High Fidelity and the Pointlessness of Reimaginings

I do have a certain love for the movie High Fidelity, I prefer it over the book on some levels (Rob is more sympathetic, has some dimension and isn't falling too heavy on the side of unlikable curmudgeon. In the book he's more of a typical Englishman bred to be devoid of emotion). I have a stupid history of trying to get a decent copy of this movie on DVD and failing three times, including when I got it in a double set with Grosse Pointe Blank. Every copy I bought skipped in the same place. I ended up ringing the Australian Disney distribution number and spoke to some asshole suit who said to just watch it on another player. So, of course, I got this via other means. I'm sure if I bought the Bluray the issue wouldn't be there, or it's possibly on one streaming service. But I do watch it every now and then as my goto feelgood romcom with the level of snark and sophistication I don't get from other romcoms.

The movie adaptation works. So why in the fuck has someone from Hulu decided to greenlight a "female reimagining of this, where Rob isn't just turned into a straight white woman with the same issues, but she has to be a black queer woman who resembles Marie De Salle? And why does Barry's character have to be replaced with an obese black woman. And Dick's character is just a gay guy (I think). And they're just pop culture nerds working a used record store in America instead of the UK (PS I know the movie is set in the US as well, I don't have an issue with this). The author is a producer of this series (possibly just EP in name), but I watched the trailer and just asked "Why?" for nearly two minutes. "Why does this exist? What purpose does it serve? Did we ask for this? Was there a cult following of the book/movie that were hitting Twitter demanding a reboot in series format?"

This is how I felt when they rebooted Heathers for the "modern era" and I have refused to this day to fucking touch it. It might be amazing, I just cannot, just as I cannot with the musical.

I'm reading reviews about High Fidelity so I can fill myself in without watching, and I'm bummed Parker Posey plays the role of the forgotten woman looking to offload her husband's impressively expensive singles collection for next to nothing out of revenge. That'd be a fun scene to watch on its own, I guess. I'm not going to sit through the rest to see it.

These reimaginings seem to exist to correct perceived mistakes in the originals. Disney's doing it, does this mean everyone else has to? Are writers going to lose their integrity because they want to redo their work and make it fit a current or mainstream audience. Sometimes it was to correct grammar. Why? Why didn't you get an editor to do the job properly the first time? Or you just wanted to have "fun" gender swapping and you made a bigger mess than what you started with. Plus, isn't there an inherent issue with doing this? "Swapping" implies you subscribe to the two gender notion. You can't "swap out" female for nonbinary. Or you can, but it's not technically the same. Maybe it is, but gender swapping still suggests you're swapping opposites. Binaries. (you're sort of sounding more like someone who still uses the term "genderbender"). Aren't we meant to be post-gender now? Aren't we meant to stop this? Does every woman's story get to be retold from the position of a man? You want a role-reversed Pride and Prejudice? I'm sure it exists but you can hear people crying foul on this because how fucking dare you try to tell a woman's story from a man's perspective? But you can gender swap any male character in history, reexamine their make up from a feminist perspective whilst still maintaining the original "flaws", and that's supposed to be okay? Or celebrated? Or encouraged? We don't need this, there's an article making this argument exactly but still somehow speaking favourably of the show regardless.

I'm so fucking confused. And I'm also tired of it. What you're saying to writers or any creators of anything, your art is out there to be reimagined, rebooted, retold, resold in a different package whether you like it or not. (I won't go into a fanfiction rant because its problematic nature). Of course if you're doing this properly and legally, permissions are required unless you're good and dead for the prerequisite amount of time. Of course you're in the position of power where you can go full Salinger and say "no and get off my lawn", you could even put it in a will that your estate can't grant permissions until the law overrides your decision. (I don't know if you could make a perpetuity clause from a legal standpoint). Or you could say, yes but I want in on this and you can steal some creative control so the other party doesn't have a fuckin' free-for-all.

