It's complicated (2009)

[cinemabon]

Well, it's Oscar season again (not Jubis, the other Oscar). Streep is set to run across the finish line with a comedy and yet, it isn't a comedy. For like its title, this film is complicated and written well by its director and author, Nancy Meyers (Father of the bride, the Parent trap, something's gotta give).

When we drop in on their lives, Jane (Meryl Streep) has finally turned her life around. She feels comfortable with her new self. She owns a bakery and has created the home of her dreams (or anyone's dream... they had a really cool house for the film's LA setting). Yet, her "ex" shows up at a mutual friend couple's anniversary party with his young floosey, the reason he left Jane. She has the tatoo of a tiger on her bare left shoulder (I could never figure the significance). The skinny sultry youth played by sensual Lake Bell actually has a very small part in this star-studded film. Jake, played by Alec Baldwin, seems happy to see Jane and wishes to engage in light banter. But the whole confrontration makes Jane uneasy and she retreats to the comfort of her friends. What a group!

Jane meets with her support group made up of Mary Kay Place, Rita Wilson, and Alexandra Wentworth - a formidable group of supporting players in their own right (the supportive cast is as brilliant as they get). This group of smart women help guide Jane with her choices and give her justification later for some of her poorer decisions. They validate her. When she heads to New York for her youngest son's graduation, she inadvertently checks into the same hotel as Jake. She is there with her two daughters and her oldest daughter's boyfriend, Harley, played brilliantly by John Krasinski (whom I would nominate for an Oscar - his performance sells so many scenes). The divorced couple run into each other at the hotel bar after graduation. Jake is alone. His young wife declined to leave their very young son in LA. Jake and Jane proceed to drink themselves into a stupor. Suddenly Jane wakes up in Jake's bed and the rest becomes... well, complicated.

When the couple return to LA, Jake starts to pursue Jane with an affair outside his tenuous marriage (as he is married to a woman thirty years his junior). He finds he misses Jane's more mature outlook on life. At first, Jane appreciates the attention. She has been lonely. Her support group thinks its ok to cheat on the cheater that drove the initial wedge between them. However, Jane is not so certain. Into this mix, she is expanding her home. She loves to cook and does so at her bakery/eatery every day. She plans a new kitchen and bedroom. The architect is Steve Martin. He is divorced and still has problems with his coping mechanisms five years later. While he has dated more than Jane has, he is not satisfied with just anyone. He and Jane find instant chemistry, which leads Jane to decide where her life will turn next.

This film is peppered with brilliant comic moments and some rather somber notes of sadness in regards to divorced and separated families. While Baldwin's humor is physical and Martin's more cerebral, a surprise is supporting player John Krasinski, whose faces and quips save several scenes from going over the top. He turns out to be the pivotal person in this very complex plot and, as I mentioned prior, should be considered for an Oscar for his brilliant comic timing. He definitely deserves credit for helping to save this film, which is often overrun with too much to say about too many topics.

As the film started, it ends abruptly with no resolution, as if to say, life is complicated, and so is the way we end it. As an audience, we experience some great laughs along the way. Streep is always a pleasure to behold. Baldwin holds his own in this stellar and experience cinematic crowd, and new comer Krasinski shines as its savior. Recommended. Oscar consideration for Krasinski only.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree Krazinski is good, and important. Again though this is not a reply but my review, composed for other purposes.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5404/itscomplicated.jpg
SEX, NICE SHEETS: MERYL AND ALEC AS A DIVORCED COUPLE BACK IN BED TOGETHER

Nancy Meyers: It's Complicated (2009)

It's not complicated enough

It's Complicated is pleasant enough but goes nowhere. A long-divorced couple (Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin) gets back together for a fling, much to the confusion of their four young adult kids. Along the way the entry of another eligible male divorce doesn't so much complicate things as merely allow the glitzy Hollywood "Nora Ephron lite" romantic comedy trappings -- the flashy cars, the too-perfect houses, the well-off people -- to absorb our attention and avoid going deep into the many layered feelings a couple might indeed feel upon reuniting after ten years apart.

Baldwin left Streep for a younger woman a decade ago, but he's sick of his new wife's obsession with getting pregnant and her little kid is a pain in the neck. Meryl giggles a lot, gets high, goes along with the huffing and puffing of full-of-himself Alec, who keeps turning up for sex and baring his hairy chest. Apparently in this great reunion he hasn't thought very far beyond worry-free sex. Then along comes a sweet architect, a lonely divorced person like Meryl, played by Steve Martin. But Martin is miscast. He initially seems gay. Even toward the end when he declares that it didn't feel right with Meryl, I thought he was going to say it was because he preferred men.

