, he says, but few films show what it is like to be married. In contrast:
The Kids Are All Right . . . celebrates the journey through marriage in a way that, for the movies, is quietly revolutionary. . . . Make what you will of the bitter irony that the first really great, believable married couple on screen in ages cannot legally marry. . . . This is marriage as you’ve rarely seen it, except perhaps in the bathroom mirror. . . .
[Director Lisa Cholodenko] doesn’t sanctify Nic and Jules as pioneers of social progress. . . . They’re not intended to be role models or billboards for gay coupledom. They and their marriage are, however, recognizably human, which this summer counts as one giant leap in the right direction.
We shouldn’t be surprised that the best recent film about marriage centers around a same-sex couple, though. We in the LGBT community have given an awful lot of thought to what marriage means, both as an institution and on a personal level. Redefining it? No. Reexamining it? Yes.
I know that not every LGBT person will want to watch this film. For many, the opposite-sex affair will remain too off-putting. Heck, even I didn’t like quite so much screen time devoted to Mark Ruffalo’s hirsute backside.
Let’s keep in mind, though, that no matter the reasons some in the LGBT community may not like it, they are far different from the reasons certain others do not like it—witness the virulent homophobia in the review by Andrea Peyser of the New York Post (described here by GLAAD).
The affair with a man seems designed to increase the film’s appeal among a straight audience. In a perfect world, that wouldn’t be necessary. Either straight people would see it anyway, or Cholodenko could get the film funded even if it was targeted narrowly at lesbians. But because it’s not a perfect world, if adding the affair gets more people to hear the film’s broader message, then I, for one, am willing to let her play with the old cliché. I think that in the end, The Kids Are All Right takes us one step closer to dismantling it.
I’ve read your reviews, and others, that address it from the perspective of various adult audiences. (Should LGBT people see it, will straight people be willing to see it, etc.) I’m curious whether you think this is a movie that would be meaningful for donor-conceived children to see? Obviously not young ones, but do you think older teens would find it valuable? Or is it so heavily focused on the dynamic between the adults that teens wouldn’t get much out of it?
Oh, good question, S, and I’d be interested for others to weigh in here. I think it is aimed primarily at adults, but that’s not to say DI teens won’t find value in it. When I spoke with Jeff DeGroot, author of the new COLAGE Donor Insemination Guide, he observed, “We’ve all had to think about what having a donor means to us.” I think that seeing others represented on film and dealing with that same issue could indeed be valuable, and could open the way for good discussions with family after the movie. I think there’s still room for a film that tackles this from the teen perspective, though. Anyone?
I’ll warn, though, that there are some pretty explicit sex scenes–the key parts are kept covered up, but it’s very obvious sex (and some rabbit-shaped-vibrator waving). If one doesn’t mind one’s kids seeing that, the question is, will it mortify them watching sex scenes with a parent? If so, have them see it with friends.
Why no mention of the truly honest and LESBIAN review from The Lesbian Mafia? I mean, surely you’ve read that. If you haven’t, I highly suggest that u do.
I’m sorry-I can’t sit quietly by while you stroke ‘The Man’s’ ego & p*nis with this sell-out review. Why so willing to cheer “The affair with a man seems designed to increase the film’s appeal among a straight audience”- who cares? when all it does is ‘reinforce’ the falsehoods such as “you can change” (as the bible thumpers would have u believe) or that all lesbians want to be w/a man?? Not to mention how people think that somehow lesbians exist for straights’ entertainment.
this being a “perfect world” has nothing to do with compromising yourself, your dignity, beliefs, and feelings to appease an audience that judges and belittles us and our existence.
Shay: I do not like your implication that The Lesbian Mafia’s review is a “lesbian review” and mine is not. My partner of 17 years would beg to differ if you are hinting that I am not a lesbian. I would not normally tolerate that kind of tone here, but I’m going to let your comment stand to show that I am willing to air all perspectives about the movie. If further comments from anyone are nasty, however, I will turn off commenting on this thread and/or block the commenter. We can disagree and still be civil.
For those who want to see The Lesbian Mafia review to which Shay referred, it is here.
I do not believe the film at all reinforces the message “you can change.” In fact, as I said in my original review, Nic asks Jules upon learning of the affair, “Are you straight now?” Jules responds, “It has nothing to do with that.” Not only that but (spoiler alert) Jules returns to Nic, not to Paul, at the end of the film.
I also do think it is important that the movie appeals to a straight audience as well as an LGBT one. Mainstream films like this are one of the best vehicles for helping people to see that LGBT parents can raise children as well as anyone else. Only by getting that message across will we begin to create the kind of change we need so that people no longer “judge and belittle us and our existence.” I understand that you feel the affair between Jules and Paul was a sell-out to old stereotypes. I think that by making Jules never question her sexuality and return to Nic in the end, the film shows the same-sex relationship as the strongest one in the movie. That is a truly new take on the old cliché—and the film may at the same time have taught straight audiences a few positive things about lesbian moms and how we raise our children.
I don’t know if I will see this film, but I’m leaning toward no. I appreciate that it shows a long term lesbian relationship, lesbian parents, and older children of lesbians, but I have a few objections that I don’t think I can get rid of. One is the most common objection I’ve read, which is the near-universal fate of lesbian main characters in literature and film: becoming straight, going crazy, or dying in some horrible and violent fashion leaving her lover to wander the world forever in grief. I know Jules goes back to Nic, but if her cheating “isn’t about that” as she says, then why doesn’t she cheat with a woman? I don’t like cheating, but at least it wouldn’t fall in the trap of nearly every other portrayal of a lesbian in a mainstream storyline. A comment on another review caught my attention on this- when movies about straight couples depict troubled marriages and cheating, the husband never cheats with his male business partner, or the woman with the female housekeeper- they cheat and get to maintain their sexual identity. So, I don’t think that Jules’ cheating has nothing to do with sexuality- what many have speculated is probably right- it is the filmmaker’s effort to attract straight viewers, but unfortunately it gives them more fodder for anti-gay pathologizing and stereotypes.
