Real Reality
Americans are children.
This is the only possible conclusion to be drawn from the rave reviews being showered upon Knocked Up. It is “mature,” “honest,” “romantic,” “warm and fuzzy,” “straight from the heart,” “humane,” even — Jesus H. Christ on the pill — “family-friendly.”
I want to scream.
I need a drink.
Look: I’m not saying that writer/director Judd Apatow (The 40 Year-Old Virgin) has not given us an accurate representation of the state of modern relationships as many, perhaps most Americans experience it. It’s that he’s celebrating as charming and inevitable and amusing and sweet what anyone who is that apparently rare specimen — an actual, genuine grownup — should be decrying as deplorable.
Men are not necessarily juvenile morons even if they like to play video games. (Some women like video games too.) Women are not necessarily hormonally driven control freaks even if we burst into tears for no reason one or two days a month. (Some men are expressively emotional too.) That this even needs to be said is indicative of the horrifically low self-esteem with which just about everyone holds themselves (or so we’re supposed to believe), and the contempt with which just about everyone holds the opposite sex (or so we’re supposed to believe).
Oh, but it’s so charming, so real.
I want to puke.
Is this really how American see marriage? There’s no romance before it, obviously, if it’s “honest” and “real” how TV reporter Alison (Katherine Heigl) and full-time slacker Ben (Seth Rogen: You, Me and Dupree, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy) end up in the sack fumbling drunkenly at each other, if he’s stupid enough to think she doesn’t want him to use a condom and she’s stupid enough not to realize he isn’t wearing one. (Hello? Latex!) There’s no romance after the wedding, if it’s “honest” and “real” how Alison’s sister, Debbie (Leslie Mann), and her husband, Pete (Paul Rudd: Night at the Museum, p.s.), can barely restrain from strangling each other on a daily basis. There is no genuine romance to be found at all if men are nothing but large children who are constitutionally incapable of growing up until some woman forces them to, perhaps by announcing she’s pregnant (and why are those women sleeping with those overgrown children in the first place?). There is no genuine romance at all if women are nags who then prevent those men from being themselves. There is no geniune romance if men are merely victims of Stockholm syndrome who come to adore the captors who treat them like shit.
“I wanna rip your fucking head off because you’re so fucking stupid,” Debbie tells Pete at one point. And it’s charming, it’s real.
Why does anyone tolerate this? Why would anyone want to stay married to someone she seriously believes is fucking stupid? Why would anyone stay married to someone who speaks to him that way?
And I suppose I’m the one who’s being unrealistic about marriage.
I need to get off this planet.
Look: Alison doesn’t even want to touch Ben when she finds him in her bed the morning after their alcohol-fueled romp. If he’s really that disgusting, that much of a loser — and I’m not saying he is, except that the film casts him that way — why would she even consider having his child? A smart gal calls the clinic, gets an abortion, feels bad about it or doesn’t, and learns a lesson about not taking drunken losers home, or not having sex with anyone two hours after you meet him without a condom, a diaphragm, and the pill. If she wasn’t already smart enough to know these things before, and how the fuck could she not have been?
Of course, the word “abortion” is not uttered once here, though a couple of “bad” characters suggest “taking care of it.” A suggestion that is instantly dismissed, though it’s never really clear why. How much more icky could it be than being unable to touch the person who knocked you up in the first place?
Oh ho, but girls are silly, until they get their pregnant hooks in a guy, at which point they turn into shrieking harpies. And guys are horny dorks who are so sexually desperate they’ll debase themselves — and allow themselves to be debased by women — in exchange for regular sex. Which they won’t get anyway, the suckers, because their wives will perpetually deem them unworthy. “I buy these nice towels and he wanks into them,” Debbie says about Pete, the implication being, of course, not that masturbation is a totally appropriate bit of fun even if you’re getting plenty of action with your partner, but that he’s not getting any with his partner and what a loser he is for being frustrated by not having sex with his wife.
Paul Rudd: adorable
The twisted, demented reasoning at work in that one moment of Knocked Up makes me want to scream some more, and lunge at another drink. Who wouldn’t want to have sex with Paul Rudd? He’s adorable. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with his Pete. Debbie is simply a horror. And yet she’s supposedly representative of American women.
I’d like to let citizens of other nations know that there are at least a few American women who aren’t like that.
The problem is not that Knocked Up is “liberal” because it’s about casual sex and having a baby out of wedlock. The problem is that it is horribly conservative about embracing and enjoying an adult version of sexuality that has moved beyond dorm-room-esque groping. One night with some guy you don’t even know does not mean you must tie yourself to him for the rest of your life… unless you think that women must be punished for sex. Oh, but it’s not punishment: you get an adorable baby out of the deal! And you get to “train” a man! When Ben says something crude during their “second date,” after Alison’s decided against all reason and logic that she’s going to have the baby, she grimaces and says, “For the sake of getting to know one another, can you not talk like that?” But that’s who he is. Hearing him say this crude and juvenile thing is getting to know him. But Alison doesn’t really mean what she says. What she means is, Would he please pretend to be something he isn’t? Would he please conform to her unrealistic expectations about what he is supposed to be, instead of what he really is? (I hate this: Knocked Up is so fucked up that it’s got me defending an overgrown frat boy who should have grown the hell up years earlier.) And he will conform, because however obnoxious and insulting he can be at dinner, she’ll still be in bed with him later that evening, because she’s trying to force romance into a situation in which it doesn’t exist.
