‘Away We Go’ Review
by John NolteOnce released on DVD, conservative parents everywhere should immediately buy a copy of “Away We Go,” place it in a box marked Break Glass Only In Case of Emergency, and hang it somewhere handy in the event the children begin to show troubling signs of becoming insufferable Leftists: White kids with corn rows, NPR on the preset, Al Gore poster on the ceiling over the bed, more than five sanctimonious “awareness” bracelets… That’s how it begins, so before they’re lost to the final phase — a complete lack of self-awareness — break the glass and show your children who exactly they’re in danger of becoming.
Directed by the very gifted Sam Mendes, (American Beauty and Road to Perdition are two personal favorites) “Away We Go” obviously wasn’t designed to portray our friends on the left as utterly dysfunctional and clueless, but never will you see a more unsympathetic bunch of self-involved, navel gazers. And not just the supporting characters, some of whom are supposed to be unlikable (I think), but also the leads, Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph), two self-proclaimed 34 year-old, unmarried “fuck ups” who discover they’re about to have a baby. In their defense, they are a committed couple (he wants marriage, she refuses), so committed that when she laments the coming weight gain, he reassures, “I will love you even if I can’t find your vagina.”
Verona’s a medical artist of some sort and Burt sells insurance over the phone, verbally morphing into one of those, “How ‘bout those Bruins?” Regular Guys to win over clients (which drives Verona crazy). Both look and dress like they stepped out of 1974 and live in a ramshackle house with an electrical system unable to handle a space heater. They live there for no other reason than to be close to Burt’s parents, a self-absorbed, well-to-do couple played by Jeff Daniels and Catherine O’Hara. They’re the type who believe the meaningless act of spending thousands of dollars on statues “to honor Native Americans” somehow makes up for the selfish bastards they really are. Everything is always about them and in pursuit of what they want both are more than willing to hurt their own son through the death of a thousand slights. Instead of being grandparents, they will be moving to Belgium.
Wanting to raise their child and plant roots near someone, anyone, Burt and Verona hit the road on a cross-country planes, trains, and automobile odyssey hoping to find a new home through a reconnection with friends and loved ones. Phoenix is stop number one, home to Verona’s former boss Lily (Allison Janey) and her sad, odd, dysfunctional family. Lily’s gift is living in the belief no one can hear her talk, even though they can. She goes on and on about her boobs and laughs over how her (within earshot) daughter might be a “dyke.” Not surprisingly, Burt and Verona press on.
Next stop Madison, Wisconsin, where Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Burt’s childhood friend, LN (pronounced “Ellen”). She teaches at the university, breast feeds her four-year old son and lives in a hippie pagan heaven where everyone shares a “family bed” because it’s good for the kids to watch mommy and daddy make love. In the film’s best moment, Burt and Verona finally show some sand, hilariously rebelling against this diseased, oppressive environment.
There are a few more stops but you get the picture. With an intentionally quirky soundtrack and irreverent tone, “Away We Go” feels more Wes Anderson than Sam Mendes. The pace is smooth, the scenery’s nice and my curiosity over where Burt and Verona would finally end up never waned. Sure, I liked them well enough, but could never respect them.
Other than Gyllenhaal’s LN, who should be jailed for raising likely serial killers, the characters are each rewarded with youth, health, children, employment, and an upper middle-class lifestyle, and while some have seen emotionally difficult times (miscarriage, divorce), all seem the type to forever focus on what they want, what they don’t have and the way things should be, instead of the many, many blessings within reach. We all want things better, we all lug a bag of regrets and hurts and desires around, but these are people who can’t be happy with almost everything, which means they’ll never be happy, and that’s hard to sympathize with and relate to.
For that reason, the script, written by Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida, is nowhere near as profound as it thinks it is. At heart, the story’s meaningless and the themes as shallow as a parking lot rain puddle. Burt loves Verona, Verona loves Burt, they live in America, are going to have a a baby and make enough money doing very little work to afford a cross-country journey of self-discovery. Yeah, his parents are selfish pleasure seekers and hers are dead, but everyone plays a little hurt and no one respects those who endlessly go on about it. ”Entitlement” simply isn’t a theme.
