Nearly perfect!

I had the opportunity to sit down and watch this again a couple weeks ago after having not seen it since it released. I came to nearly identical conclusion as you and wrote up some quick thoughts for a film forum that I participate in:

"Bob Dole is GORGEOUS!"

And now for something completely different. Blame it on the AV Club who, a couple weeks ago, posted a piece on how Hank Azaria had single-handedly run away with "The Birdcage," stealing scene after prat-falling scene. Given that this movie is absolutely stacked with quality performers, that is no easy feat. Or feet. Because while there are several lines from this movie I've never forgotten ("I don't wear shoes because they make me fall down!") and I definitely loved it at the time, I hadn't actually seen it since its theatrical release back in the mid-90s. It's streaming on Netflix, so I decided to re-watch.

Oh my dog, this is a funny movie. Total, out loud cackling and chest heaving guffaws. The quality script is jam-packed with delicious dialogue and it comes flying in from all directions such that neither Robin Williams nor Nathan Lane or Gene Hackman or Diane Weist ever gets the chance to run away with the movie regardless of how amazing they all are or how capable any of them are in just owning a film. Nearly every scene features something hysterical happening in the background while the main action is in the foreground. If every print of this film burned and the only lasting remnant was the kitchen scene that starts with "it's like riding a psychotic horse towards a burning stable!" and ends in near corpsing with "*beep* the shrimp!" it would still be a masterpiece.

To be sure, this film is a product of the politics of the early to mid 90s. Armand (Williams) and Albert (Lane) are a gay couple living in South Beach, Miami above the club Armand runs that features Albert as the temperamental star of the nightly drag show. (A club where, apparently, third generation Kennedy's like to hang out in). Of course they can't be married or even in a civil union at that point, so the best they can do legally is a palimony agreement. Them not being married isn't even an issue in the movie (although by portraying them in a long term relationship, the movie makes it an issue without explicitly calling attention to it.) Their son isn't (and probably couldn't be without great difficulty) adopted, but is the result of an experimental one-night stand between Armand and Christine Baranski's character. (Another incredible actress who's given a little to do and, as usual, does a lot with it.) Both characters play on stereotypes: Albert is prone to hysterics and is extremely effeminate. Armand is even-tempered and less effeminate but certainly has the guadiest taste imaginable in clothes, art, home decor, and jewelry. (But then again, if anyone were to buy me the bathrobe with the tiger on it, I would wear the *beep* out of that!)

So much has changed since the 90s: Florida is still knuckle-dragging, but in over half of the US, Armand and Albert could just be married. If they wanted to adopt, they could. Cinematically, audiences would find it unacceptable that a son raised with nothing but love in that household would ask his parents to change (their sexuality, their mannerisms, their clothing, their house, their religion, their anything!) in order to appease even the most troglodyte in-laws. (Frankly, I thought it was an offensive ask at the time, but even acknowledging such an arrangement would have been far outside the norm. Also, farce!) This is not to say that there is 100% public acceptance of gays or the infamous "homosexual lifestyle" but this movie would not be re-made today maintaining the same dynamics. It just would not and this is a good thing. (I admit I am confused, or the movie is, between whether Albert is supposed to be gay or trans. He performs in drag, of course, but refers to himself as a woman and Val calls him "mom" but at the same time Armand considers him a man. I wouldn't have picked up on this incongruity in 1996, but I'm not sure if the movie doesn't consider that there IS a difference or because it requires Albert to pass himself off as female that they conflate. Or if Albert is just super gender fluid in order to make the farce work.)

On the other side is conservative Republican Senator and Mrs. Keeley (Hackman and Weist). Their daughter is marrying Armand/Albert's son Val, and announcement of the engagement comes at the exact moment that Sen. Keeley's congressional colleague in a Moral Majority type coalition has been found dead having died hypocritically "in the bed of an underage black whore." (Last words: "Your money's on the dresser, Chocolate!") Having been told that Armand (who's name the kids change from "Goldman" to "Coleman" to not be so offensively Jewish) is not a nightclub owner but a cultural attache to Greece (!?!) the Keeley's think they can duck out of the paparazzi coverage of the scandal and escape to Florida where they can find respectability in Val's family. They don't seem to realize that that South Beach is quite a bit different from Palm Beach or wherever it is Jeb Bush lives and who they plan to spend the night with. (Jeb Bush gets name-dropped A LOT. It is odd to consider this is a world where George Bush hardly exists.) They believe it when their daughter tells them that when Armand originally bought in South Beach, it was nothing but sand. Not gays, not Jews, just sand.

So little has changed from the 90s, at least when it comes to conservative Senate Republicans. The "moral majority" type Senators sound EXACTLY the same now as then. Despite the fact that the majority of the country has moved on and supports same sex marriage, adoption, etc, it still isn't uncommon to hear some Republican denounce it as "unnatural" or "immoral." Obama got final sign off on allowing gays to openly serve in the military but you know that wasn't met with much enthusiasm from the right side of the aisle. Republicans have actually managed to regress on women's issues. I doubt in 1996 anyone would have openly questioned a woman's right to birth control or contraceptive use in general.

Dinner between the two families is certain to be a disaster with Armand and Val walking on nervous eggshells throughout. The forced dialogue between the Goldman/Colemans and the Keeleys is so fraught with tension that Armand leaves the room to hyperventilate and comes back only to find the conversation has moved on to "of course it's wrong to kill an abortion doctor, but...."

Albert, dressed in drag to be Mrs. Goldman/Coleman responds hysterically "Well that's ridiculous, the doctors are only doing their job. If you're going to kill someone, kill the mothers, that'll stop them. I know what you're going to say, if you kill the mother, the fetus dies, too, but the fetus was going to be aborted anyway so why not let it go down with the ship?"

That's an outrageously facetious thing to say, but in 2015, I'd think it nearly a common place thought amongst conservative Republicans.

Republicans still harp on that bubble vs. bubba mentality and check themselves against Rush Limbaugh's thoughts. In this movie, Bob Dole is derided as being "too liberal" while in 2016 yokels Mike Huckabee and maybe even Sarah Palin are going to run for president. Jeb Bush, for all his imagined past respectability will have to deal with this clown car of candidates.

There is the mandatory prerequisite when viewing this film to just say "Because, farce!" when presented with plot points that would otherwise seem absurd. Example: Just how long is this ruse supposed to last? At a certain point, once the conservative family finds out they've been lied to, shouldn't the fall out from that actually be much worse than their just meeting in-laws they're diametrically opposite of? And if the in-laws just need to meet once in order to establish formality before the wedding, why don't they just meet at some neutral restaurant? Lastly, the son is actually kind of a prick for even asking his dads to revamp themselves for conservative Republican presentation, letting alone expecting them to acquiesce. But all of these questions are sidelined, except the last. The dad makes it pretty clear to the son that he's not happy about this (or even the engagement at all) but complies anyway for love of his son. ("*beep* the Senator--I don't give a damn what he thinks!") The kids getting married are actually the least important and/or interesting element of the movie; they're both kind of bland and exist only to drive the plot forward and to force the confrontation between Armand/Albert and the Keeleys. Because, farce!

The farce is worth it, though, as this movie so accurately hits every GOP tendency, trope, and policy position of the last 30 years. It's only frightening to think how much the rest of the world has been moving on and yet how little the GOP has.

And yeah, Hank Azaria as Agador Spartacus, he with the "Wautemalan" hotness, kind of steals it out from under everyone.

A great funny comedy in every sense. Everyone is perfect in it. Lane and Williams are incredible. First time I saw it I laughed as much as ever. Just Couldn't help feeling anguished about Robin Williams -- what a great talent.