Thankfully the author wrote his own piece on it for Rolling Stone. He sold the TV rights with the movie rights and this piece is positive and supportive and that's fine. I'm glad. But I don't have to like this or its existence or watch it. A lot of the time I don't and that's when people like me get strung up for having ignorant opinions because we never absorbed the material in its entirety. It's why Game of Thrones detractors who didn't watch much or any of the show were derided so vehemently. There's no law that states you must consume all art to voice an opinion. You're supposed to sit through Wagner's Ring Cycle before you can say, yeah I know that one song from all those movies and shows but the rest, meh. If the artist in their efforts failed to engage you with the art and your opinion is "I don't like it, I won't engage fully, I'm not interested, I'd prefer not to", it's a valid response. It's how I ended up hate-reading certain books because of the tiresome accusations of "you can't voice a negative opinion of something you haven't even read". But me learning about its contents and reading a part of it and hating it, I've attempted to engage and I don't want to continue. Forcing people to just sit through this shit, to read it out of spite, to listen to it before they can form any opinion, it's not fair and it's not how art should work. I don't want you sitting beside me in a theatre watching a movie you don't want to see because I forced you to see what I perceived as a brilliant or worthwhile movie. I write and I can't make you read my books. I simply can't. I'd rather you say no thank you than hate read it, resent me and say negative shit about it. If your trailer doesn't get me to watch your show, I'm never going to watch it. I have a dissonance in doing this with reboots anyway, my brain will just make constant comparisons, constant criticisms. I'm a puritan when it comes to original texts. If I loved it as it was, changing it will make me hate it. You took something I saw little to no fault with and made it faulty. And you thought you were making it better too, sooooooooo...

No.

I would like this to stop. I thought by making original things that weren't entirely derivative (that is hard, I grant you, all art now is technically derivative) that I would be noticed or appreciated for trying to be unique. It's actually the worst thing you can do, it seems. Deviate from the familiar and expect to be disregarded. Regurgitate it and reap the rewards.

The Breakfast Club is a stupid movie

I'm betraying my 14 year old self saying this because I cried like a baby when I watched it back then, even though you can barely hear it (even now the sound mixing is atrocious and you can't hear some of the lines clearly at all. Like how was this not considered proto-Mumblecore?) The soundtrack is fun but you don't know any of the bands outside of Simple Minds. It's an original movie that's been over-parodied. But it's stupid and makes no real sense.

Characterwise it works, sort of. You like the characters, you root for Bender. The confession scene is still raw and delivered with genuine emotion. But it's pretty contrived. Vernon's a control freak on a dumb power trip, Bender doesn't have to rise to his bullshit and it gets violent; Vernon should be sacked for locking a kid in a storage room. Or drinking beer on school premises with the janitor, even if he is coerced. You don't get why they all have to go with Bender to get the weed. But that's the real punchline, none of these characters are good. They're all flawed. (You never get the punchline to the naked lady joke). Oh, and how does Vernon not hear them playing records, unless you're led to believe at this point he simply doesn't care. This movie makes no sense.

There's a lot of subtler emotional moments interspersed between the drama, mainly Bender's reaction to Vernon goading him into striking him. It's part screwball comedy, part character drama. You can't really have a narrative, just incidents that draws everyone together to a point of mutual understanding. It's compelling for having nothing but a thin premise to hang itself on. Rich Evans saying all John Hughes movies are about rich kids complaining about how rich they are isn't entirely true. You assume Ferris Bueller is loaded but because the man's getting him down he's worthy of sympathy. But in this case, Claire's the only rich one and you still feel bad for her.

I had a whole theory mapped out in high school that the letter is true, every character has a moment they reflect another character, just by them getting wasted or Allison stealing shit, or Andrew assaulting another kid (criminals), Bender playing with Claire's make up (princesses) them all sprinting around the halls and Bender "trying out for a basketball scholarship" (athletes - yeah I'm stretching here), Claire proving she knows Molière despite shunning the nerds (brains) and they're all fucked up on some level from their parents and their bullshit (basket cases: "We're all pretty bizarre. Some of us are just better hiding it, that's all."). It's a very longwinded way of saying everyone's alike in some ways.

This was a movie I taped onto a cassette by holding up my radio mic to the TV speaker. I know it pretty much back to front, save for the scenes with Vernon and Carl in the basement, for some reason I didn't tape those because I was obsessed with the main characters, I guess. (Yes, I even know Brian's social security number). But getting to physically watch this on TV was harder. I had to rent it repeatedly or have my brother let me sit on the floor of his room and watch it when it was broadcast. Hardly ever getting to watch your favourite movies made them somehow precious. Netflix and DVDs kinda take that away; when you can have what you want when you want, the sheen comes off it.

