MovieChat Forums > The Intern (2015) Discussion > You can have it all Myth

You can have it all Myth

posted 9 years ago by Amills23
12 replies | jump to latest

I love how this movie keeps pushing the propaganda that people can have it all. There's only 24 hours in a day. Sure you can have a balanced life but that's not what is being pushed.

Many feminist have flipped the idea of equality on its head. It's almost like they use the worst stereotypes of men as the measure to what they want to live up to.

Basically everything Julies did in this movie would have been painted as evil and insensitive if the character was a man. At the end of the movie I guess the happy ending is that Julies decided that her company was more important than her husband and her child. No compromise hiring a CEO or even delegating more in the office. It's also ridiculous that they imply because it's a women a man would have to accept a women who only uses the house for a place to sleep.

[–] DanaShelbyChancey 9 years ago

I think if Jules was a man, there wouldn't even be a movie. Men who have been this way about their company would be seen as heroic.

I just think Jules should take the money she would have paid a CEO, and hire 3 assistants for herself. She was too in control of every little thing. Micromanaging. Then she could work an 8 or 9 hour day and delegate more.

[–] johnsonium 9 years ago

Bingo. The OP is out to lunch.

[–] Amills23 9 years ago

"I think if Jules was a man, there wouldn't even be a movie. Men who have been this way about their company would be seen as heroic."

No they wouldn't only people who are trying to push some sort of false double standard. In no world do people find neglectful fathers as heroic. In any portrayal of Steve Jobs him being a lousy father was never painted as good.

"I just think Jules should take the money she would have paid a CEO, and hire 3 assistants for herself. She was too in control of every little thing. Micromanaging. Then she could work an 8 or 9 hour day and delegate more."

I agree with that but that is not what the movie was trying to get across. They implied that her working a more manageable work schedule would have hurt the feminist movement and that the correct course of action was to put her whole life into work.

Although I would say the movie is more pushing materialism and vanity.

[–] johnsonium 9 years ago

In any portrayal of Steve Jobs him being a lousy father was never painted as good.

Jobs wasn't just a lousy father. He disowned his child for some time. Jules lives with her child and sees her child daily. You analogy is as deeply flawed as the rest of your reasoning.

[–] Scarlett_Butler 9 years ago

Is "having it all" = "having a job and a family"? Because if so, billions of people have that.

[–] Amills23 9 years ago

No that is not what having it all implies. Having it all implies that you can be SUCCESSFUL in business, love, and a great home life.

It's unrealistic and the real reason for the glass ceiling for women. Although the same can't be said for most men mostly because of the realities of biology (men don't get pregnant) unless they consciously chose to not sacrifice their home life. Now men with families may find success in business but it ignores the fact that most of their home lives are suffering.

[–] Scarlett_Butler 9 years ago

Having it all implies that you can be SUCCESSFUL in business, love, and a great home life.

So you're suggesting being successful at your job and having a good family life is some unattainable goal for most of humanity? 'Cause that's ridiculous.

No, not everyone can be CEO of a huge corporation. But if you think that is "having it all" of course then you'll never "have it all".

[–] Amills23 9 years ago

"So you're suggesting being successful at your job and having a good family life is some unattainable goal for most of humanity? 'Cause that's ridiculous."

I'm not suggesting that. "having it all doesn't imply being a good worker 9-5. It implies being management which means long hours and sacrificing your home life especially when it comes to this movie.

It's implied that the woman in this movie has it all and that there was nothing wrong with sacrificing everything for her career.

That is the core point of this movie is that her character supposedly has it all.

[–] johnsonium 9 years ago

There are plenty of managers of both sexes at my company that put in a lot of hours and have a happy, fulfilled family life. Your thesis is fatally misguided.

[–] golden_muse2003 8 years ago

A few points you're ignoring; it was her husband who sacrificed the family, out messing around with another married parent while his wife was paying the bills--even going so far as to fake a cold so he could be with his mistress instead of taking his little girl to a party. Shameful. Also, Jules made every effort to keep their love life alive, making romantic advances that he rejected ("We'll do it tomorrow") and telling him that they needed to spend more time together. Also, in this economy, both parents can work 9 to 5 and still not be able to pay the bills--especially not when they're trying to start a business that, in the long run, could ensure the family's survival. And regarding the glass ceiling; my sister has been a government worker for years and did not take time out to have children. Still she was passed up for a big promotion in favor of a younger man with less experience, who did have a family--because he would represent 'a stronger presence.' In other words, he was a man.

[–] aqib4 8 years ago

If all = having a full time job and have a happy family then yes. If all = be a CEO of a company and be an active parent (go to kid's parties, plays, games, etc) no you can't. Man or woman there are trade-offs. Jack Welch was a notoriously absent father, so was Steve Jobs, etc.

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

You CAN have it all... Sure, at least one of the areas in your life will probably suffer as a result - but, if you want to spread yourself thin, you can totally do it... That's where the phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none' comes from.

I don't see anything in the movie that contradicts the above rationale, though... Her relationship was suffering (not her fault, but still... ) and her job performance was suffering also. About the only thing she seemed to be doing reasonably well was being a parent. So basically, she was shown 'having it all'... and just not doing it very well! I'd say that the movie agrees with you more than you think it does. 

I don't think the movie says that her job is more important than her family - she's still WITH him at the end, after all, and she has every reason not to be! Why should she bend over backwards to devote more time to a husband who did not think about her?!



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"