The Unnecessary Third-Act Twist in The Kids Are All Right Wasn't Always There
With $14 million in the bank thus far, The Kids Are All Right is well on its way to becoming the (500) Days of Summer of 2010 -- i.e.; the indie hit that discerning types choose to see over stuff like The Other Guys. While the film has gotten rave reviews from critics, though, there is one problem with it that seems unavoidable: The ending. Needless to say, spoilers ahead...
After Jules (Julianne Moore) and her kids' sperm donor Paul (Mark Ruffalo) are found to be having an affair, the latter is rejected unilaterally and immediately. Paul is hated by his kids, hated even more by Jules' wife Nic (Annette Bening) and there to function as the antagonist in a movie that -- up until that point -- was free of typical Hollywood definitions of "good" and "bad." It's a jarring and out-of-left-field character turn because the audience has been made to truly like Paul for all his flaws, and it changes the entire tone of the film in some unpleasing ways.
Apparently this wasn't always the case. Scott Feinberg got his hands on a March 2009 copy of the Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg screenplay for The Kids Are All Right, in which Paul is given a stay of execution during Jules's climactic "marriage is hard" speech. Here's the 2009 version:
Look, it's no secret your mom and I have been going through a rough patch lately. That happens in marriages, especially ones that have lasted as long as ours. But instead of looking at our problems and trying to deal with them head-on, I went and did something really stupid. It may be shocking to you, but adults aren't exempt from making mistakes. Anyway, I know you're all really furious with me. I can take that. I'm a big girl. But what I can't take is the thought that my bad decisions have ruined your relationship with a good man...
[preempting Nic]
Call him what you want, Nic, but Paul's a good guy. No, he isn't blameless, he was there too. But if I'm gonna be honest about it, the person who really pushed it was me.
[beat; to the kids]
I know this whole thing's confusing. I wish it wasn't. But life's just like that sometimes.
The emphasis there is mine. That script also allows for a final reconciliation between Paul and his daughter, Joni. Neither that meeting nor the key line of dialogue in Jules' speech relieving Paul from shouldering all of the blame appear in the final cut of the film.
When Movieline spoke to Cholodenko earlier this summer, she confirmed and defended the changes:
We didn't feel like we cut off the Mark Ruffalo character -- we felt like, "This is where it's organic for him to end." This is a person who's kind of lived a certain lifestyle -- he has a certain je ne sais quoi and joie de vivre, for better or for worse -- and now, when it really counts, he sort of bottomed out. He needs to kind of rethink how he approaches people and makes choices, and what the consequences are. We didn't feel like it was evil, like we'd killed the Wicked Witch or something -- we just felt like, "OK, the guy landed on his ass a bit. There's potential for him to reunite with the family, but it's just not gonna be that week."
Whether or not that comes across in the finished product, however, certainly remains up for debate.
· Soliloquies That Sealed the Deal [Scott Feinberg via Hollywood Elsewhere]

Comments
I think the change was for the better. It would have felt rushed and unrealistic for the family to forgive Paul and welcome him back into the fold. They have their hands full forgiving Jules.
I think the door is left open for Joni reconnecting with Paul down the road, but it's mercifully not shoehorned into the movie'shttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdvO0tmNjGo&feature=youtube_gdata
summer time frame
I thought the ending was perfectly acceptable. I was left assuming that some reconciliation was coming down the road, but I didn't need to see it on screen. The concern was with how Jules and Nic would reconcile, not how Paul got back into the fold.
Given how Jules felt towards him, I think it was in her character that she'd seek him out again. But like Cholodenko say, "not that week."
I meant "Joni."
I agree with everyone else. The movie is far too good to criticize in that way. If there was something to take issue with I might look at the entire affair, which felt movie-ish and maybe like manufactured conflict. But I accepted that plot point quickly and never thought twice about the ending.
I haven't heard anyone else harping about "that ending" except Movieline. Stop trying to make "that ending" happen.
Perhaps I run with the wrong crowd, but almost everyone I've spoken to about The Kids Are All Right has a problem with the fate of Ruffalo's character. And I think that critique will gain steam when The Kids Are All Right gets into the awards race and people start looking for excuses to tear it down.
I did not care for the ending of the movie at all. In fact, the first fifteen minutes of the movie led me to believe the premise of the movie was the young son's desire to connect with his biological father. That premise is never allowed to play out to fruition and is instead replaced with the story of Jules and her "midlife crisis" and unfulfilled path. Suddenly Mark Ruffalo IS very much pegged as a villian and kicked to the curb by the whole self-involved fam damily. I didn't need a Hollywood happy ending but dragging a man into your picture to serve your needs and then throwing him back when you're finished leaves me cold. Sorry.
The ending is realistic. In my experience women more often than not act like total selfish cunts towards the fathers of their children after a break up. Just how forgiving would you expect a married lesbian to ever be to their sperm donor and wife fucking?