Even if it's still a stupid movie that makes no sense. But you could pinpoint a moment that foretold the millenials vs boomers war:

Vernon: Now this is the thought that wakes me up in the middle of the night... That when I get older, these kids are gonna take care of me...

Carl: I wouldn't count on it.

Pretentious.

I didn't so much watch Knight of Cups as have it on in the background while I was doing random shit. Even with my lack of attention I wasn't lost that much about the plot. I don't know enough about Pilgrim's Progress to remark on the similarities, I just found the film to really highlight the pretentiousness of LA celebrities.

Each chapter encapsulates Bale's involvement with various women, passing through a disagreement with his estranged brother and the disconnection from his addled father. There were references to Twin Peaks (which I completely missed - apparently it's a song that samples Major Briggs's retelling of his dream about Bobby, which is actually one of my least favourite scenes in the show) and tarot cards, stuff I find interesting, and Dan Harmon has a tiny cameo, Erin wasn't as evident. I don't think I could appreciate stream of consciousness as a device in film. It doesn't capture me in book form, either.

There was too much of a detachment from Bale and his lovers, one of them just some girl who drags him down what I thought was Venice Beach, in a scene that was way too reminiscent of LA Story, where Sarah Jessica Parker convinces Steve Martin to go get a colonic. Dumbly enough, I think that movie did a better job taking the piss out of pretentiousness in LA. I've seen it a few times, though I can't remember if it was genuinely good. (I had a problem when I watched the same videos I also had a habit of watching some of the trailers instead of fast-forwarding them, so I wound up knowing them better than the movies themselves - LA Story was one of them).

This is the only Terrence Malick film I've seen, I saw the trailer for Song to Song, thinking by the plot it was interesting. But the floating camera work and disjointed dialogue is distracting. I get a sense he constructs a scene then just casually films it from multiple weird angles, which looks really creative until you think it might make you nauseated, like being on a ship at sea. Some of those scenes happen to be lavish parties hosted by one celebrity (whether you're meant to believe Antonio Banderas has K-parties or this is just a lot of people pretending to be high, I'm not sure), or raves or rock concerts. I was more fascinated by the dancers suspended from the ceiling in the rave scene, one being stuck in what looked like a kind of windsock that could be stretched to cover her legs like a mermaid's tail then used to suspend the dancer from an enormously high ceiling. I wanted to stop the movie and ask her how the fuck she was doing that. Can we make a movie about her, please? She's riveting.

I appreciate directors who try to show dreamscapes and how we would see images in our minds, much like Gondry's Eternal Sunshine, the creativity involved in the visual representation of something as fractured and abstract as memory itself is so effective at points. While Hal Hartley might basically choreograph a scene and be deliberate with his framing, Malick refuses to be so regimented. He allows the actors to frolic or pace rather than remain still, but there's no sense of them being directed as such. Bale's character falls to the whims of excess and debauchery, losing focus on finding the pearl of meaning, and as you follow him, you would be forgiven for losing focus too, which seems to be intentional. But the broken narrative of disparate voices don't really succeed in engaging you fully. I wasn't drawn in or captivated or moved; or even satisfied with the conclusion. It felt pretentious for pretentiousness's sake. Genuine art for art's sake.

Interview...

The young adult reading market had yet to be saturated with subpar, badly edited fare. But even if it had in 1996, I'd have ignored it, as I've always maintained. Interview With the Vampire weirdly became my favourite book back then, and something of an escape from the bullshit I was enduring that year. My teen angst was really being tested. I'd picked up a copy of the Vampire Lestat my brother had borrowed, and was sucked in by the beginning. But I can't remember exactly when I got a copy of Interview. It may have been after Christmas, or for Christmas in 1995. Getting a hold of certain books at that time required trips to Dymocks in Perth, where I had to harass some crotchety bitch to order in a book, then wait months for us to make another trip up to collect them. I can't remember why I couldn't just make a bookstore in Bunbury to get me the Last Unicorn. (I thought I'd lost my first Eerie Indiana book, turns out it was just sitting in the cupboard down south with the spine facing inwards and I never bothered to pick it up- they're harder to get now they're out of print). But I could get the Vampire Chronicle books in town. I didn't even know one existed until I saw it on someone else's bookshelf.

