The Kids Are All Right, Aren’t They?

The reviews have been phenomenal. Major publications from The Los Angeles Times to The Boston Globe have described The Kids Are All Right, Lisa Cholodenko’s new film starring Annette Bening and Julianne Moore as a lesbian couple who question their relationship after their teenage children bring their sperm donor into their lives, as “subtle” “emotionally true” “graceful” and “expansive and open-ended, like all good fiction.”

Claudia Puig for USA Today, the country’s top selling newspaper, describes the film as “a gem” and “approaching perfection.” She writes, “What makes this story so effective is not that it strives to be relevant in its depiction of a gay couple raising children but that it captures real-life rhythms and sincere concerns — everyday and existential — experienced by families of all kinds.”

A.O. Scott for The New York Times also lauded the film – “canny in its insights and so agile in its negotiation of complex emotions” – as a genre film, both hilarious and heartbreaking, of American normalcy. In the era of The L Word, a breakthrough series in its own right, but one that certainly magnified the sex part of sexuality, Kids renders lesbian identity quotidian. The lesbian characters have all the angst, humility and humor that comes with mortgages, marriage, and kids, plus all the fun stuff that everyone else gets to have in the movies — a cool craftsman home, perfect weather, movie star good looks and a killer soundtrack. “As I said: normal,” A.O. Scott summarized.

In box office potential alone, the film is bound for mainstream success. Not only did it open with a higher gross average per theater than any movie released so far this year, it’s also breaking stereotypes about art house films which typically do most of their business at night. Shocking theater owners across the country, Kids is putting butts in seats on Saturday morning, a sign to megaplex owners that this film could have broad appeal. And with the Oscar buzz that Bening is already getting for her performance, Kids will certainly see another round of publicity come March 2011.

However, despite all of this mainstream praise and success, in some lesbian circles, the film’s version of normalcy is a hot button issue. Whereas a presumably straight mainstream critic might say something like, “where Kids really succeeds is in showing how a lesbian couple (has)… the exact same hang ups and foibles that we do,” Iron Chef and out lesbian Cat Cora lambasts the film on her Facebook page. On Kids, Cora writes:

I am officially boycotting the movie The Kids Are All Right. First of all, most female couples do NOT watch gay male porn, no offense guys. And secondly, 99% of female couples do NOT sleep with the sperm donor! I am ashamed that Annette Bening and Julianne Moore would have anything to do with this hot mess of a fraud film! Shame on you both!

The very next day, Cora, who has a family with her partner of many years, added:

The Kids Are Alright is also offensive to any couple gay or straight that have gone through invitro to have a baby! The possibility of the male sperm donor coming back and having sex with the mother/wife is ridiculous and a very reckless message! Thanks for letting me vent for all the women, gay or straight, out there that have gone through invitro!

Yet Cora herself cannot speak for all lesbians or women who have had children through alternative means, despite the fact that she is a member of both groups.

Discussing the debate around Kids with a lesbian friend who has two children through artificial insemination, I was surprised to find out that she felt just as strongly as Cora. But for her, the scene where Jules notices the facial expressions of her kids on the face of the sperm donor justifies why this character would find herself drawn to this man. Joking, she said, “I love my kids so much, if I ever met my sperm donor, I’d f#@! him too.”

Many lesbians haven’t been this excited about a film since High Art (1998), Cholodenko's first feature out of film school. When High Art was released, as decadent and lush as it was, I remember being shocked that it didn’t receive more backlash for killing off the lesbian character in the end, a plot point that has buttoned up most lesbian-themed films since The Children’s Hour (1961). But to this, and to the criticism of Kids, I suspect Cholodenko would defend her right as an artist to be true to her characters. The lesbian character in High Art was an addict and addicts are likely to overdose over time. In previous interviews, she has said, “I don’t see myself as an overly political person, in part because I feel these are human rights issues. I know human rights issues are political issues, but my relationship and contribution to them is from the creative and artistic perspective.”

However we feel about Kids, like all good works of art, it has become a kind of cultural litmus test for how we feel about ourselves. Those who enter the theater expecting to witness a low-budget “lesbian film” are leaving shocked to instead discover a nuanced romantic comedy about the American family. In seeing another family struggle and survive life’s challenges, they feel “normal,” validated, and revived. Those going to the theater for a fresh dose of hot sexiness will leave feeling all too normal. In this film, marriage and kids are as unsexy for lesbians as anyone — despite the gay male porn in the top drawer.

Those who want Kids to represent lesbian identity as a whole are bound to leave the theater feeling misunderstood and abnormal. If any story is expected to represent all, then surely it will disappoint some. After all, all lesbians do not cheat on their spouses with their sperm donors. All lesbians do not watch gay male porn. All lesbians do not drive Volvos. All lesbians do not like The Kids Are All Right.

But in all this arguing, we may be missing the larger debate. What if the price of fitting in is the loss of a cohesive group identity? The first step an individual takes in this society is away from serving as a stand in for his/her group. That’s why nobody is worried that Paul, the sperm donor played by Mark Ruffalo, inaccurately represents straight white men of a certain age. His character gets to be an individual, not a type. Which begs the ultimate question for the LGBT community at this juncture in history: Do we want to be siloed and special, or do we want a place at the table of universal humanism? In other words, are we ready for “normal”?