There's some conventional farce that works okay, notably a sequence where Meryl and Alec's secret tryst in a hotel is accidentally observed by their eldest son (the able and game John Krasinski, of Away We Go), and a graduation party for their younger boy (twinky Hunter Parrish) when Meryl, Alec, and Steve all get hilariously and hugely stoned on new, high grade weed they're not used to. As the younger daughter the many-coiffed Zoe Kazan gets short, straight blond hair this time; but except for Krasinski, the kids are just interchangeable pawns on the board.

At the center of things is Meryl, the white queen, a woman who's got her own chic bakery business (a downgrade from playing Julia Child) and, thanks to Hollywood, lives in a house worth many millions whose kitchen so perfect it's hard to figure out why Steve Martin has to come in to design an addition making it much bigger -- for a lady whose last child is now going away to college.

Nancy Meyers is known for relationship comedies that gently satirize men and provide some laughs. Previous successes are What Women Want (2000) and Something's Gotta Give (2003); in success level this one rates somewhere between these two. Polished stuff; but this time the finale is pretty weak, and not so much complicated as simply muddled and inconsequential, much ado about nothing. The only resolution is that the new addition to Meryl's house is still going to get built, and Steve Martin is still on the job for it, even if none of the dating worked out. This sugary fluff opened, appropriately, on Christmas Day. What you can say is that Baldwin holds his own as an attention-getter opposite Streep. She seems to have pushed the giggle button and never shut it off, which makes for very little variety; this is a sad letdown after her amusing turn this year as Julia Child.

[oscar jubis]

Some thoughts...

*I am not a fan of Nancy Meyers. This became quite evident by her second directorial effort, What Women Want, which I was forced to watch by circumstance because it was shown aboard my flight to Buenos Aires back in 2001. What prompted me to watch It's Complicated is the casting of Meryl Streep. There was a time in the 80s when Streep specialized in playing brooding, suffering women.I think it was Albert Brooks in his Defending Your Life (1991), who revealed for the first time a playful, softer, funny side of Streep. An aspect of her persona that has lately come into full bloom. This is what redeems It's Complicated, and yet there are scenes here in which Streep is trying too hard. Scenes in which she laughs a bit too boisterously or grimaces in disproportion to the stimuli that cause those reactions. Merely a quibble, I admit. Streep is reason enough to watch a movie even when not at her best.

*Back to Ms. Meyers. One discusses her movies using the same language one would use to discuss a play because she directs films as if she were directing a TV sitcom. The aim is to make the viewer forget that cameras are being used to capture the performances. Meyers' camera is almost always impersonal. It doesn't have a personality. When I am conscious of the camera, as in the shots of Streep's house and environs during the opening credits, or the brief shots that precede the New York sequence, all the camera seems to be saying is "admire the privileges and perks of carefree wealth. Isn't it fabulous?"

*Ms. Meyers' "project" is easy to figure out: making movies that make middle-aged women feel good. I think there is enough box-office and anecdotal evidence that she succeeds at that. She understands upper class, middle-aged women like herself and the men in their lives quite well. However she doesn't seem to have an interest in younger people. Chris Knipp's review appropriately characterizes the 20s quartet in It's Complicated as "interchangeable pawns". His mistaken identification of the clownish character played by John Krazinski as Jane and Jake's "eldest son" and not their daughter's boyfriend is Meyers' fault. In her lazy script, it does not matter who he is, not really. By far the worst scene in the film is when the kids find out what's going on and "freak out" in unison. They huddle, teary-eyed like a bunch of narcissistic, cry-babies.

*By having Steve Martin's Adam come back to complete the job of building a totally unnecessary addition to Jane's sprawling estate, Meyers leaves open the possibility that the relationship between him and Streep will develop into something. A sad ending for Jane when you consider that what leads up to this reveals that Adam needs to get high to loosen up and have fun and that he is probably not as good between the sheets as Jake.

[Chris Knipp]

Nice of you to correct me on John Krazinski's role and excuse me at the same time, but I regret the error, which could have been caught with a little research. Krazinski is a smooth, accomplished pawn, more palatable here than as cloyingly cute young hubby Burt Farlander in the now happily forgotten Away We Go.

I'd say Streep tries a little too hard all the way through, not just in certain scenes, and all her emotional projection in this movie is a shtick. I think it's time to stop watching bad movies just because a good actor has been recruited to perform in it. That is not enough reason. Watch enough bad movies and you'll get it.

I think Adam is really gay. He needs to admit that to himself. Steve Martin in that role is a dreadfully undesirable new mate. Alec Baldwin is sexier, hair, fat and all.