I was in the middle of reading the Interview the book when I saw the movie. I could watch it alone at home on the condition I stopped it when the Bill was on, took the tape out and recorded that show. Only then could I finish watching the movie. And I think it was the goddamn Guns and Roses cover of Sympathy for the Devil that really riled me up, but I basically loved the movie. I was 14, didn't know dick about film, and was growing obsessed with vampires. The point was, Rice's brand were the definitive to me. They were original enough they didn't adhere to common myths. I still think her basic idea of them is still pretty cool, considering her lore has gone off the deep end.

But since then, the movie's gone from a love to a hate then to a love, back to an appreciation for what it was capable of achieving at the time. My brother told me stuff about it after he'd seen it in a theatre, his descriptions standing out to me as fascinating. Meanwhile, it's still riddled with issues. We couldn't have the cherub Armand represented as such, Antonio Banderas had to be brought in to play to the gothic aesthetic modern audiences comprehended, since the movie needed to have appeal outside the book. Louis's brother and his traumatic death are reduced to a dead mother and child Louis briefly mentions at the beginning to explain his malaise. The harrowing trip through Europe in search of other vampires is dropped. All of these decisions make sense. Casting Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt would've been for commercial reasons. Introducing Kirsten Dunst, a pre-teen* somehow managing to really embody Claudia from age five to her mental age of 70, you can't say that was a bad decision, she does the part justice. But it wasn't until many viewings later I realised she was faking playing the piano by lightly dancing her fingers over the keys. I don't think Cruise was playing, I'm sure he had a hand double, but you could cut away from Claudia's imitations and still make it convincing. They used animatronics to replicate Lestat's death, that look a lot less convincing now. The special effects haven't drastically aged but they're not up to today's standards. So now I have mixed feelings about it. I thought Rice loved it and contributed to the script, and was so overcome at the premier she was left giddy. Then later, I heard she hated it. Oh, and River Phoenix died and had to be replaced by Christian Slater, which again was a good choice but I think it's probably much older than the nameless boy Rice envisioned (later revealed to be Daniel in Queen of the Damned - his intro chapter referred to him as "the boy from Interview" and the penny failed to drop for me right away). I think I could watch it now and basically just be annoyed by its flaws more than its achievements. Now I'm rereading the book, most of the scenes depicted in the movie are in my mind's eye now. And that's not a bad thing.

I don't think she went overboard with descriptions, however I think this book was subjected to heavy editing that the later books really needed. I liked the Egypt mythology/origin explanation. I like we don't get this until book three. I think on its own, the first book could've been a simple masterpiece that needed to be left shrouded in mystery. I haven't read the original short story for years, I have it in the compendium piece which is a tome I have stashed in a box in a cupboard. It's probably online somewhere. That had a more comedic tone. I'm pissed I also can't find an older documentary about Rice which I have on VHS and remember way too succinctly since I watched it a heap of times. And I can't think of any comparable books to Interview, you could argue it has shades of Lolita but there's nothing overly grotesque about Louis's connection with Claudia. Once she has a woman's mind you get what's going on, if you're grossed out by it, you're missing the point. And if you didn't know who she represents in Rice's life, she makes less sense. I also have the graphic novel of Claudia's story which I've only glossed over. I tend to collect these books as gifts now and don't spend much time with them. (I could now I'm confined due to that virus people won't stfu about).

The Chronicles were the closest thing I had to an obsession with an IP. I could spend ages crapping on about the terrible adaptation of Queen of the Damned. I thought there was some series now she'd gotten back the rights but Hulu dumped it, so now it's being shopped as a bigger package along with the Mayfair series. So this could go either way. I would watch it provided it stopped before things got shitty with the book series. I think I'd rather she and her son focus on making this good than her churning out more novels. I'm not psyched about it though. Like I'm not dying (pun intended) to see what they do with it. I think she wants some Game of Thrones level mastery to resurrect (pun not as intended) the interest in the series. At least there's something more complete about her book series it wouldn't go off the rails because of outside influences. She's capable of doing that on her own.

Either way, I'm loving reading Interview now but I'm not sure if this forced downtime will lead me further in. I can rationalise the revisit given I know the people I tried to garner interest from won't be wrested from their beloved book series. But then I had a better book series to read as a teen than all y'all did.

*I keep finding out a whole bunch of people I think are older than me were born the same year, including her. So yeah, she really did get to mack on Brad Pitt at age 12.

