Hope Springs

Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:00 pm

Can this marriage be saved?

For decades, the Ladies Home Journal’s most popular feature has been its monthly he-said/she-said/therapist says looks at a marriage in trouble.  No matter how dire the problem — infidelity, money problems, blended family problems — somehow they (almost) always find a way to make it work.  Readers love it for three reasons.  One is the schadenfreude of reading about someone else’s misery and feeling better about our own problems.  It’s easy for fairy tale characters to live happily ever after; for the rest of us, it takes some work.  Another reason is the fun of thinking ahead to what the therapist will say to reassure us that we understand the intricacies of the relationships that for most of us are our life’s great adventure and purpose.  And third is that even more than our lives as individuals, no one is an island when it comes to marriage and whether we are married or single the strength of the relationships in the community matters to us.  Marriage can be a refuge of endless understanding and unconditional support.  Or it can be the loneliest and most desolate place on earth. Some marriages contain both.

“Hope Springs” is the name of the town an Omaha couple visits for intensive couples therapy.  And of course it is also the spirit that gets them there.  Meryl Strep is Kay, who works at a Coldwater Creek store in a mall, and Tommy Lee Jones is Arnold, a partner at an accounting firm.  They have been married for 31 years and are on a dismal sort of automatic pilot.  They sleep in different rooms and he dozes off to the Golf Channel every night.  They barely speak.  She wistfully hopes for some physical and emotional intimacy.  He does not let himself hope for anything.  She reads a book by a couples therapist and decides to spend $4000 for a week of intensive therapy in Maine, whether Arnold will go with her or not.  He is angry and uncooperative and she gets on the plane not knowing if he will join her.  At the last minute, he is there.

Arnold, still grumbling about being there and complaining about the cost of everything, is uncooperative at first.  But with gentle guidance from Dr. Feld (a sympathetic Steve Carell) he sees how important it is to Kay, and then he begins to see that it might be important to him, too.  It is very painful at times, but at least the pain is a feeling and that is better than the numbness that they have been living with.  Romantic movies are usually about people in their 20’s who fall in love.  But it is people in their 50’s and 60’s who really know what love is and how much courage it takes to stay in love.  And sometimes it takes them that long to learn that the clearest path to enduring love may not be that women’s magazine perennial, communication, but sharing laughter.  Arnold and Kay first begin to thaw when at dinner together he makes her laugh by imitating the therapist.

The story and script are nothing special, though a little less sit-com-y than the trailer suggests.  And it hurries us through the last half hour, skipping some of the emotional beats necessary to earn the ending.  If these people got married in the 1980’s, it is hard to imagine Kay would be so reluctant to speak up earlier or that Arnold would be so one-dimensional.  But Streep and Jones are pure magic, creating nuance and complexity that goes beyond the script.  The fear, the longing, the tenderness of these characters are beautifully illuminated in performances of exquisite understanding. Streep’s face as she tries to pull together to courage to walk from her bedroom to his heartbreakingly mingles hope, terror, insecurity, resilience, and attempted sexiness.  They play people we think of as ordinary.  But Streep and Jones give them the extraordinary attention that illuminates the characters with such sensitivity that we want very much to see them live happily ever after.  They show us that the luckiest among us fall in love more than once — with the same person.

Parents should know that this film has some very explicit sexual references and pretty explicit situations and some strong language.

Family discussion:  Why was it hard for Kay and Arnold to talk to each other about their feelings?  What was the most important thing they learned from therapy?  Who among your friends and family has an especially strong and enduring relationship and what makes it work?

If you like this, try: “Two for the Road”

 

 

 

 

Related Tags:

 

Not specified

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

Posted on June 21, 2012 at 6:00 pm

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language including sexual references, some drug use and brief violence
Profanity: Very strong and explicit language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, drunkenness, drug use
Violence/ Scariness: Disturbing themes of the end of the world, some violence
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: June 22, 2012
Date Released to DVD: October 22, 2012
Amazon.com ASIN: B007L6VRBM

Dr. Johnson memorably said that the prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully.  Part of what stories do for us is concentrate the mind by providing us with narratives that eliminate distracting quotidian effluvia and allow us to focus on one element of the story.  In “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World,” writer/director Lorene Scafaria (“Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist”) makes that concentration explicit.  The world is literally ending in three weeks, and we get to see how that concentrates the minds of Dodge (Steve Carell), Penny (Kiera Knightley), and the people they meet as everyone has to decide what from their “someday” list gets moved up to “now.”

