PDA

View Full Version : Nicole Holofcener: Friends with Money (2006)



Chris Knipp
04-08-2006, 11:11 PM
Nicole Holofcener: Friends with Money

TV writing

Olivia (Jennifer Anniston) is part of a group of four women friends who're all well off, except for her. Having fled from a school teaching job, she now cleans people's houses. She smokes some pot, pines for a married man she had a fling with, dates a personal trainer who's a dick; in the end, she winds up with a customer who's a slob but turns out to be nice, and quite rich. Olivia's three friends are Jane, Christine, and Franny. Jane (Frances McDormand) is a successful but very feisty and angry clothing designer, with a gay-seeming husband named Aaron (Simon McBurney) who attracts gay, and gay-seeming men. Jane's Aaron finds another Aaron (Ty Burrell), equally gay-seeming, and they have a sort of date, but this is to tease us or educate us about men: both Aarons are happily married, and their friendship leads to dinners for four, and that's that. Christine (Caroline Keener) writes scripts, and has nasty verbal fights, with her husband David (Jason Isaacs): her marriage is crumbling while the couple build a second floor on their house that will ruin the view for their neighbors. When Christine realizes this, and that her husband knew it, she dumps him. Franny (Joan Cusack) is very rich, just raises her kids with full time help, and is perfectly happy with her husband Matt (Greg Germann), her two children, and the world.

There are several themes here: forty-something women's crises (Jane, Christine); a single woman's aimlessness and passivity (Olivia); men who either seem gay, or are creeps, like Franny's personal trainer Mike (Scott Caan), whom she sets up with Olivia, and who is rude and exploitive to her; Christine's husband, who can't be nice to Christine -- though she can't be nice to him either. And money. It's always there as an issue.

A pivot point is the pet fiction in American social comedy that friends stay together even when their fortunes come to vary widely. To distinguish her people from each other, Holofcener resorts to something like the eighteenth-century comedy of humors, where a character is dominated by a single trait or quirk: Olivia is obsessed with skin lotions and will even steal to get them; Jane picks fights with strangers and won't wash her hair; Christine is always hurting herself by accident. Franny's rich husband is almost invisible, except to insist on spending money, and he is the best man. He isn't possibly gay either.

Besides the married-men-who-seem-gay theme, there's a sequence when Olivia allows the boorish personal trainer to accompany her on her housecleaning jobs, where he lounges around, and then demands from her, and gets, a cut of her pay. Finally he gives her a kinky maid's uniform and orders her around in it on a job, a prelude to sex. Only at the end of this episode when she follows him and sees he's dating somebody else in the evenings, does Olivia decide to stop seeing this creep.

What is one to make of such a movie? It's an opportunity for some amusing character acting, and McDormand and Cusack and McBurney stand out. Anniston is well cast as the slightly depressed, rudderless but still independent female, who somehow carries herself well enough to be accepted by her well-off comrades -- though Franny and her husband agree that if she met Olivia now, she might not make the grade.

The rambling incidents and scattered emotions are united at the end by a conventional comedy device, a final public event that brings the main characters together, in this case a charity dinner for people with Lou Gehrig's disease. Franny and her husband have bought a table and Jane provides the women with dresses from her collection. Jane washes her hair for the occasion. Christine comes without her husband because they're breaking up. Having gotten rid of the unpleasant personal trainer, Olivia comes with the slob customer, and his revelation afterward in the car and in bed that sloppy personal habits and "problems" aside, he is so rich he need not work, promises a solution to her problem: she, like her friends, will have money. But this is decentralized -- really center-less -- and clearly TV-influenced plotting. In traditional drama, the characters' lives would dovetail neatly in the end; in farce, the couples would recombine in amusing ways. Instead here, the characters have just been moved around a little, like checkers on a board in a game that ends in a draw. The episodes have the staccato separations that remain in cable television dramas even when there are no advertisements to interrupt them.

There are some interesting -- and repellent -- examples of bad behavior: the self-centered personal trainer; Jane's rude aggressions in public; Christine's and her husband's mean slurs during their fights. But unlike Neil LaBute, Holofcener doesn't show how moral failures or failures of will ruin relations between the sexes. She likes to play with our expectations. The slob customer is jobless, and he bargains Olivia down for the cleaning from $100 to $65, and then turns out be rich. The Aarons make us think Jane's husband really will turn out to be gay -- he tells her in bed, "You're my best friend." But in the end both the gay theme and the money theme seem like red herrings. Are the gay-seeming men a critique of machismo? Is money a source of happiness when there's enough of it? This movie hasn't got answers. But what I'm wondering is whether it has any questions. TV writing can be very good, as Sex and the City and Six Feet Under (two Holofcender has written for), Oz, The Sopranos, and various other programs show. But it doesn't always translate well into the single vessel of a movie.

oscar jubis
04-09-2006, 01:21 AM
Here's my review:
Friends with Money (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14814#post14814)

We're basically in agreement that it's not a good movie. What I liked are the female ensemble scenes and the depiction of the "forty-something women's crises", as you put it. Olivia is underwritten and Holofcener never seems interested in her male characters. Overall, it's not a movie one would recommend (although my favorite critic just made it his Critic's Pick).