[cinemabon]

Streep's problem lies in the genre, not the delivery. I'd say she can play comic delivery well, as she did several times in "Julie and Julia," such as the chopping onion scene. However, in a comedy film, she is in over her head with comedians like Martin and Baldwin (who plays comedy better than drama in recent years). She seems overly silly and her timing is off, which can definitely be laid at the director's doorstep. Personally, I thought Krasinski stole the show; his timing delivers the biggest laughs. The scene in the hotel is all about timing and he is a natural for what the scene needed. He sells it with the right about of facial take, something that cannot be taught or even directed. His performance saves this mediocre film and gives us the laughs that otherwise would have robbed us a comic film. Streep's insightful moments are more reflexions of the director's angst. Whether that is directed to the white middle class female is pure conjecture.

[oscar jubis]

Streep's insightful moments are more reflexions of the director's angst. Whether that is directed to the white middle class female is pure conjecture.
I don't know which specific insightful moments you have in mind. What do you think the film teaches Jane (and us) about love and marriage?
It is not pure conjecture to conclude that Meyers' primary audience is middle-aged women. This observation is based on acquaintance with a body of work in which a middle-aged woman portrayed benignly is invariably the focus of attention.

I think Adam is really gay. He needs to admit that to himself. Steve Martin in that role is a dreadfully undesirable new mate. (Knipp)
I thought of it, but Adam's most salient characteristic is that he misses his ex-wife and can't transcend the divorce. You'd think that, if Adam were gay, the divorce would make him feel unencumbered and liberated.

[Chris Knipp]

I was partly joking about the Steve Martin character being gay but whether or not the plot allows for it, he does seem kind of gay to me.

[cinemabon]

You both make valid points. I might add to Chris's that men who demonstrate great intellectual prowess are often mistakenly taken as being gay not just in film but other medium as well. If a man likes opera, he must be gay. If a man likes ballet, he must be gay. If a man goes to the theater or a symphony, he must be gay. Conversely, if a man likes hockey or football, he must be straight. Danny Deutche, in an interview last week, stated that he saw no reason why anyone would object to removing a "gay" commercial from the Super Bowl roster because, "gay men don't watch the super bowl."

I put it to my wife, who frequently works with gay men at our regional hospitals in a variety of nursing postions. "Do you believe that gay men are interested in seeing big burly men, dressed in tight fighting clothing, and having frequent contact with other men - exchange in rough physical contact?" She laughed out loud. The idea seems absurdly simply. Of course gay men can be as masculine as the next. However, the general opinion of gay men is that the vast majority MUST be effeminate. Don't you believe that perpetuates a stereotype?

From DVD Verdict (a .com site) I am often exposed to a variety of media when I browse through the upcoming releases. Recently, a new DVD called "The Butch Factor" came out. When I clicked on the link out of curiosity, I discovered that the film is a documentary about men in a variety of lifestyles that are typically not associated with gay men: police officer, rodeo rider, rugby player, etc. These men (at least in the clip) stated how difficult their lives were being gay in a manly profession. With all the talk of repealing "Don't ask - don't tell" this subject has significant relevance.

Finally, I still feel that despite Streep being a white middle class woman, her role has universal appeal. I found elements as a male that I could relate to, even with the gender differences. I did not consider those a leap.

[Chris Knipp]

Steve Martin's seeming gay in this movie has nothing to do with his tastes or activities, which are not represented. I'm not the only person who wrote that he was miscast. His character is a blunder. The weaknesses of Meryl Streep's performance and of her character have nothing to do with her being a middle class white woman, though I would seriously question that this glossy depiction of super-comfortable life with fabulous slick-magazine interiors and excessively over produced houses, hotels, businesses, etc, have "universal appeal" other than as materialistic wish-fulfillment fantasies.

[cinemabon]

Then how does he "seem to be gay" (your words, not mine)? What gave you that signal? What about his character "seems" gay to you?

Neither Oscar nor I mentioned "weaknesses in her character." I said I found elements in her character with which I could identify, such as mid-life crisis yearnings. Surly those have universal appeal.

[cinemabon]

Gaydar only works when your target is within range, Chris. You know that...

But I have to agree that Martin does sink the boat. Can his character be more depressing?

[Chris Knipp]

You're confusing radar and gaydar. For gaydar all targets are in range.

Here's a review I found randomly on a site called chud.com (http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/21957/1/REVIEW-IT039S-COMPLICATED/Page1.html):
Meryl Streep plays a woman in her later years, divorced and tremendously rich. She owns some kind of bakery/coffee shop and lives in a tastefully palatial Santa Barbara mansion - which she is having redone. Streep has a bunch of successful white children who have no problems, deficiencies or other serious issues (although one son is flamingly gay this family is the sort that has no problem with his sexuality, and his life seems to be unimpacted by his homosexuality), and she's miserable. She hates living in this huge mansion all by herself, a problem that most of the audience surely feels on a keen, personal level. Oh the horror of being so well off!