Lorene Scafaria, who wrote the lovely “Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist,” here directs her own screenplay with a top-notch cast and a sure sense of tone and pacing.  The classic elements of the journey film with a mis-matched pair on the road in search of something is kept fresh through the setting, the adventures and encounters along the way, and sensitive performances from Carell and Knightley.

As Elizabeth Kubler-Ross might have predicted, a lot of people get stuck in stage one: denial.  The movie opens as Dodge and his wife hear the radio announcer promise to keep the audience up to date on the progress of the asteroid known as Matilda and its collision path with Earth, along with a countdown to the end of days and “all your classic rock favorites.”  At first, most people run on automatic pilot.  Dodge goes to his office and tries to explain to a client that his insurance policy does not really cover what is about to happen.  “The Armageddon policy is extra.”  His boss tries to fill some abandoned positions by offering promotions.  People who always wanted to kill someone offer their services as assassins for hire by those who do not want to be alive when the meteor hits.  Musicians put on an end of the world awareness concert.  It’s like Wile E. Coyote running off the cliff and staying suspended in air until the realization hits — and then he does.

People start to get desperate.  Dodge’s wife leaves him.  A friend (Patten Oswalt) explains that the end of the world has made it very easy to sleep with women.  Dodge’s friends have a party and try to fix him up with a woman (Melanie Lynskey) who arrives wearing all of the jewelry she was saving for the right occasion.  But that is not what he wants.  The world is increasingly divided between people who choose various ways to numb themselves and those who take this last chance to stop being numb.

Dodge meets his neighbor, Penny, an English girl who has missed the last opportunity to get back to her family.  She has a mis-delivered letter from a girl he loved and lost.  And she has a car.  When rioters take over their building, he offers to get her to a plane if she will help him find the woman who sent the letter.  Helping each other gives them purpose.  Getting to know Penny gives Dodge more of a sense of being alive than he has ever had before.  Dodge had always been too cautious.  Penny had always been too irresponsible.  Now he must take chances and she must grow up.  It’s never too late.

On their journey, they see people and places from their past, including Penny’s survivalist ex-boyfriend (Derek Luke), who thinks that stockpiling weapons and canned goods will help him rebuild society.  They stop at a relentlessly chipper restaurant called Friendsy’s (yes, lots and lots of flair) where the staff’s increasingly shrill Ecstasy-fueled cheeriness becomes borderline deranged.  And then, even with just days and then hours left, they begin to shift from the past to the future.  And, as Rabindrath Tagore wrote,  “The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough.”

(more…)

Related Tags:

 

Drama DVD/Blu-Ray Pick of the Week Romance

Letter to Steve Carell re ‘Crazy Stupid Love’s’ Teen Nude Photos

Posted on August 10, 2011 at 12:00 pm

I was very pleased to hear that my friend Rev. Debra Haffner has written to producer/star Steve Carell about the scene where a 17-year-old girl gives a 13-year-old boy nude photos in “Crazy, Stupid, Love.”   This offensive scene, portraying the gift as generous and compassionate, is one reason I gave “Crazy, Stupid, Love” a D.  Rev. Haffner is one of the leading experts in the country on teen sexuality.  She acknowledges that these are fictional characters but points out that teenagers get ideas about how to behave from what they see on screen. If she gets a response, I will post it.

 

Dear Mr. Carell:

I am writing to you as a certified sexuality educator and an ordained Unitarian Universalist minister who is concerned that your new movie, “Crazy, Stupid, Love” models behaviors for teen and tween audiences that puts them at risk for legal action.  I am the author of several books for parents on talking with their children and teens about sexuality, and I have worked with adolescents on responsible sexual behavior for many years. 

