Knocked Up
A couple of entries below, there was a discussion of abortion and film, centering around the movie Bella, which I haven’t yet seen. I finally got around to seeing Knocked Up this weekend, which isn’t an abortion movie, as much as it is a baby movie –as in “why not have a baby, if you’re already pregnant” movie.
For those of you who haven’t seen it, the plot is this: a beautiful career girl gets a promotion at E entertainment television, goes out clubbing with her sister to celebrate, ends up having a one night stand with a scruffy, puffy, stoner slacker dude, gets pregnant, decides to keep the baby (actually, barely considers the other options). He slowly looks up from his bong and decides to do the right thing. Hilarity, especially of the gross and scatological sort, abounds. The baby is born. Everyone is happy. The end.
There has been some discussion on the blogosphere of whether Knocked Up was a prolife movie or not. In one sense, it clearly was–the unborn life is presented as a baby. At the same time, the broader values aren’t those that one normally associates with prolife and pro-family activists. Kathryn Jean Lopez’s review of the movie nicely captures the problems from this point of view, I think.
Here is what I think the tension is: the movie reveals that traditional pro-life activists and pro-choice activists actually have more in common than they realize. More specifically, both have pretty clear ideas about how one should plan one’s life. There is a set order for each, although not the same order. And the key thing is to follow the plan.
What this movie does is call into question the notion of a planned life. Babies can and should be taken care of; they’re wonderful surprises. The key is to live with a certain ironic distance from the plan. The slacker’s values-a lack of ambition, an easy-going flexibility–actually helped him accommodate the unexpected turns his life took because of an unplanned pregnancy. It’s hard not to imagine that the ambitious guy–23 years old, first year in a top law school, on his way to law review, and a clerkship, and a respectable job–would have had been less willing to change plans to take care of the baby.
I haven’t seen it myself. Do you think (or does anybody else who has seen it think) the O rating from the USCCB was too harsh (see below), and was the R rating from MPAA too lenient?
“Constant rough and crude language, pervasive coarse sexual and scatological humor, unmarried sex, frequent drug use and drug references, condom use, abortion discussion, rear male and upper female nudity, explicit shots of childbirth, and some ethnic slurs. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O — morally offensive. (R) 2007″
Yes, all of that’s in there. I don’t think the R rating was too lenient; it’s just not an X rated movie.
I can see why the NCCB gave it an O. But it’s more gross than seductive–about drugs, nudity, and sex.
But I don’t know how a teenage boy would respond.
Most movies, most television shows have unmarried sex. They use condoms, and talk about using condoms. Friends, for example–one of the most popular sitcoms ever.
So the problem with the NCCB ratings system is the baseline. The broader culture, and what is common morality, both in real life, and on television, is “O”
What do we do with that?
At its core, this movie is a guy’s fantasy that you can be an unappealing do nothing and still end up with a beautiful high achieving high earning female. Of course, the only hook he had was to get her pregnant first, but even pathetic losers have sperm. I find it so unlikely that a real world counterpart would have let him touch her in the first place that I don’t know what she would have done had she found herself pregnant, but if she had an abortion, as they say, the story would have fizzled — baby makes three was the only reason on God’s green earth she would have continued to let him in her life.
In the 1950s, our parents knew all too well a version of this story and it wasn’t nearly so happy.
Yes, that is why she had to get drunk in the first place.
I was surprised she didn’t give more consideration to
raising the baby on her own.
But then, it probably isn’t too good to think too much about movies like this.
I guess it’s the 2007 version of Pretty Woman.
Interesting that one of the USCCB’s objections was to explicit scenes of childbirth. I haven’t seen the movie and maybe these are poorly handled and jokey, but it seems odd that a Church that extolls fecundity to the extent Catholics do would object to a movie on that basis!
http://www.usccb.org/movies/k/knockedup.shtml
Yes, especially when you can just browse over to the PBS website and pull down past episodes of Nova (the science show) and watch in toto the one on pregnancy and chilbirth that shows an actual pregnant woman giving birth.
The childbirth scenes would clearly go against church teaching. When we were in child prep class getting ready for Stella’s arrival, we (and the instructor) were astonished at how many parents-to-be obsessively watched TLC (and other) programs depicting childbirth, and C-sections). The instructor thought they were nuts, and so did I. That kind of video can only inhibit fecundity, I am sure.
Besides, not that there’s anything wrong with childbirth–but as the instructor noted, those shows usually show the most “dramatic” births. Moreover, the dad-to-be isn’t actually DELIVERING the baby. In fact, he’s supposed to be at the OTHER end helping his wife (or partner, or whatever). Medical professionals deliver babies.