Community Vs Parks & Rec: The Reasons I Should Stay

I got another streaming service to watch Better Call Saul (one I'd had previously but ditched from lack of use) and forgot this had Parks and Rec, something I'd wanted to rewatch for a while. I didn't remember huge chunks, just key moments. And a lot of it was laugh out loud funny from the beginning. I think every character is lovable and fleshed out perfectly, there seemed to be genuine affection between the actors by the end of the show. I think that was what appealed to me over the Office or Always Sunny, since they appear to depend on more deplorable characters that you warm to much further down the track.

So when I was done, the service recommended Community, and I just clicked on it since I was like, yeah okay. I have it on DVD but that requires effort (which we need to exert now we're all trapped inside because of the virus). And I just wasn't digging it. I wasn't laughing, I was probably thinking too much of Dan and the fans and how I'm supposed to feel about the show now Harmontown is over. Going over old Harmontown shows is weirdly painful. Listening to the fans begging him to "stop talking" and risk being fired, and how much certain people believe they're the reason he was rehired, it's cringey. They're basically acting like that weird group of Firefly fans who believe they were the ones responsible for getting Serenity off the ground. The crew that awkwardly sang the theme to Joss at one convention that's on the DVD extras. (I heard they were from Perth, I can't find proof). And the issue is those people need more validation and assurance they matter to creators. I don't think they should be considered any more important than a casual fan who's come to the con for an autograph, or even someone who just enjoys the show. The internet's played a part in these people having intimate relationships with the creators of a show to the point they feel they're owed something. They're not. I don't know any Parks and Rec fans who call themselves the "real" insert character name here. Maybe they exist but having watched it again, even while napping, I've still found that more enjoyable than Community. I know the pilot was flat and it gathered its stride relatively quickly, I just wasn't sucked in for a new viewing. And Parks had more solid episodes in succession than Community did, it's a fact. When you have one notoriously bad season, and final season that's lacking and forced, as opposed to one shaky first season and then six solid ones, it's obvious which show is superior.

The fourth-wall breaking in Parks weirdly never gets old. They didn't break too far from the faux interview/fly on the wall format with the camera crew, you never meet this crew but you don't really question the straight-to-camera delivery. The drama towards the end of the series isn't that forced, pitting Ron and Lesley against each other still comes off as genuine. I don't remember really enjoying Community by the sixth season. I can live without a movie. There was just so much rabid, misguided love from the fans that made them act so entitled, they're not as bad as Rick and Morty fans, but they were pretty shocking. (I don't know the cross-over).

Maybe it's also because I know nothing personal about Amy Poehler, like whether she has a crazy sex fetish involving nylons and mannequin legs, or a drinking problem and chronically low self-esteem. I don't see how Rick and Morty fans who have no reference to Harmontown can claim they have a full, deep lore understanding of the show. The show being so much of its creators laid bare, sometimes it's great sometimes you wish you didn't know. Community may not have been as heavily slathered in references, it was still a part of Dan. I'm sure Parks was Poehler's love but there's something from everyone in that show. It didn't come off as too much of a vehicle for one person's opinion. It had its moments of this but it was subtle. Poehler also does more to prove women are funny, her sense of humour is less dark and more adorable but no less genuine (and throwing Megan Mullally to play against Nick Offerman didn't get tired either). I think every actor was given a chance to really shine. I know Community does too but you know as well as I do how painful Pierce is before he leaves, how much he slows the whole thing down whenever he's there. I don't really want to watch Community to see if it'll make me laugh more. I wasn't thinking of it while watching Parks. I was thinking of Parks while watching other shows.

To add to this, I finished the pilot and remembered the good stuff but yeah, I think Abed gets a bit much from time to time. And why did they make Britta gradually dumber by the end of the series. Like she was a child by the end when she's meant to be Winger's maturer counterpart. She kind of devolves while Annie inversely grows up. And Pierce doesn't get truly insufferable until further on. But I might stay now.

(PS Fuck watching anything new, when you're in lockdown with a mild existential depression, nostalgia is your best friend).