What. The. Fuck. This may be “honest” and “real,” but so is cancer and the IRS and the moldy stuff that grows in the vegetable bin of the fridge when you don’t clean it for two years. That doesn’t make it “charming” or “sweet.”
I hate that everyone is going to love this depressing stamp of approval on an absurd, juvenile status quo. I hope Alison and Ben and Debbie and Pete — and everyone who sees themselves in this movie — are all saving for their kids’ therapy, cuz they’re gonna be so seriously fucked up they’ll marry the first loser who comes along and has drunken sex with them.
Oh, my. I’m going to be mentally using Stockholm syndrome to explain bad-relationship “happy endings” in movies from now on. Finally, a logical explanation! *grin*
I’m sure you’re going to get shit for this review from the trollish elements, but for what it’s worth I have to agree with all of your major points in general (tho I haven’t seen this movie specificially).
Written like a hormonally driven control freak.
:-)
Sooooo…I take it that you didn’t like the movie then???
Maybe you’d find it more enjoyable after a second or third viewing following a full frontal lobotomy???
;-)
Nope, didn’t think so…
I’m sure I’m going to end up loving this review way more than the movie. I found myself nodding in agreement the whole way through the review. I’ll probably find myself nodding off a third of the way into the movie… IF I even bother.
Oh, about nodding off during the movie: I should have mentioned that this monster is 2 hours and 9 minutes long, which is ridiculous.
I am stunned by the glowing reviews this movie is receiving. I feel like I must be an alien from another planet or something. Or maybe I saw a completely different movie. I really, really don’t get it.
Rotten Tomatoes says I agree with the Tomatometer 78 percent of the time, so I’m not so far afield of the critical consensus in general. (Purely for comparison’s sake — and purely by picking big names off the top of my head — A.O. Scott agrees 77 percent of the time and Claudia Puig agrees 79 percent of the time, so I’m on a par with them.)
I’m gonna go drink some more…
Many critics can easily overrate a film to high hell as they can trash one. A pack mentality is formed, and everyone wants to get on the bandwagon, so to speak. Luckily, Mary Ann isn’t one of them. Apatow’s previous film, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was overrated as well, and many of the reviews on amazon.com from their customers disliked the film intensely. I have a feeling that they’ll dislike this one too. It is rather bizarre the way critics are gushing all over this film.
Good lord! I’m… well, frankly I’m stunned at the vitriol you’ve managed to regurgitate over this movie. And after I’d just fallen in love with you for loving ‘Pirates 3’ too. What a shame.
For the love of all that’s holy, lighten up.
(And for the record, I’m a happily married 37-year old “man-child” with a wife who is much more successful [and intelligent] than I am, and we both felt that the characters and dialogue in this were spot-on perfect. We’ve both unleashed with unnecessary profanity and over-the-top anger in the midst of really heated arguments before, and yet neither one of us feels threatened or degraded. So yup, sorry to confirm your worst fears, but this movie is actually realistic.)
I don’t know, maybe this is a completely crazy idea, but could it be that all the other critics are raving about KNOCKED UP because they GENUINELY ENJOYED THE FILM AND THOUGH IT WAS FUNNY? Just a thought.
MaryAnn, I think you did see a completely different movie. For someone who complains about the 129-minute runtime, your review reads like you walked out halfway through. (Or you mentally checked-out; too concerned with things you found “fucked up” to actually maintain even a modicum of focus on the film.) You come across as narrowly projecting your own feelings onto the filmmakers, and not even giving them a chance to tell their story – because you wanted to hear the story you wanted to hear, no exceptions. And personally, I’d take Apatow’s version over your’s any day of the week.
I’d like to personally encourage anyone who read this review to see the movie and decide for themselves. If MaryAnn’s review has swayed you in any way, all I can offer is that I sincerely believe that she’s missed the mark and (for whatever reason) ignored a large, significant portion of what this film has to offer.
But is it funny, MJ?
You never mentioned that. You didn’t laugh or even chuckle once? Did the audience enjoy it like they did with Borat or were they bored ala Santa claus 3?
Or did you just hate the premise too much to laugh?
Is it me, or have we just not come very far since the 50’s? Conservatism, and both blunt and subliminal citicism of anything not conforming to the stereotypical “White knight saves the damsel-in-distress” scenario, is rampant, even in seemingly “liberal” movies or tv-shows, such as Sex And The City and every goddamn David E. Kelly production.