Chris Knipp
04-25-2006, 07:36 PM
Your comments are right-on. I like, "Too much is made for instance regarding the possibility that Aaron is a closeted homosexual. It's turned into an extended joke that sounds like worked-over TV sitcom material. " Somewhere else about something else I just read somebody saying that the TV structure was a good way or representing certain aspects of life. Hmmmm. Well, that life is worse structured than a good play is a debatable topic. Many lives do have a fine structure. Nicole Holofcener's way of seeing things episodicaly somehow tends to rob them of lasting significance. This movie has gotten some -- not universal -- good reviews (68 on Metacritic). It's true that she writes some good dialgoue. The New Yorker's Denby came up with a good damning criticism this time: that the central character, Anniston's, is dead and limp. I wrote that "A pivot point is the pet fiction in American social comedy that friends stay together even when their fortunes come to vary widely." I don't like to say things "aren't realistic" or couldn't be true, but I called this a "pet fiction" for the reason that I dont' think it happens as often as American fictions like to imply. And, well, if Anniston's Olivia is as dull and dumb as she seems, then why would these sharp, successful, rich women hold on to her as a friend? She needs more of a saving grace.

oscar jubis
04-26-2006, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I wrote that "A pivot point is the pet fiction in American social comedy that friends stay together even when their fortunes come to vary widely." I don't like to say things "aren't realistic" or couldn't be true, but I called this a "pet fiction" for the reason that I dont' think it happens as often as American fictions like to imply. And, well, if Anniston's Olivia is as dull and dumb as she seems, then why would these sharp, successful, rich women hold on to her as a friend? She needs more of a saving grace.

That's a precisely written statement to which I suscribe. I was also bothered by the lack of rationale and context regarding what I called "Olivia's self-defeating acquiescence to her exploitative boyfriend".

Chris Knipp
04-26-2006, 01:21 AM
Anyone who put up with that boyfriend would have to be a loser.

mouton
05-31-2006, 10:53 AM
FRIENDS WITH MONEY
Written and Directed by Nicole Holofcener


Centering stories around the lives of four very different women who happen to be friends for no particular reason other than because the screenwriters say so is a common television practice. From “Sex and the City” to “Desperate Housewives” to even “The Golden Girls”, four women grow as archetype characters as the years roll on and the series develops. No specific story drives the characters’ progressions just one scenario after the next that showcases how each personality type handles different circumstances. The formula succeeds as a long running series because the characters go through highs and lows, learn some lessons, struggle with some others. When applied to a feature film, the formula is boxed into a limited frame that ultimately highlights one focus. In the case of Nicole Holofcener’s FRIENDS WITH MONEY, Jennifer Aniston, Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand and Joan Cusack make up a foursome of women who struggle with success, remodeling, finding their calling or finding a worthy cause to donate the extra millions they have lying around. Everything in their lives is difficult and often uncomfortable. Everyone in their lives, including themselves, has issues and problems handling those issues. So when Aniston’s character, Olivia, claims “I’ve got problems,” in the last moments of the films, that’s really all the film amounts to, leaving out some of the causes and not bothering with any solutions.

It seems that every movie released these days starring Jennifer Aniston has the added pressure of successfully establishing her as a movie star. FRIENDS WITH MONEY takes the backdoor approach on this one as it is an indie film. If it doesn’t make a ton of money at the box office, no one ever expected it to. A high profile star does an indie film for credibility. She has done it before with fare like THE OBJECT OF MY AFFECTION and THE GOOD GIRL but if the indie film doesn’t strike exactly the right chord with the critics then all that hard work is wasted. FRIENDS WITH MONEY will not be the film that gives Aniston the firm ground she seems to be chasing after so intensely. In fact, I’m not even clear why she agreed to do it in the first place. She has clearly proven she has a limited acting range with last year’s DERAILED (Horrid!) and RUMOR HAS IT (Aggravating!) but yet decided to star opposite women who are known for their strong presence and versatility. Cusack exhibits a calm, restrained quality not ordinarily seen in her work while McDormand and Keener play women with internalized anger that is coming out of them in different fashions without their comprehension. Aniston plays the most lost of the four women and that is only further reinforced when she looks lost acting opposite such experience. She plays a stoner house-cleaner who just looks vacant at all times instead of a paralyzed soul which is what her character calls for.

Very little is resolved at the end of FRIENDS WITH MONEY and having friends with money hardly seems to play a significant function in the film. Aniston’s Olivia is the only one without and the film focuses on so much more that does not derive from that particular dilemma. On the one hand, it would have been trite to make tired statements like the single girl has it more figured out than all her married friends or the girl with little to no cash is the happiest. On the other hand though, drawing at least one conclusion might have saved this movie from mediocrity.

Chris Knipp
06-01-2006, 01:35 AM
Friends with Money hardly deserves to be mentioned in the same breath with The Good Girl, which I reviewed (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?t=46) in 2002 and called "a real winner"; Anniston's numb, dumb quality worked perfectly in that droll satire about nowhere losers by Miquel Arteta and Mike White. The talky, relatively high IQ people of Friends with Money just make her look out of place: having her be the linchpin again this time (as the titles suggests) seems like a miscalculation, and anyway maybe her numbness and dumbness are just wearing thin. Clearly I agree this is TV writing, and of course Anniston is a TV actress, but maybe her continuing to get film work with great people is due to her name recognition as former spouse of golden boy Brad? Now she is in a comedy with Vince Vaughan The Break-Up, and a review I just read says that when Vaughan is onscreen the movie's watchable, when he's not, not. My taste for Vince vies with my unhappy experience with Jennifer lately to put me in a quandary over whether I want to see The Break-Up or not.