[This originally appeared as two separate postings, one in rec.arts.movies and one in soc.women. -ecl]
PARENTHOOD
A film review by Laurie Mann
Copyright 1989 Laurie Mann
I have mixed emotions about this movie. So mixed that I have to look at this movie as "entertainment" and "political statement." Let me deal with the entertainment value of the film first, and then the political ramifications.
As entertainment, the movie was very good. The pacing was generally excellent, and Howard had good control over a *very* large and uniformly good cast. I thought Martha Plimpton, Steve Martin, Jason Robards, and the kid who played Kevin were all terrific. I have mixed feelings about Dianne Wiest, whom many people have singled-out for praise. She seemed too nice, too accomodating to the rather strange whims of her son and daughter. (By the way, I normally love Wiest, and thought she was wonderful in PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO, FOOTLOOSE, and, especially, in HANNAH AND HER SISTERS.)
This movie is so middle-American that it takes place somewhere near St. Louis. Jason Robards is the father of four children: Dianne Wiest, Steve Martin, ??? (Susan---Which actress played her?? What movies has she been in)??, and Tom Hulce. Wiest is divorced with two children, Martha Plimpton and Leaf Phoenix (yes, who *else's* brother would have a name like "Leaf"?). Martin is married to Mary Steenburgen, and they have three young children, including one (Kevin) who's been labelled as emotionally disturbed by his school. Yes, Kevin does tend to break into tears and wimp out easily, but.... ??? (Susan) is married to Rick Moranis and has a 3-year-old that Moranis is training to be a child prodigy. And Hulce is the prodigal son of the family, and surprises his older siblings by appearing at a party with his young son. The son was the offspring of an affair with a black woman, who is currently on the run from the law, which is why Hulce suddenly has him.
The movie has *many* good lines in it, and a few outrageous sight gags. One that stands out features Martin holding what he *thinks* is a flashlight after a brief power outage. The children were very well-cast and directed for the film. One bad or over-done performance would have been bad for the balance of the picture.
Anyway, I do recommend this movie, despite the fact that the excellent pacing fell to little pieces during the last ten minutes of the film, and the fact that several characters make absolutely unvelievable transformations in incredibly short periods of time. However, I do have some major problems with the treatment of women in this movie, which I'll go into detail in in another newsgroup.
One poster recently mentioned that she brought her school-aged child to the film, and thought the sex jokes went right over the kid's head. Leslie picked up on almost every sex-reference in the movie (except for, thank goodness, the afore-mentioned sight gag), and tended to ask "What do they mean?" only to have me respond "Oh, I'll try to explain it to you later." Like when you're 12. This really isn't a good movie for a preadolescent. Leslie thought the movie was very funny (many of the other jokes can be comprehended by kids).
Aside from the fact we went to the movie to get out of the rain (we were camping Acadia National Park this weekend, so we saw the film in Bar Harbor's Carilion (?) Theater, a 1932 art-deco movie house), I was curious about Leslie's reactions to the children in the film. She particularly enjoyed the overly-taught child. Hmmm....
Andd now for the political ramifications:
DISCLAIMER: In a number of interviews, the writers of this film have said they drew on their experiences as fathers to create the movie. I don't think they deliberately intended to write a movie that so strongly promoted the old "anatomy is destiny" cliche. But that's how much of the movie came off.
The theme of Parenthood appears to be threefold:
Women are sensible and nurturing.
Men are generally jerks (most of the men in the movie) or are
well-meaning and appear to be jerks (Steve Martin).
Children, especiallly babies, can make anything go right.
In this movie, we are introduced to a number of families. Gil (Steve Martin), a basically nice guy, is still scarred by the way his father ignored him as a child, and has a son who's severely oversensitive. His older sister (Dianne Wiest) is a divroced woman coping with two teenagers, one of whom marries VERY young and the other of whom is absolutely non-communicative. Their younger sister Susan is married to a man who's practically taken her out of the loop of parenthood, by drilling their three-year-old in academia. And their younger brother (Tom Hulce) is a charming ne're-do-well who arrives with a surprise son.
At the center of this group is Jason Robards, their father who lavishes more attention on his antique car than on his wife or his grown children or his young grandchildren. Yes, he's messed up badly, and even he admits that he wasn't such a hot father.
So, what's wrong with this picture??
(Movie spoilers follow.)
1. Robards' wife is practically a non-entity in this movie. She appears in many scenes, but is given almost nothing to do. This doesn't make lots of sense. Since it was clearly established that Robards was a lousy father, did she make up for it by being "SuperMom"? Probably not. She was extremely unassertive.
2. The grandmother (Robards' mother-in-law) was shifted around from house to house like a piece of kitchen equipment. This lack of a permanent address seems to have no effect on a woman in her late 80s. Now, this woman was relatively sharp and even says that she likes life to be more like a roller coaster than like a merry-go-round. Still....
3. Susan lets her husband Nathan (Rick Moranis) walk over her to an enormous degree. Her revenge? During most of the movie, it's eating junk food in the closet (apparently not in the pattern of a bulimic, but just in the pattern of a woman who can't get through to her spouse). She finally leaves him. After a few weeks, he can't stand it anymore, so this man who's always been so stodgy serenades her in front of her class. He goes onto become a much more relaxed father when she goes back to him. We surmise this because after almost 2 hours of him saying that kids need to be trained and playing was a waste of time, he's shown making funny faces with his daughter.
4. Dianne Wiest's daughter (Martha Plimpton) marries young and almost immediately becomes pregnant. Wiest stressed early in the film how important college was and how bright this girl really was. By the time she learns her daughter is pregnant, she has completely stopped arguing with her, other than to convince the young couple to stay together.
5. This movie makes birth control out to be a joke. Susan has sabotaged her diaphram, something Nathan discovers after a routine check of it!!!!! Gil is told he's going to be a father for the fourth time on the same day he's quit his job. Abortion is briefly discussed, but not considered an option since Gil's wife was opposed to having one (by the way, I'm not advocating that any woman should be forced to have an abortion). Since this movie is almost more fantasy than reality, Gil gets his job back with a raise a few weeks later, so his lack of income was only temporary. By the end of the movie, every couple in the movie who could have possibly had a baby either had a new baby or was pregnant. I like kids, but I found the simplistic attitude towards having them to be really offensive. The teenagers were in no way ready to have a baby; they couldn't even manage their own relationship.
Now, it may sound like I really hated the movie. Actually, I really liked it. THe performances are very good, and while I found myself hating the plot, the dialogue is pretty sharp. There are many very funny moments in the movie. But it bothered me, too.
Laurie Mann * harvard!m2c!jjmhome!lmann ** encore!cloud9!jjmhome!lmann Work: Stratus Computer I log onto the net from Northboro, MA
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews