Happy Endings: Friends with Kids

While watching the director’s commentary of Atonement, Joe Wright’s final comments articulated something inside of me that had been brewing for quite some time.  Wright said that he used to believe happy endings were weak, but after making Pride and Prejudice, he realized that happy endings were brave.  Interesting commentary for Atonement since Briony struggles to create a happy ending equal to or greater than her crime, setting free the characters trapped inside her mind.  Instantly I reminisced with the most recent movie memory of mine, Friends with Kids, as this feeling with newfound words was all wrapped up within it. Jennifer Westfeldt writes, directs, and stars in the RomCom about a couple of friends who decide to have a baby without all the drama that comes with being in a relationship.   Westfeldt not only gives us a happy ending but, in my opinion, also gives us a lesson in both narrowing and expanding the scope of our perception.  A world without happy endings would be a sad world indeed; days filled with gray skies and only emotions hate and greed.  Though one may say, “That’s the world I see!”  All it takes is a closer look to see a day filled with happy endings.  Whether it’s too narrow or short, wide or far, a quick adjustment of the lens, a new dose in depth of field and our mise en scene becomes filled with new possibilities.

I’d like to begin my analysis of Friends with Kids by referencing a classic, Alfred Hitchcock’s RearWindow.  Rear Window starts with a conversation between Jeff, played by Jimmy Stewart, and his nurse Stella, played by Thelma Ritter, in which they discuss the intricacies of marriage—a conversation which strikes at the heart of Friends with Kids.  Stella is busting Jeff’s chops because he is afraid to marry the gorgeous Lisa Fremont.  She tries to convince Jeff there is something abnormal about the whole situation.  He isn’t ready for marriage he says, an admission Jason, Adam Scott’s character in Friends with Kids, is unable to reach early on in Jennifer Westfeldt’s film.  However, Jeff and Jason share the same inability to see the perfect woman standing right in front of them.

Stella says, “Look Mr. Jefferies I’m not an educated woman but I can tell you one thing, when a man and woman see each other and like each other, they outta come together, WHAM, like a couple of taxis on Broadway.  Not sit around analyzing each other like two specimens in a bottle.”  To which Jeff retorts, “There’s an intelligent way to approach marriage.”  “Intelligence,” Stella interrupts, “nothing has caused the human race so much trouble as intelligence.  Heh, modern marriage,” she scoffs.  “We’ve progressed emotionally,” Jeff begins to reprimand; only to be cut off again by Stella.  “Baloney!” she exclaims, “Once it was see somebody, get excited, get married.  Now it’s read alotta books, fence with alotta four syllable words, psychoanalyze each other until you can’t tell the difference between a petting party and a civil service exam.”  The scene ends for me where Jeff says, “People have different emotional levels,” which, of course, is undeniably true.  Strangely, Jason and Julie in Friends with Kids begin at the same emotional level but suffer from a similar inability to come together in “perfect” matrimony.

Many of the implications drawn from the conversations concocted by Hitchcock are seemingly in full agreement with those implications I find in Westfeldt’s film.  This same battle of common sense and human nature versus intelligence and human will is all throughout Friends with Kids.  The first shot illustrates the intelligence/human will side of Julie and Jason as of the movie opens on a ringing cell phone resting where, on Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion.  Our main character answers the call but who is on the other line?  His female doppelganger reading what, Christopher Hitchens’s God is NOT Great.  I think these should be, but at the very least are subliminal, cues to the wide eyed “modern” audience of young couples all graphed somewhere on this relationship graph of readiness and emotional levels.  It tells us, these characters are intelligent modern people just like us.  They are psychologically stable, heterosexual characters we can instantly agree with—in fact, they seem to be the only sensible ones in each situation.  They disarm us at once, guiding us along a controlled path which eventually leads us to the errors of our modern ways.

After Jason’s immature relationship with a “hot” dancer and Julie’s overly sweet fill in, and opposite, of Jason, we start to realize there is something abnormal about our two heroes’ ability to commit.  I think both Hitchcock and Westfeldt would agree that the real problem lies with the fear of castration, for both male and female character in Westfeldt’s case.  This is probably due to a lot of things, mostly it being a female writer/director, but also because the females of her world are allowed more freedoms.  But I find it interesting that the female characters in her film often choose to fill similar roles traditionally held by female characters.  They are, however, allowed to be openly funny and individual, liberating for both character and observer.

