What I expected was the sit-comification of a lesbian relationship. What I got was the sit-comification of a lesbian relationship, followed by a sobering and emotionally honest accounting of what happens when one partner in a marriage has an affair.
Hmm.
Given the wisdom and integrity of the second half, why is the first half so bad? Specifically, why does Annette Bening’s character have to be so stereotypically hard-ass? (She’s the rigid, overprotective, driven doctor-mom.) And why can’t Julianne Moore’s character be a mature and articulate adult? (She’s . . . no 50-year-old I’ve ever met.) And why are the jokes predictable and unfunny?
No one ever hires me to clean up her screenplay. Why? Total mystery.
In other news, I read this book. And my review is similar to the above, in that: a) After the dreadful first few chapters, b) the story is surprisingly heartfelt and moving, if never quite spiritually deep. (My mother-in-law*: “Does she get to the point that Victor Frankel discusses, where you look toward making an internal emotional shift in the face of an utter lack of control over your external circumstances?” Me: “Errrr . . . no.”)
I wish Kerman’s editor had helped her revamp her pre-prison story and perhaps shift it to later in the narrative, as a flashback or series of flashbacks. Instead, Kerman powers through her criminal activity without a breath, telescoping to a point of vagueness that feels evasive and rushed. BUT once she gets to prison everything slows down. And we see, of course, that even in a minimum-security prison with a reputation for leniency, life sucks. Abuse, humiliation, ridicule, favoritism, recrimination, etc.
I hate the prison system. I wish it would die and be reborn as a just, compassionate national program of rehabilitation and restitution.
*One of my three mothers-in-law, that is. And as of three weeks ago, they are all totally legal. Fabu!