That doesn’t mean the pointless journey of two 34 year-old “fuck ups” is an unpleasant one, but I just found myself laughing ”at” them and theirs more than I was probably supposed to. Though I shouldn’t have. After all, we all have liberal friends and family members we love and respect, and this kind of stereotyping is completely uncalled for … though not unamusing.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
51 Comments
Sounds horrible – thanks for the warning!
I'm glad you found yourself able to laugh and enjoy it, but I can't stomach watching the antitheses of my values coddled and elegized on screen. Conservatives might have to deal with the liberal values of people we otherwise like, we might have to deal with liberals at work, we might have to support liberals via taxes, but we damn well don't have to watch movies about them.
I get that you're essentially laughing at them and their portentousness, but I'd still rather experience a good movie that appeals to my values and sense of life than laugh at a bad one glorifying someone else's.
sounds like waste of time
i think i'll alphabetize my socks instead
Disagree. I felt they were making fun of liberals with Maggie's insane and condescending antics. I feel they have strong family values. She only refuses to get "married" because her parents can't be there. Throughout, they cling to the fact that it is all about their baby and their love for each other.
They may be "fuck ups" but they're ok with that fact because they have each other. When they're on the trampoline, realizing it or not, they gave each other wedding vows. I saw strong family values throughout, both what to do and what not to do.
Thanks, John. I knew nothing about this movie. Now it's a must-see for me.
You lost me at "American Beauty…[is] one of my personal favorites." Everyone's different, obviously, with different tastes, but I think American Beauty is one of the worst films that I've ever seen. I didn't find one second of it interesting, captivating, likable, entertaining, thought-provoking or anything other than nauseating. The characters were all caricatures of people and the "surprises" weren't surprising. I made it through the whole thing only because it had won the best picture Oscar, and I assumed that there had to be something redeeming about the film. There wasn't. Ugh.
What you said!
I can't stand that movie!
Agreed. American Beauty was bad; not as bad as Crash, but really really bad.
>>Next stop Madison, Wisconsin, where Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Burt’s childhood friend, LN (pronounced “Ellen”). She teaches at the university, breast feeds her four-year old son and lives in a hippie pagan heaven where everyone shares a “family bed” because it’s good for the kids to watch mommy and daddy make love. In the film’s best moment, Burt and Verona finally show some sand, hilariously rebelling against this diseased, oppressive environment.<<
Wow, how surprising… That sure sounds like Madison to me
Can't say I'm a fan of Maggie G either – think I'll skip this one.
Thanks for the warning…
Of course they needed more, John/Dirty Harry. The point for the SWPL Yuppie class is that to have meaning, their lives must be a mixture of fame and consumerism, with the "perfect" relationships, babies, friendships, hip jobs, etc. Trader Joes (and I love TJs) at it's worst caters to this, as does the Gap, Banana Republic, Benneton, NPR, and other yuppie totems.
Part of that is Warhol's prediction. Fame is so commonplace, or should I say celebrity, that every one wants it. To be known, celebrated, and worshipped. What do you think drives Myspace and Facebook but the desire for some, any kind of fame? [And notably, the gender gap among participation and exhibition -- more women than men on both, and more exhibition by women, more pics, etc.] I'd much rather be forgotten than famous. What a horror, everyone able to pick apart every single stupid thing you've ever done in your life, forever.
The other part is consumerism. The idea that the "correct" beliefs, appliances, cars, clothes, accents, and critically, relationships (they spend most of their time looking for a "family relationship") can create happiness and meaning is the materialist SWPL disease. In our post-Christian world, meaning is given by status-materialism including most of all, relationships. Very few can adopt Buddhism or Zen because it's so alien to our culture and materialism. Bereft of traditional Judaism or Christianity, people have nothing but endless material consumption, including most especially relationships, to fall back on.
