diaphenia | Friends with Kids: some thoughts

Entry tags:

Friends with Kids: some thoughts

As the last person to see the movie (besides

stillscape) I am sure we're all talked out on it, but let's take a few minutes and get back to it.

Overall, I enjoyed it. I mean, Adam Scott. How are you a person? How do you look so awesome in t-shirts? How could anyone believe your nose is a bad thing? Sigh I don't really think I'm that obsessed with him, really, but he was great. I liked Adam Scott; I liked his character less. Now, they tried their hardest to win me over, from the opening scene's close up o The God Delusio to his impassioned speech that tossed in a 'organized religion is crap.' But he comes across as pretty sleazy when it comes to women.

But probably still better than Julie, who's annoyingly passive for most of the movie. And this is awful, but I had a difficult time with Jennifer Westfeldt, or more specifically, her voice. I'm not sure I've ever seen her in anything else, but I'm disinclined to do so; her voice annoyed me. I don't know if that's her natural voice or a character choice, but I spent most of the movie wanting her to speak louder and deeper. I do covet her hair; it's luscious and beautiful, and I want to touch it.

If I had one wish, I wanted to see more of the Bridesmaids remixed couples. I feel like those four had some interesting stories and I wanted the cameras to follow them home.

Here's the issue I had with the movie: I don't buy it.

Caveat: I'm in my mid-20s, and I don't have kids. I don't want kids. I'm pretty happy with my potted palm tree.

The premise of the movie seems to be that having children makes you awful. I could buy that. I mean, to be fair, my friends haven't had kids yet, though there's one on the cusp, so who knows if children make adults awful? But I could believe it. Or at least I could believe Westfeldt, who has no children herself, could buy it, though if I were Adam Scott or Maya Rudolph I might have some things to say on that topic. But it' so weir to me that Jason and Julie could look at their friends turning awful and decide that the problem is being in a relationship with your co-parent.

And then the idea that five months into Joe's life they are making quiches? I call shenanigans. Even if they are parenting part-time, even if they have a nanny, I just don't buy that it's smooth sailing. Again, my friends haven't had a baby yet, but I don't know any parents who make quiches.

I think they might have drugged that kid. Way too well-behaved, apparently the easiest child in the world.

The other thing that really confused me was MJ. Let's be clear: I liked her more than Julie, if for no other reason than that she knew what she wanted- at least with her career- and went to get it. But here's the thing- if MJ was so anti-child, why was she dating an older man with a brand new baby? Did she want a lasting relationship with Jason, and if she did, what was her plans in regards to Joe over the long haul? When I say I don't want kids, I mean it. I don't want to parent someone else's child either, which is why I would never date someone with a young child (in a decade or two I can picture myself dating someone with grown children). Why did she keep dating him? Would she have agreed to be a stepparent to a child we never saw her interact with?

On some level I agreed with Jon Hamm's character when he argued that they should have thought this through. Had they not had their necessary rom-com ending, they would have had only a gentlemen's agreement regarding their child. She moves? He apparently can't do anything about it. It's a strange plan, and I don't... is this really something people do? Because they shouldn't.

I sound harsh, here, and I did like it and I'll probably go see it again in theaters, because I'm a childless person with disposable income and I want to see it again. But the premise is so insane I just don't understand how adults with children agreed to film it.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I wrote up some thoughts just now but LJ was being wonky when I tried to post, so I guess that's coming later.

For now, a few things.

The premise of the movie seems to be that having children makes you awful.
I think that by the end, it concluded this wasn't true. Ben and Missy just didn't have a good relationship, and so it couldn't survive stress. Leslie and Alex had some rough times, but seemed to really love each other. It can make you a bad friend for a while--when you're not well-rested, and short on time, and everything requires more planning and a sitter. By the end, Jason was giving a big speech about how he was wrong, that the stuff he'd been trying to avoid was the romantic part. And I read Adam Scott somewhere saying how much he liked that.

And then the idea that five months into Joe's life they are making quiches? I call shenanigans.
Well ... there are good days and bad days, and they showed us bad days too (or at least, one bad day, when Julie couldn't get Joe to stop crying). Splitting time probably meant they were more well-rested, and that would help. Some babies are just easier than others--some are even sleeping through the night by five months. And one child is so much easier than two generally--didn't Leslie and Alex already have two? Sometimes it's even easier when the baby is that young too--they're not mobile yet, they can be strapped to your chest sometimes. I'm pretty sure I successfully hosted friends a few times while kid one was very tiny. Not with kid two--he was a screamer. But I could buy it.

