People this insulated aren't remotely relatable. I really wanted to like it. I really wanted to care. Rashida Jones does seem to be a capable actress, but she needs someone else to write her a good role. Andy Samberg on the other hand, ISN'T AN ACTOR AT ALL. Anyways, this movie was disappointing.
shareRashida co-wrote it :)
But I didn't like it either, hehe
That is why I said "someone else".
share
What does being rich have to do with anything? What aspects of the movie made you feel like the characters were insulated exactly?
The characters are locked in a bubble of an obscenely rich, LA douche crowd lifestyle. It's plain as day. Now, if that had been part of the point it could have led to something worthwhile. This isn't woody allen, where we sympathize with the characters despite their particular insulation, this is just obliviously insulated characterization. The filmmakers have created a protagonist more troubled than they're aware. It leads to something wholly unsatisfying, in my opinion.
shareThat's right, if a movie isn't about diseased orphans in a ghetto, it has absolutely no merit.
shareI didn't say the film had absolutely no merit. My point is that a film whose characters aren't treated introspectively by said film's writers leads to disappointment (from me). It still passed the time, but the denouement I found hard to take seriously.
shareI honestly don't see your point. Why do you think it makes a difference them being rich?
shareIt isn't them being rich that makes the difference. It's the oblivion with which the characters are dealt by the writers that "makes a difference", as you say.
shareThey weren't rich. At least not rich by my standards? Sure they were successful people. Rich not hardly. Not that I am rich, but I would say my lifestyle is much the same.
Plus who cares? Love is messy for everyone actually money can make it worse sometimes. As it can put much harsher expectations on both people.
I don't get it. It was a movie about a relationship. They broke up and they were sad. Money had nothing to do with it.
shareYeah, money had nothing to do with it. SOme of you sound resentful... there's nothing wrong with writing about what you know. Were they supposed to include a black character for diversity's sake?, that's absurd.
"The Love you take is equal to the Love you make" The Beatles.
They were definitely not rich, but money was part of the problem. He was an artist who wasn't doing so well until Veronica's friends helped him out, and he wasn't disciplined enough to make a living even when she had hired him for her company.
I'm not saying she didn't have her flaws; she had. But when you've been together since high school and have been married for six years, and one of you (the broke one) is talking about babies…it's a problem for any rational person.
I think audiences dislike the "rich people" aspect because we are meant to see the characters as a reflection of ourselves in previous life situations, and most of us know about the heartaches that come when money is tighter and you have less extravagant stuff going on in your life. C&JF sidelines Samberg's character for a while to focus on Jones's recovery period, as she: owns a car in L.A., does publicity for pop stars, grabs some vegan food before yoga, takes out several more Caucasian men on dates, goes on vacation to her friends' weddings, and never wears the same clothes twice. And the movie is supposed to be showing her at a low point in life.
Combined with Celeste's tendency to have to be right about every little point, it sometimes makes the movie (and its lead character) a bitter pill to swallow sometimes.
"Oh, my God. Bear is driving! How can that be?!"
[deleted]
I feel like you're speaking in platitudes. You're making generalities but I don't hear any specific complaints, aside from the fact that they're rich. But how, specifically, does their being rich ruin the movie for you? In what specific ways and in which scenes does it cause a problem? Because without that, I really have no idea what you're talking about.
"The guy we're meeting with can't even grow his own hair?!? COME ON!!!" -Gob
I think what people are having a hard time with is the seeming disconnect between your post's title and the complaints you have within. If I may, I think what you're saying is that Rashida Jones, being born into wealth, doesn't seem to be capable of writing a relatable "real-world" person because she's not from the real world.
The other responders to this post seem to think you're talking about the characters being rich, which I don't think is what you meant.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'd need to think on it further. I certainly feel that way with Sofia Coppolla films.
Usernumber owes you a beer because, assuming you have correctly interpreted their intent, I now understand what the OP was getting at. Oh btw, I completely agree that Sofia Coppolla is a better example of what the OP is saying about Rashida.
shareThe OP's got a point, but it's not very well articulated. I found this movie hard to like because it was very revealing of the borgeois-bohemian bubble that Rashida Jones is clearly living in: everyone is rich, everyone has a successful career in a creative profession (even the supposedly unsuccessful ones like Samberg's character), and everyone is caucasian, or mildly asian/hispanic. The LA that is presented in the film is devoid of ethnic minorities, pollution, poverty or crime. These people live in a nigh-regal cocoon of luxury and opportunity, yet we're still supposed to care about their problems.
I guess it's more a political thing, subtextually. Watching these ludicrously over-priveleged yuppies hang out in indie bars drinking Newcastle Brown ale (which is ridiculous cheap swill here in the UK I might add) and dining at the finest vegan restaurants just felt like an overwhelming contradiction of attitudes. The characters in this film are the exaggerated liberal sterotypes who make liberal attitudes seem ridiculous and irrelevant, which is bad news for us real world liberal types (the 'real world' being outside LA). I think that's what the OP was getting at, from a socio-economic perspective.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's the main reason I didn't like the movie: I find it difficult to care about the namby-pamby relationship problems of the upper-middle class - especially when every character is a rich artist/PR person.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Lots of good points made in here. I felt the same about "About Time" that Rachel McAdams movie, and Drinking Buddies that movie with Olivia Wilde. I'm not so much upset that they're rich. It's just like that joke Rashida's character made about the rebound guy she was seeing, "Cornell? That's like one of the lower Ivies..." I get that it was a joke, but it just screams yuppie pretension. It's like L.A. has been whitewashed for lack of a better term.
shareIf this were one the THIS IS 40 board it'd make total sense.
I didn't see anyone's economic background playing into this film at all. She's an executive in LA, obviously she is well off. Are we only supposed to make/film movies about the middle class? But then rich people and poor people can't relate...
Again, what was there not to relate to? It's a movie about a high school couple that's facing the fact they will not be together forever and really struggling with it. I didn't see finances playing any role.
Also, Jesse's net value was $0, I believe.