Queer Film Review: The Kids Are All Right

Cross-posted at http://eric-jost.blogspot.com/2010/08/kids-are-all-right.html

*Spoilers Alert*

I finally got to see what is being hailed as the lesbian-Brokeback Mountain, The Kids Are All Right. Aside from becoming a box office success in spite of its LGBTQ storyline, the similarities between the two films stop there; and frankly, Kids is far more relatable and interesting than Brokeback ever was.

As I’ve said before, I love Julianne Moore and was thrilled to learn of her lesbian leading role opposite Annette Bening in this very-hyped film festival darling.

The trailers actually give a good plot summary without giving too much away. Bening and Moore have been married for about 20 years with two kids, each conceived using the same anonymous sperm donor. When Joni (Mia Wasikowska) turns eighteen and makes contact with her and her brother’s biological father (Mark Ruffalo), it exasperates already mounting family tensions.

As dozens of reviewers have already stated, this film is perfectly cast. Bening and Moore are always a pleasure to watch and they have very dynamic chemistry. Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and Josh Hutcherson also deliver great performances as their kids. I can’t remember ever seeing Mark Ruffalo in anything else (I know of him though), so I don’t know if I was annoyed by him or by his character. But regardless, I felt absolutely no sympathy for him in this film. He had moments of redeemability, but I kind of blamed him for a lot of the drama that played out.

The film overall is less a “gay parents” film and more of a family comedy-drama, in the vein of Little Miss Sunshine or Junebug. The filmmakers don’t downplay the queerness, but the big draw of Brokeback was the gay storyline, whereas I would say the big draw for Kids is the family/relationships storyline.

I volunteer with DC’s LGBTQ film festival, Reel Affirmations, and during our last meeting many of the members were decrying the film for its plot. In particular, the affair that Moore’s character has with Ruffalo. Likewise, many LGBTQ film critics around the country have cited this as a sore spot, perpetuating stereotypes that lesbians just need to find the right dick to turn straight.

I actually didn’t have a problem with this aspect and I thought the film dealt with it very well. The affair was less about Moore’s character “needing dick,” and more about her connecting with someone else while working through her marital issues. Even before we meet the sperm donor, we see the tension and unpleasantness between Moore and Bening — they clearly are not as happy with their marriage as they once were. That’s not to say they aren’t in love, or Moore is suddenly straight; they’re just dealing with the same issues that every long-term couple faces. I even thought that Moore’s character explains her actions incredibly well, reiterating again that it was less about gay vs. straight, and more about her unhappiness at home and need for an outlet (she does feel bad about the affair, apologizes profusely, and ends it).

One of my problems with the film had less to do with the affair itself, and more to do with the sexual imagery on screen. Although not nearly as pornographic as, say, Unfaithful, there is a fair amount of sex on screen. However, when it is sex between Moore and Bening, there isn’t really anything sexual about it — they’re both clothed, covered, and almost uninterested. But for all of the heterosexual sex scenes, everyone is nude and enjoying themselves (apparently). I guess it can be attributed to the fact that the straight sex occurs between individuals who haven’t been married for 20 years and are consequently a bit more passionate. But it was just a discrepancy between the scenes that I picked up on.

Much has been made by critics and viewers alike regarding Moore and Bening watching gay male porn while they are having sex. Much like the affair, I thought this was very well explained by the characters themselves (when questioned by their son, actually), and it’s really a non-issue for me. The entire film reinforces the idea of sexual fluidity and that it might not be an either-or prospect for everybody; and I think not having this binary, black and white system on screen is what so many people, gay and straight, are getting hung up on.

One part of the film that did make me exceedingly uncomfortable were the semi-racist exchanges between Moore and her employee, Luis. Moore’s character is a landscape artist and has one employee, Luis, who almost serves as Moore’s non-English speaking conscience. Because Luis works for Moore, he is often nearby when she and Ruffalo are having sex. She takes her guilt out on him, accusing him of having a drug problem and eventually firing him. With a nearly 100% white cast, it’s kind of unsettling to see the only Latino man in the film being treated so poorly and only fulfilling a stereotype (i.e. Mexican day laborer).

Without giving any more away, I was exceedingly happy that this film didn’t have a tragic ending. I grew fearful that it would end horribly and was pleasantly surprised to leave the theater in a (mostly) good mood. I don’t know if it will get any Oscar nods come 2011 (Bening and Moore will surely get the almost-guaranteed Golden Globe acting nominations), but it was a pretty engaging way to spend 2 hours and I’m happy that its audience is steadily expanding.