Happy Endings: Friends with Kids

To contact us Click HERE

While watching thedirector’s commentary of Atonement,Joe Wright’s final comments articulated something inside of me that had beenbrewing for quite some time.  Wright saidthat he used to believe happy endings were weak,but after making Pride and Prejudice,he realized that happy endings were brave.  Interesting commentary for Atonement since Briony struggles tocreate a happy ending equal to or greater than her crime, setting free thecharacters trapped inside her mind. Instantly I reminisced with the most recent movie memory of mine, Friends with Kids, as this feeling withnewfound words was all wrapped up within it. Jennifer Westfeldt writes, directs, and stars in the RomCom about acouple of friends who decide to have a baby without all the drama that comeswith being in a relationship.   Westfeldtnot only gives us a happy ending but, in my opinion, also gives us a lesson in bothnarrowing and expanding the scope of our perception.  A world without happy endings would be a sadworld indeed; days filled with gray skies and only emotions hate and greed.  Though one may say, “That’s the world I see!” All it takes is a closer look to see aday filled with happy endings.  Whetherit’s too narrow or short, wide or far, a quick adjustment of the lens, a newdose in depth of field and our mise en scene becomes filled with newpossibilities.I’d like to beginmy analysis of Friends with Kids by referencinga classic, Alfred Hitchcock’s RearWindow.  Rear Window starts with aconversation between Jeff, played by Jimmy Stewart, and his nurse Stella,played by Thelma Ritter, in which they discuss the intricacies of marriage—aconversation which strikes at the heart of Friendswith Kids.  Stella is busting Jeff’schops because he is afraid to marry the gorgeous Lisa Fremont.  She tries to convince Jeff there is somethingabnormal about the whole situation.  Heisn’t ready for marriage he says, an admission Jason, Adam Scott’s character inFriends with Kids, is unable to reachearly on in Jennifer Westfeldt’s film.  However,Jeff and Jason share the same inability to see the perfect woman standing rightin front of them.Stella says, “LookMr. Jefferies I’m not an educated woman but I can tell you one thing, when aman and woman see each other and like each other, they outta come together,WHAM, like a couple of taxis on Broadway. Not sit around analyzing each other like two specimens in abottle.”  To which Jeff retorts, “There’san intelligent way to approach marriage.” “Intelligence,” Stella interrupts, “nothing has caused the human race somuch trouble as intelligence.  Heh,modern marriage,” she scoffs.  “We’veprogressed emotionally,” Jeff begins to reprimand; only to be cut off again byStella.  “Baloney!” she exclaims, “Onceit was see somebody, get excited, get married. Now it’s read alotta books, fence with alotta four syllable words,psychoanalyze each other until you can’t tell the difference between a pettingparty and a civil service exam.”  Thescene ends for me where Jeff says, “People have different emotional levels,” which,of course, is undeniably true.  Strangely,Jason and Julie in Friends with Kidsbegin at the same emotional level but suffer from a similar inability to cometogether in “perfect” matrimony.Many of the implicationsdrawn from the conversations concocted by Hitchcock are seemingly in fullagreement with those implications I find in Westfeldt’s film.  This same battle of common sense and humannature versus intelligence and human will is all throughout Friends with Kids.  The first shot illustrates theintelligence/human will side of Julie and Jason as of the movie opens on aringing cell phone resting where, on Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion.  Our maincharacter answers the call but who is on the other line?  His female doppelganger reading what,Christopher Hitchens’s God is NOT Great.  I think these should be, but at the veryleast are subliminal, cues to the wide eyed “modern” audience of young couplesall graphed somewhere on this relationship graph of readiness and emotionallevels.  It tells us, these charactersare intelligent modern people just like us. They are psychologically stable, heterosexual characters we caninstantly agree with—in fact, they seem to be the only sensible ones in each situation.  They disarm us at once, guiding us along acontrolled path which eventually leads us to the errors of our modern ways.After Jason’simmature relationship with a “hot” dancer and Julie’s overly sweet fill in, andopposite, of Jason, we start to realize there is something abnormal about ourtwo heroes’ ability to commit.  I think bothHitchcock and Westfeldt would agree that the real problem lies with the fear ofcastration, for both male and female character in Westfeldt’s case.  This is probably due to a lot of things,mostly it being a female writer/director, but also because the females of herworld are allowed more freedoms.  But Ifind it interesting that the female characters in her film often choose to fillsimilar roles traditionally held by female characters.  They are, however, allowed to be openly funnyand individual, liberating for both character and observer.Lately I’ve beenstudying the hero’s journey through watching lectures of Joseph Campbell and readingsome of his books.  I have noticed thestory of the hero told over and over again, not only in film, but in everydaylife.  Westfeldt’s film is no differentbut follows it in typical movie fashion. Act one begins with an introduction to the problem, everyone Jason and Julieknow with children are miserable—at least as far as they can see.  But the act concludes with Jason answeringthe more metaphorical call to fill the hole he and his best friend have beenyearning to fill for some time—having a child. It was actually his idea, as she was the safe choice—being just likehim, afraid of castration through commitment. The second act begins or peaks somewhere around the time where Julieshares her new feelings with Jason who is too blind, like Jeff in Rear Window, to see what is right infront of him.  It isn’t until he has losteverything and in real danger of being alone when he realizes he has to haveher.  The third act begins with hermoving on and ends with his eventual return into the family fold, trulyconforming through his desire to be with her in Brooklyn, like all the otherwashed up “unhappy” couples.In this movie Jasonand Julie’s dragons are their inability to let go of their over analyticalmodern dispositions and see the path to love and happiness that have alwaysbeen in front of them.  A beautiful oneat that—a best friend and child.  Theytried to fill the hole with all the things that the modern world convinces youto drown yourself with—but stuff and lust fell short and left them thirsty formore.  This is best illustrated throughJason’s constant need to validate himself through new female conquests,especially the self-centered Mary Jane, played perfectly by Megan Fox.  I think that it was only natural for Julie’sdragon to be slayed first, as she actually pushed out the baby.  Maybe there is something in that immensephysical pain that brings clarity to life, especially when you realize what youneed most is a companion and who better than your best friend and father ofyour child.So I’ve rambled on aboutdragons, but what I liked most about this film is that it really wasbrave.  It throws our stupid egos in ourstupid modern faces.  I thought it wasawesome to see Hitchcock doing the same thing many years before and am glad tosee Westfeldt reminding us now.  It’s agreat spanking there for anyone aware and able to feel it.  I also loved seeing Jon Hamm in a role wherethe typical handsome guy who seems to have it all gets humbled.  There are all kinds of cues to set the cockystraight.  Jennifer Westfeldt is a craftyfilm maker.  She reminds me very much ofRodrigo Garcia and Richard Linklater because they take subject matter thatseems to torture them and hash it out in realistic conversational dramas onscreen; they challenge the observer rather than stroke them.  Westfeldt’s dramas center on relationshipsand she gives you three different types and resolves them with courage.It all ends uprelatively happy if you’re willing to see it that way.  Even Jon Hamm and Kristen Wiig end up in amuch better situation, apart.  They werethe type that fell in lust and ended up with kids—never meant to betogether.  Maya Rudolph and Chris O’Dowdrepresent a more classic relationship, like those Stella talks about in Rear Window.  They are two that liked each other and work atthings to stay together.  Julie and Jasonare those rare occurrences, best friends made lovers, who really are meant tobe.  If they’re wise enough, if they’restrong enough, they can get through all the trials and make it.  So I think this film illustrates how happyendings can be brave.  In a way, movieslike this are instructional videos teaching us how to be happy.  Another one like this, in my opinion, is Jeff, Who Lives at Home.  They are silly at times, but realistic.  Yea, there are a bunch of shitty situationsalong the way and in the end everyone gets the shaft, I mean, we all die.  But if you choose to invest in happiness, ifyou choose to put the time in to hone in on it and strive to make thingshappy—we can all find our happy endings. It reminds me of a Dalai Lama quote I read recently, "Every one of us is getting older, which is a natural process. Time is constantly moving on, second by second. Nothing can stop it, but what we can do is use our time properly; that is in our hands. Whether we believe in a spiritual tradition or not, we need to use our time meaningfully. If over days, weeks and years, we have used our time in a meaningful way - when our last day comes, we'll be happy, we'll have no regrets."I think it is easyto just end a movie with ugly and plain “realities”.  It is more difficult to find the good thingsand write them in a way that translates well on screen.  I think Westfeldt does this in Friends with Kids.  She takes clichés and turns them on theirhead—she does the same with Ira & Abby where the typical lovers are portrayed as neurotic fuck ups and theclimax being a group therapy sessions with generations of fuck ups and justdecide to cope.  Friends with Kids uses real comedy and when you get to that big payoff, where Jason finally catches up and slays his dragon, it ends.  They don’t complete the hero’s journey by comingfull circle, that retelling is the movie itself—the writer/director is the truehero of this journey.  There is no montageshowing them moving in together, leading to a wedding with voice over givingthe audience closure through summed up life lessons.  It jars the modern ego, abruptly cutting,BAM, you’re wrong.  We are no longernihilistic individuals striving to be unique, no—now we are able to see thebeauty in conformity.