Above all I'm a traditionalist, and it's why I hate yuppies.
[...] ‘Away We Go’ Review by John Nolte [...]
Wow! The state of Michigan let Jeff Daniels out of his slobbering "move your business to our state" gig long enough to shoot a movie?
I admit that Spacey's character had a moral arc… realizing all he had, instead of bitching about what he didn't. Besides the horrible gay military thing, my problem was with the youngsters. The pot dealer is portrayed as this ultra smart, uber wise teen – and his girlfriend as "interesting". I always asked, why does he find her interesting? She doesn't do one interesting thing throughout the entire movie, except expose some admittedly fascinating breasts.
Come to think of it, the blond, the supposedly "uninteresting" one, was a far better character. A virgin who felt the need to lie about sexual exploits is a complete reverse from just a few generations back.
I don't know if the movie had hidden depths along these lines, or if the director was just throwing things against a wall.
All of which is beside the point since the characters in the movie aren't yuppies and don't embody any of that. And in fact they're not white people either, Maya Rudolf's character is half black.
I think this review is a bit misguiding as well. I was never unclear on whether I was supposed to find Alison Janey or Maggie Jylenhall sympathetic. They're both obviously horrible and the film is having fun at their expense.
Apart from them their are quite a few likable characters they encounter during their travels. This review cuts them short with "There are a few more stops but you get the picture…"
John Nolte's caricaturising the film to make it conform to this left / right paradigm. But it really doesn't fit.
A lot of liberal movies contain self-absorbed characters who create their own problems. They believe all normal people are like that.
But you make it sound like the movie is a parade of horrible characters whom we're supposed to possibly find endearing. It's really not like that.
And I'm curious, what about the protogonists makes them impossible to respect. They seem decent people nervous before embarking on childhood. You make them sound like selfish, navel gazing yuppies (whisky's word not mine).
Why don't you believe I saw the movie?
Where do I say we're supposed to find horrible characters endearing? I say clearly we're not supposed to like some of the supporting characters but accurately describe everyone in the movie accurately as unsympathetic, self-involved navel gazers. "Horrible" is your word.
As far as the leads, they are self-involved navel-gazers for the reasons I spell out in detail in the second and third to last paragraphs.
How can 34 year-olds with EVERYTHING, including cushy jobs, be so neurotic and unhappy? I can't respect that. Both are healthy, not alone, have plenty to eat, are still young, but that's not enough to make them happy. There's still a hole in their lives.
Gimme a break. My guess is that the hole they feel in their lives might be filled by doing something for someone else for a change — realizing there's a bigger, wider world out there and that they are uniquely blessed.
I can't sympathize with people who have so much but still feel unfulfilled. I just can't. . Sure, they're nice enough, harmless — but hopelessly shallow and self-absorbed.
Where do I say we're supposed to find horrible characters endearing? I say clearly we're not supposed to like some of the supporting characters but accurately describe everyone in the movie unsympathetic, self-involved navel gazers. "Horrible" is your word.
As far as the leads, they are self-involved navel-gazers for the reasons I spell out in detail in the second and third to last paragraphs.
How can 34 year-olds with EVERYTHING, including cushy jobs, be so neurotic and unhappy? I can't respect that. Both are healthy, not alone, have plenty to eat, are still young, but that's not enough to make them happy. There's still a hole in their lives.
Gimme a break. My guess is that the hole they feel in their lives might be filled by doing something for someone else for a change — realizing there's a bigger, wider world out there and that they are uniquely blessed.
I can't sympathize with people who have so much but still feel unfulfilled. I just can't. . Sure, they're nice enough, harmless — but hopelessly shallow and self-absorbed.
Well for starters, you describe the cast as an "unsympathetic bunch of self-involved, navel gazers. And not just the supporting characters, some of whom are supposed to be unlikable (I think)"
"you think"??? So it sounds to me like you're not sure which characters are and aren't supposed to be sympathetic.