I wondered about MJ too. They weren't together for long though, were they? Maybe she was just viewing it much more casually than Jason. Did they actually move in together? I don't know, it was weird.

And you're right about Jon Hamm's point. It might not have worked out if they hadn't fell in love, or at least not worked out as well. Something I really respected about the movie was that they let a character bring up those issues, and even though Jason defended himself, it didn't really seem to draw any pat conclusions.

Edited 2012-03-13 01:09 (UTC)

:(

I think the movie's premise is abolished, though. It proved that parenting isn't as easy as the characters thought. It took two people -- a guy who thought everything was smooth sailing for him, and a woman who wanted everything she couldn't find -- and proved their easy-way-out wrong.

With MJ, I think she was busy often enough for the kid not to bother her. Clearly, she didn't involve herself in his life. Jason tended to wait until he was free to date MJ,a nd whens he was around the kid, he mostly handled him. I don't think Jason ever put any pressure on her over the kid, which is why she was willing to move forward in their relationship (and was clearly a crappy choice on his part, because hello, you're a father, and that's what he understood at that dinner scene near the end)

I'm sad you don't like Jenn, because I love her so much and I actually really like Julie.

I saw it today as well, so I'm happy to share thoughts.

I also like Adam Scott's nose. Poor guy, his nose and his height were mocked repeatedly in this movie. That's OK, we still like him : ).

As for the kids thing. I'm 39 and childless, with no interest in having kids. I have friends with kids but they mostly live out of state. Only one of my San Diegan friends has kids, and I haven't seen her since her second child was born in November. So I can't have the same perspective as Jennifer Westfeldt because I am almost never around children.

In terms of MJ, I think that having a kid is different from dating a guy with a kid. But I was surprised that they moved in together because that would put her in more of a caregiving role.

For the most part, I really did enjoy the movie, but I had some issues with character development, as I wrote about on Tumblr.

I should have ~~written what I meant~~ been more clear. I think Julie and Jason's premise was that kids make you awful, when combined with romance. And I guess it just strikes me as implausible that thinking that would make them decide the solution was to have a baby with a non-romantic partner. Because, in the end, what stops you from hating your non-romantic co-parent? Surely there are other challenges that could make two people go to war besides the romance being stifled.

I'll bow to your parent-wisdom with the babies, but that dinner party scene just struck me because they really never seemed to have real challenges; we see the baby cry and cry once, but her co-parent wanders in and makes the baby stop crying immediately. All other problems are solved with money. I would have liked to see some challenges; are divorced parents really that much happier that married or partnered parents?

MJ and Jason had to be dating for almost a year, because they met when the kid was barely verbal and continued to date through that scene at the restaurant when the kid was a few months from 2.

I actually thought the Jon Hamm scene sided with Jason pretty clearly. Ben's a drunk and a jerk who can't hold his temper and is mean to his wife, and Jason makes a huge speech about how much he loves his co-parent and they'll make it work, damnit.

I didn't like the movie, even though I love the people in it.

My thoughts are on the wanky side, so I'm just going to say that Jason and Julie's willingness to put their needs before Joe's bothered me. I had issues with character development and motivations and how the male/female dichotomy was depicted.

Edited 2012-03-13 01:45 (UTC)

I have only seen the screener - shhh - and I plan to purchase it on DVD (out of guilt) and because well, it has Adam Scott and Jon Hamm and Chris O'Dowd. First, it's a terrible tropey premise but it's executed well because of all the actors involved who make it real.
The opening with them each having a book about atheism (he has The God Delusion while she has God is Not Great) which personally sold me right away and is one of the cutest MFEO moments in film).
I think the film needed to spend more time with Ben and Missy because yes, one did get a he's an ass who doesn't get help or want to help or something vibe right away but a scene of them like we see with Alex and Leslie would have helped.
My best friend had a kid almost a year ago and I saw her at the end of the summer and I haven't seen her since. I've texted her with cute little texts about things that were once an interest of hers and she can't even muster to text back with a response saying that's cool. I get texts of photos of the kid. That's fine. But she's lost her personality and other interests. Please don't let that happen to me. I've gone this long without ever changing a diaper, let that continue. I'm too selfish with my time. Kids are cute, kids are great, kids are even better when they leave.

And Adam Scott was genetically engineered for ladies such as ourselves who enjoy pop culture.

Edited 2012-03-13 01:56 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I see your point, and I'm not sure. I think I need to see the movie again because I'm having trouble remembering what their exact logic was. I thought they didn't necessarily think that they'd have an easier time, but that they'd do the hard, unromantic stuff with each other, and therefore save the "romance" for other people? But I think a significant part of it, for Julie, was that she was running out of time to have a baby, and for Jason, that he also really wanted a kid and that (we find out late in the movie) that he thought Julie was the ideal mother for his child.

I felt like we didn't see enough of them with Joe to get a good sampling, so you're probably right about that. I would have liked to another half hour on the movie that explored this all in more depth. But my impression was that they were having an easier time because 1) they happened to get a fairly easy baby. it happens. I know people with easy babies, and I hate them. 2) They were more well-rested because they were giving each other breaks. Married people can and should do this for each other too--they're just not always as diligent about it. 3) They just had a really good relationship, and everything is easier when you have a good relationship. They were both pitching in, being supportive, being gentle and loving with each other. So in conclusion, their theory sucked, and the main reason they succeeded so well is that they should have been married in the first place.

I can't remember why I thought the dinner scene was inconclusive--maybe that was just me not being totally convinced. But Jason did tell Ben that he had been right about most of it, when they met for drinks.

Here's the thing: I did like the movie. And I think there was a lot of small moments that really worked for me. And I'm glad I went, and I'm delighted we went together, and I love that I saw it in theaters with an audience who appreciated it.

But I think the premise, that it's easier to co-parent with your best friend than your lover, is sort of insane. And they sort of explode that, but J/J still seem much more content with their offspring than anyone else in the movie.

And I liked MJ! Go MJ! But I wish I could have gotten into her head a little more.

As for Julie, I didn't hate her; I wanted to see more of her pursuing things. She spends a lot of the movie going along, having a baby that was someone else's idea, going on dates only when people push her into it, breaking up with her not-right boyfriend only after she's rejected by the best friend. Even when she moves away it seems more like a retreat than a genuine attempt to choose something for her. I liked when she tries to go after Jason, if only because that's the only time she really seems to be trying to do something for herself.

Sure, dating someone with a kid is different than step-parenting a child. But that's why the moving in seemed so strange; it seemed more like a script choice than a character choice. I think that scene would have been stronger if Jason revealed he wanted to ask MJ to move in with him rather than that it was going to happen. All I can say, as someone who doesn't want kids- I don't want to be a stepparent, either.

And I agree with you on Jason; a thirty-something man constantly talking about his sex life makes him seem a little too immature.

Should you feel like sharing more thoughts on it, I'd love to see them and/or be linked to them. I know I saw some interesting looking criticism of the movie before it hit theaters, but I didn't read it, because I wanted to be surprised. Now that I've seen it I'd be curious about the reviews.

I didn't notice her book! That's cute (but then the timeline makes no sense, right? Didn't those books come out in 2007? and then the movie starts in 07, goes to 4 years later in 2011, and then nine months+2.5 years of kid growing makes this a movie from the fuuuuuture.

And I loved a lot of little moments, absolutely. I just wish the movie on the whole seemed more realistic.

I'm going to do a rewatch too, because you have some convincing arguments, here.

I feel like in the end, the point wasn't how they were with the kid - the point was that it depends on who you're raising the kid with. It was easy for them because they were already comfortable in their relationship. The point was never that it was easier to have a kid with a best friend. No one in the movie was discontent with their children - it was their relationships with each other that made or broke their families.

And I always felt like Julie did go after things. She asked to be set up, she wanted to be loved, and she wanted to have children too.

lizinstereo I also have issues with the film, but I'm not going to vomit them in the comments of your journal either because that wouldn't be nice. I did like MJ though, and I don't fault her for getting into a relationship with Jason. She made it pretty clear that she lived this nomadic lifestyle and I didn't got the impression that she took the relationship as seriously as he did ("I think she's the one," he said, but we never hear anything like that from her). Plus she was upfront about not wanting kids. I feel like it was Jason's responsibility to put his son ahead of his own wishes, not MJ's.

I would have liked to see some challenges; are divorced parents really that much happier that married or partnered parents?

