The Feministing Rom Com Review: Life As We Know It

I was predisposed to dislike Life As We Know It. Firstly, Christina Hendricks’ character is killed off in the first twenty minutes, a near-unforgiveable sin in my book. Secondly, Life As We Know It stars Katherine Heigl. Heigl has made a name for herself, in movies at least, by playing the same character over and over again: the uptight, quasi-feminist career woman with no social skills, who can’t loosen up and learn to love until she inexplicably falls for the man she initially and understandably hated. This guy is usually and asshole or a slacker (or both!). Heigl’s characters are a Backlash view of women’s progress, personified. In Heigl-Backlash world, feminism has made the modern woman a miserable ball breaker, who at thirty-something is married only to her career, and who longs for a real man to swagger in and put her in her proper place (cue Gerard Butler). It might well be the case that these are the only roles available to actresses, even to established and popular ones like Heigl, but that doesn’t make me hate them any less. In fact, it makes me hate them more.

So believe me, fair readers, when I say that Life As We Know It was going to have a tough time winning me over. It didn’t. But it is by far the least offensive Katherine Heigl rom com yet.

Heigl plays Holly, a caterer who owns a gourmet café. Josh Duhamel, with help from his seemingly ever-visible pecs and biceps, plays Eric Messer, a broadcast producer for the Atlanta Hawks. Holly’s best friend Alison and Messer’s best friend Peter are a couple, and they set Holly and Messer up on a disastrous date. From that day forth, Messer and Holly hate each other, but because of their mutual friends, they see each other all the time. Messer sleeps around, goes running a lot (hence the best actor nomination for his biceps) and generally enjoys the single life. Holly has a crush on the cute pediatrician who buys his lunch at her café, and is correct in her assessment that other women judge her for not being married. Alison and Peter die in a car crash and, unbeknownst to Holly and Messer, have designated their two friends as guardians for their one-year-old daughter Sophie. And so Holly and Messer are left with the task of raising Sophie together while mourning their friends. Lots of poop, pee and vomit jokes ensue. Eventually, Holly and Messer get together, then fall apart and then there a scene at the airport because apparently there is an eleventh Commandment that my religious education teacher forgot to mention: “Thou shalt not make a rom com without including a running-through-the-airport-to-declare-love-before-it’s-too-late scene.”

Life As We Know It does not pass the Bechdel Test, but it does break the rom com mold in a few notable ways. Firstly, it depicts work-family conflict as a problem that affects men as well as women. On one occasion, Messer is forced to take Sophie in to work, with disastrous results. We see Holly juggle work and childcare too, but her juggle doesn’t nearly cost her a promotion the way Messer’s does. We also see Holly refusing the role of primary caregiver; the first time Sophie needs her diaper changed, Holly tells Messer, “I’m not changing diapers for two year just because I’m the girl. Get in there.” There’s a critique of single-shaming, too, which is rare in Heigl movies, and in rom coms in general. For example, we are left to guess Holly’s age – there’s no harping on about her being “thirty-FOUR and still not married!” And despite Messer’s prediction that Sophie’s presence in her life will cause the men she wants to date to view her as “complicated,” the pediatrician is perfectly happy to date her, and to have Sophie in his life, too.

On the other hand, there’s a lot of the same old predictable rom com stuff going on. There are repeated references to marriage and parenthood taking all the fun – that is, all the sex – out of life. There are henpecked husbands. There is a social worker who, upon finding out that Holly and Messer have complicated their already confusing situation by sleeping together, gives them two choices: get engaged, or pretend that the sex never happened. And in a very clever move, the screenwriters managed to merge two rom com clichés – the sassy Black girlfriend and the hilarious gay colleague – into one character, the effete Black baker dude! Way to kill two birds with one totally stereotyped stone!

Finally, while this is the least egregious Katherine Heigl rom com to date, it is nonetheless a Katherine Heigl rom com. She’s still playing the controlling, over-thirty single lady who falls in love with the guy she originally, and justifiably, disliked. She’s tamed, chastened, in a relationship at long last, by the movie’s end. The message of the movie – that families come in all shapes and sizes, and come together in all kinds of ways – sweetens the Uptight Bitch stereotype. But despite some pushing back against gender stereotypes, despite the small signs of progress, Life As We Know It is exactly what we’ve come to expect from rom coms. In other words, we’re not out of the Heigl-Backlash woods yet.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

5 Comments

  1. Posted October 19, 2010 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    As for the roles Heigl plays – my understanding is this is just a reflection of who she herself is in real life. I.e., that she basically is that uptight person in real life who doesn’t know how to have fun, etc. which is why she a:) gets cast in the roles, and b) makes her characters show these traits even if the actual script doesn’t intend to play them up so much.

    Interviews and what-not that I’ve seen have backed this up, as well as the roles she always plays.

    • Posted October 20, 2010 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

      You know, I don’t think that’s true about Heigl at all. (And even if it was, wouldn’t that just be reinforcing the stereotypes about “unhappy women”?) I remember first seeing Heigl in an indie movie she helped produce a few years ago called _Side Effects_, where she plays a pharma sales rep who actually starts telling doctors *all the real side effects* of the drugs, trying to get herself fired, but instead they love it. And then, of course, there’s the great career/financial success, followed by the whole downward spiral and the breakdown. I remember it was really a pretty interesting movie. And though it had the love-interest storyline, it was more about women dealing with the pressures and hypocrisies of modern life than about the female main character “wanting all along to settle down and start a family.”

  2. Posted October 19, 2010 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Why no mention of the neighbors? I can’t put my finger on what word to call them, they seem so crazy or something. Or sexless.
    This film young characters seem to remind me of the trope: All Adults are Useless
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdultsAreUseless

  3. Posted October 19, 2010 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    unbeknownst to Holly and Messer, have designated their two friends as guardians for their one-year-old daughter Sophie.

    So, in the movie, they designate the care of their CHILD to people without consulting them first? I thought people asked others to become Godparents, not just assumed they’d be into it, much less capable and appropriate guardians. I know it’s only a movie, but that sounds so reckless and irresponsible that it’s a really hard plot point for me to swallow.

  4. Posted October 20, 2010 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Question, is he referred to throughout the movie as Messer and she as Holly? I’ve been trying to decode why men are so commonly referred to by last names and women are stuck with their first names. Maybe this is just a fluke and they are actually referred to as such, but now I’m curious.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

187 queries. 0.422 seconds