It's Complicated
Okay, I’m sorry but what are we supposed to learn from this? I have now seen a second Meryl Streep movie in a week, both of them perfectly fine, adequate and by the numbers, but both of these are being touted as Oscar winners in various categories? I mean, what is all that about? As I mentioned in my review of Julie & Julia earlier in the week, I wrote that the film in itself is not worthy of Oscar deliberation and it was therefore only due to the fact that Streep, a perennial Oscar contender, was involved that gave some credence to its existence in a sentence that even has the word Oscar in it.
And like Streep’s performance in the aforementioned cooking movie, her performance here is just as accomplished, just as acceptable and just as delightful. But these things do not an Oscar winner make. Hence the reason she has won so few of them. She is nominated every year, but has won only a couple of times. Does this years’ Streep efforts not start to tap the Academy on the back of the noggin and whisper, “wakey, wakey.” Yes this is perfectly acceptable fare. But Oscar worthy? Really?
An odd sentiment which is rarely touched upon, or at least investigated throughout the film, for obvious reasons. The less time we spend thinking about Jane as a homewrecker, despite her clearly knowing better as she had her homewrecked herself, the better. So you do have to wonder if there really was as much thought given to this part as there really should have been.
Still, let’s remember the target audience, of which into I do not fit too comfortably. The film is directed at the fairer sex, for starters and if you are going to understand the character of Jane, then you are also probably going to have been dumped at some point. This then is a revenge movie?
Not so, Jane is truly perplexed by her position in the scheme of things and it becomes even more complicated when Adam (her architect, lar dee dar) played by Steve Martin, makes advances which she is just not good enough at curtailing at the suitable moment.
Still enough of my ranting, the film grinds out a fairly original premise, though does feel laboured at times. The running time was way too long for the content, but when Streep or Baldwin are on the screen, the time seems to pass more smoothly.
When divorcee Jane (Streep) sleeps with her ex-husband, who has foolishly, it seems, traded her in for a newer model a decade earlier, she is in the somewhat envious position of having all of the fun, with none of the problems associated. She is the other woman. Never mind the fact that the torment and suffering she was the victim of at the time is now being dished out to Agness (Lake Bell). This is not the issue at hand, after all.
This is a story about Jane. We are not supposed to care about the dark side of her wanton philandering on the basis that he was her husband first, so this makes it alright.
Clearly delighted at all of the attention she is receiving, she doesn’t do justice by either man, but as you can probably guess by the end, everybody still loves her and all are supremely happy about it.
So, is there any part of this that pertains to real life? Is there any part of what I have told you that makes you think we are dealing with searing drama, played with passion and delivered with style and poise and grace?
No?
Then please, for the sake of the whole industry, can we stop mentioning Oscar? The film is simply not good enough to warrant such dalliances and any notion to the contrary should keep actors and film-makers up at night. As I have said, this is by no means a bad film, but it just isn’t great. I think it’s better if we just leave it at that.
PCS Social Media
PCS Bitesize
Site Design
About Us
All Rights Reserved - Content copyright of the respective authors. Do not distribute.
