the kids are all right
May. 27th, 2011 04:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
methrowrockAfter a very long intermission, I finally plonked my ass down long enough to sit through an entire film. And I don't mean a fluffy brainfart like Thor. (Although Tom Hiddleston was brilliant with his subtle glances and tortured emoting. I love theatre-trained actors. You can glean so much and read into their characters via small physical or behavioural quirks. The nuances, the tiniest of inflections and intonations. Reminds me very much of Alan Cumming, a Scottish actor I fell in love with recently. He is simply perfect as Eli Gold, the magnificent bastard. Sleek and sophisticated, nary a salt-and-pepper strand out of place, his luxurious coats with elegant lining and proud buttons. His impeccable aethestic is well-matched with the haughty pose of nose-in-the-air. And those eyebrows, heavily lidded eyes and lush eyelashes. Perhaps I am lustful for power, but Eli Gold is a magnetic presence. And yes, I have successfully digressed once again.) Back on topic: the film was The Kids Are All Right, and I hate to wheel out this punctured pun, but it was more than alright. It was beautiful and moving, and really sets you thinking about people, life, and love. Hokay, I just about described 96.79% of movies out there. But Kids had an entirely different plot, although some events were predictable. For one, it was about a lesbian couple and their 2 children, conceived via a sperm donor. Sure, it may not seem as progressive now, what with Cameron and Mitchell adopting a baby on Modern Family, but it is rare to find a film that focuses on a family with GROWN children. And I will contend that there has been less cinematic or television material about lesbian couples than gay couples. (To the best of my knowledge anyway, and always striving to broaden them. What can I say, I love watching the effort of others.) Could this be linked to gender favouritism or male dominance etc, I have no idea. I should really start reading up. So yes, I liked it because it narrated a novel story about a family. What I adored was how ordinary and normal the film treated them.
From the get-go, the movie laid out its cards on the table. Suburban neighbourhood. Two mothers. Two well-adjusted children. Two grown children eager to learn about their genetic origins. The flippant and laidback Paul. The family is treated as the most natural and basic societal structure, except in reality, it is not. And from my charlatan-esque metaphorical intepretation of Paul, I see him as the hegemonic heterosexual. The one whom imposes one's entrenched regulations and rules of engagement on Nic and Jules, who fall outside the conventional standard. This may be complete bullshit, but his proclivity for organic and natural food and farming seems to be a hark to the biological essentialist position on homosexuals. And then, the film also makes you consider the lifetyles under such a household. The roles and practices are diverse and divergent. What does it mean to be a mother in a lesbian household, bringing up two children in a hetero-normative society? Does it mean that one has to work doubly hard and be an exceptional stickler to the conventions, so as to assure society that being brought up in such a household may be subversive, but not damaging? There are hints of this littered throughout the film, from Nic's domineering control over how people and things ought to behave and act, as well as, Joni's strait-laced demeanour and academic drive. Nic's dictation and perfectionist authority may just be a personality trait, but I wonder how much is it natural and how much was it nurtured and required by the less-than-welcoming environment around her. What does it then mean to be a child brought up by them? Does one feel the need to over-compensate? That's one thing I love about sociology. Events are explained by their circumstances. You cannot trace one thing directly to another. There is no concise and clinking chain linking two variables together. One sacrifices the ability to be predictive, yes, but everybody and everything deserves a chance to be aired, doesn't it? Perhaps, it is idealistic because I am young and have got time, but at the moment, that seems to be my most preferred answer. Even so, look at how I shade in the hues of grey.
Of course, it would not be complete to view the film as solely a commentary on the recalibration of sexuality and familial functions. One can pursue the feminist viewpoint as well. The championing of female empowerment, individual autonomy, sexual liberation and all that. Which is true, but not highly relevant. There are more women in this film, yes, but femininity has not been very much problematized. Okay, I did wonder why Nic was made significantly more masculine in appearance and behaviour, but maybe that's how she really is like. Maybe I am having selective memory, but I don't think I know enough to expatiate or perorate further. I raised eyebrows when Joni complained that her friend was a slut for sexualizing everything and when that friend retorted something along the lines that Joni was frigid. There should not be, in my opinion, a limit or extent of femininity. Something about sexual double standards should be applied here. So the problems are small, the obvious ones are anyway. One can also amble down the class/education pathway as well. Or racial lines. What does it say that the cast was predominantly middle-class, university-educated whites in the suburban areas? One set of experiences can be very different from another. That makes things exponentially interesting eh.
