Poly-ish Movie Reviews

Many today think of Pee Wee Herman as a children's show character, but that was not always the case.  He started out as a very adult stand-up character that morphed into a weird, surrealist dark humor movie character, that then got a children's show, and THEN ... made this movie. What does all this have to do with polyamory?  Good question!  Joreth watches Big Top Pee-Wee to find out how polyamory fits in with the world of Pee-Wee Herman. www.PolyishMovieReviews.com [https://www.PolyishMovieReviews.com]   Big Top Pee Wee is about as goofy as you'd expect. It's nothing like the first Pee Wee movie - Pee Wee's Big Adventure. That movie is kind of a comedic surrealist masterpiece, Tim Burton's directorial debut and a sign of what we would come to expect from him. The sequel is ... not that movie. Big Top sports a cast of dozens of recognizable B-movie faces and names, which, in my opinion, is just begging to fall under the All Star Curse. That's where the larger the cast and the more famous people on that cast, the higher the chance of the movie sucking. It's sort of a case of a movie being *lesser* than the sum total of its parts. While Danny Elfman scored both Pee Wee movies, Tim Burton turned down the movie in order to direct Batman (good call, Burton). I wouldn't call the movie "terrible". It's enjoyable enough to at least watch once. It's silly and it relies heavily on stereotypical "circus" tropes, which include a noticeable dose of casual racism and sexism and transphobia. But, it was also made in 1988, so what else can you expect? So, the movie is fine, which is not a ringing endorsement. But it absolutely is a poly movie. And to explain why, I have to give spoilers, but, honestly, you'll see it coming a mile away. And I'm going to talk about side characters, without giving away any of the major plot points or the conclusion of the main events. Big Top Pee Wee is a very simplistic rom-com plot - the protagonist starts out in a relationship with the "wrong one", has a chance meeting with Ms. Right, and somehow has to ditch Ms. Wrong and overcome the culture clash obstacles to win over Ms. Right before the final curtain. So far, nothing very poly about that. That comes in with the subplot of what happens to Ms. Wrong. Pee Wee starts out engaged to a school teacher, Winnie, in the very conservative and small town near his farm. They seem to like each other, but for no apparent reason other than appropriate gender, age, and proximity because they have nothing in common and absolutely no communication skills. Then the circus blows into town, literally. A big storm hits the town and when Pee Wee emerges from his storm shelter, a bunch of circus folk and their wagons are strewn across his farm. He invites them to stay on his farm to make repairs and rest after the storm, which gives him a chance to meet the star attraction, an acrobat named Gina. After getting caught making out with the hot Italian gymnast, Winnie breaks off their engagement, leaving her available to be courted by Gina's 4 strapping Italian acrobat brothers, who met her in town earlier that day. Their entire relationship progression happens off-screen, so this movie is really only a "poly movie" because it has poly characters in a successful poly relationship in it, not because we actually *see* any real polyamory happening. First we see Winnie angry at Pee Wee for cheating on her, prompting her to break off their engagement, and then leaving him at their scheduled lunch date to have a lunch date with the 4 brothers, causing Pee Wee to sneer and go off in a jealous rant to his pig about how quickly she got over him. Next, we see Winnie learning some acrobatic routines under the tutelage of the brothers, and mending fences with Pee Wee to transition to friends (after further rubbing salt in his wounds with how much better her life is without him). Finally, we see Winnie in the big climatic circus show, performing with the brothers and sporting 4 engagement rings. So, it's fun and fluffy and it has a happy polyamorous relationship, specifically an adelphogamous relationship. Adelphogamy literally translates to "brother marriage", which is a specific form of polyandry practiced historically and occasionally still practiced in some portions of Tibet and Nepal, in which a set of brothers is married to the same woman. Personally, I'm always rooting for the girl to get the male harem, so I may be a bit biased in my praise of this film. It's worth watching once, if you can tolerate 90 minutes of Pee Wee Herman and some 1980s casual bigotry, because the polyamory, what little we see of it, is presented positively and with a happy ending, and in a configuration we don't get to see in the media often.   polyamory; polyamorous; poly; polya; polyam; poly-ish; nonmonogamy; non-monogamy; ethical non-monogamy; consensual non-monogamy; ENM; CNM; love triangle; polygamy; polyandry; fraternal polyandry; adelphogamy; movie review

Joreth reviews the biographical historical drama Beloved Sisters, a biopic about two sisters, Caroline and Charlotte von Lengefeld, and the man they love, German poet Friedrich Schiller.  Discussing sorrel polygyny, can this FMF polygynous arrangement be polyamorous?  Is it true?  Did it happen?  Does the movie actually show polyamory on screen?  Follow along with this movie review with the transcript located on the show notes page of the website at www.polyishmoviereviews.com [https://www.polyishmoviereviews.com]    Beloved Sisters is a German biographical film based on the life of the German poet Friedrich Schiller and two sisters, Caroline and Charlotte von Lengefeld. Netflix says: "In the late 18th century, sisters Charlotte and Caroline begin an unconventional romance with poet Fridrich Schiller, who cares deeply for them both. As their situation evolves, each sister finds her life altered in ways she never imagined possible." I have not looked at my Netflix DVD queue in years, so I have no idea how this movie got in my queue. I suspect it was a Netflix recommendation based on other similar films I added to the queue. So I had no expectations whatsoever about this film. I did not know it was in German, I did not know it was biographical, I did not know it was a period piece. I admit that my tastes trend towards "pedestrian". When it comes to foreign cinema, I tend to either love it or hate it, with far more in the latter category. This one, however, I found myself drawn in, way before I looked it up and discovered that it had a few accolades to its name. Was it polyamorous? Yes? I'm going to say "yes", but it was not in any modern sense of the word. It's possible, given how restrictive mores against non-monogamy altered the shape of relationships in previous eras, that it would not be considered polyamorous at the time, but "normal". Period pieces are hard to evaluate for this reason. The definitions of love, of romance, of relationships, all are different in different times and different places. The bonds between women in such highly patriarchal societies tend to be strong, and more common than today's more liberal cultures. Physical affection is different. Hell, even men were, for a time, expected to provide for their wives but save their love and affection for their platonic male friends and their passion for their mistresses. So the bond among these three characters may not have been the norm, necessarily, but would it have been so "unconventional", as per the description, as to have warranted its own term like polyamory? Maybe? Charlotte and Caroline lost their father at a young age, and were raised by their mother, who was widowed from a rare love marriage. Caroline was talked into a marriage of convenience to save the family from destitution, but the mother openly regretted the necessity. All three of them willingly agreed to the arrangement out of love for each other, with Caroline taking on the responsibility without guile or resentment. As children, the sisters pledged their deep devotion to always remain together, to share everything, and they lived by that oath. Charlotte was sent to the big city to be presented at Court in the hopes of winning herself a wealthy husband as well, but she met a poor poet instead. As per the modesty mores of the time, Charlotte and Fritz, as he was called, were chaperoned by her respectably married sister. Because of their deep bond to each other and the considerable amount of time spent with Fritz, both young women fell in love, and he fell in love with both women. Caroline's marriage had to be worked around, so they devised a plan: Charlotte would be sent back to the big city where Fritz could court her under the watchful eye of her godmother and Society, Caroline would stay with her husband to work on changing their mother's mind about allowing Charlotte to marry for love instead of money while somehow procuring a divorce for herself. Caroline sent Fritz away after a one-night-stand, and the three of them continued their scheming and plotting to live happily ever after. Eventually Charlotte was given permission to marry Fritz as he finally started to achieve some success in his career and Caroline celebrated their union. Eventually, the couple went on their way while Caroline remained behind once again, visiting some months later. This is when she learned that the couple had not consummated their marriage out of Charlotte's sense of duty and concern for her sister not being able to "share" Fritz fully with the marriage between them. Caroline urged Charlotte into her husband's bed and slipped out in the night to disappear for several years, except for another one-night-stand at some point when they ran into each other, this one kept a secret from Charlotte. Eventually Charlotte became pregnant and was reacquainted with her sister, who was now traveling in the company of some wealthy man and hoping to begin writing a novel. She moved into the couple's house and midwifed her sister's birth and the early care of her new nephew while writing under her brother-in-law's tutelage. Fritz begged Caroline to finish up the rest of the plan so that the 3 of them could return to his hometown and live as a threesome, but Caroline seemed to get progressively more and more bitter with the knowledge of their betrayal and her recent life choices, including some upper class prostitution with her wealthy and famous traveling companion. Charlotte grew more and more resentful of Caroline's behaviour and at some point discovered her and Fritz's one-night-stand. This drove a wedge between the sisters. So when Caroline announced that she was pregnant, didn't know which of the very many men she had been with recently was the father, and that the knowledge of the baby would almost certainly prevent her husband from finally