Thomas Bezucha: The Family Stone

[Chris Knipp]

Thomas Bezucha: The Family Stone

Christmas with updated stereotypes

Review by Chris Knipp

[WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS]


This is a family homecoming Christmas romantic comedy. That's a mouthful. It's about too many things, and its logic gets tangled pretty quick.

The premise is simple: businessman Everett Stone (Dermot Mulroney) brings the lady he wishes to marry, a sharp businesswoman, home to his parents and siblings for Christmas. This lady, a certain Meredith (Sarah Jessica Parker, not at her best), is presented to us as being uptight, bossy, and generally annoying. Everett wants mom Sybil (Diane Keaton) to turn over “the family stone,” his grandmother’s wedding ring, to give to Meredith. Sybil will have none of it, and the whole family, whose members are loving – among themselves anyway – and laidback, stonewall Meredith from the start.

Whether this behavior is proper or necessary remains to be judged, but initially everything is glossy and appealing. No one but Meredith has any flaws that aren’t loveable. Everett has a pretty, at-loose-ends sister, Amy (Rachel McAdams), and two brothers. These are both super-easy to take. First is the forever smiling Thad (Tyrone Giordano), everyone's pet, who safely covers a handful of minorities: he’s gay and deaf, and has a black boyfriend (Brian White). And not to worry: the happy gay pair are good-looking and well off, with nice clothes and a posh car. They’re quite a contrast, incidentally, to another gay holiday homecoming brother, the dangerous, edgy, hysterically funny one in Jodie Foster's more down-to-earth 1995 Home for the Holidays. But then, that was Robert Downey Jr. He had a lot to say, as he usually does.

The straight brother is Ben (Luke Wilson), and he’s sloppy but sexy, a real Zen surfer boy. Ben is a far better foil for Meredith than the stiff Everett, and his attraction to her is telegraphed from the get-go. Mom is Diane Keaton and dad is Craig T. Nelson. Who’s not to like? Except for Meredith. But we know the Sex and the City girl is going to get rewarded for her sufferings.

Meredith can’t seem to do anything right. When everybody, led by the smiling but mean ex-hippy mom, starts excluding and stonewalling her, she’s naturally terrified. I’m still trying to figure out why we're supposed to be amused by that. After taking Amy’s bedroom because sleeping with Everett “wouldn’t feel right,” she is overwhelmed with guilt and discomfort, moves to the local inn, and calls in her sister Julie – who turns out to be the loose, self-assured Claire Danes. Guess what? Julie clicks with Everett right away. Opposites attract, I guess.

The in-jokes and deaf sign language that exclude Meredith aren’t funny. Sarah Jessica Parker’s cranked-up uptightness isn’t funny; it’s just tense and forced. It would be callous to find her predicament funny. The family just isn’t being nice, and eventually they admit it. But even though she gets drunk with Ben and loosens up and brings in Brad, the local cop and Amy’s once and future boyfriend, for Christmas breakfast, Meredith isn’t transformed. She remains desperate. It takes Parker too long to unwind from her excessive schtick. Even her later moves seem to be made out of desperation – and bad judgment. Her sleeping with Ben – even though they don’t have sex – isn’t redeeming to either of them.

The big question about this plot is: if Sarah Jessica Parker’s character is so wrong for Dermot Mulroney’s well-dressed organization man -- wrong indeed it would seem on any terms for anybody as far as this family is concerned -- why then is she nonetheless fine for the shabbier, more disreputable brother, Ben? And another question is: why does the third brother have to be both deaf and gay, with a black lover? And when they come back with the boy they’ve adopted (“Gus”) next Christmas, why must he turn out to be black, and a boy? Don’t gay males ever adopt girls? Why not an Asian girl, if we're flavoring the soup?

This kind of designated-minority casting rules out any depth of character development. To top it off and set us up for tears to flow during the brief Christmas-next-year sequel, dad Kelly (Craig T. Nelson) quickly, furtively, but early on reveals to Ben that Sybil is ill, and not going to last long into the New Year. Unlike those of more sophisticated theater or film, the designations in The Family Stone remain superficially tacked on because dialogue isn't provided to flesh them out. Ben shows a weepy face when he gets the news, and we're done.

And then we go from schticks and mugging to slapstick. Before long Meredith’s Christmas breakfast is slop on the floor and everybody’s sliding around on the linoleum. One can only assume writer-director Bezucha has realized he’s gotten his plot in a mess and wants to hide that by muddling things completely.