There are several sexual messages in the movie that I disagree with, but I am most concerned about 17 year old Jessica giving 13 year old Robbie nude photos of herself that she took.  It is illegal for anyone to create sexually explicit images of a minor, to possess such images, or to distribute them.  Although it may seem nonsensical, several states have passed additional laws that make it illegal for teens to take and distribute such pictures of themselves to other teens.  Indeed, because of their age differences, depending on the age of majority in the state, Jessica might also be charged and convicted as a sexual offender for exposing a minor to child pornography.  In some states, she could face life in prison or have to register as a sex offender for life.  Further, the gender of the characters reinforces a stereotype that teen boys cannot be victims of child sexual abuse, when in reality, a boy is most likely sexually victimized by a teenage girl. 

These are fictional characters – but their actions may well be repeated by young people in your audiences.  I know that your movie is out in general release, and I don’t know what can be done by Carousal Productions at this point to get out the message, “don’t’ try this at home”.  But, I do know that PG-13 movies shouldn’t be modeling criminal behaviors as harmless or worse, acts of generosity. 

I would welcome hearing a response from you.  Please let me know if I can provide you with additional information.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rev. Dr. Debra Haffner

Related Tags:

 

Teenagers Understanding Media and Pop Culture

Dinner for Schmucks

Posted on January 4, 2011 at 8:00 am

The truest comedy is the laugh of recognition and enlightenment. You won’t find much of that in this crass and crude remake of the French film, “The Dinner Game.” What you will find instead is that easier and far less satisfying category of humor — the smug laughter at someone’s expense. The problem is that this movie’s entire premise is that making fun of people who have dorky personalities is, as expressed twice by characters we are supposed to identify with, “messed up.” Therefore, it is especially icky that it tries to have it both ways, asking us to laugh at the bozos and then asking us to feel superior to the movie characters who are doing the exactly same thing.

In the French film, the main character is a wealthy man who has a competition with his friends to see who can bring the biggest loser to dinner. And so of course he has to learn some lessons about who the loser really is. But this is America, and our good guy can’t really be a big old meanie, even at the beginning of the film. So, we begin by casting Mr. Nice Guy, Paul Rudd as Tim, an analyst for a private equity firm desperate to get a promotion. His good-guy reluctance takes most of the emotional and narrative energy out of the story. When the big boss (Bruce Greenwood) gives him a chance to move up and he finds out it involves participating in the dinner-with-a-dork competition, he instantly and correctly identifies this as messed up, but then, when he literally bumps into a perfect specimen, he decides it must be fate, and invites him to the dinner.

The dork (I refuse to call him a shmuck, which is a Yiddish term that literally means a part of the male anatomy and metaphorically means a bad — as in untrustworthy — guy, not a foolish or nerdy one) is Barry, played by Steve Carell, having way too much fun with his fake teeth. Barry’s hobby is stuffing dead mice (yes, he is an amateur taxidermist, just like Norman Bates) and creating dioramas for them based on classic works of art and historical events. But once again, the movie can’t make its mind up whose side it is on, and the idea may be appalling but the renditions are actually quite lovely. (In the French film, the guy makes replicas of famous buildings from matchsticks.)

Despite Carell’s best efforts, Barry is not a character. He is just an engine for creating humiliating experiences for Tim. The essential inconsistency of his behavior and capacity obstructs any comedic pleasure in predicting what is going to happen. It’s as though we have to be continually re-introduced to him. On the other hand, one-note supporting characters like Tim’s stalker would-be girlfriend (wasting the talents of the delectable Lucy Punch), Barry’s colleague (Zach Galifianakis), and an oleaginous artist (Jermaine Clement) quickly become tiresome.

Here’s an idea for a movie — how about the story of a talented French writer/director who meets with Hollywood executives who want to re-make his excellent comedies like “The Toy,” “The Dinner Game,” “The Tall Blond Man With One Black Shoe,” and many more, into over-budgeted and under-funny comedies by clumsy Americans. Now, that is a dinner for schmucks.

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Remake
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2025, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik