leeper@mtgzx.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (08/09/89)
PARENTHOOD
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Several stories about styles of
parenting are a single story. Because each story is on
different approaches to raising children, the whole is better
than the sum of its parts. Diane Wiest gives a stand-out
performance. Rating: +3.
If one had to compare PARENTHOOD to another film, one would have to say
that at least in structure it resembles HANNAH AND HER SISTERS. Like that
film, it is really many stories about one extended family. As such it can
tell several parallel stories at the same time. Where it differs is that
each of the stories examines different aspects of one phenomenon,
parenthood. Also the individual characters here are a little more
sympathetic and better characters from the point of view of storytelling.
One cares more what happens to these people. Each of the individual stories
is decent but the whole is considerably more than the sum of its parts and
each story has bearing on the others. In one plotline a parent seems not to
use enough discipline, while another warns against the discipline approach.
The result is a mosaic that views parenthood from many different angles and
approaches and at times even comes near to restoring something that has been
missing from film: some powerful drama.
The patriarch of the family is Frank, played by Jason Robards, who is
justifiably plagued by guilt over the lack of attention he have his children
and is working it out by spoiling his wild son Larry (played by Tom Hulce).
Frank's oldest son is Gil (played by top-billed Steve Martin). Gil appears
to be the most stable and successful of Frank's children but his career is
souring and his eight-year-old seems to have emotional problems. Frank's
son Nathan (played by Rick Moranis) has an intensive program to turn his
three-year-old into an adult genius by the time she is four. But the most
compelling story is of Frank's daughter Helen (played by Diane Wiest) whose
life is a shambles and a desperate struggle to raise her two wild children.
While at times the writing is excellent, director Ron Howard seems to
feel the presence of Steve Martin requires an occasional timeout for
Martin's brand of physical comedy. He also throws in some happier moments
that verge on being saccharine. Their effect is to betray some of the more
serious drama.
Perhaps PARENTHOOD comes up short when compared to an ORDINARY PEOPLE,
but with most Hollywood output geared to a teenage market, we have to be
grateful for the films that are engaging on an adult level. I rate it a +3
on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzx!leeper
leeper@mtgzx.att.comgood@pixar.UUCP (Craig Good) (08/09/89)
PARENTHOOD
A film review by Craig Good
Copyright 1989 Craig Good
The promotional campaign for PARENTHOOD would have you believe that it's a
light-weight comedy about yuppies and their puppies. While it does have many,
many funny moments, it is also about the kind of exquisite pain and
embarrassment you can only feel as a parent, child, sibling, or spouse.
PARENTHOOD is a movie that wants it both ways. The good news is that it
succeeds.
Easily director Ron Howard's best film yet, bouquets also go to the fine
cast and the clever, sensitive writing. PARENTHOOD deals deftly with a large
cast, providing a panoramic look at several generations of a family. Just when
you think a character is going to be a cliche, they do something unexpected as
their humanity shows through. And just when you think a sequence or situation
is going to be tied up in a neat television bow, in flies a twist right out of
reality's quiver.
Unless you were born on another planet you will find yourself identifying
with at least a few of the characters and their situations. And you'll care
about the rest of them. I'm not a baseball fan at all. It's not that I
dislike it, but that it reminds me of watching paint dry. But I've never cared
so much about the outcome of a movie sports event as I did about the Big Play
in the Little League game. The boy who plays Steve Martin's eight-year-old son
evokes such a deep sense of child terror and loneliness that I cared about
*everything* that happened to him.
PARENTHOOD is an adult film about being a child, and a childlike film
about being adults. The giddy heights and hurtful depths of human
relationships make it a delightful roller-coaster ride. Do yourself a favor
and see it.
You'll be glad you did.
--Craig
...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!goodlmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) (08/21/89)
[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