The women may all be wellpaid, intelligent and sexy. But late at night we all know what they REALLY want. An emotionally unavailable, vapid ass****, like Mr. Big or Jon Bon freaking Jovi, to rescue them from the confusing and unrewarding life they have gotten themselves into…
The premice seems to be, that if only some MAN could take care of them, or if they could find some “man-child” that they could force to grow up (and then take care of them),they would be so much happier, not burdening their little brains with the hardships of living in a mans world, ho ho.
Why are (most) movies and tv-shows pretending to deal with “real life” so much stupider than the real thing?
If you’re going to have sexism in your movies, then at least make it so excessive and obvious, that it becomes border-line parody (hello “Last Boyscout”), that way we can at least recognize it for what it is. Don’t sneak it in through the backdoor, disguised as “empowerment” or “liberalism”…
So thank you MaryAnn, for speaking your mind about stupidity and sexism, ESPECIALLY when it is as sadly funny and entertaining as “Knocked Up”.
(And just for the record, I’m a 28-year old single male, so please, can the “you must be having your period, little lady”-remarks).
The very few things I laughed at had absolutely nothing to do with the story on the whole. Like Paul Rudd marveling over the variety of chairs in the Vegas hotel room. But that was a complete throwaway. But I can’t think of a single thing that was actually connected to the story and the themes that was supposed to make me laugh that actually mad me laugh. Sorry.
Did I? Good. That’s the entire and obvious point of what I’ve written here. I think I made it perfectly plain here that it was *my* sensibilities that were offended by the film.
Oh, and I understand that the reason that many other critics are praising the film is because they “GENUINELY ENJOYED THE FILM AND THOUGH IT WAS FUNNY.” What I don’t understand is how any adult as I understand the term to mean could enjoy the film and find it funny. I realize that this makes me weird and odd and bizarre and somehow, apparently, not part of the human race. But what was I supposed to do? Lie in my review and pretend like I got it and found it funny? What would the point of that be?
If I’m not going to be honest here, even when I know it will make me unpopular and garner me lots of hate mail, then what the hell is the point?
It’s not just you, Runster.
I do think that’s true to a certain degree, but I don’t know how much that happened in this case, at least with the initial reviews. This screened fairly late, which means most critics wrote their reviews in a vacuum, having no idea what other critics would be writing. So I don’t know how much of this is an example of critical groupthink. Perhaps it’s more cultural groupthink.
heheh, idiot.
Wow Grundels.
The eloquence and grace of your responce leaves me speechless. I stand corrected, unable to retort to the pure intelligence and ambition of your arguments. You’re parents much be so proud to have raised a child so thoughtful, empathic and just plain smart…
My goodness. I was trying to decide if I should see this today. I’ve seen that damned trailer dozens of times by now, and the only part of it that I still find amusing is Paul Rudd’s delivery of “Well, now!” after his wife’s “I’m just really constipated. Do you really want to?”
I think I still might see it, out of morbid curiosity, and to see if I will object to the same things that bother you about it. But now I know to see it first, so that the rest of the movies I see today will have a good chance of being better!
Thank you so much for this review, Maryann. I saw this movie several months ago and was furious at its sexism and stupidity – and now even more furious that everyone is like “Oh, what a sweet movie!” (um, did they keep that silicone…anatomical prop in that scene? Did everyone see the same cut I did?)
You articulated everything I have been too angry to articulate. This film makes every Fat-Jackass-With- Smoking-Hot-Shrew-Wife seem unbearably progressive in comparison. I felt like each character was given a point on the scale of “good” to “evil” and never moved from the beginning of the movie. Furthermore, I too don’t see what’s so wrong about playing video games or fantasy baseball, or being upset while female and pregnant. And I don’t see why not getting into a club, or having a well-meaning doofus play “fetch” with your kids is the end of the world. It might have been bearable if we ever saw the moment the two leads fell in love, but if there was ever affection, we never saw it.
For those wondering, there were a few laughs. I thought any scene (about three, I think, out of a 2 hour movie) with Alan Tudyk as the net exec, and his snotty assistant were funny. Also, the word “gyn-ichiatrist”, the fetching (without the commentary) and the aforementioned Vegas chairs stuff. But that was pretty much it. This was a movie that I got out of work to see, and in the end, I would have preferred working.
“Did I? Good. That’s the entire and obvious point of what I’ve written here. I think I made it perfectly plain here that it was *my* sensibilities that were offended by the film.”
I could have worded my point better … I meant to highlight the word “narrowly”. Your viewpoint is your viewpoint, but instead of broadening it for the sake of conveying a point to an audience that likely shares little in common with you personally – like most decent reviewers do for their readers – you just ranted and cursed. The only thing your “review” convinced me of is that you are a complex and conflicted person; it didn’t tell me anything about Knocked Up. Maybe if I found myself relating to the personality you clearly have on display here I’d have responded differently, and that seems manipulative to me.
