Maybe it’s because I teach students that are about the same age as the main character in the film, Christine (who petulantly demands that she be called “Lady Bird”), but I found her to be a banal, conceited little brat who made for an utterly unsympathetic character. Who would ever allow a child to be this full of herself?
“Lady Bird” is a coming-of-age drama about a high school student from Sacramento in her last year of school. It’s a pretentious little piece of work, so perhaps the story might be better described as Bildungsroman, a term every high brow viewer would know.
The biggest problem with “Lady Bird” is that the main character faces no real problem in her life. It’s all painfully First World problems that feel like inconsequential obstacles rather than actual, painful struggles. She’s not wealthy enough for you to be impressed, nor is her life is barely more exciting than the average teenager’s life (heck, I’d bet that most people have had more dramatic childhoods). However it’s not like she’s so depressingly poor that you feel sorry for her, neither does she go through anything so emotionally traumatic that you hope that she will learn to overcome what she has been through.
In short – there is no significant obstacle in “Lady Bird”. You could take a camera and film a documentary about any random teenager’s life, and you’d have a better than 50% chance of getting some good, screenworthy material.
Which brings us to the next biggest problem – Christine, the “Lady Bird” herself. Perhaps the creators thought that her character was humorous, relatable, or interesting. But she’s not. She’s a spoilt brat who epitomises everything that’s wrong with the world today. If you had a child like Christine, you’d probably wonder where you went wrong as a parent. She’s rebellious for the sake of it, appallingly rude to her own family, and just a waste of a person in general. Thank goodness she’s fictional, or you’d have lost all hope in humanity if she were a real person.
The truly interesting characters are her supporting cast. For one, they aren’t as entitled or boring as she is. They have to deal with genuine issues and overcome problems that real people face. Her mother, Marion (Laurie Metcalf), is beacon of kindness despite the numerous responsibilities she has to juggle. Her father, kindly old Larry (Tracy Letts), is perhaps one of the most realistic depictions of mental illness on screen. Even one of her love interests, Danny (Lucas Hedges), breaks your heart when he delivers a startling revelation to Christine.
That’s not to say Saoirse Ronan does a bad job of portraying the central character. It’s just a pity that she’s saddled with the burden of portraying such an insipid idiot, and to her credit, she does a great job of it. In fact, the entire cast delivers wonderful performances despite a bland and perfunctory script.
Perhaps the fundamental problem with “Lady Bird” is that the story hangs on a wholly dislikeable character who is inherently boring. Sure, it may be artistic and capture the modern zeitgeist and all that. But what it needs to remember is that a good movie needs a good story. “Lady Bird” forgets its raison d’etre, and results in a (mercifully) short film about a dull girl. It’s simply not important enough to have warranted a silver screen treatment.
Should you watch this at weekday movie ticket prices? Okay…
Should you watch this at weekend movie ticket prices? No.
Score: 2.5/5
Secret ending? No.
Running time: 93 minutes (~1.5 hours)
“Lady Bird” is an American arthouse drama.
The film is directed and written by Greta Gerwig. It stars Saoirse Ronan (Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson), Laurie Metcalf (Marion McPherson), Tracy Letts (Larry McPherson), Lucas Hedges (Danny O’Neill), Timothee Chalamet (Kyle Scheible), Beanie Feldstein (Julianne “Julie” Steffans), Lois Smith (Sister Sarah Jona), and Stephen McKinley Henderson (Father Leviatch). It is rated M18.
“Lady Bird” opens in cinemas:
– 22 February, 2018 (Singapore)
– 28 February, 2018 (Philippines)
This is an original article on marcusgohmarcusgoh.com
Follow Marcus Goh (yes, referring to myself in third person) on Facebook and Instagram for more (presumably) good updates!
I’m a Singapore television scriptwriter who’s written for Lion Mums, Crimewatch, Police & Thief, and Incredible Tales. I’m also a Transformers enthusiast and avid pop culture scholar. You can find me on social media as Optimarcus and on my site.
Send me an email if you want to get in touch!
I can understand your opinion – unlikeable protagonist and undramatic script. But I felt Lady Bird succeeded not just despite those but because of those. I think the first-world, growing-up problems were relatable to at least half the demographic (women). Greta Gerwig has said it’s perhaps a shared experience. The story wasn’t dramatised up, if you like. But I do feel the screenplay was more a succession of skits than a coherent story.
It’s a good case study on the question whether films should be entertaining fiction or reflections of reality.
On the notion of the unlikeable protagonist, I know it’s screenwriting 101 but it shouldn’t disqualify a film. Offhand I can think of Badlands, Days of Being Wild, Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange which were wildly successful despite protagonists hard to sympathise with.
AND I’M READING YOUR STUFF!
You’re right about how the script felt more like a stream of consciousness rambling than a proper, coherent story and how it doesn’t have dramatic weight. That’s the thing though – a film needs to feel important enough to actually be on film. Otherwise it’s just self-indulgence.
As to the horribly grating protagonist – it’s true that you don’t always have to sympathise with the protagonist. But you need to be able to root for the protagonist to succeed, otherwise the tension and conflict is invalidated. Christine/Lady Bird is one of those characters – I don’t care what happens to her, so to me the whole film doesn’t matter.