Drinking Buddies

Coifed hair, bitchin’ tattoos, and hipster beards are all adjectives used to describe the boys’ club that is associated with the on-the-rise craft beer scene.  Now, there isn’t a “No Girls Allowed” sign posted on the door of every bar and brewery, but one thing is for certain: women are few and far between.  For centuries beer has always been a “man’s drink.”  Even today, our marketing and movies maintain the idea that “ladies don’t drink beer,” and if a gal does enjoy a pint or two she needs to be snatched up immediately, because she’s every man’s dream come true.

Joe Swanberg’s Drinking Buddies doesn’t help with this perception in the slightest. Although the amount of women may be small in the craft beer industry, they are a fast growing minority. Drinking Buddies neglects to acknowledge all the other women working in the industry, and channels just a fraction of what goes into the trade into to one passive-aggressive, close-minded, and whiny stereotype.

Kate (Olivia Wilde) is the only woman working for a local Chicago brewery. She spends most of her days on the phone scheduling beer tastings and arguing with local distributors.  When the cord of her phone doesn’t tie down Kate, she passes the rest of her day by flirting with her (very) close friend, co-worker, and “work husband,” Luke (Jake Johnson). Aside from the two being romantically unavailable, the two seem like a perfect match. They both love drinking beer and getting drunk together. They both love doing stupid things, and they both seem to not be terribly interested in the their significant other.  It’s extremely apparent that these two have a thing for each other, but they both insist that they’re just friends. You know what really can blur the lines between a friendship? Beer. And that’s just about where any mention about brewing and beer end: Luke and Kate’s friendship.

In addition to our main characters, Drinking Buddies is a completely wasted opportunity to shed some light on an exceptionally interesting and growing industry. The setting couldn’t be more perfect to educate viewers about craft beer. Set in one of Chicago’s largest breweries, all we get to see are some fermenters, kegs, and hops. But besides squandering the chance to teach viewers about the process and varieties of beer, the film also perpetuates the incredibly annoying stereotype that beer is meant for one very specific type of consumer, and that’s men.

The film claims to be set at a non-descript Chicago brewery, but anyone with a set of eyes and no knowledge of beer could tell it takes places at Revolution Brewing in the Logan Square area.  From labeled boxes stacked up to the ceiling, to their glassware and tap handles no one should be fooled about the where this is all taking place. The film is very loosely based off an employee by the name of Katie Coggins, so knowing the film obviously takes place at Revolution; we can do a little research. In addition to Coggins, there are thirteen other women who work for the brewery. So why didn’t we see any of these other ladies in or mentioned in the film? Everything is all about how Kate is a special snowflake. She’s different than all the other girls out there. She drinks craft beer, not margaritas and sangria. She’s the cool girl. Throughout the movie we see a few other women, but they all seem wholly uninterested in the beverage in their hand (or anything for that matter) and the few times we get to encounter them, it is brief and heavily yawn inducing.  The only other main female character, Luke’s longtime girlfriend, Jill (Anna Kendrick), doesn’t really care about craft beer and clearly isn’t interested in learning about what her longterm beau does for a living.

Now, it should be made crystal clear that no one is saying that if you are a woman, it is your duty to savor a snifter for the sake of womankind everywhere, but it is important to remember that everyone has different tastes, including men. There are plenty of guys out there who don’t enjoy beer at all, but the biggest problem with this movie is that the film consistently perpetuates the idea of what you enjoy drinking determines who you are as an individual.

As a recently turned 21 year old woman, I enjoy craft beer. As a woman, I also make up 15% of total craft beer consumption. I can tell you upfront, however, I am not a cool girl. If anything, I look like the antithesis of what a craft beer drinker would probably look like. I dress similarly to Anna Kendrick’s character, I’m rather girly and quiet. The thing is it doesn’t matter what I look like. I frequent breweries such as Three Floyds and 18th Street, but guess what? So does everybody else. I’ve seen plenty of the “typical” brewery frequenters with tattoos and beards, but I’ve also seen plenty of different types of ladies in these breweries too. Some girly, edgy, sporty, and weird, because there isn’t a normal beer drinker.

Kate’s character is a narrow-minded and pigeon-holed interpretation of women. She’s reckless, obnoxious, and totally selfish. Swanberg basically turns Kate into a bro-ish, inebriated plot device. Likewise, Jill is just as horribly troped up. All she wants to talk about is marriage and cooking. This is the most trite and overused dichotomy in the book, and it makes me want to gag.

As a girl who personally does not associate with either of these types of women, I find it so insulting that Swanberg compartmentalizes them in two polarizing “either/or” cliches. If you are a woman you either love beer with a craz passion or don’t like it at all. Nevermind your personal tastes or what styles you prefer compared to others. Where are all the normal girls? It’s hard to believe that these two types women even exist out in the real world, they are so banal and lack complexity.

What is also totally baffling, is how Kate is even coherent enough to even hold a conversation with anyone throughout the film. Swanberg is always showing us scenes of Kate, Luke, and all their guy pals downing pint after pint. Even when Kate is moving and her and Luke are sitting in the bathroom, there is magically a pint of beer available.

Although, craft beer drinkers do on average consume more types beer than the traditional beer drinker, in no way shape or form are these people alcoholics, such as Swanberg would show us otherwise. I have custody of a fridge that is always fully stocked with craft beer and home brews, and I share a couple of beers with friends a few times a week. I have the proper glassware, including glasses for tasting, which isn’t uncommon. The whole point of sharing though, or having only one or two beers is to taste the beer.

The way Kate and Luke drink in the film is jaw-dropping.With a pint always in hand, they are always stumbling around, slurring their words, and always looking hung-over the next morning, which would explain Kate’s love for her black Ray-Bans. What I also don’t understand is that these people work ar Revolution Brewery, a highly-rated brewery. There is plenty of beer to choose from around there, and probably at a discount or for free. Why do they waste all of their money at the bars and never hang around their own workplace?

Having my own small brewery family, I can honestly say that many of the employees come in on their days off to hang out. We bring home lots of beer from work, and there are fun trips as a brewery family. The workers in Drinking Buddies just seem to speak poorly of each other. Kate just leads her “brewery boys” around and they cancel plans on their spouses and significant others at Kate’s erratic and selfish demands.

The relationships in this film are completely awkward and flat. Filming in the newfound genre of “mumble-core” the actors have to improvise their lines on the spot, with a basic outline. But it leaves the story with strange holes and no explanation for motives. Swanberg can’t be one hundred percent to blame here because of the genre. He came up with these characters, but these actors came up with the dialog that worsens the stereotype. The problem is that these actors aren’t comedy veterans and are not experienced enough to pull off the genre without it sounding awkward and uncomfortable.

The film really tests my patience from beginning to end. I’d like to say craft beer is immune to this kind of annoyances, but there’s room to grow. Marketing for the beer industry has already failed its female customer base, and this film just adds to the failure. No matter if women are integrated into the industry, they’re still either largely stereotyped or completely looked past. It seems that in order to get some respect or recognition in the boy’s club of a marketplace or Swanberg’s film it is to be a cool girl, or one of the guys.

Typecasting women drinkers down to the lowest common denominator does not legitimize women’s presence in the industry. Knowing women who own their own breweries, manage production facilities, and run distribution services, women serve an integral part in the brewing industry. It used to be rare to see women outside of marketing, but the view from inside the industry looks decidedly more equal than ever before. In many ways beer is a great equalizer. Women are slowly but surely beginning to climb the ladder of the craft.

The “no girls allowed” sign needs to come off the doors of the beer industry. We don’t need beer ,or anything for that matter, “mansplained” to us any more. Cocktails and drinks with parasols aren’t for only one type of person. Men or women can kick back and enjoy a pint of beer or a glass of wine, and they should be able to sip on their drinks without a judgemental look or a preconceived notion about character. You don’t have to be a man or a cool girl to drink beer. Beer is for anyone, models, moms, and grandpas. The boy’s club should step aside because in the last 3 years there has been a major shift in the market and the ladies are making a dent in it. We love double IPAs, Russian Imperial Stouts and Barrel-Aged Beers just like the next craft lover. Who cares if we don’t don a caveman beard, pin-up girl tattoos, and a shirt displaying an intense love for High on Fire? Step aside and pour me a beer.

Tropes Vs. Women: The Manic Pixie Dream Girl

Are you a soulful and brooding young man looking to spice up your life? Has the weight of the world and protecting all those pesky women-folk from danger and distress got you needing a little pick-me-up?  Well look no further! We’ve got the fix for you! The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is the just the solution for all your worldly problems! Fully equipped with a dreamy doe-eyed gaze and trendy vintage clothes, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is just the muse you’re looking for! Your drab life will be revitalized with her “joie de vivre” and don’t forget that certain “je ne sais quois.” MPDG’s charms and quirks are simply “impossible to forget, but hard to remember.” But wait! There’s more! MPDG will give you lofty standards and unrealistic expectations about women, cursing all of your future relationships!

Over the past couple of decades we’ve seen this static, whimsical, and often childlike “evil” emerge through popular films, and this devil has a name: The Manic Pixie Dream Girl.  Movies such as “Garden State”, “Elizabethtown,” and “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World,” paint this male-gaze influenced and highly romanticized version of a supporting lady whose sole purpose is rejuvenate our sulky man-child, teaching him to grab his life by the horns, and live life to the fullest of his God-given abilities.  We usually know absolutely nothing about these “enchanting” ladies, which usually adds to her “mystique,” and she typically leaves just as fast as she arrives (again, usually for reasons unknown.)

These types of women are influential on many today’s young women in the worst possible ways. Romantic films featuring these ladies are where young girls find some of the first ideas of love and how to behave in their first romantic relationships, and model much of their own behavior and ideas. MPDG, has become an eccentric role model for these young women, and is preventing girls from finding their own voice in the world, as well as creating a fear of revealing one’s self and emotions in a relationship

The MPDG is one of the most dangerous clichés known women in today’s film industry. The most notable and (often overlooked) aspect of the MPDG is that she is a dream girl and in no way will you find her out in the real world. The problem is that MPDG trope has the uncanny ability to lure in young twenty-somethings (men and women alike) to either a) look for her or b) become her (let’s not forget that she’s called a dream girl for a reason.)

Marc Webb’s “(500) Days of Summer” is the story of boy meets girl. But we should know up front, this is not a love story. Summer Finn, played Zooey Deschanel, is just your “average” girl. Her height: average, weight: average, shoe size: slightly above average. For all intents and purposes, Summer Finn is just another girl, except she wasn’t (she can quote The Boy With the Arab Strap, she’s deep.)

Summer Finn is from Michigan and loves “unique” music such as Carla Bruni, Belle & Sebastian, and Ringo Starr. Summer’s life is decorated with periwinkle blue, Magritte and spontaneous trips to IKEA. Summer also conveniently does not believe in love, and that’s pretty much all we ever get to know about her.

Tom Hansen is from New Jersey, loves sad British Pop music, and honest to God believes that he will never achieve true happiness until he finds “the one.” His limp life needs a handy-dandy injection of quirky whimsy and free-spirited youth, and like two ships passing in the night (or rather the elevator) his prayers are miraculously answered. Tom unfortunately falls head over heels for the bubbly big-blue-eyed girl-creature that is Summer Finn.

We should also know up front that Ms. Deschanel is the unofficial poster-child for the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, and that “(500) Days of Summer” is Deschanel’s fifth offense.  Marc Webb, however, argues in defense of Deschanel and the film stating that “Summer is often identified as a MPDG, the movie can be seen as a deconstruction of the trope because it shows the dangers of idealizing women as things, rather than respecting them as real people with their own complex outlooks.” This statement would be believable for films such as “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” where the trope is directly addressed in case of Clementine Krucznski, and very clearly shows destructive aftermath of idealizing the MPDG.

Webb follows the cliché so closely, that it feels like he is having his cake and eating it too. From a soundtrack featuring indie sweethearts such as Regina Spektor and Feist to casting the complete and total embodiment of the MPDG, Zooey Deschanel herself (Deschanel even has a website called “HelloGiggles how is that not supposed to be quirky?), Webb feels like he’s just making up excuses for his perpetual bad behavior. “(500) Days of Summer” looks like Webb is saying, “I made a mess to show you the dangers of making you a mess, now haven’t you learned a valuable lesson?” Webb even includes an infamous MPDG scene where Deschanel inspires Gordon-Levitt to be free and shout “penis” at the top of his lungs in a crowded park. Seriously, Webb is being a huge hypocrite.

It really doesn’t matter what Webb says about Summer and her character being “different” from all the other wild and free-spirited MPDGs out there, and saying that she’s different from all the other MPDG is just making it worse. This type of cinematic vehicle traps and forces plenty of young women into behaving erratically and freaky, because it seems that that is the only way to be romantically pursued by men. The problem is that behaving like Summer (or anything Zooey Deschanel is in for that matter) creates cat-ear wearing, ukulele-playing weirdos that can’t connect to other people, and have trouble maintaining meaningful relationships.

“(500) Days of Summer” takes us through the ups and downs between Summer and Tom, but throughout the film we never really learn just why Summer shrinks away from Tom. She never mentions that Tom puts her on a pedestal, or that maybe she is feeling trapped by his affections. In fact, she never really says how she feels ever. All Summer has to offer Tom is that she was never really looking for a serious relationship (yet they remain monogamous), and that she was wasn’t really sure with him. The only real reason that one could garner from her strange behavior is that maybe Tom got too close to discovering who she really is: a normal, imperfect human being who probably wakes up with messy hair and morning-breath just like the rest of us. So she does what anyone with a secret would do, and cuts him out of her life.

During the scene where the narrator mentions the “wall of casual” and it breaking down, the closer Tom and Summer become, is actually the tipping point in their relationship. The more they seemingly grow together, the more Summer pulls away from Tom. The fear of being close to someone and revealing deeper, truer feelings is natural for any new couple. It can be scary pouring your heart out into another person, but without that sense of trust and closeness, a relationship can only grow apart.

As someone who has been (on more than one occasion) stereotyped as a MPDG, I’ve learned first-hand the negative effects of being treated like an object used for someone else’s personal benefit. MPDG are supposed to be muses and care givers to wretched young men. They’re meant to turn these gloomy boys’ lives around and be fun all the time. The fact of the matter is that it is a load of pressure to responsible for someone else’s well-being as well as your own, and eventually someone’s sanity is going to give. Men who have seen me as their MPDG end up hating you in the end for not providing enough dream results for them, and eventually you learn to leave just as fast as you came for no explainable reason.

Even today, the MPDG still has an effect on how I behave towards people and how I pursue my relationships. As someone who is naturally petite, has bangs, and is generally socially restrained it is difficult to not be perceived as a MPDG. What I have learned is that I don’t have to talk to or pursue relationships with the people who treat me like a MPDG. I can’t help my small stature. I decide to wear bangs because they hide my big, unkempt Italian eyebrows, and I am purposefully quiet because I find that it is always more important to listen to others first.

Deschanel has even vaguely attempted to break the mold of the MPDG herself. The recent Fox sitcom, “New Girl” is Deschanel’s and Elizabeth Merriweather’s poor attempt at making the MPDG into a “new girl.” Although the show is a hit with viewers, the show sadly fails at creating a new type of girl. Being coined as “simply adorkable” Deschanel can now plead guilty of six counts of perpetuating the MPDG stereotype. She now serves as a dream girl to four men at once. In addition, her character is often is annoying, and is treated like a child. 

There are simple ideas about people, but there are no simple people. Today the MPDG isn’t much of a character at all, which may be why women have so much trouble seeing them as dimensional entities. Women are far more complex that any MPDG. As women, we are novelists, musicians, painters, performers, and so much more. Although it has been claimed by many a starving artist, that a woman was the serving inspiration for his great piece of art, women are nobody’s muse and object of lust. It’s also okay to have unique hobbies like loving to roller-skate, play in a band, or paint. But our quirks only define a small part of who we all are as people, man or woman. The MPDG is a device that is long overdue for retirement. No girl on the planet can ever live up to the expectations of being a MPDG. They’re dream girls for a very good reason.

The real issue here is that men, writers and Hollywood alike need to start portraying women in a more realistic light. Women come in all shapes and sizes, and the MPDG makes women feel worse about their body image and self-esteem than any model out there. We need to stop pressuring girls and women into behaving and trying to pretend they are something that they’re not. We should celebrate that we are all different and unique, and not in a Manic Pixie Dream Girl way.

"Pleasantville" (1998, Directed by Gary Ross)

The 1950s are often referred to as an age of success and prosperity. We often look back at the decade through rose-tinted glasses. Sitcoms such as "The Donna Reed Show," "Ozzie and Harriet," and "Leave it to Beaver" paint a dreamy and seemingly "perfect" reality of a happy housewife, the bacon-bringing husband, and their two lovely children. Gary Ross' sensitivity to this “golden age” is what allows "Pleasantville" to effectively shatter the romanticized time while digging into the haunting skeletons that loomed in the dark closet of a generation.

Beginning on an overused and cliché note that immediately starts to tug at feelings of nostalgia and a "simpler time," The main character David (Tobey Maguire, Spiderman) seeks his escape from reality and shows us what can only be classified as an obsession for the baby boomer sitcom of the same name. David knows all the names of each character and every obscure fact about all the episodes. From the jingles to the clothing, David adores the idea of Pleasantville and it’s embodiment of naiveity. Ross makes David’s character the manifestation of society’s commonly found fondness of the decade. This callow love of the fifties is commonly found in pop culture sensations such as “Grease,” “Back to the Future,” and “Cry Baby” among other productions also romanticize the decade.

However, films encompassing the generation, often forget some of the most important and terrible details of the time. "Technicalities" such as McCarthyism, the Korean War, and Brown vs. Board of Education occurred during the 1950s, which seems to be conveniently masked in a layer of camp and corniness.

Ross' film breaks the mold however, and brings in more than the usual trite charm. The clever use of filming techniques and symbolism is what separates "Pleasantville" apart from the rest of these popularized films. Ross hones in on aspects such as racial and gender inequality that was prevalent during the age. After David and his sister, Jennifer are transported into the "Leave it to Beaver"-esque world, a real dose of reality sets in, and Ross lets them uncover the true nature of living in this undemanding and colorless world.

Ross begins the film with a reverse "Oz" setting. His characters are almost biblical-like being banished from a technicolor world and shoved into the black, white, and bland. Run by routine and stereotypical gender roles, the world of "Pleasantville" is unchallenging and never changing. Everyday begins and ends the same way, and any change in their realm can throw off what seems like their entire small existence. So after being tossed into this place, David (now Bud Parker) and Jennifer (Mary Sue Parker) are forced to adhere to Pleasantville's prim moral code and traditional structure. Jennifer doesn't share David's romance and idealization for the period, and causes the initial disruption to the flow of Pleasantville by fooling around with Pleasantville High School's basketball captain, Skip Martin, atop of Lover's Lane.

Unfortunately, Ross paints Jennifer as a stereotypical popular slutty girl, and therefore makes her the scapegoat for the problems now presented in Pleasantville.

Jennifer as a Eve-like character gives Skip a taste of “forbidden fruit”, and because of her actions, color (or what could be considered sin) begins to leak into their world.

Even though Ross paints Jennifer as a morally reckless teen girl he makes up for this previous picture in a later scene. Welcoming sexual freedom, Ross gives this to the other characters as a tool of empowerment, and they begin to slowly change to color, as their palettes and minds expand. David’s T.V. mother, Betty Parker, get the chance to discover her own sexual empowerment. After learning a few tips from her “daughter,” Betty finds herself in the tub. This moment alone is so powerful that the tree outside their house spontaneously erupts in a blaze of fire, similar to when Moses speaks to a burning bush. Ross’ daringness to include viewers in this rare moment of female bliss, is compelling. In a world where media shames sex, and particularly censors the female body, Ross’ boldness does not go unnoticed.

Sex isn't the only thing that is transformative in this film. Ross' savvy style takes on a Beat attitude demanding a desire to experience a culturally rich world and to question outside of Pleasantville.Through newfound art and literature, and the empowerment of asking "What is at the end of Main Street," Ross forces these static characters to dig deeper into themselves and find that they too have dimension.

Ross skillfully implants the idea that Pleasantville isn't so perfect after all. The disruptions in their narrow-minded routines is muddled by the addition of change and color, and their true underlying demeanors (or colors) begin to show. Ross lets the authentic fifties come out and the ugly attitudes towards those who are different speak volumes about the times. The technicolor people are outsiders in their community and are no different than Beats such as Allen Ginsberg or William Burroughs. Some of the technicolors want to hide their true colors, such as Betty, in fear of ostracization from society. This can be associated with Ginsberg’s exile from society and subjection to mental institutions because of his homosexuality.

Suddenly Ross terminates the romance of the period and the black and white citizens versus the technicolor citizens of Pleasantville quickly becomes even more apparent as Ross uncovers the outward discrimination against the people of color. Ross' sharp social commentary on the inequality between, genders, races, and sexual orientation is unparalleled as he manages to concisely embody more than one minority through the group of technicolor people. Repression has run rampant for too long, and stereotypes are beginning to burst at the seams.

Betty begins to evolve and question her role in the "perfect" life laid out before her. Does she have to make dinner? Can she go out? The questioning of her traditional role results in outrage among the community as Betty’s husband is left home alone on night with (gasp) no dinner. Gender inequality was a huge element that was apart of the era, and although Ross touches on this briefly throughout the movie it would have been refreshing to spend more time on this idea. Ross never fully expands on Betty’s dissatisfaction with her place, and even when Ross wraps up, her end is unsatisfying. Today, the homemaker stereotype that Betty is entrapped by still exists in television. Shows such as The Simpsons, Everybody Loves Raymond, and even Modern Family portray the standard housewife.

At this point, Ross will not let us use Pleasantville as an escape now. After being reeled in by the simple and seemingly enchanting world, he uses the charm that of a venus fly trap to ensnare us while commanding our attention to really see the repulsion that has always lurked in this happy-go-lucky sitcom. Each person is beginning to burst out in color, and majorly evolve. From feeling emotion and acquiring knowledge, Ross’ characters are created with depth, except for David. Throughout the film, David does not seem to change much. Aside from one moment, not much about him is different than when the film started. This normally wouldn’t be bad, except that this film really stresses the importance of making life changing choices and decisions.

Ross’ “Pleasantville” is more than just another movie about the post-war age. Ross defines a generation and demands us to reevaluate “the good old days.” Although, television was black and white, the world we’ve always lived has never been that simple and clear-cut. Even though Ross does not always succeed in following through on some good ideas, he does manage to drive home a crucial points. No matter how complicated the world today may seem, we can remember the freedoms that we’ve gained and the steps taken to move forward.

#147501722 / gettyimages.com