And while you are right to ask “what would the point” be of writing a glowing review for a movie you hated, it’s just as hard to see the point of you writing this diatribe and calling it a “movie review”. Which is more dishonest: writing a film review praising a film you loathe, or writing an angry, personal diary entry and passing it off as a film review, tricking those not wiley enough to know the difference, and lowering the film’s rating on Rotten Tomatoes (hardly a tragic consequence, but still) in the process?
I’m not sure what planet this reviewer is from.
A movie with juvenile-acting men is not saying that all men are juvenile-acting adults; just that the characters in this movie are. Some men are indeed.
Not every woman, smart and logical or not, with an unplanned pregnancy gets an abortion; many don’t. It really annoys me, a strong pro-choice activist, that you think any “smart” woman would do so. What about the word “choice” do you not understand?
Pregnancy does indeed mess up your emotional status and leads to women sometimes saying dumb things.
She was drunk so she didn’t notice the absence of a condom. Being drunk affects your ability to notice things like that.
The exchanges between the married couples sound like what I hear married couples say. How nice for you if you live in a world where people make only sweet, civil comments.
It’s clear to me that the Rogen character wanted to grow up and this gives him an opportunity to do so. It’s not so much about changing because she wanted him to, but because he was ready to. He decides without any nagging to get a job and an apartment of his own.
This was one of the best movies I’ve seen in years — the bubble line alone was worth the ticket price — and I truly hope no one avoids the movie because of ill-informed reviews like this one.
“She was drunk so she didn’t notice the absence of a condom. Being drunk affects your ability to notice things like that.”
Babbs – not just drunk. You forgot horny. As I remember it, really horny. Which is FUNNY, because it’s Seth Rogen!
Babbs, okay, she didn’t get an abortion. But can’t she opt for single motherhood instead? From the way MaryAnn here describes it, that would have been preferable to putting up with the guy.
The premise alone of this movie screams “backlash.” Someone got mad that should we women make a mistake we fortunatly now have some means to recover from it, one way or another, and wrote this script glorifying the all too traditional way of dealing with said mistake. This kind of thing has gotten worse in the past few years. I fear it will get worse still before it gets better.
I’m still kind of on the fence about this movie…
I didn’t go see 40 Year-old Virgin in the theater because it did look pretty dumb. But when I caught it on TV months later, I was pretty entertained, even though the film had a few too many “eeeyyyyuuu!” moments.
Sexism in movies bugs me to a huge degree. I wrote a love/hate review of Parenthood years ago on this very point.
I probably agree with MaryAnn something like 80% of the time, but I sure disagree with her about the last Pirates movie (probably because I hated the second one so much).
Still…I’m still on the fence about Knocked up.
Isobel, Alison clearly considers single parenthood — she doesn’t pressure Seth to be an involved parent and even turns down his proposal. Over time she falls for the guy, in a way that is credible. The guy does have a loveable core.
And Tyler, yes, horny was a big part of it as well.
Great movie.. very sweet and smart and natural all the way through. Seth Rogen, Katherine Heigl, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann were all pitch perfect. The writing was excellent as it always is from Apatow. And I loved the James Franco cameo and everyone else from Freaks and Geeks in their supporting roles. The trip to Vegas was brilliant (loved the shout-out to Swingers).
9/10
Oh, and it was great to see not one, not two, but three cast members of The Office in the movie. Awesome stuff.
This review says way more about the reviewer than the movie being reviewed…”Debbie is simply a horror. And yet she’s supposedly representative of American women.”
Since when do characters have to be representative of anything except the specific character being portrayed, especially in a film like this, which isn’t a political screed. Sure she was a bitch at times, but come on, women are never bitches? Right. And guys are never assholes. If movies only portrayed honest, upstanding responsible people who never made bad choices they would be very boring.
I’m curious MaryAnn: You have had “Knocked Up” in the “I’m Dreading” section of your Bias-Meter for at least a week prior to your review. So why did you see it? There are movies that are currently in theaters that you have not reviewed so why did you choose to see and review this movie when you were so sure that you weren’t going to like it?
You make a lot of leaps that just plain don’t make sense:
1) Yeah, what that guy said up there about characters possibly only supposed to represent themselves;
2) And who said the way Paul Rudd and his wife was the way it was supposed to be, or that it was at all supposed to be romantic? I think that movie was pretty upfront about being that particular marriage being horrible.
3) Your comments on abortion are horrifying.
4)` Who said that the chick decided she had to tie herself to Rogen just because he was the father? She decided to give it a shot, and decided she liked the guy, and she clearly does consider single motherhood a viable option. She’s with Rogen not out of obligation but because she likes him.
At least she does allegedly. I agree with you that they completely botched the execution on this. I certainly don’t share your venom, though; I’m wondering if the depressing nature of this movie isn’t a strength. But it sure is fucking depressing, and the romance is not convincing. I liked “The Break-Up” as a “Closer”/”Little Children”-esque drama about stupid, small-minded people, much less so as the comedy it completely failed to be. Maybe “Knocked Up” can be similarly justified, as a very sad movie in disguise. There’s something very honest about Rudd’s horrible failing marriage, much less so about Rogen and Heigl’s romance.