You really seem to have a problem with these characters that I just don't get. For instance this: "Other than Gyllenhaal’s LN… the characters are each rewarded with youth, health, children, employment, and an upper middle-class lifestyle"
First of all this makes it sound like you hold all the characters equally in contempt. LN is a terrible person but most of the others aren't. What punishment exactly does Verona's sister deserve? Or Burt's Brother?
They actually don't go from Janey's in Pheonix to Gylenhalls in Madison. You skip right over Verona's sister in the middle there. I think you're review gives short shift to the characters like Paul Shnieder who are just as large a part of the story.You make it sound like it's all sociopaths.
All I can say is Burt and Verona never seemed unfullfilled to me. They're portrayed as a loving couple, I never saw them taking each other for granted.
To me they didn't seem self absorbed, they seemed apprehensive about raising a child. As if they'd gotten by this far by slacking off but that wasn't gonna cut it from now on. And then you totally schlussel them by saying they're on voyage of self discovery. No they weren't.
Consider two these two things.
Burt is compulsively taking on projects and trying to learn new skills, "family defense class" and "cobbling", clearly signifying that he doesn't feel ready to be a father but he wants to be. It's an example of how their actions are not about narcicism but about looking forward to the future and raising a family.
The characters financial situation is fleshed out in a subtle way. They're living in a shack but have the means to travel around. Burt's brother offers to pay, per usual, but Burt makes of show of how he's got it this time. These characters have only recently achieved this upward mobility, the kind of stability that allows to think they may be able to provide for a family. Again, their situation is changing and with new success comes more responsibility.
I think small subtle details like these go a long way to explaining who these characters are and where they're coming from.
You do call them likable but It's not just me who thinks you're being harsh. This whole thread is filled with people (most of whom haven't seen the film and are going on your say so) scoffing at these awful self involved cry-baby yuppies, who are "coddling the antithesis" of their values. But Burt and Verona do nothing to deserve this kind of animosity
Did the anti-suburbia theme of AB not bother you? For me, I have a special dislike for anti-suburban sentiment. It's one of the cheapest ways the left assumes its elitism, so it's hard for me to get past.
I can't describe EVERY character in detail, it's not possible, which is why I separate LN and the rest in the last few paragraphs and describe the rest of the pathetic characters, including the leads, accurately because they're all similar and easy to sum up as one.
As far as the leads, like I said, I saw them as likable, but wholly pathetic. They have everything, but it isn't enough, so they go searching for what's missing in their already rich and fulfilled lives (by normal people's standards). It's just pathetic. they're both pathetic. Not evil, not mean, just vacuous.
What more could they want? And yet, Away The Go… At the age of 34!
I think it was George Carlin who said, "Rich, white people and their problems … who gives a f**k?"
I don't expect you to describe every character. I just thought it was misleading to describe only the worst ones.
I thought most of the characters were good. I guess we disagree on that.
It's a witty remark by Mr. Carlin but not well applied to this film, they're neither rich nor white.
Mendes "Revolutionary Road" is suburban elitism at its worst, but with AB it wasn't as troublesome. The film is set in suburbia, but it's not ABOUT being anti-suburbia like RR (a truly awful movie).
AB is about a man's mid-life crisis, which is portrayed comically and with great skill by the actors, but also a morally dark choice that nearly destroys the daughter.
Then, just when Spacey's character (Lester, I think) is about to get his wish fulfilled, he has a complete moral awakening, redeeming himself and the film.
That's what AB is about.
I do think AB lacked courage having Lester killed at the end and the whole lame gay military guy cliche. It hurts the movie. A writer with courage would've given us a happily ever after, but those are harder to write then edgy. Edgy automatically comes off as "smart." A Happily Eveer After ending that isn't cloying or corny is much harder to writer and Alan Ball (the screenwriter) chose the easy way out.
The main characters are anything but Young Urban Professionals. I hit the road looking for a new place to settle down and plant roots because his parents are moving to Europe and they were the only reason the couple was staying in this depression midwest (i assume) town.