PPS: I stuck this out to watch with the fiancee while we continue to be relatively housebound and having someone unfamiliar helped me like it more and remember what I loved. Chevy still slows everything to a grinding halt. You can tell he was more pissed off in some of the bloopers. And the irony of him using the n-word to complain about his character becoming too racist was only something I recalled recently. Same time, it gets so hard for me knowing so much about Harmon and all the shit he complained about on the podcast not to say anything whenever a particular scene or character comes on. Like nobody in my friend group would ever fucking care about Dino's (Starburns') weird sex hang ups. Like you think you know trivia about a show? Try knowing intimate details about the creator and random cast members. But I'm still having fun. It's also kinda harder to binge without getting tired from laughing.

Mama Ru Gots her own (actual drama) Show

I don't know why they made it a series, you could've done a movie with less filler. But it's fun to see some of the girls getting cameos, and it gives some legitimacy to their careers and to drag as an acceptable art form and not some novelty thing. The story is kinda thin and comes of as a vehicle for Ru to explore notions of gender in this new era, because she was an old queen who offended the new queens and she just wants to make sense of this messy lil world. Plus it makes a heartfelt comment on older women and queens getting grifted by younger hotties, which is sweet. And she's captivating that any flaws in her acting can be written off, she knows her craft, she knows about stage presence and delivery, she's a good role model, she's built an empire when her life could've gone in a worse third act of Paris is Burning direction (easily one of the most depressing documentaries you can ever watch).

So this series is hammy as hell and she's not pulled out any stops on chances for her to strut (and mince a little) but it's there as padding to make a ten episode series, I don't see why they couldn't have bought a movie original. So it's hard to really keep paying attention. It's a road movie and she plays off some street kid and the chemistry takes ages to really build. The kid jumping around in her undies in defiance of the bad girl scout analogy (because feminism) was funnier. It has its moments. The world would be a shitty place without Mama and her girls and the sunshine and shade they bring. Fuck it, let her have a show. She usually played second fiddle to people like LL Cool J or some background character like in But I'm A Cheerleader. (is that on Netflix? I want to watch that it rules). It seems kind of overdue. I'm glad Drag Race hasn't been written off as some pageant parody. It's kicked America's Next Top Model's ass as far as I'm aware. It's about pride and family and togetherness and helping people not hurting them. We need more glitter. We need Ru. She don't need us or whatever opinions we have on her show. Yes it's not entirely realistic and very Lifetime in its aesthetic, and we could do without the voice overs. But it doesn't suck. A lot of other shit sucks more.

Marriage Story: A Crash Course in Divorce Proceedings.

I did want to see Marriage Story and I didn't. You can see why the rave reviews are pouring in, there's nothing lacking in the performances, but I'm doing another live review so I can hash out my own negative opinions.

Right up we're introduced to unconventional characters in an unconventional situation, a husband and wife, speaking on what they like about one another to their separation mediator, only she won't actually read hers. But fleshing them out as real people means she's good at opening pickle jars (because not typical lady thing) and he's a good dresser, (because men are typically bad, embarrassing dressers, ammirite, ladies?) No, I'm not. Already you've got some sort of lazy exposition that doesn't quite fit into unique character building - how do we say they're atypical but still make them likeable? Then he's a playwrite, she's a Hollywood actress. Again, hardly relatable. I looked up if this had any similarities to Kramer Vs Kramer, and while I've not seen it I read up on it since it was referenced a lot in films and TV shows. You have a single child (a son in both cases) stuck between two parents with two different agendas now, who don't want to get divorced but feel it's best they do. So Adam Driver's character has to parse all the "betcha didn't know that about gettin' divorced, did ya, dads?" And Scar Jo, (who is performing remarkably well, as is Driver) is empty and feels ignored and lacking the genius and creativity of Driver's character Charlie. But you can see how they would be completely insufferable as real people. Meanwhile, all the ancillary family characters and players in Charlie's company have to spend time talking purely about the couple like nothing else matters. (I want to say the players are a Greek chorus but I don't think it fits here). Nicole's mother has too close a relationship with Charlie, like it borders on creepy, you know the mum would totally have him. And Nicole's father is a dead gay man (Yes, I did think to myself "I love my dead gay son" cheap, I know.) Meanwhile, Charlie's parents are deceased so you don't have to create characters for them and then you can make the tension from Charlie being too close to Nicole's family. Apparently Nicole thinks Charlie is just like his dad when according to her, she met the parents once, so she'd have to base that assumption on Charlie's account, right? Where this comes up is during a tense but cliche fight over how much they resent one another and who did what wrong and why the other became how they were, and so on.... Nothing original is said. It's slightly fleshed out but such a copy/paste argument from feuding couples long since passed.