MaryAnn – 95% of the time, I love your independent urban snarky chick take on things (I’m going to be marrying just such a chick, and we both proclaimed our love of your reviews about 5 1/2 years ago via e-mail, just after we met), but this time, I think you carried some baggage into the screening, and it shows. The bit you wrote about the poster before seeing the movie more-than-hinted that your mind wasn’t exactly open going in.
I won’t say that the movie is perfect – I agree that the language between Debbie and Peter and, to a lesser extent, Allison and Ben, was too harsh under the circumstances, and I think that Apatow still puts too much effort into creating a “big conflict” about 3/4 in (he did the same thing in FYOV). That said, I do agree with many reviewers that “Knocked Up” is, by and large, a winning combination of sweet and vulgar – it feels real, like we’re dealing with real people who, for the most part, don’t act like puppets to a script. Mistakes are made, things are said you wish could be taken back, but Judd has such clear affection for his characters that none of them come off as one-dimensional.
Personally, as a pro-choice guy, I thought the abortion question was handled deftly – advice is sought, good and bad advice is given, and a decision is made. It doesn’t appear to have been an easy decision, but there it is. While I agree that the situation in the movie seems like the stereotypical “why would she sleep with him and, having made that mistake, decide to keep the baby and get him involved” thing, as actually depicted in the movie, you can see it happening, even if it isn’t the most plausible scenario – Ben is not portrayed as irredeemable, but as kind and generous, and Allison decides to see if she can re-find that guy.
And that’s really the root of the issue, I think – each of the characters could, in the hands of a lesser writer/director with less affection for them, be a simple stereotype, but none of them are. Debbie seems too harsh at times, but you’re allowed to see some of the underlying fears as well. Pete seems like a good guy – relaxed, funny, decent – but we also see his fears and his awareness of his underlying issues. Ben and Allison are depicted in similar fashion, as are Ben’s roommates. Even the doorman at the club is given a more complex role than you’d expect.
Also, to anybody who thinks this is some sort of “backlash” movie, I don’t think you could be more wrong. This movie couldn’t be more apolitical, so if you’re looking for politics in the characters’ decisions, you’re starting off on the wrong foot. There was a great in-depth piece on Judd Apatow in last weekends New York Times Magazine – reading it would give you a lot of insight into what he’s trying to do with his movies, and where the material comes from.
I couldn’t agree more.
The whole premise is like “The Handmaiden’s Tale” meets “There’s Something About Mary.”
And I’m a guy.
I actually thought that the 40 year old virgin was almost retarded and couldn’t undertand how people found that movie good and funny, so I’n not surprised about the same thing happening with this one
what bothers me about it is that no one considers abortion as an option, if you think is wrong, evil, a sin or disgusting that’s just fine, everyone is entitle to their opinion, but to make a movie about this matter without at least contemplating that option is just stupid
it’s like making a movie about the war in irak without mentioning oil
Doa766 – Katherine Heigl’s character does consider abortion. She decides against it. You know, the whole pro-choice movement being about choice. But way to show your ignorance.
MaryAnn,
The one thing I’ve loved about your reviews about your reviews since I began reading them 8 years ago, is your laser-sharp social commentary that you pepper into your work. While I have not seen this movie (nor plan to), I cannot vouch or condemn it, but I think you’re dead on about how fucked up things are between men and women in American culture and how romantic films reflect that. In fact, I stay away from romantic films almost all together, (unless they’re by Kevin Smith) because they always ignore what is and focus on romantic illustions than actual GENUINE love.
If I were to make a romantic movie, it would be about my parents. After my mother had me, she developed manic-depression and had to be taken to the hospital for her own safety. She feared that my dad would leave her, but he didn’t. He stuck with her through all of it, and the two have stayed married despite challenges like that for over 30 years!
Do you think Hollywood would make a story like that? No chance in hell. “Love costs” as Morgan Freeman said in “Se7en”. And that’s the thing Hollywood doesn’t want to show. They only want to show what’s easy for fear of alienating their audience looking for the usual escapism (not that there’s anything wrong with that in moderation). It’s a reflection of the overall sickness and superficiality that permeates our culture.
Plus, I’d love to see a romantic comedy with Phillip Seymour Hoffman than Johnny Depp any day of the week. (Not that I’m putting down J.D. He’s cool.)
Hi Mary Ann,
Aright I haven’t seen the movie, and so the following comments are more your about review –and let me sweeten this by saying I love your reviews even when I don’t agree with them!