I felt they were humble and content financially. (a point made very clearly) If they feel that they are lacking in any area, it's parenting skills. That seems to be their biggest fear. As they travel they pick the brains of all their associates. Comedy ensues. Especially from the ultra-liberal Gyllenhaal, so full of herself and condescending that Nancy Pelosi would slap her. I'm sure it was the directors intention to make us hate her and her obnoxious views.
I think the movie is worth seeing, judge for yourselves. Plus, Inglorious Basterds was awesome. Nothing like the trailer. Nothing.
Touche.
oh, random question.
would you use a similar criticism of Lost in Translation?
I didn't say the characters weren't good, they're just all about themselves and dwelling on their problems.
And they are rich, or at least well off. How's this (though I'm no Carlin) "Young, healthy, living in America and they all have issues … really, who cares?"
Away We Go is a much better film than LIT, which I found somber and slooow….
However, to the meat of your question I would answer no. Bill Murray and ScarJo didn't have what Burt and Verona had, namely each other. Murray and ScarJo may have been wealthy and all that, but both needed to conenct emotionally with another human being because that was missing in both their lives. It wasn't something they were getting from their respective others.
That NEED I get. And I loved that it wasn't about sex. (I respect LIT more than I enjoy it).
Burt and Verona had each other, they were obviously committed to one another, that's what made the hole in their lives, their issues, their needs so pathetic to me. Really, they had it all.
really?! I'd think that if you found this movie navel gazing, you'd want to pull out your eyeballs during LiT.
Its' a film I like but it is narcisistic and self absorbed.
re: I didn't say the characters weren't good
well then how about if I say, "you did not find them enjoyable".
Anyways, I just don't think the films about them trying to find themselves, like a pair stoners on a road trip. I think it's about a couple trying to do right by their kids.
So has Jeff Daniels typecast himself as the selfish liberal dad? I can't complain, since he played it so well in Squid and the Whale.
TALONIS: I agree, the film was obviously portraying Gyllenahaal and Burt's parents in a negative light, that part was obvious, and while the rest of the cast wasn't unlikable, like I said in my review, I just couldn't respect them or what the film was saying.
As far as "family values," Burt and Verona were already very committed, never did I think they would break up, so the trampoline scene felt redundant. His arc was coming to terms with her refusal to marry. She had no arc in his direction. She didn't grow at all. I wouldn't describe that as "family values," not that I said it wasn't.
And where they ended up was redundant, as well. I wanted them to shake off this desire to be connected to something in their past and move on.
Stop talking, complaining, whining… go live a life. What more do you need? But they always needed more.
I didn't care for the gay military guy twist, but the rest of American Beauty is an exceptional film. A wish-fulfillment story where at the end Spacey's character figured it out.
It's a very moral film. When the cheerleader is his for the taking and Spacey sees that little girl's body and can't got through with it, that's a moral turning point in his life. He then realizes what is important … family … what he already has.
The moral of the story is usually found in the protagonist's character arc — which is why I consider AB to be a moral film. The protag does the right thing and learns the right lesson.
It's too bad they had to shoot him in the end to keep "edge." But the rest was superb and very pro-family.
From the review: "Sure, I liked them well enough, but could never respect them." And the other characters are alluded to later in the review where I mention divorce and miscarriage and then write at length about what was so off-putting about all of them…
And obviously my descriptions of Burt's parents and LN make clear they're unlikable, and in an earlier paragraph I mention that we're supposed to find some of them unlikable.
What doesn't fit is someone criticizing something they haven't read.
At least I saw the movie.
Where do I say we're supposed to find horrible characters endearing? I say clearly we're not supposed to like some of the supporting characters but accurately describe everyone in the movie as unsympathetic, self-involved navel gazers. "Horrible" is your word.
As far as the leads, they are self-involved navel-gazers for the reasons I spell out in detail in the second and third to last paragraphs.