Lately I’ve been studying the hero’s journey through watching lectures of Joseph Campbell and reading some of his books.  I have noticed the story of the hero told over and over again, not only in film, but in everyday life.  Westfeldt’s film is no different but follows it in typical movie fashion.  Act one begins with an introduction to the problem, everyone Jason and Julie know with children are miserable—at least as far as they can see.  But the act concludes with Jason answering the more metaphorical call to fill the hole he and his best friend have been yearning to fill for some time—having a child.  It was actually his idea, as she was the safe choice—being just like him, afraid of castration through commitment.  The second act begins or peaks somewhere around the time where Julie shares her new feelings with Jason who is too blind, like Jeff in Rear Window, to see what is right in front of him.  It isn’t until he has lost everything and in real danger of being alone when he realizes he has to have her.  The third act begins with her moving on and ends with his eventual return into the family fold, truly conforming through his desire to be with her in Brooklyn, like all the other washed up “unhappy” couples.

In this movie Jason and Julie’s dragons are their inability to let go of their over analytical modern dispositions and see the path to love and happiness that have always been in front of them.  A beautiful one at that—a best friend and child.  They tried to fill the hole with all the things that the modern world convinces you to drown yourself with—but stuff and lust fell short and left them thirsty for more.  This is best illustrated through Jason’s constant need to validate himself through new female conquests, especially the self-centered Mary Jane, played perfectly by Megan Fox.  I think that it was only natural for Julie’s dragon to be slayed first, as she actually pushed out the baby.  Maybe there is something in that immense physical pain that brings clarity to life, especially when you realize what you need most is a companion and who better than your best friend and father of your child.

So I’ve rambled on about dragons, but what I liked most about this film is that it really was brave.  It throws our stupid egos in our stupid modern faces.  I thought it was awesome to see Hitchcock doing the same thing many years before and am glad to see Westfeldt reminding us now.  It’s a great spanking there for anyone aware and able to feel it.  I also loved seeing Jon Hamm in a role where the typical handsome guy who seems to have it all gets humbled.  There are all kinds of cues to set the cocky straight.  Jennifer Westfeldt is a crafty film maker.  She reminds me very much of Rodrigo Garcia and Richard Linklater because they take subject matter that seems to torture them and hash it out in realistic conversational dramas on screen; they challenge the observer rather than stroke them.  Westfeldt’s dramas center on relationships and she gives you three different types and resolves them with courage.

It all ends up relatively happy if you’re willing to see it that way.  Even Jon Hamm and Kristen Wiig end up in a much better situation, apart.  They were the type that fell in lust and ended up with kids—never meant to be together.  Maya Rudolph and Chris O’Dowd represent a more classic relationship, like those Stella talks about in Rear Window.  They are two that liked each other and work at things to stay together.  Julie and Jason are those rare occurrences, best friends made lovers, who really are meant to be.  If they’re wise enough, if they’re strong enough, they can get through all the trials and make it.  So I think this film illustrates how happy endings can be brave.  In a way, movies like this are instructional videos teaching us how to be happy.  Another one like this, in my opinion, is Jeff, Who Lives at Home.  They are silly at times, but realistic.  Yea, there are a bunch of shitty situations along the way and in the end everyone gets the shaft, I mean, we all die.  But if you choose to invest in happiness, if you choose to put the time in to hone in on it and strive to make things happy—we can all find our happy endings.  It reminds me of a Dalai Lama quote I read recently, "Every one of us is getting older, which is a natural process. Time is constantly moving on, second by second. Nothing can stop it, but what we can do is use our time properly; that is in our hands. Whether we believe in a spiritual tradition or not, we need to use our time meaningfully. If over days, weeks and years, we have used our time in a meaningful way - when our last day comes, we'll be happy, we'll have no regrets."