But her loneliness is not to last. Her ex, played by a smarmy Alec Baldwin whose entire body seems to be nicotine stained (and yes, we do get to see his entire body), has come back into her life. He's married to the young hottie who pulled him away from Meryl, but now he feels like he misses the good times. They jump back into bed (with barely an acknowledgment that him cheating with her is, on a basic moral level, exactly as reprehensible as him cheating on her). Meanwhile, she meets Steve Martin, the architect who is going to redo her home, and they begin sort of dating/courting in a very old fashioned way (which is meant to be seen as the other end of the spectrum from all the vigorous fucking she does with Baldwin). You can see how it's complicated!

I walked into the film hearing plenty of praise about Baldwin's performance, and he's good. He's not at the level of good he displays in even a bad episode of 30 Rock, but he's good. So good, in fact, that the movie's main conundrum feels obvious - just stick with Baldwin. See, Steve Martin's wounded divorcee isn't just reserved and well-mannered - Martin plays him as nigh upon comatose. To say that Martin is phoning in this performance doesn't cut it; the actor is essentially text messaging it in. The only explanation is that he read the script; realizing that his character has nothing going for him, Martin dutifully appeared on set and picked up his paycheck, giving little else of his likable personality to the production.

Streep appears to be having fun in the way that people appear to be having fun in their vacation videos - you appreciate that this is nice for her but you just seriously do not care. This isn't helped by the fact that I found her character to be supremely unlikable: privileged but whiny, wounded by cheating but only passingly worried about the implications of cheating with Baldwin (who, in his new marriage, has a fucking child), and wishy washy in a high school way with Steve Martin. Even disliking Steve Martin's milquetoast character as much as I did, it comes across as endlessly cruel for Streep to just lead him on again and again. She's a grown woman acting like a 15 year old with two dates to the prom.

All of this would have been at least tolerable if Meyers' script had been funny, or if her directing had been interesting. The film is paced like menopause itself - slow and mean - and it stretches out to a punishing two hours. There are gags - the aforementioned sperm bit, Baldwin shoving his cock in Steve Martin's face via webcam (these actually happen in the movie) - but they're so out of place that even if they were staged in a funny way they'd be just weird and uncomfortable.

It would be nice to see a movie aimed at older audiences that's about sexuality and romance and that had something interesting to say, or at least said something uninteresting in an enjoyable way. Romance is too often the purview of the young in cinema, and young love is stupid and heedless; there's a lot to explore with people who have been around the block and know enough to fight back against the silly feelings, or maybe want to throw aside reason to embrace them. At any rate, the way an experienced person approaches love can be as cinematic as the way two teens do it. Or it would be in the hands of someone who wasn't Nancy Meyers.
By Devin Faraci.

[Chris Knipp]

Sorry, I deleted my first gaydar post to reword it. Did not know you were waiting there to answer it right away.

Anyway that review I just posted from a website expresses a lot of my feelings about the movie in much stronger terms, especially the obscene privilege of the people, in particular Meryl's character. The coziness of the scene in which she declares to her family that their mother is "a bit of a slut" I find nauseating. And the coziness of Streep's acting at that point. Whatever her alleged late-blooming comedic talent, she is better in roles where she is drolly unappealing (as opposed to unappealing but meant to be otherwise), as in The Devil Wears Prada, or filtered through a real figure and a period setting, as in Julie and Julia. Unfiltered, she's just smug and pushed. Whereas Steve Martin could have used some pushing, instead of phoning, or texting, in. Except that his character is indeed smarmy rather than funny. Martin is really a standup comic. He's not like Robin Williams or Red Skelton or other comedians (I'm sure there are better examples) also a good actor. He has no presence as an actor. Hence when he plays "understated" as here, it reads as comatose, absent, or gay hoping to be mistaken for straight.

[cinemabon]

Went to Chud.com, found it very raw... indeed. But sometimes, that sort of frankness is needed. So the gaydar can stretch across eons of time and space... Wow! Powerful stuff! I believe straight men have something similar, although not as powerful... its called being incurably horny. A severe and acute problem in early maturation that gradually becomes a self-inflicted chronic disease as we age. (Tongue firmly planted)

[Chris Knipp]

I said chud was found randomly. But sometimes I agree rude reviews speaks truth. I think you're a bit wack on this gaydar thing though .

[cinemabon]

Wack is as wack does... I think that goes with sticks and stones...

[Chris Knipp]

I just meant a bit off.