Movie Review: 'Babysplitters' Can't Even Pander well

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories but if I were to subscribe to one, it would be one in which filmmakers were inculcated to reinforce traditional family dynamics. Any time a movie attempts to deviate from the norm and present unconventional types of sexual or familial dynamics, you know that this is merely a Trojan horse and that by the end, the characters will be in their loving, two person, hetero-normative relationship with kids that are genetically their own.

The new to on-demand comedy Babysplitters is one of those movies that works very hard at reinforcing traditional values by acting out non-traditional dynamics. The story is about two couples who are struggling with how to move into parenthood when you aren’t sure you want the commitment of being full time parents. The unconventional solution is baby-splitting, where the couples will have a baby and trade it around like a ride-share bike.

But never, for once, did I buy the notion that Babysplitters had any intention of seriously approaching this idea with anything other than the intent of reinforcing traditional values. It’s clear from the very beginning that writer-director Sam Friedlander was not here to uncover something humorously unconventional. Nope, he’s here to do what comedies like Babysplitters all do, reinforce the idea that a traditional familial unit is the one and only way for a family to exist. Ugh!

Babyspltters stars Danny Pudi (Community) and Emily Chang as Jeff and Sarah Panares. When we meet them, they are beginning to have sex. Jeff wants a condom but Sarah tells him he doesn’t need one. This leads to an argument over whether you can get pregnant even if the man doesn’t fully reach orgasm during penetrative sex. This, I believe, is supposed to be funny but it comes off as joyless and sub-sitcomic.

Sarah wants a baby and Jeff doesn’t. Opposite them are their friends Don and Taylor Small, played by Eddie Alfano and Malara Walsh. They have the opposite dynamic, Don wants kids and Taylor doesn’t. Over dinner and drinks, Jeff jokingly proposes having a baby and splitting it between the two couples. Each couple would have the joy of having a baby and having the freedom to stay free and go out regularly. Win-win.

The joke eventually becomes a genuine conversation about child-rearing philosophies and baby names. Then it becomes about the means of conception. How will each couple's genetics get involved in this scenario? It’s decided that Don’s sperm will go into Sarah’s egg. Unfortunately, the cost of in-vitro fertilization is a little much for both couples so another solution, a more ‘natural’ solution is settled upon.

Spoiler alert, the couple’s agree that Don will have sex with Sarah for the purpose of conception only. To make it as clinical and non-cheaty as possible, Taylor will witness the act and Jeff will be outside the room while the act occurs. Writer-Director Friedlander thinks this scenario is hilarious but the reality is far more awkward and the emotional dynamic only serves to reinforce macho notions of cuckoldry and jealousy.

What should be a group of adults making adult decisions and having frank conversations becomes a sitcom scenario about the type of dirty talk that Don requires in order to reach orgasm. Jeff feels jealous and he decides that revenge sex with Taylor is the only answer. Because, again, frank conversations about feelings, emotions or sexuality are too far above the heads of the audience this movie wants to reach.

No, we need to reinforce Jeff’s manhood so he sleeps with Taylor in order to overcome the jealousy and resentment he feels, and to regain a traditional definition of masculinity. What happens from there is a silly twist that the movie doesn’t even have the nerve to capitalize on. You can probably guess, the least surprising answer is going to be the correct one. Laughs and imagination are not the strong suits of Babysplitters.

On that front, before we segue to the end of this review, I must comment on a subplot that drove me even crazier than the main story and the lack of imagination within it. Jeff has a job as a suit at a wacky start-up company. He’s the old guy in the office because he’s in his 30’s. The millennials who work for him are the lowest form of modern stereotypes. They are multi-cultural people in their early twenties who are always on their phone and are offended by everything.

Apparently before becoming a film director, Sam Friedlander attended the Bill Maher School for Subtlety and Nuance and majored in 'Cancel Culture is bad.' I could forgive if these jokes were funny but they are the same whiney stereotypes that Maher and his boomer comics have been strawman-ing for the past several years, any time someone dares to question their comic tastes. Here’s a tip. jokes about trigger warnings and who identifies as what minority have yet to be funny. Punch up, not down.

The ending of Babysplitters is exactly the cop out I was expecting from the very beginning. Movies like this could not possibly follow an unconventional path, that would take rigorous work and examination of larger ideas about sexual morality and how people view traditional male-female gender roles and we can’t have that and be a mainstream, broad appeal comedy. Nope, instead we end on the most egregiously conventional note imaginable. All traditional values are reaffirmed and the status quo of hetero-normativity is comfortably settled upon.

Babysplitters is the kind of movie that wants credit for raising questions about unconventional notions of family while at the same time reaffirming conventionality as the only way forward. Forgive me for being sick and tired of the conventional. As a mainstream film critic, I have had it up to here with the conventional. I am desperate to be challenged and on that front, Babysplitters hit all the wrong notes for me.

Babysplitters is available on-demand starting July 24th. Ignore it.

P.S there is a brief subplot in Babysplitters that involves a series of gay couples. Trigger warning. It’s yet another series of stereotypes based on a stereotype. It’s based on a seemingly positive stereotype about gay couples being stylish, thoughtful, progressive and clean but this whitewashing of gayness is offensive nonetheless. The film offers a pandering version of gayness that lacks any kind of humanity. It’s bloodless and lifeless and renders a gayness that is simply palatable to a broad audience.

In some ways it’s nice to see gay people getting the privilege being pandered to but it is nonetheless offensive as it only highlights the ways in which a mainstream audience can only accept one version of gayness. That version that is sanitized and lacking any aspect that might dare to challenge the audience notion of who gay people are.

If you don’t understand why even a positive stereotype can be offensive, perhaps you shouldn’t be delving into the territory of attempting to write gay characters. The conversation is clearly too much for you. By the way, I say that this is pandering to gay people, it's really pandering to pseudo-liberals, people who claim to be allies but only when the kind of gay they are confronted with is one they can accept.

Now do you see why this is offensive?