How can 34 year-olds with EVERYTHING, including cushy jobs, be so neurotic and unhappy? I can't respect that. Both are healthy, not alone, have plenty to eat, are still young, but that's not enough to make them happy. There's still a hole in their lives. I'm supposed to care? Gimme a break.
My guess is that the hole they feel in their lives might be filled by doing something for SOMEONE ELSE for a change — realizing there's a bigger, wider world out there and that they are uniquely blessed.
I can't sympathize with people who have so much but still feel unfulfilled. I just can't. . Sure, they're nice enough, harmless, I wish them no harm — but hopelessly shallow and self-absorbed.
Mendes does make films that are, from a film-making standpoint, outstanding. However, the scripts he chooses are usually flawed beyond belief. American Beauty is a perfect example. Wonderfully developed, shot, and acted, the points it makes are ridiculous (except for the big one about being satisfied with what you have). His characters aren't characters but caricatures. I find myself feeling dirty after watching one of his films. But that is just me.
I could also do without the vulgar and profane language found in his films.
People that refuse to marry ALWAYS have an excuse.
I think Maggie G is adorable, but I can't stand her politics nor the roles she chooses (thought I thought she carried on with Rachel in The Dark Knight very well). She did a short about torture, and it was really disgusting. I caught it on On Demand and wish I had the 15 minutes of my life back.
Just say what I said in the review: I liked them, I didn't respect them.
And, no, I disagree it was about what was best for the child. If that were so they wouldn't have wanted to be near his awful parents in that awful house and would have gotten married.
And look at where they end up. That was all about her — I don't want to give the ending away, but it it was all about her coming to terms with her past. They weren't looking for a community with the best pre-schools, highest standard of living, finest pediatricians and cleanest air — they were working out THEIR issues, especially hers.
Both had a narcissistic hole in their lives that all their blessings couldn't fill. They still had to go look for something to make them HAPPIER. Really, 34 years-old and 6 months pregnant. If you haven't figured it out yet, you never will.
And this is what I meant by the filmmaker not being aware he was creating laughable characters. Obviously Gyllenhaal and his parents are broadly drawn liberals, but the leads and the rest are pretty laughable all their own. Don't get me started on the stripper pole.
Thanks for watching this and posting the review. I saw the trailer and almost puked but I loved hearing the details about everything I despise. It is comforting, like creme brule, as usual you hit the nail on the head. Keep up the fight!
Do anyone know if there is any significance to the fact that the title of the movie "Away We Go" was the originally planned title for the classic 1940s musical "Oklahoma!"? I haven't read any reference to this in the reviews and probably it's just a coincidence, but I wondered.
pure coincidence.
I agree with those who saw conservative messages and mocking of liberal lifestyles in the film. Many conservatives, myself included, see conservatism as an "adult" way of viewing the world. The two leads are being forced to confront true adulthood due to impending parenthood (been there), and it's obviously causing them to view the world more conservatively – witness the dinner-table conversation at Maggie's. Better late than never! Overall I thought the film was a little too self-consciously "Indy" in feel, but I enjoyed it and laughed a lot.
" I'll love you even if I can't find your Vagina"? In the words of Chris Rock, "Goot Lawd"!! This "thing" sounds like Woody Allen on steroids and LSD, all at once. Thanx for the review, John, excellent, as always.
Would there be an argument for compare/contrast with Albert Brooks's Lost in America (1985)?
“I will love you even if I can’t find your vagina.”
Who says the golden age of Hollywood has passed!
Where did they end up living in the end? Where was the parents house?
The lead couple was self-absorbed? And on the left? If you can't see the distance the movie was putting between them and the Wisconsin couple (who were clearly on the left), then I fear for you.
Yeah, it's scary when people think for themselves! Too bad everybody doesn't do it. I guess we should all live by your rules and vision for our lives.
The scariest thing is that these same left people in their old age become the right. The left is right, and the right is wrong.
[...] ‘Away We Go’ Review bighollywood.breitbart.com [...]
Gems form the internet…
[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.