Now like others on this thread, I too, having seen your bias meter pre-judging this movie and thereby anticipating some (perhaps strident) feminist personal bias (heh, you’re the one that calls it a bias meter –not that there’s anything wrong with that, or feminism either) But, I wonder if perhaps some of that cultural and wonderfully snarky pre-judgement has ruined your ability to accurately judge this movie – Perhaps, much like my everlasting hatred for Michael Bay has me dreading the upcoming Transformers movie, despite my undying love for giant robots, (well at least Spielberg is producing, so maybe theres some hope at least for that…anyway I digress)
I think there are two points to be considered: one the underlying desirability for grown men to remain mental 13 year olds –this cultural phenoman is quite understandable given that much of society and societies vanity mirror (the movies & tv) views youthful idiocy and hip snarkiness as being the goal equivalent of personal nirvana –And Intellectual Geekdom, the subset of those young people who watch the Office and read Sci Fi & Fantasy, or good blogs like this one, and perhaps hold down meaningful jobs, too is a youthful medium – but remains Generation and list-centered instead of people centered
Also this Geekdom has been traditionally an undeniably a male world (although that is changing steadily) –thus with the internet (porn), birth control and lax attitudes to casual sex it allows for the eternal extension of the male slacker mystique (via youtube, porn, adult swim, tv shows, Quentin Tarantino etc) we define ourselves and our friends by our best of lists and our faddish cultural obsessions.
Yet even those of us who love the best of intellectual slackerness (if is that a word) i.e. as pontificated on by the Richard linklaters and Janine Gerrafolos of this world are also just as prone to wanting acceptance in society even as they are in creating interest based segregation – e.g. I wont listen to your opinion on dating or religion because you like Serenity more than Battlestar Galacta –
The second point is reality – Reality is not the movies – in reality men and women do not behave the way they do because of their respective genders (*gasp) – In truth some young men even hate jackass!! Some women can’t stand to read about Tom and Kate or shop for Monolo Blanik shoes. The labels that so accurately characterize our tv and movie role models are but a small subset of the complex, adult and deep personalites we all truly have. I for one, don’t expect Italian Americans to be orgish goombas because of the Sopranos, but that does not prevent me from enjoying the writing and commentary on that show. I even suspect that P. Hilton might be a caring, and deep philosophical person at some unforeseen and physically unreachable level.
So whats my point then? – well the intersection of these two worlds (reality and cultural) is where good art lies and worthy of well made and entertaining social commentary –It is that point that i think Judd Apatow is trying to define; the message with this movie is the same one which I think he made successfully with TFYOV and in his TV show: that our own penchant for endless labeling of people as geeks and slackers, virgins and losers, etc prevents us from appreciating the warmth and humanity that lies in all of us. His previous movie had a warmness and sweetness as well as a certain amount of reality that allowed it surpass the stupid vulgarity and crassness which he smartly used as honey to attract the core jackass-loving audience. All while slyly teaching them something about people in general– Once again the wonderfully simple but egalitarian idea that those whom we only see pigeonholed as losers, virgins and sluts are all in reality people; human beings who deserve to be given a chance and not be treated as superficial caricatures.
Anyway, maybe I’m wrong or overreaching, but given the number of good reviews this movie is getting – I think I will give it chance and see it…
Upon first seeing the trailer for this movie, I had a feeling it would be exactly as MaryAnn reviewed it. Are other critics really saying this is an honest look at marriage and relationships? My marriage sure as hell isn’t like Debbie and Pete’s; if it was it would have been over a long time ago.
And totally agreed on Paul Rudd’s adorableness. I wish he was in more movies that I like.
I love you. You’ve managed to put into words everything about this movie that has disturbed me since I first heard of it. Thank you.
I actually got that the movie was somewhat condemning nearly everything you seemed to think it celebrated. I don’t know if it’s my underlying cynicism or what, but I did find that the movie was pretty “honest” –relative the the typical Hollywood rom-coms (which isn’t saying much at all, of course), or at least as honest as its sitcommy format would allow.
You’re absoluely right, Mary Ann, that Americans are children. But yeah, you are being unrealistic, if you think this movies doesn’t or shouldn’t accurately reflect (with, admittedly, a great deal of exaggeration) the way that, in relationships, people actually behave. Because most people, even people who are capable and competent in their work lives, are idiots when it comes to other people. Either blinded by the very gender dynamics your review condemns and acting out socially defined roles, or constantly struggling for something more with no way of knowing how: that’s how most people’s social lives actually are. And yes, that’s pathetic and immature but I’m not really sure what can be done about it. And your very different reaction to the movie from mine seems to me be rooted less in the movie itself than in your dismay over this cultural immaturity.
As I saw it, Knocked Up is about trying to make life work out in spite of that. It’s extremely far from ideal, but it could be a lot worse. But maybe you’re right in that taking this cultural background as a given, the movie reinforces rather than critiques it (which is what I felt it was trying to to). I do agree with Rick in that I found nearly all the characters to be both more likable and more complex than you did (despite the fact that in real life I would probably loathe nearly all of them).
But I agree completely that under its light sitcom veneer, Knocked Up is actually a pretty dark movie, one as cynical about relationships as anything by Paul Thomas Anderson (if nowhere near as good). But that’s postmodernity for you.