allowing her a divorce, Fritz arranged for a country preacher to hide the birth and care for the baby until the divorce was finalized. So Caroline set out across the country with the man who introduced the sisters to Fritz, her cousin and one of Fritz' closest friends, as her guardian and protector on the trip. Here, Caroline stops writing and the couple loses contact with her until she finally writes them a very perfunctory wedding announcement between herself and Fritz' best friend. Many more years pass, more kids are born, finally their mother insists on the sisters' reconciliation before her impending death. During this rather morbid family reunion where the mother gets her material affairs in order, the sisters finally have a confrontation, each accusing the other of being responsible for their separation. Until Fritz nearly succumbed to the latest fit from a chronic respiratory illness, whereupon waking, he finds both sisters sitting in shadows, like bookends, at the foot of the bed. Caroline wrote Fritz's first biography and the only biography written by someone in his inner circle. This biography has none of this ménage à trois, as their own mother called it at one point. It has been debated just how close everyone was to each other, but this movie makes it clear that they were definitely a romantic triad, although the sisters did not share any sexual contact with each other. This triad was portrayed as both women equally loving the same man and he loving them both equally, and all three openly dreaming and planning with each other to live as a triad someday. I'm going to say that, although this dream was never realized in this film, and in fact the relationship between the sisters was strained so far at the end that they inevitably parted as two independent couples, that this film nevertheless showed us a functioning triad, kept apart by external forces strong enough to poison the relationships. Both women had a loving and sexual relationship with the man in the middle, both of them were not only aware of each other's feelings but actively encouraged and supported each other (with the exception of the secret, for which it was the secretive part that made the act a betrayal, not the sexual act itself), and the man openly (within the three of them) loved both of the women. They shared a secret language and written code, where they wrote out their plans and dreams, and we saw both honesty within the group and also how secrecy creates tension and breaks bonds. And all of this was set against a beautifully shot historical drama of revolution and class warfare and the patriarchal segregation of the genders. One of the final scenes includes a short but insightful monologue of something that I believe a lot of progressives talk about today - how the real family bonds and the strength of the family comes from the women and the work they do to maintain connections, and how this strong connection may have been what drew Fritz in from the beginning - the sisters and the mother were the real triad, and the intense bond among women was the beacon of family that Fritz had always longed for, so when they allowed him into their inner circle, he was able to feel a connection that is out of reach for most men because that is not how they relate to each other. And that connection among women, once broken, was also responsible for his later isolation and exclusion, because the bonds belong to the women, they merely allowed him along for the ride for part of the time. I really enjoyed this film. It was a drama but it wasn't as heavy as a lot of other dramas I've reviewed. It showed a triad, and even though it did not last, it was not destroyed by bad writing and morality punishments, but rather by the pressures of the culture that can stress any non-normative relationship. And we saw a fair amount of narrative history that I didn't even bring up because it was less relative to the plot than being a backdrop for it - the French Revolution, the beginning of the Weimar Classicism literary and cultural movement, a significant improvement to the printing press that enabled literacy among the masses, and the spread of classical ideas such as the importance of truth in history, of philosophy, of aesthetics, and other elements of the Enlightenment. If you're up for a historical narrative biography with subtitles, give this one a chance.   polyamory; polyamorous; poly; polya; polyam; poly-ish; nonmonogamy; non-monogamy; ethical non-monogamy; consensual non-monogamy; ENM; CNM; triad; love triangle; vee; polygamy; polygyny; fmf; relationship; polycule; historical; period drama; biopic; throuple; thruple; movie review

