Friends with Kids: some thoughts

[saucydiva]

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.

Comments

[rikyl]

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

[saucydiva]

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

[rikyl]

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

[saucydiva]

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

[shornt]

:(

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.

[saucydiva]

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

[shornt]

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.

[saucydiva]

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.

[sullen_aquarian]

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.

[saucydiva]

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.

[sullen_aquarian]

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.

[lizinstereo]

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.

[saucydiva]

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.

[lizinstereo]

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

[popgurlie]

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.

[ballroom_pink]

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

[saucydiva]

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.

[sullen_aquarian]

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 : ).

[summerswings]

Didn't you hear? Apparently the Mayans didn't have leap years so we've already passed the date which should've been December 22nd, and the world didn't end! If we didn't have leap years, today's date would be somewhere around July-August 2013.