I am, unfortunately, at an age where some of my friends are starting to get divorced. And no, it does not seem to be easier, from a parenting standpoint. Someone (in the cases of my friends, the mothers) always ends up with more of the kid-related responsibilities and it SUCKS. (At least, it seems to me. Because they don't have a partner to call on when they need help. And they have told me as much.) I think it worked in the movie because they got along well and they both wanted to be involved.

I do not understand Jason and MJ dated for so long when they both knew she didn't want kids.

(I have more to say about your other points later, but I have to put my kids to bed.)

Edited 2012-03-13 02:44 (UTC)

Yeah, the moving in part did seem to come out of nowhere. Personally, I could see being a step-parent--it's the early years of childhood I don't care for, but once they're toilet-trained, I find them more appealing. I could imagine MJ in a stepmom role, as long as it was clear that Joe would never be her sole responsiblity, that if Jason was unavailable the child would be with Julie.

I think FWK is fortunate that Adam Scott is so appealing, because in the hands of other actors some of his lines would have been much more offputting. Even at his most body objectifying, I still liked Jason.

Ha! I always get SO confused with movies that skip years. But I'll go with the movie starting 4 years ago, the babymaking being present time (BTW I loved that the movie went straight from impregnation to childbirth), to future time. I guess JW is hedging her bets that the world doesn't end in December : ).

Now, that's interesting, because I don't think you're wrong about Julie, I just think we each noticed the opposite sides of the coin- I noticed when she was not going after things- Leslie actually had to shove her into her soon-to-be boyfriend, but you're right that she asked to be set up first.

I posted a rant on my tumblr back when the screener came out, but it's kind of over the top and scattered. I'm going to try to organize my thoughts in a more neutral manner.

Jason and Julie were so determined to raise Joe as separate entities that they didn't communicate. They didn't attempt to discuss their problems; they let them slide. They introduced their kid to their significant others without talking to each other. They kept *jokingly* insulting each other (later on in the film) even though it was clear that the other person was hurt. Tensions were running high and they opted to do nothing.

I had a hard time having sympathy for them because they didn't make a true effort to connect as parents. Julie came to realize she loved Jason over time, but he came to love her when she wasn't around. Jason's turn around struck me as convenient and not rooted in an understanding of how badly they messed up.

With regard to the gender dynamics, it seemed that the women were shrill and unstable while the men were hypersexualized. Women get to publicly embarrass themselves by being honest while men get to make mistakes behind closed doors. I thought the gender dynamics lacked nuance; everything was stereotypical.

I have a feeling that I took this movie *way* seriously. I'm in my mid-twenties and don't have kids, but would like to have one or two someday (provided I meet the right person). Maybe that colored my reaction?

Edited 2012-03-13 03:16 (UTC)

I thought the scene where MJ saw him and his kid... look, I can't possibly type that part out, but the gross part, and then Jason gets mad that Julie's not there for the kid because he wanted to go chase after his girlfriend was a hint of that. It was her first date since she'd had the baby, or at least her first sexual experience since she'd gotten pregnant, and he threw a fit. Which made me wonder if everything really was 50-50.

(I think parenting is incredibly hard and I'd be terrible at it, just to clarify that I don't think parenting makes people terrible)

I just vomited all over the comments. I'm not a good house guest. At least

saucydiva said it was okay.

Edited 2012-03-13 03:24 (UTC)

You are now required to link to your previous thoughts on the topic so that I may read them having now seen the film.
Please.

I wanted it!

thank you so much for saying this! i've been feeling like i'm the ONLY person who had issues with the film and it was the male/female dichotomy that bothered me the most.

i also put this in rikyl's comments, but i am repeating myself all over the place ;) the pining girl who is "suddenly deemed worthy" is such a sore point trope with me. what bothered me the most was how much it told us over and over that julie wasn't attractive enough for jason, or the "right girl" for him and basically devastated her. then he had a dirty dream about her and it's all good and she takes him back, takes him in without much of a discussion. it just. yeah. put such a bad taste in my mouth that it's been very hard to get over that.

I think part of that is that Jason was upset that Julie didn't call or text him--and honestly, I think she should have, it would have taken just a second and Jason could have planned accordingly. He still should accept that he can't run off and spend the night with MJ whenever he wants, however. IMO they were both at fault in that scene (and Jason of course had dealt with Joe's stomach issues, making him crankier).

BTW was Jason wearing Julie's bathrobe? I swear it was pink.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

Friends with Kids: some thoughts

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject