Four Christmases

Director: Seth Gordon

Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Vince Vaughn, Robert Duvall, Jon Favreau, Mary Steenburgen, Kristin Chenoweth

(New Line Cinema, 2008) Rated: PG-13

US theatrical release date: 26 November 2008 (General release)

UK theatrical release date: 26 November 2008 (General release)

By Cynthia Fuchs

PopMatters Film and TV Editor

Not Even Present

cover art

For Brad (Vince Vaughn) and Kate (Reese Witherspoon), the very concept of family is anathema. When they’re not talking about how much they hate their own relatives, they’re manufacturing fantasies of not having any. Just so, in they introduce themselves Four Christmases as if they are strangers, role-playing at a swank singles-meet, surrounded by young execs in designer outfits holding drinks and pretending to care about each other’s small talk.

As Brad and Kate swap edicts and insults (“I want a man whose hand doesn’t shake when he puts it up my shirt” “You crazy little slut “), their voices rise and their performance attracts attention from their fellow bad-party attendees (though the fact that they end up in the bathroom have sex against the wall isn’t nearly as outrageous as they seem to think it is). You don’t know it yet, but their desperate acting out here is directly derived from their family experiences. Point being: as hard as they try to escape their pasts, well, they’re unable to do so.

This trite point is obvious in the film’s premise. That is, though Brad and Kate have spent the last three Christmases away from their families and vacationing on islands, this year they will be forced to confront their demons and yes, take their own relationship “to the next level” (i.e., become more like their parents-siblings-grandparents-five-year-old-nieces than they ever imagined). The contrivance that initiates this long day of four visits (each parent has a household that must be attended to) is immaterial, except that it involves TV. Caught by a local news reporter as they learn that their flight from San Francisco to Fiji is cancelled due to fog, they stammer and dissemble for the camera, their “reality show” of an existence suddenly exposed to millions of viewers—including their relatives, who instantly call to demand the children pay homage.

Their visits are painful and then some. First stop is Brad’s dad’s place, where Howard (Robert Duvall) makes plain his resentment that Brad now makes lots of lawyer money and feels he’s too good for his low-rent kin. As Kate observes in wide-eyed wonder, the returning son squirms amid his emblems of his nightmarish past, unable to turn back literal assaults from his two thick-necked, badly-tattooed, semi-professional-cage-fighting brothers, Denver (Jon Favreau) and Dallas (Tim McGraw) or manage his father’s increasingly angry insults. Though Brad tries to explain his lack of spine to Kate (“My childhood was just like The Shawshank Redemption, except I didn’t have some soft-spoken gentle black man to share my troubles with”), she’s bothered by the fact that he’s hidden certain details from her, as well as his consistent wussiness in the face of his relatives’ abuses. Maybe he’s not that guy whose hand doesn’t shake when he puts it up her blouse.

At the same time, the film is laying out Kate’s vulnerabilities, as well as her own lies and omissions. If Brad’s issues tend to emerge in traditionally masculine arenas (wrestling, TV-fixing, money-making), hers are all about maternity. At Howard’s place, she’s essentially sent to the kitchen with Denver’s extremely pregnant wife, also carrying a child on her hip. As much as Kate imagines herself a sophisticated, professional, fast-tracky city woman, she is almost immediately undone when asked to hold or otherwise think about babies.

This shift in self-image is expanded when the couple arrives at the home of Kate’s mother Marilyn (Mary Steenburgen). Here she greets her fecund sister Courtney (Kristen Chenowith) and flirtatious Gram-Gram (Jeanette Miller), and—following an incident with a projectile-vomiting infant—finds herself alone in a bathroom with Courtney’s pregnancy test kit. The logic of Kate’s next steps remains elusive, but suffice it to say that she performs a test on herself, leading to mayhem both physical and emotional. On top of this, she finds out her mother is in love with Pastor Phil (Dwight Yoakam). A preacher of limited skills and tremendous chutzpah, Phil has his congregants praise the lord and give money in hardcore evangelist style, their Christmas day pageant in need of a pregnant Mary, for which Marilyn volunteers her childless daughter.

Kate’s trauma is compounded by Brad’s ongoing obliviousness to it. Somehow, of course, she will find in this day a newfound commitment both to him and the idea of having children with him (though on its face, given his profound childishness and selfishness, her commitment looks almost pathological). While Brad is briefly distracted by the fact that his mom Paula (Sissy Spacek) is sleeping with his high school classmate, Kate is increasingly like a dog with a bone on this baby business. The more she presses him on it, the more he retreats, afraid and angry that she’s “changing the rules” they agreed to three years ago, namely, no families—in past and future.

Even apart from the retarded and retread contrivances that provide context for their argument, Four Christmases is intensely disturbing in its class politics. The most visible manifestations of trauma for both Kate and Brad are rooted in what might be termed “conservative” frameworks, that is, gender extremes. (They might also be termed vaguely like the models so vociferously embraced by this year’s “Republican base,” meaning that Four Christmases’ ugly stereotyping is either timely or wholly out of date.) Dissatisfied and indignant, Howard and his redneck sons are bully cartoons; Marilyn and Courtney, both Barbie-doll pretty and eternally hot to trot, appear dupes in a system that keeps them subservient and ignorant, but still, mothers. And that, the film submits, is all Kate needs to be happy. The husband, he’s incidental.

