The Kids Are All Right (****)

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Directed by Lisa Cholodenko

****

In a time when the multiplexes are filling with the complex, cyber-technology that leads to films like Inception, it's almost refreshing to approach a movie like The Kids Are All Right. Very seldom can a film so succinctly and accurately be about people. Sure, there are many people who will watch the trailer and swear the film's sole purpose is to push a strong liberal agenda, betraying the fabric of normal (conservative) family values. But what is perhaps the greatest quality about Lisa Cholodenko's latest film is that it refuses to take a convenient political stance or kowtow toward any demographic to gain sympathy. It is, simply stated, about people.

Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore) are a long-time married lesbian couple with two children: Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson). They each conceived one of the children using the same sperm doner. Eighteen years later, Joni is about to go to college with a National Merit Scholarship and Laser is excelling in various team sports in high school. Nic is a successfully practicing doctor, while Jules career path (even at her age) still seems unfocused, though she seems to have a sudden interest in landscaping. With the exception of a few valleys here and there, they've been able to create a fully-functioning family, despite their unorthodox make-up.

One summer, Joni and Laser decide that they're curious enough to try and get in touch with their biological father. Who they meet is Paul (Mark Ruffalo), a restaurant owner and farmer of organic foods. Paul is initially timid with the concept of meeting his "children", but when he finally is able to have a sit down and speak with them, the idea of becoming acquainted with his own offspring becomes suddenly appealing. He actively wants to spend more time with them, and Joni and Laser feel the same way. This budding relationship does not totally sit well with Nic and Jules. After all, sperm donors are supposed to be absent, invisible beings, not practicing parents.

It doesn't help that Paul's laid back, easy-come-easy-go personality instantly clashes with Nic's stern perfectionism. Things become further complicated when Paul hires Jules to do landscaping work on his backyard, and before long, they begin having an affair. What follows is a series of actions and reactions that pick at the fabric of family and the complexities of human relationships and sexuality. Nic is threatened by Paul's forceful entrance into her family, and rightfully so. His nonchalance seems to highlight the ugliest parts of her formal need to keep things (and people) in control.

I think it's too easy to dismiss The Kids Are All Right as pushing a lesbian agenda (and many, including The New York Post's Andrea Peyser have made such a close-minded claim). When you read that the co-writer/director Lisa Cholodenko is a lesbian herself, it becomes like shooting fish in a barrel. "That crazy lesbian is trying to work around American morality!" Quite frankly, the conflicts that arise within the film literally could not happen to a straight couple and I think it's only logical to assume that Cholodenko would fall back on her experiences as a gay woman when she helped pen the screenplay. After all, we rarely criticize other Hollywood filmmakers as they produce hundreds of film each year supporting a straight agenda.

Not only is that mindset dismissive, but it unfortunately limits your ability to appreciate Cholodenko's fabulous film. She does not go through an effort to lionize the accomplishments of Nic and Jules. If anything, she excels in exposing their shortcomings. It's incredibly hard to craft this kind of screenplay; one in which five very different characters are given complete introspection without disrupting the forward movement of the plot. You can make a case that either Nic or Jules or Joni or Paul or Laser are the main protagonist of the film at various moments, but how they work together makes The Kids Are All Right a real treat.

Bening and Moore are both exceptional, as is to be expected. Bening is stunning in her ability to express subtext so effortlessly (in a lot of ways, she's able to come off seeming like a 'conservative lesbian'), and Moore fills the flighty Jules with a lot more heart than I assume appeared on the page. The film simply would not function if they were not able to mold the unconventional marriage so vividly. As for Ruffalo, this is probably his best performance since 2000's You Can Count On Me. His version of Paul (cool, scruffy hipster; but five years away from becoming creepy, old hipster) is both endearing and disarming. Ruffalo continues his tradition of being able to make ne'er-do-wells charming. Though it should be said that the work of Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland) is just as good as all three of them, perfectly reflecting the overachieving, emotionally-confused first child. We should be hearing a lot from this talented, young actress in the future.

Films about family and marriage are a dime a dozen. It's become so easy--and lazy--to recycle the same plot points over and over again (hello, Woody Allen!) to express a simple point: marriage is hard and it's not supposed to come easy. This sentiment is expressed beautifully and simply by Jules at the end of this film, and I don't think I've heard it stated any more accurately than the way it's stated then. The Kids Are All Right is winning glowing reviews from everyone, and it deserves them. It's funny and engaging, but most of all it is honest. Mostly honest about this simple truth: you don't need a penis to know how hard raising a family can be.

