lmann%jjmhome.uucp@husc6.harvard.edu (Laurie Mann) (08/23/89)
I tried posting this to soc.women, and it died. I suppose it wasn't flamey enough or something. Anyway, I'd like to see what other feminists thought about this movie. I have mixed emotions about this movie. So mixed that I have to look at this movie as "entertainment" and "political statement." Since this is soc.feminism, I want to discuss a few of the troubling political issues that were raised by this movie. 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, especially 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 divorced 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'er-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 (BTW, 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. /*The typical American is a married, 32-year-old mother with a career. /*Gee, and I've worked SO hard to be ATYPICAL!!! Laurie Mann * harvard!m2c!jjmhome!lmann ** encore!cloud9!jjmhome!lmann Work: Stratus Computer I log onto the net from Northboro, MA
rpb@RUTGERS.EDU (Robert Brady) (09/30/89)
Although I do find morals in movies such as 'Dirty Dancing' (which purposefully had none, or rather, the absence of one) or music videos ('Do I have to walk on water?' No, just don't cheat!) your description if 'Parenthood' leaves me thinking it just a silly mess. As you say "all the guys are either jerks or ... jerks." This is not anti-women. This is anti- human. If they're making fun of everyone, how can you expect them to ignore women? -- +---------------------+------------------------------------------------------+ | Robert Brady | rpb@dasys1.UUCP | | Logic. | !cmcl2!{ccnysci,cucard,hombre}!dasys1!rpb | |"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for..." T.Jefferson |