Finally a critic who agrees with me!
And it is wildly implausible. Of course lots of things about life are wildly implausible, but even so…
A few comments on a few comments:
Giles wrote:
For lots of reasons. Because I suspected that it was going to be a huge hit, and that it would illuminate some aspects of our culture, as all uge hits do. (When a movie strikes a nerve, it is because there is a nerve to be struck.) There are many other movies I suspect are going to be awful but that will not have any great impact; I ignored those, mostly, and never see them. But I don’t put movies that I don’t plan to see as an “I’m Dreading” on the Bias Meter. I don’t dread movies I don’t plan to see — I dread the movies I feel like I’m gonna have to see because they’ll make an impact but that I also suspect I will hate.
In fact, I make a point of really trying to see the movies that I officially Dread, because I feel that I need to either justify that dreading, or explain that it was better than I thought it would be.
MBI wrote:
In what way?
Rick wrote:
I carry all my baggage into every movie I see. So do you. So does everyone who goes to the movies. Except maybe the Guy Pearce character from *Memento.*
And Rick wrote further:
No, Alison has made up her mind before her mother offers her “advice.” We do not see Alison’s process of making up her mind, of thinking about this choice. The movie positions the “choice” to not have an abortion as no choice at all, as the “obvious” decision that any decent woman should make, even if her mother — whose only appearance in this film is to be the singular voice who tells her, dismissively, to “take care of it” — tells her otherwise. That is the caricature the the anti-abortion minority tries to promulgate of women who seek abortions: that it’s a simple decision to make. It is not. But you’d never know that from this film.
Patrick says:
Yes, me too. For movies that deal with the genuine realities of romance — both easy and comfortable as well as hard and unpleasant — see *Away From Her* and *Waitress,* the name two currently in theaters.
tinman wrote:
I don’t think so. Because I know that there are movies I was absolutely sure I would hate — like *Talladega Nights* — that surprised me but making me love them. So I know that a movie can overcome my preconceived notions. This one didn’t.
Joey wrote:
But I have NEVER said that movies shouldn’t accurate reflect reality. It’s reality I have a problem with, in this case. Is that not clear from my review?
Seems to me the critic has decided the individual characters in the film should represent their genders as a whole rather than, uuummm… individual characters. Overanalysis, in my humble opinion.
Or that by chance you can see a movie in a different light for a moment and the effect snowballs?
Which calls to mind a recent comic! But a more serious point is, should one really glorify that? I mean, of course people bring baggage with them to any experience, but I’m far from convinced that we should just accept that.
I also have to say that the comments on how apparently dark it is have me actually curious to see the movie firsthand now, whereas before it was on my “it’s so damn popular I don’t need to try and there’s no need to fight it, I’ll end up seeing it eventually one way or another” list.
I just went to see it again, with about seven friends. Just as funny the second time around as it was the first. I remember least 20 big laughs, shared by the whole theatre, probably more – it really is funny the whole way through. And I still think this review completely missed the mark. Which – SHOCKER – happens all the time whenever someone is quick to judge.
Thank you for not drinking the Kool Aid… I now have a new go-to source for movie reviews (it helped that you liked 28 WEEKS LATER and didn’t join the SPIDER-MAN 3 lynch mob).
My big issue with the flick is that if the polarities were reversed — some hot young dude gets his break at ESPN, goes out to celebrate and gets drunk, gets a tubby little stoner chick pregnant, then has to figure out what his real priorities are — it would never have been given a greenlight. And even if it did, no one would go see it.
Well, that and the suspicion that it’ll follow the typical romcom (as it is today) template: the dude and his boorish bros behaving badly for the first hour, followed by a montage of the couple actually getting to like each other, then comes the big misunderstanding… followed by him getting his act together for her.
And that’s pretty much all we’re gonna get as far as multiplex comedies for the next few years after this hits big.
PS: BUG plays better if approached as black comedy. Take it where you can find it, anymore.
I loved this review. I actually can’t provide any insight on the film, I haven’t seen it–I just like what you had to say in general. I know they are advertising this with the precursor, “From the director of the 40 year old virgin.” But, I hated that movie. Everyone thought it was “endearing” and “charming” and all I could think was, ‘wait, haven’t we seen all of these scenarios and heard these same penis and vagina jokes hundreds of times before?’ Did no one else catch that? I think I’ll be skipping this one anyway, but your review was a great read in itself.
THANK YOU for pointing out the misogynist and sexist attitutes about women (and men) that exist is this movie! I’m not surprised a lot of the posters had a problem with you having a point of view that’s different from other critics. Especially when it comes to pointing out the anti-women sentiments that are sadly accepted and even expected in movies such as this.
I’ve seen far too many movies lately where people rave about “how true, how real, etc.” and all I see are the same tired sexist roles assigned to the women and men in these movies. It’s pathetic, not progressive. And softening it with good or clever writing doesn’t take away that it’s still there.