I think it is easy to just end a movie with ugly and plain “realities”.  It is more difficult to find the good things and write them in a way that translates well on screen.  I think Westfeldt does this in Friends with Kids.  She takes clichés and turns them on their head—she does the same with Ira & Abby where the typical lovers are portrayed as neurotic fuck ups and the climax being a group therapy sessions with generations of fuck ups and just decide to cope.  Friends with Kids uses real comedy and when you get to that big pay off, where Jason finally catches up and slays his dragon, it ends.  They don’t complete the hero’s journey by coming full circle, that retelling is the movie itself—the writer/director is the true hero of this journey.  There is no montage showing them moving in together, leading to a wedding with voice over giving the audience closure through summed up life lessons.  It jars the modern ego, abruptly cutting, BAM, you’re wrong.  We are no longer nihilistic individuals striving to be unique, no—now we are able to see the beauty in conformity.

Index of Consciousness

The nature of cinema is an elusive concept because so much of what defines cinema is subjective.  Leonardo Da Vinci invented the Camera Obscura long before 1588, when Giovanni Battista Della Porta improved upon the idea with lenses and projection, recommending it as a drawing aid for artists.  This invention had limitations; it merely captured the shadow, and later reflection, of objects outside the Camera Obscura.  This is quite possibly the birth of modern cinema; however, it is not the moment of cinema’s inception.  Cinema is a complex method of communication with roots stretching back in time to the earliest moments of man.  Its technological progress has experienced exponential growth since Edison and the Lumiere brothers in the 1890s.  Da Vinci’s invention marks an important moment in cinema’s history because it is the first time where reality is truly recreated.  Before we could only see images through filtered perceptions and the final execution at the hand of an artist.  The Camera Obscura is the first time we are allowed, as viewers, to gaze upon a pure index of reality and use our own constructs to perceive.  This invention freed the artist from realism as we no longer needed them as interpreters of reality.  Artists were finally allowed to experiment with various forms of abstraction and expression.  This paradigm shift, in my opinion, is the root of the ‘what is cinema’ question.  I think artists, photographers, businessmen, and film makers have been fleshing out this argument ever since.

At its core, cinema is about communication or, one might say, storytelling.  When words and gestures alone cannot convey what one wishes to articulate, due to nuances of physical and emotional experience, something more is necessary.  Werner Herzog’s Cave of Forgotten Dreams illustrates my point perfectly.  In the film Herzog guides us through a newly discovered cave in France.  As we discover together it seems we are unfolding a prehistoric theatre.  Each cavern is filled with hand painted scenes, each communicating a different story important to primitive man.  The layout of the drawings in the cave itself seems to tell a story.  The cave’s story begins by identifying the authors as human.   We see human hand-prints throughout the cave but an entire wall of hand-prints greet us upon entering.  As we go deeper we see stories about the ways animals behave while gathering around a watering hole, probably a great place to catch dinner.

There are various predators discussed on the cave walls and they seem to increase in frequency the deeper we delve.  That is until the final room, full of lions, and in the center above them all is some kind of mystical creature, half bison and half woman.  Perhaps she is the mother of modern man, the bison merging with her as to lift man up and give him advantage over all predators.  Perhaps the walls teach us how to use our most powerful tool, our brain, to survive in a volatile world so that we may carry on our experiences to future generations.

This cave was at a type of crossroads for prehistoric man, between Britain, France, and Germany.  Inside there is no evidence of people staying long term, so it does not lead one to believe that people were decorating their home.  However, there is evidence of humans continually returning to this location, sometimes generations apart.  This leads us to believe that it is some sort of holy place, maybe a prehistoric college, which might explain the continual pilgrimage as well as the maintenance or painting over of the images by later humans.  Herzog points out that the scenes dance in the light of a flame.  I believe Herzog is correct when he pushes us to accept these ideas as possible truths and I agree with the professor in that this film seems to ask a similar question, why is cinema?  Herzog’s answer seems to be cinema exists so that we may leave some sort of record, or better communicate and share our lives with one another.   Also, by insinuating that these cave paintings are a sort of proto-cinema, we are able to get closer to its definition by stripping away all the technical aspects that seem to cloud our judgments today.

In 1894 Fred P.Ott became the first movie star when Edison filmed him sneezing on cue for Kinetoscope Films.  A year after Edison started making his films in the United States, Lumiere Films started up in France.  Both studios referred to their product as “actualities” though while the Lumiere brothers thought that they should just show things as they are, Edison thought that one should put more effort in producing a film that people want to see.  Edison made films about kissing, dancing, muscle men, funny boxing and cockfighting while the Lumiere brothers made films about their workers leaving the factory or a train arriving at a station.  The Lumiere brothers would go as far as criticizing Edison for misusing the medium and cry out against the moral degradation it would lead to.  Someone forgot to mention to the brothers that some of the first films made were smut.