What is The Family Stone about, anyway? The comic switch of brothers and sisters means it’s about finding the right mate. Gee whiz, you just don’t know how thing's are gonna turn out, do ya! Families can help – but the flaw of this implication as mentioned is a basic illogic. On a superficial level the movie is about a family closing ranks against a nerdy, bossy, uptight female outsider. The family becomes like a school that excludes the new boy. Is Meredith only messing up because she’s being so badly treated? No, because from the start, before she even arrives, she’s presented as a cell-phone addicted, super-uptight, self-centered nerdy bore. There remains a confusion, though, whether she’s bad news, or just unfairly treated, and this leads to the illogic of her suddenly becoming okay for the other brother.

This may be a great Christmas movie, considering the recent competition. It’s not unbelievably negative and in horrible taste. But it isn’t very real either, and its sense of family values seems badly confused.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
This may be a great Christmas movie, considering the recent competition. It’s not unbelievably negative and in horrible taste.

I'm curious. What is it in your opinion what makes it better than most movies in the genre? Why is it "may be a great Christmas movie"?

[Chris Knipp]

If you read my review in detail, Oscar, you'll see that I found much fault with this movie. But compared to Bad Santa and stuff like that, it's nice and wholesome and the actors are very likeable. It tries to do too much, with too many family members, most of whom are superficially presented. I didn't find it as funny as it seemed to think it was. I am comparing it to my idea of recent Christmas movies, not the classics like It's a Wonderful Life -- which latter is manipulative and corny, but brilliantly successful in what it sets out to do.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
If you read my review in detail, Oscar, you'll see that I found much fault with this movie.

That's precisely why I asked the question. Because I read the post in detail (as always) and it is all negative (except for "initially everything is glossy and appealing"). Thanks for your answer. Will post brief comment within a day or two, as I have to post about movies I watched before this one.

[oscar jubis]

The Family Stone is a holiday-reunion movie that mixes screwball situations with bits of romance and drama. As holiday-reunion movies go, I liked it less than Pieces of April, which garnered plenty of recognition, including an Oscar nomination, for Patricia Clarkson (as April's mother). I am not as enthusiastic about Bezucha's movie, but the best thing about it is also the performance by the actress playing mom, Ms. Diane Keaton. I also found Bezucha's exposing the intolerance and clannish attitude of a tolerance-preaching liberal family very interesting. Personally, I detected a veiled political undercurrent to the clash between the Stones and Meredith, whom I identify as a Bush supporter. The movie is too hit-and-miss for me to recommend, but I found it worth-watching and the audience at my screening seemed to react as if it was better than that.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, Meredith's suggestion that gays adopting might turn a child gay is certainlly not a liberal position. But why, then, is she okay for Luke Wilson? I keep on asking. I am fundamentally opposed to plots that don't make good sense. However I may be wrong in thinking that everybody in the family is supposed to be loveable and okay. Obviously Diane Keaton's character is cranky, but I don't see how one can regard Craig T. Nelson's father and Luke Wilson's brother as anything but "normal" and "acceptable" mainstream, cliché family members. You don't seem bothered by the clichéd setups of the gay brother and his partner etc. I don't get the code of saying something you can't recommend is at the same time "worth-watching." In other words, worth watching for you, but not anybody you know? If you can't recommend it, why watch it? I'd consider that not "worth-watching" but a mistake to have watched. Worth reviewing maybe... to warn other people not to see, and to examine for its assumptions, its contradictions, which is what I tried to do.

I wouldn't consider these awkward and painful situations in The Family Stone so much "screwball situations," which is what you get in something like The Wedding Crashers, a big expensive mainstream comedy which I enjoyed but wouldn't consider anything to recommend artistically. I maintain that regardless of how some audiences like The Family Stone, to a sensitive, thinking person the situations aren't funny, so they can't be considered screwball. Of course you may find Wedding Crashers' college boy humor offensive, and therefore also not light and acceptable enough to be "screwball." But to me a morbidly embarrassed bitch and a mother with cancer don't fit into something "screwball," whereas it's clear that nothing and nobody in Wedding Crashers is to be taken seriously, so you can regard them as "screwball."