Chloe (***1/2)

CHLOE
Directed by Atom Egoyan

***1/2

There's a reason that psycho-sexual films don't do well in the United States. As a country, America is supremely sexually repressed and gawk at the sight of real, sincere perversion being displayed on film. It is not that Americans don't like sex. They love watching Megan Fox walking around in low cut shirts or the latest straight-to-video Van Wilder spin-off. But when it comes to realistic portrayals of human sexuality, they get afraid and they get turned off. Which is why Chloe is a film that won't succeed in this country. Atom Egoyan's latest film does have the benefit of a superb cast, but it's how he portrays the emotional human psyche, no matter how unsightly, that makes the film a unique, interesting watch.

Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is a very successful gynecologist, but it has been a long time since she has felt particular comfortable with her marriage to David (Liam Neeson). David is a brilliant college professor and rather charming man. He's open and friendly with all his students, particularly the young women. When he intentionally misses a flight home on his birthday, Catherine's insecurities grow even larger. She is overcome by emotional loneliness and paranoia, and that is when she takes notice of a young girl walking down the street outside of her office.

That young girl is Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), a superb call girl who's excellence at her job is only surpassed by her precociousness. Catherine meets Chloe in a restaurant bathroom, and they are immediately drawn toward her. When Catherine returns to her seat, she watches Chloe return to hers and it is obvious that she is with a client. Days later, Catherine finds Chloe and asks if she can pay Chloe to do a favor. She wants Chloe to meet David and attempt to seduce him. Afterword, she's to report back to Catherine and tell her how David responds.

What follows is a series of episodes involving sexual intrigue and emotional manipulation. Catherine becomes surprised with just how smart Chloe is and how often she uses that intelligence in her work. Catherine figured that she could ask Chloe for this favor and simply be done with her, but Chloe wants to be a little more than just a service. The situation takes several turns, and every time Catherine tries to put out the situation, it just becomes more inflamed. Chloe knows exactly what to do and say to make Catherine vulnerable, and she uses those skills to her advantage in a very emotionally complex story.

I always admit that I bring baggage to any Julianne Moore film since she's not only my favorite actress, but I've found her to be the greatest actor I've ever watched in cinema (I didn't type that wrong). She is the utmost professional and possesses a screen presence that is unmatched by anyone of her time, aside from Meryl Streep. Surely, she is not as beloved as Streep, and it is because Moore insists on taking braver, sometimes un-commercial roles like the one she has in Chloe. There is nothing about this film that hints at box office success, and I sometimes feel Moore prefers it that way. Because it allows her, even at forty-nine years old, to still take chances and continue to challenge herself as an actress, and she may be the only one who can pull it off, with most actresses becoming obsolete by thirty-five.

So for many, it would be shocking to see her continuing to take on these kind of physically-demanding roles, and sometimes she does fall on her face (the morosely perverse Savage Grace truly wasted her greatness). But in Chloe, they utilize her skill wonderfully. Emotional transparency is her specialty, and Moore reflects sexual insecurity effortlessly in this film. Directed by Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan (The Sweet Hereafter), the script is infused with noir-like suspense, but its totally character driven. Egoyan is a director who has never been shy of taboos, and like in his 1994 film Exotica, he gives the story as much sexual tension as possible, but never allows the events to become gratuitous.

But the greatest part of Chloe is how it lets its characters dictate the forward motion of the film. It slows down when they want it to slow down, and builds when the characters decide that it's the right time. Egoyan always puts his actors in places where they can succeed, and along with Moore, his cast works effectively. As the endearing, occasionally philandering David, Neeson does not have much to do in the film's first half, but unleashes some true gravitas later in the film, as the stakes get higher. Amanda Seyfried, one of Hollywood's best young actresses, does a rather amiable job as Chloe. She exudes sexuality, even if she doesn't always convince you that she's a professional seductress.

I'm not totally sure that Chloe earns its tragic conclusion, but its not a total cheat. This is not a movie that demands a conventional ending, and if everybody ended up comfortable it wouldn't have felt right. The film is a true study of human sexuality, and how it holds a more prominent space in our minds than we think. As I've exhausted throughout, this is not a film for the emotionally insecure and it will rub many the wrong way. Maybe that's why I enjoyed it so much, but it is more than just a statement of sexual rebellion, it's a real story about real people.