The second is that I actually think it damages the view of lesbian parenting. How are the kids supposed to be all right if their family blows up because their mother starts having sex with their sperm donor? They’re already going through something highly emotional and having to sort out what having a sperm donor and meeting him means to them. Then they have to try to understand why their mom starts sleeping with him? Granted, in a movie, they might not find out, but in real life? Maybe it’s because I can’t imagine taking a spouse back after that, so Nic doing that seems unrealistic to me. It’s at least as likely that the couple would divorce, in which case the kids would probably find out why. Parents divorced after 20 years and mom sleeping with the sperm donor they just met- talk about destroying a kid’s world! I find myself wondering, does Jules care at all about how her actions might affect her kids? I think it represents terrible parenting- not the way I’d like to be represented as a lesbian mom.
Further, I feel it drives up the controversy and stigma around (semi-)anonymous sperm donation, by which many of us create our families. Instead of making the idea more normal for the straight people that the Jules/Paul twist is supposed to attract, now whenever the issue of sperm donation comes up, they’ll think of this movie and inevitably, the image of Jules cheating with the donor. At least, knowing how other movies have affected my thinking about various subjects in the past, that’s what I think would happen for me. My wife and I are going to have a baby soon, and when we make our announcements to people, this is not what I want them to be thinking about. And I certainly don’t want that idea coming up when our kid(s) decide to meet their donor, in our own minds or those of our children. So, while there are some aspects that I would like to see this movie for, I probably won’t. I hope someday soon a movie about kids from lesbian families will arrive that doesn’t sour the whole thing for the people is supposedly represents- I can’t wait to see that!
I think the important thing to remember is that this is an affair. And an affair is a bad thing, regardless of who the married person is cheating with. It is treated as such by the film. Jules does immeasurable damage to her family by having the affair. It is not some moment of personal growth or change. It’s a huge f*ck up. She knows it. Nic knows it. And, here’s the sneaky part – the audience knows it.
The other important thing to remember is that Paul ends up on the outside of the family, rejected by Nic, Jules and, perhaps most tellingly, Joni and Laser. Cholodenko positions the audience – straight and gay – to be rooting for Nic and Jules, not Paul and Jules. That’s what makes this straight man in the soup so radically different from all of it’s other incarnations.
Beyond which, on a personal note, if my wife of 10 years cheated on me, I can say with complete authority that I wouldn’t give one rat’s ass who she was cheating with, just that she betrayed me. But everybody else’s mileage may vary, I realize.
My apologies, as capitalizing the word “LESBIAN” in my previous comment was not intended to express any feelings that you, yourself, are not lesbian, but instead to emphasize that many a lesbian shares the concerns expressed in The Lesbian Mafia’s review.
As well, the intent behind my prior comment was not to be ‘nasty’, rather to express the anger and frustration invoked as I watch review after review after review by lesbians cater to the misogyny and myth-promotion that “The Kids Are AllRight” portrays.
Lesbians prominent in the media, online blogs, and other facets can be viewed as “our voice”, this movie included (as it was directed by a lesbian), and I can’t fathom how we can expect orgs such as GLAAD to stand up for us as lesbians if we don’t stand up for ourselves.
Thanks, Shay. Apology accepted. I agree we need to stand up for ourselves–but given that there is diversity within the lesbian community as well as outside it, we are bound to sometimes disagree about what incidents and portrayals are worth standing up about. But it’s all healthy discussion, I think, and worth having.
Hello. I just saw the “The Kids are All Right” movie today. In discussing the movie with my friends, I realized that the affair is less about the gender of the lover, and more about the strange chemistry formed because of the relation to her kids. Remember when Jules is intrigued by the fact that some of his gestures remind her of her kids? Of course, part of the problem is that the marriage was already strained by Nick’s distance (extreme involvement with work, emotional distance, and alcohol abuse). In summary, the movie is more about the complicated situation of interacting with a sperm donor who suddenly appears in their lives, than portraying a typical lesbian relationship (in my opinion).
I too saw the movie and was prepared, at the very least, to be entertained. Alas no. I can’t say it any better than reviewer Rick Groen of the Toronto Globe and Mail:
“Somewhere around the halfway mark, the realization arrives with a dull thud: Turns out that unconventional families can be just as tedious in their melodramatic dysfunctions as any traditional clan. And if that’s the message Lisa Cholodenko means to impart in The Kids Are All Right, give her full marks. She has succeeded in making interesting differences look boringly familiar.”
Pingback: Mombian » Blog Archive » All Right Kid Thinks The Kids Are All Right Is All Right
Pingback: Mombian » Blog Archive » Mombian Weekly Reader
I know I have to be careful here.
1. The movie was entertaining, that is my main criteria.
2. The movie was well acted, no question about it.
3. Mark Raffalo couldn’t do anything right. His character was well intentioned but bitched out at every turn,
for riding the young lady on his ‘cycle; for wanting to be part of the family; for taking advantage
of a woman who literally threw herself at his feet (few would turn down Ms. Moore); in short
for just being a man.
4. Missing was the fact that males are generally positive roll models for young children.
5. The movie was anti-male, but as I said entertaining.