Whether they were wrong or right, this moment lends understanding to the different aesthetic choices made by French and American schools of thought.  European cinema seems to be more concerned with trying to show reality while American studios have never shied away from creating an alternate universe.  Closer examination of Lumiere films show that the brothers must have made some directorial choices.  When watching the workers leave the factory, I find it hard to believe that all them were dressed in their Sunday best and ignored the film crew on their way out.  These people were working in a factory and had probably never seen a film crew before, it just isn’t natural.  The brothers must have given their workers some instruction at least the day before.

The only way for a film to be actual is for it to break the fourth wall and reveal to the audience that what they see is not reality, but a film.  Otherwise, one merely uses bits of contrived media to persuade an audience to willfully suspend their disbelief and live in the reproduction presented before their eyes.  Edison’s films do not announce that they are films, however, we see actors on sets showing us bits of reality that we love to look at.  The willful suspension of disbelief here is automatic and less demanding as we want to look at and accept those images as real.  They are those parts of consciousness we love to indulge and long to relive.  The medium was born of our guilty pleasures but as time and technology progress, so does the nature of cinema.

 Andre Bazin says that cinema is the art of reality fine-tuned by the everlasting human endeavor to preserve life through a representation of it.  He references a long tradition of preserving the corporeal body through man-made representations.  The religion of ancient Egypt worked diligently to do just this, for those who could afford it.  Egyptians filled their tombs with statues and reliefs of the deceased living on forever in the afterlife.  He also references cave paintings, pointing out that early man would create statues of predator and prey alike and strike them with spears.  A learning exercise or perhaps a ritual ensuring a successful hunt; either way representation of reality created to communicate something transcendent of the object itself.  His final example is Louis XIV, who waived the preservation techniques upon his death because he believed that his portrait by Lebrun was enough of an afterlife.  While I agree that this human obsession leads to the duplication of reality I think it was and still is merely the limited means by which we are able to imprint our consciousness.  We have not yet seen total cinema.

Bazin points out that many see cinema as a mingling of economic and technical elements combined with the media produced through human endeavor.  His genealogical investigation traces its roots to do-it-yourself men, monomaniacs, impulse, and genius industrialists.  Even deeper still we find idealists driven by something deeper; men who would light their own furniture ablaze just for an interesting moving image.  Bazin says, “The myth of Icarus had to wait on the internal combustion engine before descending from the platonic heavens.  But it dwelt in the soul of every man since he first thought about birds.  To some extent, one could say the same thing about the myth of cinema, but its forerunners prior to the nineteenth century have only a remote connection with the myth which we share today and which has prompted the appearance of the mechanical arts that characterize today’s world.”

I agree with Bazin that the what of cinema, 1588 to 2012, is an art formed from the continued pursuit to replicate reality.  However, I believe the why of cinema is to index our human consciousness and pass it on to future generations.  I believe that this why has been a constant.  Therefore, cinema itself is merely an index of consciousness and the methods of imprint are secondary aesthetic choices based in the limitations of time and space. Each person is locked inside their heads. We are merely points in a vast sea of consciousness.  Men before me became Gods, creating an artificial consciousness that zeros in on parallel worlds and people with the intent to communicate something to me. Technologies have changed time and again but the intent remains the same.

Life is a lie.  Film is an imprint of life, therefore, a lie.  If one attempts to make a fantasy of the film it is still a lie, however, if one makes a film saying, “based on true events,” it then becomes true because it is embracing the fact that life itself is a lie.  I think directors like Scorsese and James Cameron embrace the spirit of ever evolving cinema, as Bazin did with the coming of sound, as they embrace 3D.  What is cinema doesn’t really matter in my opinion as long as the why is intact.  Now the cutting edge may be HD3D but tomorrow it will be interactive uploads perceived without eyes or ears but from within while lying in bed.  Maybe someday we will not have cinema because we are finally able to see the holy moment continuously demonstrated all around us and within.  That would take some magic technological leap unlike any seen before or some sort of human evolution.  Either way, I am looking forward. 