It’s amazing that in this movie, this young, thin, beautful woman, with a good job, has no real female friends. It’s like she lived in isolation–no friends, no other men in her life, etc.. until this man cums along. I mean, there’s apparently some awful women who she hasn’t seen in months, and that’s supposed to fill the girlfriend void for us as viewers. There are no friend’s who really care about her that she can talk seriously about this awful situation she’s in. Well..I guess because in “real” life, she would’ve had an abortion and learned not to have drunken unprotected sex with strangers.
I love how abortion is framed in these moves. They claim it’s the woman’s choice and she just chose not to have one. Gee, as opposed to all those other movies where the woman chooses too have one? Can I have the titles of those movies please? Cos outside of the sitcom Maude in the 70s, I don’t see anyone who “chooses” to have an abortion in the movies. Yeah..some choice, it’s shown as an “option” when really it’s not an option at all.
I read a good review of this movie on some blog from a guy who thought that the filmaker hated women. That the filmmaker’s point of view in this film is that “women are to be pretty, are only good for having sex with and to make babies. The girl’s mother is set up to be the countercount to the abortion decision by suggesting she have one. And by-gum, that’s all the girl needs to hear in rebellion to her mom! Score one for hating the mother in law to be! And then there is that scene at the birth where the guy yells at the girl’s sister to leave the birth, saying she didn’t belong there! Score two for hating sister bonding! And, pretty much, the girl has no friends, except for the bitches that guys imagine a girls’ friends are! Score three for hating friends who might possibly find you lacking! Gee, there aren’t any women allowed to get close to the girl. The deck is stacked!”
So to me, this is just another in a long line of “current” “modern” “real” films which have all the modernity and reality, as was already pointed out, of the 1950s!
Seems to me the *film* does that…
I don’t know where this idea came from that film criticism — or any kind of arts criticism — is supposed to be “objective.” Objectivity is possible only when dealing with fact. Criticism is about opinion. An objective film “review” can deal only with facts such as which actors appear in the film, what the running time is, where the film was shot, stuff like that. The moment commentary on a film deviates from that is the moment objectivity becomes impossible. I really don’t understand why so many people fail to grasp this.
It’s funny, though, how the only reviews that are deemed to be not “objective” enough are the ones that the reader disagrees with. I have NEVER gotten an email or a comment on a review from a reader who agreed with my take on a film but complained that I nevertheless was not being “objective” enough in my approach.
But you’ve “judged” the film, too. How come your judgment isn’t too “quick”?
On abortion: Why is it that if Alison Scott (Heigl’s character) personally does not believe that abortion is an option, then that MUST mean that this is Judd Apatow’s vision for the world? Why does the character of Alison have to have some political significance, as if she’s meant to represent a viewpoint or to represent society in some fashion? She’s just a character, one that is actually quite likable despite her flaws. She’s not there to represent anything, although I’m sure some of her traits are borrowed from women close to Apatow, such as his wife, Leslie Mann (who plays Debbie in the film).
If this movie is political to you, it’s because you are forcing it to be. And worst of all, you’re blowing abortion up into this huge thing like it should have been the film’s chief concern, when the big issue is actually SO MUCH greater: responsibility, to yourself and to your family. (And the movie is infinitely better for recognizing this seemingly simple truth.)
And by the way, I thought the scene where Alison calls Ben to tell him she’s keeping the baby was very effective. MaryAnn says that “a couple of ‘bad’ characters” suggest having the situation “taken care of”, but she is totally wrong. Of those two characters, Jonah (one of Ben’s friends and roommates) is in no way depicted as a “bad” guy. All of the secondary cast felt like real people to me (and everyone I saw it with), and Jonah is no exception. The way he feels about abortion is just that: the way he feels. (If you MUST politicize this scene, I suppose that maybe the point of the scene is that men really have no place in the decision – something which Ben must realize, since he lets Alison decide and neglects to comment when Jonah brings it up, even deciding to leave the room.) As for Alison’s mother, I feel the same way as I do about Jonah: she’s a real person, and she has strong feelings on the subject; as she should, since it directly affects the whole family! And anyone who has ever talked to their parents concerning a difficult problem or issue knows that even well-meaning, loving parents can give really shitty, even heartless advice. What Alison’s mother says doesn’t make her “bad”; if you think it does, that’s a lousy judgment call on your part.
SPOILER: If you stick around, at the end, there’s a quick moment where we see Alison’s mom with grandchild, and she couldn’t be happier. You might be tempted to spin that, too, as though Apatow put it in there to say, “See? Even people who want you to get an abortion don’t REALLY want you to.” But I’ll say it again: the movie is not an argument about abortion. Just like life isn’t all about arguing these issues … unless you make it that way. Your loss. END SPOILER.
Finally, I’ll add this: A.O. Scott’s review states that Knocked Up doesn’t preach. MaryAnn would have you think it does…by preaching to you about it.