PS: Sorry for this overlong post and now off-track addendum, but a friend was saying she had heard of problems geeting permission to use a midwife at a Catholic hospital, and wondered why. I’d never heard of such a problem, and can’t imagine any bar, provided the midwife is licensed. Anyone ever hear of such an issue?
David, are you joking or is that true, that childbirth can’t be shown?
I can see people not WANTING to see it because they’re squeamish or whatever.
But, really, any childbirth footage I’ve ever seen absolutely paled in comparison to the monologue one of my male co-workers, who had a very carrying voice, gave in the stairwell (which amplified the whole thing) about his wife’s labor and delivery, complete with dilation statistics, description of the afterbirth, and etc. etc.
The lunchtime topic that day at the ladies’ table was what we would do to our own husbands if we thought they had gone off on a jag like that with his co-workers.
Really, it was a good thing there was no rope handy.
Regarding midwives: Midwives have protocol agreements with doctors, and they have to maintain staff privileges at hospitals as well. If the midwife is not on the staff, no hospital would permit her to supervise a delivery, even if her protocol doctor is on staff — if your friend really wants to use her, she will have to deliver where the midwife has hospital privileges.
Never fear, Jean, I was joking. But however poor my sense of humor, I don’t think I’d be bad enough to engage in such a conversation as your colleague–or dumb enough to broadcast it. I really have nothing against watching the birth–it’s miraculous. But I do think men who are fixated on getting the doc’s-eye view tend to be like your stentorian colleague, and see the whole thing as a really cool day at the 4-H fair–and something to tell their buds about over Buds. I like to think of it all from the woman’s POV.
Barbara, you maybe right about the privileges issue. As often happens, it is some simply explanation, but because an insttution is “Catholic” (Omigod!) people often tend to blame some article of the catechism first.
The thing about the explicit birth scene, in my view, was that it was played for grossness value, not educational value.
No surprise there.
David Gibson said: But I do think men who are fixated on getting the doc’s-eye view tend to be like your stentorian colleague, and see the whole thing as a really cool day at the 4-H fair.
Jean writes: What always remained a mystery was who Mr. Know It All had buttonholed in the stairwell. Presumably it was another guy, who had sense enough to be ashamed for both of them and never told anyone.
Yah, there was certainly a bovine element to his descriptions.
Which reminds me of the time my kid came home from daycare at age 8, hyperventilating after having seen a calf born on “Animal Planet.” He felt Bossy’s rights to privacy had been horribly violated.
If women are often uptight about looking fat, or old, or ugly or whatever, it is hard for me to imagine that such women want her husband to ing to husband to be right at the very spot of delivery.
But as to the plot, movies like “Knocked Up” are more likely to make people consider “pro-life” messages as a practical as opposed to a philosophical matter – than heavy-handed fare like “Bella” which appears to be a particularly barf-inducing romance, thanks to our friends from Regnum Christi.
I haven’t seen either movie, so I could be off-base.
Say, “barf-inducing romance” might be a whole new area for Cathleen to explore, though it just sounds redundant to me.
Certainly “Love Story” would be the seminal work in such a genre.
I’d also nominate “Jerry Maguire,” “An Officer and a Gentleman,” “The Bridges of Madison County” and “The Way We Were” as additional examples.
Now I need some Pepto.
Patrick–What is the Regnum Christi link? That real, or just a barf-inducer? I am intrigued by the Bella film. Some other bishop was gushing the other day, yet all reviews seem to say it is bad pap that does pro-lifers no service. Hell, maybe I should just get off my slacker behind and buy a pirated version…
All of this reminds me of a poet, novelist, philosopher, etc., who at a lecture agrees with each questioner as to each interpretation of her work. “That has meaning for you” type of thing. I was taught, and still believe, that art must be entertaining, and well put together. Looking for meaning is like Augustine going through Genesis and making all kinds of guesses.
Even tho we want to be entertained we do like our movies to be somewhat credible unless it is billed as a fantasy. Different people live lives differently and how boring can it get if one looks for preaching at the movies?
Art is basically as suspension of disbelief for the time we are engaged with it whether it is a novel or a movie. It should please and be well put together. It really stinks when philosophers get into it.
As if that is not enough, someone is actually calling a movie like this a pro life movie. Amazing.
Well! I never thought literary criticism would raise its head on this thread, but Bill covers a lot of classic moment in critical theory here!
Certainly, to enjoy art you have to, as Wordsworth said, be willing–and able–to suspend your disbelief and get pulled into the story, to recognize something real in it.
If you think you’re being manipulated, preached at, or simply find the whole effort so contrived as to fail to find an entry point into the story, the movie has failed on the most basic level.
Beyond that, what’s the point of art?
Is it to save our souls? Which was the stated point of most medieval literature, even Chaucer, who felt compelled to apologize for the Canterbury Tales on the grounds that it wasn’t preachy enough.
