If you are a Nancy Meyers fan the good news for you is that It’s Complicated will make you happy, but if you have issues with Nancy Meyers and her filmmaking style this one won’t sway you her way. It’s Complicated is pure Nancy Meyers for better or for worse. Meyers gives us another aging white, rich baby boomer woman at a crossroads in her life. Meryl Streep plays Jane Adler the owner of a spectacular bakery in Santa Barbara whose youngest has just graduated from college. On the trip to NYC to attend her son’s graduation she winds up in bed with her ex, Jake played with lusty hysterics by Alec Baldwin.
Jane becomes unmoored by this turn of events. She had become comfortable in her life. She has her friends, she has her kids, she has her work, she about to get a new HUGE addition put on her house that she’s been saving up for for years. But while she’s content, she’s not really happy and Jake, the guy who left her for a younger woman pushes all the right buttons and she becomes unglued.
What Meyers is able to do is to ask some questions about women’s roles, expectations and disappointments. She doesn’t challenge anything or put a political spin on it. She gives us a person who followed the blueprint of a woman of her race and class, married the guy, had three kids, took care of the family and then like so many other women like her, got left behind for a younger woman.
The thing that you need to be reminded of during this dance of Streep and Baldwin is just how bad the divorce was. And it’s the kids (now in their 20s) who are the ones not understanding this renewed friendship between their parents. These are the kids who clearly remember the times when their dad wasn’t allowed in the house. They are confused, and Zoe Kazan says say eloquently as Gabby, the middle child “I am very damaged from the divorce.”
So even though Jane has had 10 years to get over it, she still has residual anger. Who can blame her? But the thing is, she’s not the same person she was a decade before and doesn’t want to revert back to that woman and those habits which you can see is very easy to do.
Baldwin as Jake, sees Jane differently than he did when he left and also sees an independent, adult woman who’s not amped up on hormones wanting to have a baby. But Jane doesn’t let him off the hook and says, “isn’t a baby part of the package when you marry a woman her age?” Baldwin is great as a guy who just wants his life to be easy again. He feels he can ease back into Jane’s life and while he has changed (a bit) in their 10 years apart, she has grown exponentially and they clearly just “don’t fit” anymore.
Streep is able to show Jane’s confusion with the excitement over her personal sexual revolution with her ex-husband to her utter horror over the fact that she is the one having an affair with a married man. It’s the small gestures by Streep when she is alone that convey Jane’s emotions and nobody NOBODY does it better.
Steve Martin plays third prong in the love triangle and I have never seen him as retrained on screen. He plays a man who has been bitterly devastated in a divorce and is desperate to find some normalcy in his life. He likes Jane because she’s an adult and says that her age is one of the things that he finds attractive about her. (When is the last time you heard that in a movie?)
But there are a bunch of things that bothered me in the film. The tone deafness about the economy is a big one. It just kinds of seems in your face. Everything is white and plush, the people are all white and skinny and it just seems kind of off.
But then I need to remember that this is a Nancy Meyers film. She makes films for a certain type of woman. The thing is there are lots of baby boomer women out there who will wistfully look at this film and be able to relate to certain aspects of it. If enough of them go to see it, it will be a hit.
You write that although excess and wealth are a part of Meyers’s style, “The tone deafness about the economy is a big one. It just kind of seems in your face.” If you want the direct opposite, try UP IN THE AIR. The horrible current state of the economy is on full display there. Yesterday, one guy on Twitter described it thusly: “Up In The Air is a depression exploitation picture and is awful.” (@skeetonmischa) =)
Also, I wonder if you saw Letterman last night and the conversation he had with Alec Baldwin about IT’S COMPLICATED. Letterman, who admittedly LOVED the movie, could not understand why the film is “made for women.” He kept on and on, asking Baldwin why it’s being sold as a woman’s film; and then finally, the host said, “If IT’S COMPLICATED is ‘made for women,’ what does that say about me?” Just an interesting conversation…
Kelli, I’d like to ask Letterman where he gets the idea that it’s being sold as a women’s film to begin with? Does it say in the trailers? The posters? WHERE?
Hi, Chris. If I remember correctly, I think Letterman cited the (huge!) NY TIMES MAGAZINE article that featured Meyers, entitled “Can Anybody Make a Movie for Women?”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20Meyers-t.html?_r=5.
I’ll have to rewatch the interview to be sure though. =)
It’s interesting how deafness to certain social, economic, or political issues so often appears in female authored films, particularly ones that become popular.
I think this to be not so much because their creators particular deafness to these issues, but because we look for awareness for those issues in them. We so badly want a female driven film that is witty, aware, as well as popular and successful, to blow the bank, to really make it happen for some amazing woman.
This makes us watch films by women with a much more critical eye, than their run-of-the-mill male-made counterparts. Women who, like Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron who have achieved some measure of success are our greatest hope, and thus often our greatest disappointment.
I agree with the last paragraph above — also, because films about relatable female characters are so few and far between, in proportion to “what’s out there,” that there is more pressure on them to be great, to not misfire in any aspect, to give us all that we are so hungry for, at once. When in reality, few films do this. Women directors, writers, etc. should have the right to try and succeed, try and fail, try and not get it 100% right, leaving room for growth the next time out, without it killing their prospects. That’s how art occurs.
I saw the film yesterday and enjoyed it for what it was. I actually liked it more than I thought I would. A day later I realize what made the film work for me was Streep’s performance. Truly she made that film and made me believe this character (as much as I can believe the characters in Meyer’s films). If Streep had been played by a lesser actress it would have been more of the Lifetime movie variety.