— 26 November 2008
  • 'Four Christmases': Not Even Present
  • 'Four Christmases': Not Even Present
  • 'Four Christmases': Not Even Present
  • 'Four Christmases': Not Even Present
  • 'Four Christmases': Not Even Present
  • 'Four Christmases': Not Even Present
  • 'Four Christmases': Not Even Present
  • 'Four Christmases': Not Even Present
 
 
Bookmark and Share

Related Articles

Talk, Talk, Talk: November 2008

By Bill Gibron

11.Sep.08

Like the sainted sigh of relief that comes after another shriek-filled All Hallow's Eve, November usually means the start of the 'nominate me' process for the proposed prestige pictures of 2008.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

By Mike Schiller

20.Feb.08

If Steve Wiebe vs. Billy Mitchell is Good vs. Evil, Steve's relationship with his family touches on the price that good must pay to vanquish that evil.

 
 
Comments

I feel this isn’t really reviewing the film, rather just telling me the plot of it. Also learn some new words other than contrivance, and check what tense you are writing in.

Comment by Natasha from UK — November 27, 2008 @ 10:43 am

I agree. This review is awful. No matter how bad the movie is, this review has to be worse. This editor really needs some editing. I can’t believe the offensive use of the word “retarded”. How old is she….12? Absolutely inexcusable.

Comment by Debbie from Ohio — December 5, 2008 @ 5:03 pm

I don’t think the reviewer read what she wrote after it was written. In desperate need of editing. Embarrassing.

Comment by HS from Missouri — December 6, 2008 @ 10:58 pm

I completely agree that this film has a plot.  I also completely agree that to tell the plot and give thoughts on the plot is not criticism.  However, poor cinema begets poor criticism just as great cinema begets great criticism.  Was that the point of this essay?  No, nowhere near “essay” material.  Essays require a thesis.  This criticism has less of a point than the film.  I give this essay a 1.

Comment by Alex from Seattle — December 7, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

I forgot to mention the music, the editing and the mise en scene and so did the reviewer.

Comment by Alex from Seattle — December 7, 2008 @ 8:11 pm

So, taking the ending of this review.. I have to ask… what is it Brad needs to be happy?  Or do we only care about one gender in this obvious paen to the pseudo-nuclear family that such movies see as the only future for any couple?

Comment by Joshua Ludd from Boston, Ma — December 9, 2008 @ 7:42 pm

Woah…the first commenters obviously haven’t seen the movie, because it’s really the appropriate target of their vitriol, not the review, even if it is a bit heavy on plot summary.  This movie was a hot mess.  To the calls for a treatment of editing and mise en scene - I don’t think there were any in this film.  Any decisions that were made could probably best be described as ‘inexplicable’.  There was evidence of scenes being cut out completely, so apparently a sense of shame kicked in at some point. At what point though does a movie become too shit to write seriously about?  Maybe you think such a thing is never reached - in which case good on you for having high standards for your criticism. 
In the end the movie tried to have it both ways, before indulging its target audience of females -Brad concedes to Kate’s request to be open to the possibility of marriage and kids, and she backs right off and insists she only wants to think about it.  Sure enough though, cut to ‘One Year Later’ and the film’s ridiculous coda - Kate and Brad are new parents.  Those women and their birth control…they’re such wily snakes.

Comment by Victoria from Sydney — January 2, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

Yes I did see the film.  It was a nice, lighthearted piece of fluff that my girlfriend wanted to see.  I laughed out loud a few times, but it really was terrible cinema.  There really was no editing or images that went beyond the pedestrian.
  Victoria, in the end you go back to the plot, assumptions about the audience, and finally an assumption about the character.  These are signs of a terrible film when the only options available for discourse are everything besides the film itself.  The plot is in place before the film, and thus can be said to exist outside the film itself.
  My problem with the “review” was that this was not pointed out by the reviewer.  “Show, don’t tell.”  The plot was told enough in the film, and furthered in the review, but both the film and the review failed to show anything interesting, meaningful, or insightful. 
  Thesis: “Four Christmases is the result of studio compromise within the current climate of popular romantic comedies, high actor’s salaries, and a lack of challenging vehicles for Hollywood talent.”

Comment by Alex from Seattle — January 3, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

“These are signs of a terrible film when the only options available for discourse are everything besides the film itself.”

Indeed, so how the reviewer could have found something worth commenting on remains beyond me.  I don’t disagree about its quality though, just found the level of hostility (it seemed to me) somewhat surprising.  My final comment was in response to Joshua, although unlike you I don’t believe that the audience (nor characters) are ‘other than’ the film itself when it comes to Hollywood fare like this. I like your thesis - the story of how this film came to be is likely far more interesting than the story of Brad and Kate.

Comment by Victoria from Sydney — January 3, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?