Pretty much everyone I know saw Knocked Up this past weekend, and everyone I've talked to has said some version of "It was more heartwarming than I expected." Most of them mean that in a slightly pejorative way ("heartwarming" not being a compliment in my circles). I said it, too, though I might have lost my pejorative-use-of-heartwarming privileges when I got misty at the end (so did all my friends, though.)...
(Spoiler Alerts: the following half-assed analysis of the movie's stance on gender relations may spoil the next five minutes of your life, or possibly certain aspects of the movie if you've lived under a rock for the past month.)
In the whole vast configuration of things I would have to say it's a Great Movie, an A+ comedy, though for pure laughs and surprises, it doesn't trump The 40 Year Old Virgin.
I don't read reviews of movies I plan to see, even if they're written by the brilliant Dana Stevens, so this morning I couldn't wait to see what she said. And, damn, if she isn't absolutely RIGHT ON about what I also found to be the movie's biggest fault:
"Apatow writes men with far more insight and acuity than he writes women. As a result, his portrait of contemporary gender relations is unbalanced: Crude and hilarious in Guyville, he seizes up when he gets to Ladyland and allows himself to take refuge in comfortable clichés...in his next film, maybe he could honor women by striving to create female characters with the depth of humor and humanity he gives to men."
It would be one thing if the movie had only strived to be a grossout comedy and not a real exploration of heterosexual relationships, and it's admirable that Apatow was so ambitious. The thing that struck me through out the movie, though, was the way the differences between the sexes were characterized:
Men: funny, fun, self-deprecating, crass, indulgent, naughty, overly self-aware
Women: humorless, responsible, serious, not fun, not funny, barely self-aware
BUT I think I disagree with Dana a little about Apatow's depiction of women. I came out of the movie wondering: were the women in this movie exemplars of unfortunate cliches about women that aren't true? Or do I just happen to surround myself with funny, fun, self-deprecating, sometimes crass, indulgent, naughty, overly self aware women? If I were to be completely honest, I would have to say that I think it's somewhere in between, and maybe a little more of the latter (millions of Sex and the City lovers can't be wrong smart.) Maybe the whole clingy/needy/blood diamond-craving/no-life-of-her-own-having cliche is a cliche because it's kinda a little bit...true?
While the two main female characters in the movie were often unintentionally funny, I wouldn't want to hang out with them, either! They weren't any fun at all. No girl I know would cheer herself up by putting on fancy heels and trying to get into a lame fancy club: she'd be on her way to Vegas to see Circ Du Soleil on shrooms with Paul Rudd and Seth Rogen.
But then, she also would have gotten an abortion. So what do I know?
I generally agree, but Apatow in my mind gets some credit for allowing so many women in the film to be so funny -- both the female leads were really funny, without demeaning themselves, and Wiig and Charlyne Yi were two of the best side characters (if not the two best side characters). I know that's only a distinction relative to the woeful state of women in comic films ordinarily, but it is a distinction. It was really cool to get to see women be funny in a movie without having to be totally debased and victimized.
Posted by: Jesse | June 04, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Waiting for Apatow to honor women?
Um...there is more than enough female talent reading this blog right now to create a movie with the depth and hilarity of the friends we know and want to see on screen. It is not going to come from Judd Apatow.
If we're not busy doing it right now, it's just not being done, period, so dont look for it at the mutiplex or the sunshine theater, because you wont find it. Apatow is awesome and productive and seems like a great person to work for and all the other things that have been written about him in the avalanche of press that preceded "Knocked Up"--but he is another example of a dude bringing his personal culture very successfully onto the screen. What he's done, in discovering and developing and strengthening the talent around him is great and is a model of hollywood success--and perhaps one that one of us should follow with the talented women we are surrounded by.
Posted by: little lulu | June 04, 2007 at 02:13 PM
Sounds like someone is having her period.
Posted by: Worker #3116 | June 04, 2007 at 02:16 PM
That is so completely true. Best comment ever.
Posted by: lindsay | June 04, 2007 at 02:16 PM
HAHAHAHA. My response was to Lulu's comment.
Posted by: lindsay | June 04, 2007 at 02:19 PM
thanks lindsay
worker #3116--you prove my point, kind of. way to get things done.
Posted by: little lulu | June 04, 2007 at 02:29 PM
I think Apatow's depiction of women is at least closer to reality than, say, Nora Ephron's.
Posted by: nahuelito | June 04, 2007 at 02:30 PM
Tee hee. But bravo to Lulu all the same.
Posted by: Mary Mouse | June 04, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Women be shoppin!
Posted by: Worker #3116 | June 04, 2007 at 02:59 PM
oh--and actually my period just ended. you should have heard me last week.
Posted by: little lulu | June 04, 2007 at 03:09 PM
I understand the point, and agree with it somewhat, but why doesn't anyone ever say Nora Ephron / Candace Bushnell / etc can't write guys worth crap?
Aren't you supposed to write what you know?
To be sure Nora Ephron / Candace Bushnell write stereotypical schmaltzy crap from woman's perspective, that's just not what Apatow does.
Posted by: | June 04, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Interesting. Here is a quote from an email I sent to a friend on friday:
“Have you seen the "Knocked Up" reviews?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/knocked_up/
96% cream of the crop.
The only negative that I saw in the COC section was some feminist perspective that said it was from a masculine point of view. Stupid gash. Who cares what bitches think?”
Of course, I was kidding; but I think the analogy commenters are making here between Apatow and Ephron is apt. I’m not talking about the more recent universally regarded bad Ephron, but the unbelievably overrated “Heartburn.” The Nickolson/Bernstein character was just... ugh... not well done. But Jeff Daniels’ character was one of the most poorly drawn, unrealistic, schlocky infantalized fantasy men in the history of female screenwriting. He was the Fabio of nerdy, emotionally available and nurturing editors who served to empower Streep’s character by giving her someone to reject. It makes my jaw drop to think that Streep considers that to be her best film. But then again, I’m male. If the female characters were painted well, it was probably over my head.
As for Stevens’ critique of Apatow and her hope that he will one day write women as well as he does men... well, that really is impossible, isn’t it? One can never write what one does not know as well as that which one does not. It was just all the more visible to us because his male characters are written with such depth. Perhaps if Ephron had a male editor that was willing to tell her that her male characters are crap, Heartburn would have been a better movie... and for all I know maybe the book as well. And I guess the same goes for Apatow.
Posted by: dukiebiddle | June 05, 2007 at 11:48 PM
I overuse "earnest" as a pejorative term. I will substitute "heartwarming" for a while. Thank you.
Posted by: linda | June 06, 2007 at 03:39 PM
I just happen to surround myself with funny fun self-deprecating.
Posted by: Sanjay | April 18, 2008 at 09:28 AM