I'm glad you brought up Pieces of April because it is something I ought to have mentioned; friends of mine liked it, but I found it manipulative and corny, despite its appearance of an "authentic" scene. It's got the same kind of "Home for the Holidays" setup (what about Jodie Foster's Home for the Holidays, which I did mention?), but it's really a completely different style of movie. It's very indie, as indicated by having indie queen Clarkson instead of Diane Keaton, aside from the low budget and lesser known cast and much more down-market settings. It may read as much more "real" than The Family Stone (and not "screwball"), and I have higher hopes from that kind of production -- which led this year to a favorite of mine which you took issue with, over something....Junebug (I think you were a bit arbitrary, frankly, and it's one of the best American family dramas of the year, along with Thumbsucker and The Squid and the Whale). The Family Stone may deal with the "Home for the Holidays" theme, but it's a much, much glossier kind of production and that makes it read as much more kitsch and conventional. It's studded with studs and belles who're good box office, and it's set in a shabby-chic house in New England that's rather huge from outside.... that kind of wish-fulfillment with massaging of one's liberal prejudices goes down very well with the target audience. And that audience is so different from Pieces of April's they can copy the dying mother routine and nobody will notice.

I also found Bezucha's exposing the intolerance and clannish attitude of a tolerance-preaching liberal family very interesting.

I think that is intresting, or would be, but you are stretching things in interpreting that as going on. In fact they adopt Meredith as their own in the end, and drop their "tolerance-preaching" stand, if they ever had one. They get away with everything, and mom goes to heaven.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I don't get the code of saying something you can't recommend is at the same time "worth-watching."

For me it falls somewhere between mediocre and good. It means I was entertained enough not to feel I was wasting my time and money but not entertained enough to recommend. I would make an exception in the case of my sister Lisette, for instance, who loves the genre. My instincts tell me The Family Stone is better than the other comedies out there: Fun With Dick and Jane, Cheaper by the Dozen 2 and Yours Mine and Ours (although I've only seen the trailers). Lisette is also a fan of Ms. Parker, so I just may recommend it to sis and nobody else.

I wouldn't consider these awkward and painful situations in The Family Stone so much "screwball situations,"

Plenty of screwball siatuations including a scene involving Parker, Keaton, McAdams and an egg casserole; a scene inwhich the titular ring gets stuck in Julie's finger; and everything having to do with Meredith getting caught sleeping on Ben's bed.

to a sensitive, thinking person the situations aren't funny, so they can't be considered screwball.

Then I watched the movie with many insensitive morons.

Junebug (I think you were a bit arbitrary, frankly, and it's one of the best American family dramas of the year, along with Thumbsucker and The Squid and the Whale).

I've already gone into detail as to why I found Junebug merely worth watching. It's good we agree on Thumbsucker (which few watched) and The Squid and the Whale. I don't know if Palindromes belongs in the same film category as those but, if so, it would definitely be my personal favorite among them.

It's studded with studs and belles who're good box office, and it's set in a shabby-chic house in New England that's rather huge from outside.... that kind of wish-fulfillment with massaging of one's liberal prejudices goes down very well with the target audience.

Yes, it's a commercial, even formulaic movie with several stereotypical characters but it does poke fun at the prejudices of liberals for a while (I found some of it quite funny) and Keaton's performance is a consistent pleasure.

In fact they adopt Meredith as their own in the end, and drop their "tolerance-preaching" stand, if they ever had one. They get away with everything, and mom goes to heaven.

Well, I'm an agnostic but it ends the way holiday-reunion movies end, almost by definition. To expect otherwise would guarantee disappointment.

[Chris Knipp]

I would make an exception in the case of my sister Lisette, for instance, who loves the genre.

If you know your Lisette….but I hesitate ever to make personal recommendations, in fact I do evaluations, not recommendations. Sometimes I say “you might like….” to someone whose prejudices seem obviously matched to a certain movie, but not often. That seems to be the better way. I get your point though—mediocre to acceptable. And you are probably right about this comedy being superior to the other ones “out there,” and that’s part of why we both saw it and haven’t seen the others. I think the situations you refer to as “screwball” are slapstick. Yes, there are many insensitive morons in Miami. It’s not too late to move to another town, Oscar! Joking, but people in theaters often suffer automatic temporary brain damage. Did not see Palindromes; it sounded and still sounds intolerable. Your preference for it above these others seems odd. And it’s probably not in the same category. But I think I know what you mean: Palindromes is better to talk about. More interesting that way. Someone must point out to me why Keaton deserves special mention. I think people just love her from the past.

I don't think we should say "holiday movies" end a certain way; that's giving up. It seems to me there are one or two great American plays about family reunions, and nothing great has a predetermined kind of ending.

[Chris Knipp]

P.s. I didn't mean mom literally went to heaven, just that her absence after death is vague and sentimentalized. There is another way, and we have it in movies and plays. Again, there isn't a standard obligatory ending, even for a feel-good movie.