Titanic 3D

I first saw this movie back when it came out.  Like most kids my age at the time, I saw it as a fancy Hollywood romance.  BUT, you're probably wondering--Is the 3D worth it?  I would say yes, just because I'm a recent convert to the 3D cult B/C after seeing some of the cool things 3D can do, I want to encourage film makers like James Cameron to keep it up.  Scorsese even did Hugo in 3D and that's the stuff I'm talking about.  Using 3D as an extra element to engage the viewer further, draw them in, and tell stories better.  Not typical crap where things fly past your face but subtly.  Now you might be saying WHOA, I saw Titanic and it wasn't subtle, and I agree.. but why I think it is still worth seeing again all these years later--especially if you haven't seen it, like me, since it came out--is because I got a whole new reading on the film.

Now, I see this film is about a lot more than a sinking boat and two crazy kids falling in love.  It's kind of a cheesy play on roles, mostly gender and class.  Anyway, I'm not saying it's revolutionary but that I got a lot more out of it this time around.  Cameron, though he gets a lot of shit--and probably deserves it at times--is a visionary and does some really cool stuff.  It actually reminded me of Avatar in some ways.  Check it out or not, I don't really care 'cause it ain't like he's hurtin' any.

The Flowers Of War

The Flowers of War, written by Heng Liu, directed by Yimou Zhang, and starring Christain Bale, Ni Ni, and Xinyi Zhang, is a movie full of pleasures. Though most of the film takes place in a dilapidated church this film really isn’t about religion. The church and Bale are used as connections to the west. The notion that western influence is there to protect and save the innocent is reiterated constantly—the characters literally beg this unworthy and unwilling savior for salvation. Basically, it is my opinion that this movie is not a blatant propaganda film but a loose docu-drama with propagandist overtones that are more than likely placed there to soften the Chinese image in a globalized world. There is enough in there for everyone, but it’s not the best. Some attractive women in some shitty situations. Bale makes a better Batman, but he does have a couple funny scenes while drunk and trying to get laid in a priest outfit. I’d give it 6 out of 10—2 out of 5.

Peeping Tom

Peeping Tom allows us to take a free look into the tortured soul of a psychopath--and a whole 6 months before Alfred Hitchcock gave us a peek.  It's a shame that Michael Powell, director of The Red Shoes, essentially ruined his career by directing this deep film--commonly referred to as the father of slasher films.  Critics got butthurt and their stupidity spread.  He understood the script so much he put his own son in it and took on the role of the abusive father.  It's worth seeing--not only that--it's worth researching the "what is this film up to" (to quote one of my professors).  The subtext of this film leaps up to bite you in the ass.. if you aren't paying close enough attention, it probably leaves a strange taste in your mouth--which is why I recommend a little research.  You could start here with Dr. Laura Mulvey's short essay on the film.

Jeff, Who Lives at Home

Everyone should go see Jeff, Who Lives at Home. If the Camera technique bothers you, I think you should take a closer look :) Written and directed by Jay & Mark Duplass. There is always something comforting about seeing brothers come together to produce something.. Someone told me that once. These brothers are no different. In writing, directing, and their actors on screen (Jason Segel and Ed Helms play brothers) these brothers produce something beautiful. I hope to make films like this someday. Funny, thought-provoking, dramatic, a careful use of the cinematic language.. Simply put, a must see. A standard I think other film makers should strive for.

Nine Lives

This beautifully painful film picks at the scabs on the soul of the collective consciousness. One continuous shot, separated only by title cards, reminds us that our skin is merely a perceived boundary. This all-star cast pulls off Garcia's conversational drama perfectly; oozing pure emotion leaving you surprised, laughing, crying, etc. Each new scene gives a life lesson. Prisoners, lost lovers, all of us wounded humans yet painfully in love with some facet of life. Well composed. All the cinematic elements push the boundaries until this story reveals our discomfort in looking at reality. I may be biased (because these ghosts dragged chains very familiar to me) but painfully beautiful if you release yourself from the confines of the prison of perception, adjust your lens, and see.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

My first attempt at a review for class. We had five minutes to write something that could be used for a short newspaper like publication. I'm obviously not writing for the average viewer here but its honestly how the movie made me feel.