Friends with Kids: some thoughts

[diaphenia]

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. 

Comments

[saucydiva.livejournal.com]

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.

[rikyl.livejournal.com]

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.

[saucydiva.livejournal.com]

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

[k8-26-2.livejournal.com]

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.)

[saucydiva.livejournal.com]

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)

[sullen-aquarian.livejournal.com]

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.

[k8-26-2.livejournal.com]

I mean, that specific instance where he gets mad at her for being late when he wanted to do something is a good example of something that happens, whether you parent under the same roof as a couple or as divorced parents or, in the case of this movie, as platonic friends. I don't think Julie ended up being the primary parent until she moved away, but that was my take on it.