I liked the movie better than I thought I would. It was actually nice to see two adults paired up romantically. The theater was filled with older couples. I was probably the youngest one in the audience. My “stay at home mom” friend really liked the house and the interior design. Nancy Meyers is selling an upscale fantasy, along with some romance. She sure knows her audience.
I saw it, I loved it!
I laughed sooooo much and so loud, and I was not alone!
Seated next to me was a couple, the man laughed more often and more loudly than his companion.
People applauded at the end of the film.
They applauded at the end of
It’s Complicated, Blind Side, Avatar, and the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus as well.
The only one people didn’t applaud was
Sherlock Holmes, I enjoyed it though.
I am not a Nancy Meyers fan but I went to see this to enjoy it for what it was. A lite romantic comedy with some decent actors. Sure the jokes were stupid and the lily whitebread uppsercrust lifestyle unbelievable, but Streep and Baldwin were terrific and funny and made the film enjoyable.
It seems Hollywood still face women in a traditional way….what hurts me the most is while men are making revolutionary movies( Inglory Bastards,Avatar,Matrix,etc),women are in that old “feminine” themes.All female movies are the same,just change the scenarium and the actors.I am a bit tired of such sill romantic comedies,i think it is time to women director use a bit more their brain and show diferent styles of american women.They are still the model for the rest of the world,and if american women are portraited as stupid,women from my country and from others will take it as model for feminility.Unfortunally,that what happens.
Isolda, speaking on behalf of most American women directors, we would love to make revolutionary movies. But movies cost money and that’s not what gets financed. Very few of us who are actually making films that use “a bit more of our brains” have careers. It’s the film executives, not the female directors that are the problem. I agree that these images are incredibly destructive to the self esteem of women across the globe. This is capitalism, there is no morality. No one in Hollywood cares if they set feminism back 50 years with every romantic comedy they make. They only care that they make money.
Yes, Nancy Meyers makes romcoms, but they are relatively benign. She’s an older woman talking about her experience. You can’t expect her to single handedly make up for the dearth of complex female stories. Frankly, America is just not that liberated. As a director, I would be better off just about anywhere, other than Africa or the Middle East.
@Jean “I would be better off just about anywhere, other than Africa or the Middle East.” Or some parts of Europe. Or New Zealand. Or parts of Asia. But here’s a nice wee matriarchal story from the Phillipines: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/234835/mother-lily-passes-torch-daughter.
Jean is it true that in France and Italy for example movies made there have more “realistic” depictions of women? Are those audiences more receptive/open to seeing more realistic films versus much of the commercial garbage we see here.
Secondly, I always thought the independent film route allowed creative types more freedom in the types of films they can make. Those films can be showcased at Independent film festivals like Sundance and potentially recognized with the Independent Spirit awards. Is this not true? Is the independent film community just as “commericial minded” and stereotypical as Hollywood is?
I wish more women would read Naomi Wolfe’s book “The Beauty Myth”. Hollywood and the media are the biggest violaters and collectively help keep women contained in their myopic mysognist ways.
Katie, the independent film scene is very complicated. Most of the indie producers in New York are decent people. They really care about the quality of films and they’re not making a lot of money. Three things happened. The indie film companies were gobbled up by the Hollywood studios, essentially becoming mini-majors. They started “managing risk”, which means making Hollywood-light crap with big stars, so they could do pre-sales in the major territories. Also, many of the top festivals stopped showcasing breakout talent and instead chose big names to fill their slots in advance. Then there is the exorbitant cost of film school in the US. $200,000 plus, in a field where you are expected to work for free when you graduate. All of this leads to the homogenization of films. Manohla Dargis made an excellent point that it’s boring to constantly see movies from the same point of view, which I would describe as upper class, as well as overwhelmingly male. There were more opportunities for women in the independent film scene when it was in it’s infancy and less established. I’m not sure why the indie producers keep giving first time male directors a shot over women. It must have something to do with the perception of risk attached to the project, a bias against female stories that they don’t recognize. We don’t have any state funding for films in the US, so it’s always about the money.
I would add that the women who do get their first features financed are often actresses with no experience directing. The outcome is always risky when the person at the helm of a project is a complete neophyte. I wish the independent film companies would give trained female directors a chance to prove themselves.
Isolda, I get what you’re saying but, I think you are forgetting some characters in some films that have come out in recent years…
I have a list on my blog of films with interesting female characters, not just from the states, but, just any I could think of, with help from my FB friends.
When a “traditional” role is told well and with humor it is just as valuable as a non trad. role being told well.
Just tell the story well, from a female POV (female writers & directors do that) that’s all I ask from films.
I am not a housewife, I am not “white” by standard American cultural definition, I am not wealthy and would not be able to afford renting a guest room in a Nancy Meyer’s house set (in her films).
That said, her female character had depth and humor, and the men were fantastic and yes, there were a few times when I thought, “Only a woman would write that” then I grinned.
Oh AND she was a business owner…helloooooo, I’m 43 and remember when that was completely uncommon!
Can Hollywood improve? Goodness,yes!
Please, feel free to write a great script and had it to a practiced female director (I have 1 short and a lot fo promo’s /video’s under my belt as well as prod., pm and ad experience) …help raise the funds and get those movies you want to see (and you are not alone) out there.
If the script speaks to me, I’ll fight for it to make it to screen.
Oops I should have said “upper class, as well as overwhelmingly male and white”. And I did forget that the situation in Asia and parts of Eastern Europe is terrible for women. I would be trying to escape from sex slavery, instead of complaining about my lack of career opportunities. Yes, I think the European portrayal of women is better. I remember seeing a European film with women in their 40’s, all very beautiful, but they had lines on their faces and creases under their eyes. Their age seemed to be a non-issue, they were all portrayed as attractive and desirable.