Laura Dern's one of my favourite actresses and she's always a joy, you can call her Purple-Haired lady from Last Jedi, I don't think she necessarily belonged there, but she's been given something to really strut her stuff with here, it's only a shame she ends up being a hyper-feminist ballbuster who uses Nicole for her own devious ends. They spend time nutting out this contract, realise it's not what they want and then Nicole decides to be fairer and Charlie decides to get a job in LA anyway. Makes it all for nothing, really. Alan Alda's lovely, if you want a lovable duffer type. Wallace Shawns usually got that role but he's some dirty old actor who's sort of adding comic relief but not in a good way. And Alda and Dern play off one another as the couple's respective lawyers really well, until Ray Liotta comes back to play the lawyer Charlie decides not to go with initially (I don't know who decides when his makeup's getting done that he needs guy liner, but I've seen it before). The scenes seem pretty engaging so far even if you can get infuriated with the couple. Of course Charlie's cheated too. So then Nicole looks more justified in her actions. Could you have avoided that? Did you have to paint him as badly. I get it's to add more tension again. It's more a character study but I can't see myself liking or relating to either of them, or sympathising.

The hilarious thing is, when people ask me "How can you watch X movie, it's so Y you're a weirdo" I don't usually counter with what they watch. Now I have to go "How the fuck can you sit through movies like this about miserable shit like divorce and custody battles?" That gets your rocks off? Cool. But this is misery inducing stuff and the weepy soundtrack doesn't make it endearing. Nobody's dropping balls on technical levels, the acting is good. It's the script I'm not entirely buying. You don't get a lot of films like this these days, so it feels like a return to a time when character dramas were dominating the awards rather than action heavy superhero movies. But yeah, this isn't a popcorn, Netflix and Chill thing. It works in a situational sense, that an average viewer could identify with the circumstances. It's presentation is fine. It doesn't drag on relentlessly but some of the montages are a tad much. I think there's only so much you can do with divorce narratives - one of the parents might have had a boozy past and have too much wine at dinner, the other blames them cheating on the sexless marriage.

Laura Dern has an awesome feminist rant that rings true but feels really shoehorned in. You get to sit through an awkward dinner that includes the court appointed child expert watching Charlie and the son eat, then Charlie stupidly cuts himself on accident to make more awkwardness. Boy, Charlie's really blowing it. Yeah this is entertaining I get he's trying to avoid getting help and is meant to seem hopeless as a human being, but this is really stupid. The kid's insufferable and generic. I'd probably swear at them too the way Charlie does. I don't know how old the kid is meant to be playing, but he looks eight and he can't read, apparently he's seven, my reading age must've been more advanced since I could read words, like, you know "time". If the implication is the divorce has impacted on this kid's learning in general, it's not appearing that way.

Laura Dern's character's clearly using Nicole in her own stupid "I gotta beat the man" way (some reason she can't stand Charlie walking away with bragging rights to a 50/50 custody arrangement so she wrangles it in Nicole's favour, hence her later bending the rules rather than dispute the arrangement and go back to court). So it's all dumb. I get it, though. People do watch these movies, they are interesting, they're well done. I would rather avoid them. It really has good moments but they're not worth the shit between. Adam Driver has so much more to offer than Vader 2.0. So I hope this becomes a defining thing for him.

Ultimately things just run their course and it's all amicable even after the papers are signed. I don't know why divorced people would want to sit through a fictionalised version of their lives. Other than masochism. If this floats your boat, that's great. I didn't expect to be so annoyed with the characters or questioning the realism of it as much as I did. I have to agree with YMS though it is a more fleshed out version of a well-known story, there's nothing incredibly superficial about it. I think from my perspective when you're doing gender comparisons on two romantic leads you need to steer further away from stereotypical behaviours. Why even bring their genders into it? Could you have done a remake of this with a gay couple, sadly probably not, since it makes so many comments on how women and men are perceived in parental roles. It would be more interesting if it were a same sex couple. Maybe I'm bored with cis/straights bitching about how hard marriage is. We need more varied takes, I suppose.


Either way I'd be generous about giving this more than a five or six out of ten, or a three out of five.