A group of aging friends decide to say goodbye to their youth with ... an orgy?  Joreth finds out if a bunch of single people can navigate group sex with respect and maturity, and does group sex make it poly or not?   OK, I have had this movie in my queue forever and people keep telling me about it. So I finally sat down to watch it. I'm gonna say that it's not poly but ... it's not NOT poly either. Here's the thing, a little personal background on me: When I was in high school and college, I had ... um, friends. I had *those kinds* of friends. I remember having a couple of conversations with some guys who were flirting with me, where I tried to explain how my friends worked. I had never heard the word "polyamory" before I was 21, and I was DEFINITELY not into any kind of "open relationship". I was raised strictly white Christian middle class (there are whole articles out there about how people who aspire to a higher class tend to be quite rigid about class rules, while those who are comfortably in that higher class tend to break the rules all the time, and my parents were both blue collar and Latina trying to move up the class ladder, which means we followed the rules *exactly*, or else!). So, in my world, there was no such thing as non-monogamy, ethical or otherwise. You met your soul mate sometime in your teen years, you got married (after college, of course), got a nice white collar job, had 2.5 kids, a dog, and a house in the suburbs. Exactly as my parents did (seriously, it was me, the brain, and my sister the jock, a dog, my dad proposed to my mom at her senior prom, the only thing missing was the literal white picket fence). Anyway, that was How Things Were Done. Except ... they weren't. So I was trying to find traditional "boyfriends" for a monogamous relationship, but how do you do that when you don't really get jealous and you can't handle your boyfriend getting jealous at you still being friends with your exes and half your social circle is made up of guys you've messed around with between boyfriends? So, in these conversations, I very distinctly remember being asked more than once, if I have sex with my friends and I'm friends with my fuckbuddies, and my friends are actual, intimate, emotionally connected relationships, then what's the difference between them and boyfriends? I know that I had answers to those questions, but I don't really remember them now. What I know now is that I was really straying into Relationship Anarchy territory without that term having been coined yet. So, this movie reminds me a lot of my teen years, and the kinds of friends I used to have. I would not call what my friends and I did back then "polyamory" and I'm not calling this movie "polyamorous". But I turned out to be poly because this was the kind of friend group I liked to have. Or maybe because this was the kind of friend group I liked to have, I ended up discovering that I was naturally polyamorous. I'm going to say that this is *not* going on the poly movie list because there aren't any really poly-specific values or lessons or situations happening here, but it's definitely an example of why taxonomy needs to be taken with a grain of salt. As I've said in several reviews: taxonomy can help us to identify when something definitely is this thing, and when something definitely is not this thing, but there are always those things in between this and that. And this movie is in between. "A thirty-something party animal decides to throw one last crazy beach party at his father's swanky Hamptons pad. The only obstacles are convincing his reluctant friends to join in the fun, a blossoming romance and a real estate agent trying to sell the house out from under him." This description manages to be both accurate and totally vague at the same time. Eric is a guy whose dad owns a beach house and he and his friends spend their summers there every year since high school. Eric's parties are legendary, with themes and costumes and tons of food and massive amounts of liquor and people crashing on the lawn furniture because they're too drunk to drive home, and cops being called 3 times in the same night and the neighbor loaning them a cow, and of course there's the one guy who always gets naked. I spent most of my own 30s going to parties like these. Then Eric's dad decides to sell the house. So Eric decides to have the mother of all parties as their final hurrah. But how to top everything he's already done? Eric decides to host, not a giant bash like usual, but a small, intimate orgy, just between his closest friends who have been with him since they were kids and who actually stay in the house together every summer. This takes a little convincing, but eventually the whole group is in, which includes 3 single women, 3 single men, and one guy who has a girlfriend who is not one of the high school buddies but is accepted as part of the group. The weird thing about this movie is that the scenes where they're discussing and planning for the orgy are somehow simultaneously uncomfortable and also not necessarily wrong. So, for instance, there are a couple of scenes where they're each discussing with each other whether or not to do it, and they cover things like penis size and consent: [inserted discussion montage] Then there's the scene where Eric and his best buddy go to an underground sex party to do research on how to successfully host an orgy. The things that happen in this scene are things I've personally witnessed at "public" sex parties, but, while accurate-ish, they're also played as way discomforting for comedic value. That's actually kind of hard to do. [inserted clip of sex party] Before I saw this film, I was expecting one of two things - either a lot of gross humor and ultimately a failed orgy, or a party where somehow all of these friends end up coupling up and in a romantic dyads where each couple has sex mostly apart from the others. I even had a tweet prepared about having a pet peeve of "mainstream" movies thinking that an orgy means several individual couples having sex exclusively with their own partners, but in the same room. And the movie did actually