But the better way is to treat the film as a heartfelt portrait on life and love, and the toll years can unleash onto couples. A family with delightful unconventionality that has been neutered, obstacle in the form of Paul, mistakes that create fissures within the picture-perfect situation, forces rethink and reevaluation of their taken-for-granted normalcy, acceptance + forgiveness + gratitude. "The Kids Are All Right" as in alright, because they are young and have been brought up open-minded and adaptable. "The Kids Are All Right", as in correct in their pursuit of curiosity and answers, because deep-seated frustrations and anger are unearthed and smoothed over. There are no foofaraws, as the devil is in the niggling details. And what else is family than your security blanket, sometimes suffocating, everytimes supporting. Yeah, I liked it because I was able to thrash out a few thoughts here and there. Hmm, should do this more often.
From the get-go, the movie laid out its cards on the table. Suburban neighbourhood. Two mothers. Two well-adjusted children. Two grown children eager to learn about their genetic origins. The flippant and laidback Paul. The family is treated as the most natural and basic societal structure, except in reality, it is not. And from my charlatan-esque metaphorical intepretation of Paul, I see him as the hegemonic heterosexual. The one whom imposes one's entrenched regulations and rules of engagement on Nic and Jules, who fall outside the conventional standard. This may be complete bullshit, but his proclivity for organic and natural food and farming seems to be a hark to the biological essentialist position on homosexuals. And then, the film also makes you consider the lifetyles under such a household. The roles and practices are diverse and divergent. What does it mean to be a mother in a lesbian household, bringing up two children in a hetero-normative society? Does it mean that one has to work doubly hard and be an exceptional stickler to the conventions, so as to assure society that being brought up in such a household may be subversive, but not damaging? There are hints of this littered throughout the film, from Nic's domineering control over how people and things ought to behave and act, as well as, Joni's strait-laced demeanour and academic drive. Nic's dictation and perfectionist authority may just be a personality trait, but I wonder how much is it natural and how much was it nurtured and required by the less-than-welcoming environment around her. What does it then mean to be a child brought up by them? Does one feel the need to over-compensate? That's one thing I love about sociology. Events are explained by their circumstances. You cannot trace one thing directly to another. There is no concise and clinking chain linking two variables together. One sacrifices the ability to be predictive, yes, but everybody and everything deserves a chance to be aired, doesn't it? Perhaps, it is idealistic because I am young and have got time, but at the moment, that seems to be my most preferred answer. Even so, look at how I shade in the hues of grey.
Of course, it would not be complete to view the film as solely a commentary on the recalibration of sexuality and familial functions. One can pursue the feminist viewpoint as well. The championing of female empowerment, individual autonomy, sexual liberation and all that. Which is true, but not highly relevant. There are more women in this film, yes, but femininity has not been very much problematized. Okay, I did wonder why Nic was made significantly more masculine in appearance and behaviour, but maybe that's how she really is like. Maybe I am having selective memory, but I don't think I know enough to expatiate or perorate further. I raised eyebrows when Joni complained that her friend was a slut for sexualizing everything and when that friend retorted something along the lines that Joni was frigid. There should not be, in my opinion, a limit or extent of femininity. Something about sexual double standards should be applied here. So the problems are small, the obvious ones are anyway. One can also amble down the class/education pathway as well. Or racial lines. What does it say that the cast was predominantly middle-class, university-educated whites in the suburban areas? One set of experiences can be very different from another. That makes things exponentially interesting eh.
But the better way is to treat the film as a heartfelt portrait on life and love, and the toll years can unleash onto couples. A family with delightful unconventionality that has been neutered, obstacle in the form of Paul, mistakes that create fissures within the picture-perfect situation, forces rethink and reevaluation of their taken-for-granted normalcy, acceptance + forgiveness + gratitude. "The Kids Are All Right" as in alright, because they are young and have been brought up open-minded and adaptable. "The Kids Are All Right", as in correct in their pursuit of curiosity and answers, because deep-seated frustrations and anger are unearthed and smoothed over. There are no foofaraws, as the devil is in the niggling details. And what else is family than your security blanket, sometimes suffocating, everytimes supporting. Yeah, I liked it because I was able to thrash out a few thoughts here and there. Hmm, should do this more often.