Is it to teach and delight, as Sam Johnson said?
Or is merely well or poorly executed, as Oscar asserted?
I’d say “Knocked Up” fails on all counts.
If, of course, you follow the Hollywood theory, which is that a successful movie is one that makes money, then “Knocked Up” looks considerably better.
Jean, “Knocked Up” succeeds because people enjoy it. It is not necessarily in poor taste and is not preachy. Mainly it portrays legitimate questions in the human condition. Some enjoyed it. Even Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” qualifies as art as it pleases people to watch and each can disagree about its historical merits.
An example in music. Take the song that came out in the sixties “Just Call Me Angel of the Morning” which came out in 1966. It is apparently about a one night stand but written with such poingnancy and sung with such feeling (Joyce Newton) that it speaks of profound longing of the human heart and provokes one into deep considerations of relationships, friendships that may not be sexual. Much can be said about it that can fill pages as the feelings that are stirred may be common to all. At the very least we are sympathetic for the longing of this person for something more. This is art. http://oracleband.net/Lyrics/angel_of_the_morning.htm
I am sure this can be said for all great works of art.
Bill, Bill, we will never agree about popular music, or this movie.
In my view, this movie offers nothing more than the old “women who make sexual mistakes must be punished by the end of the last reel” rule of Hollywood morals.
But instead of getting dying, getting sick, losing their looks or fading into ignominy, they just get stuck with idiot husbands.
Bill, did you like the movie yourself?
David,
Pleasant to know that you think there is nothing wrong with child-birth itself.
When you write “dumb”, do you mean stupid?
Jean,
Isn’t “idiot husbands” an oxymoron?
. . . . nothing wrong with child-birth itself
I thought it was a punishment from God.
Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
idiot husband = oxymoron
That wasn’t my point. I beg your pardon if you thought it was.
Bill, did you like the movie yourself?
Cathy, I loved it. It was hilarious while showing strong emotions by the woman and her cooperator in the pregnancy. Both were likable, she more than he, notwithstanding his early utter irresponsibility. The jokes were funny. Between fuzzy emotional scenes and rat a tat humour the movie sets one in a pleasant state. I loved the reference to its not you its the hormones honey which I immediately tried on my wife as soon as it ended in front of my daughter who quickly added that “sometimes the hormones are real feelings.” Oh well. It pleases as art should do.
I almost feel odd in putting values on it since the art diminishes as does the pleasure with heady and perhaps pretentious analysis.
I guess you might say that both prolife and prochoice advocates can excuse the movie. But I think it is an awful intrusion into the lives of the people involved. The movie does not discuss whether to abort or not except for one of Ben’s friends saying that she should abort. Kathyrn Jean Lopez’s review seems like, what it is, a Catholic writer trying to inject ethics into a story which is basically about people suddenly thrown together, falling in love and deciding whether it is worth it when a pregnancy is an inciting force. And it might be a bit much when Lopez says her sister’s husband is a bad one because he lied about playing fantasy baseball instead of going to a meeting. Hey Lopez, we are a church of sinners, remember and lying about fantasy baseball may not even make the venial sin list.
Although, you are an exception Cathy in that you allow your mind to think outside the Catholic bar, you may still remain trapped in that mileau which finally turned on the great Raymond Brown in the 80′s and 90′s. Monsignor Kelly in severely putting down Brown accused him of making old people lose their faith.
In this vein I imagine your students saying to you when you might inject the moral paramaters: “How can you see all that when it is just a fun movie?”
No doubt the comedy helps make this rather long movie enjoyable. At the same time, the best part of the movie to me is their warm, developing love. That is precious and when art conveys that to its viewers it is indeed high and true art.
Thanks, Bill.
I guess I didn’t like it very much, overall. I didn’t like the characters as much as you did. I though she went back and forth between being a WASP and swearing like a fishwife. I thought he was, well, a bit gross in his personal habits.
I really don’t like gross-out humor. I make an exception for the Farrelly brothers since they are from my home town.
This is the first time I have been accused of being trapped in the Catholic box -but it’s a nice counterpoint to the accusations that I’m not Catholic enough!
Cathy,
There is a difference between enjoying the movie and inviting Ben over for dinner. Of course he was gross and disgusting. But what about redemption? We will never enjoy theater if we expect the characters to behave the way we do. Most novels and movies are impossible to enjoy without a “suspension of disbelief.” I don’t like gross out humor either. I thought the author was smart enough to not dwell on it too long. Maybe growing up in the streets of New York inured me to them also.
As far being trapped in the Catholic box I was in deeper than you it seems to me. I understand the counterpoint. But I am still a fan of yours because you do not make the mistake that too many professors make who live off their position rather than their reason. You actually give reasons for your opinions and listen rather than descend into ad hominem.