set itself up for one of these two endings. But it surprised me by not doing either one. There was a big tense moment where it looked like the orgy was going to blow up. And there was a lead up to some coupling up with at least one woman seeming to harbor a secret flame for one of the men. But then things took a turn. And the orgy got started. The couple that was a couple before did stay a couple and didn't go outside of each other, but there's usually at least one of those at an orgy. Hell, *I've* been one of those couples at an orgy. And another 2 people ended up in what looked like the beginning of another couple. But A) it wasn't the couple that the movie set up for us, and B) they still mixed it up during the orgy even though they seemed pretty into each other. But the morning after, everyone seemed cool with each other and all the friendships seemed intact. It was a one-time thing and they went right back to being friends. No weird, awkward, Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice moment of regret and a return to normalcy by pretending it never happened. So, after spending the last couple of decades around sex-positive, kinky polys, watching this group of mainstream people muddle their way though the complexities of group sex was a little awkward. But they reminded me of the people I used to be friends with before I had my own first orgy, they're just older than I and my friends were back then. So I actually kinda liked it. And, to be honest, I spent some time in New England with a now-former partner who lived there, who had friends who are not part of the poly, swing, or kink communities ... and I kinda think this movie nailed that kind of social group. I feel like I met all of these characters on one of my trips up North. The one part that I really didn't like was what happened with the married couple. The orgy ended up being 8 people - 7 of whom were high school friends and the girlfriend of one of them who has been part of the group for a while since she started dating her boyfriend. But the complete pack is actually 10 people. Another couple is in a monogamous relationship, they have a baby together, and a wedding planned during the summer the movie takes place. The group decides not to invite this couple because they have a baby and they would have been married about 2 weeks by the time the orgy takes place. For some reason, the idea of this couple having group sex with them squicks everyone out. And I can't figure out why, because the dating couple - the one guy from high school with his outside girlfriend - are exclusive too, and they have sex in the same rooms as the rest of the orgy participants, but they don't have sex with anyone but each other. So I'm not sure what the problem is with the married couple being involved, except that the group obviously has a set of assumptions about what "marriage" and "parenthood" mean. The married couple eventually find out about the orgy plans and get upset that they weren't invited and they decide they want to participate, but the group tells them that they can't come. [inserted confrontation clip] Now, on the one hand, I do appreciate the group being clear about their boundaries. I would have been annoyed if they had tried some sort of shenanigans to get out of it, rather than just flat out telling them "no". But on the other hand, once the married couple said that they were in, seeing as how the other exclusive couple was in, it was kinda a dick move not to include them. I had assumed up until that point that the reason they didn't invite them was because they figured they wouldn't want to because of their relationship, but it turns out that the group was the uncomfortable ones about their marriage and parenthood. During the orgy, the married couple actually show up anyway, thinking that once they're in the house, nobody would actually kick them out. So, again, it's a "on the one hand, but on the other hand" sort of thing - first, it's really shitty of them to show up when they were told they weren't included, but second, I kinda wanted the orgy to have gotten over all their issues (as they did) and to welcome them once they were there. Instead, the married couple peeked through the window, saw the initial weirdness and no sex happening, then decided to just have sex together in their minivan in the driveway, and that's the last we saw of them. [insert peeping tom clip] So I thought that was disappointing. But other than that, it actually wasn't a terrible movie. A little crass, a tad boorish, even a bit mundane maybe, but perhaps only in comparison to my very liberal social bubbles. I come from that world, and I still work in that world, and, I have to admit, I even occasionally have fun in that world. I mean, I do listen to country music and watch '80s sitcoms. So I am not calling this a poly film. But it's not that far off. It might even overlap a little bit. And I enjoyed it more than I expected to.   polyamory; polyamorous; poly; polya; polyam; poly-ish; nonmonogamy; non-monogamy; ethical non-monogamy; consensual non-monogamy; ENM; CNM; relationship; polycule; group sex; swinging; partner swapping; ethical slut; movie review

A married woman takes a lover, but can Joreth take yet another affair movie? www.polyishmoviereviews.com [https://www.polyishmoviereviews.com]    It's so much worse when they manage to get you to like a movie before they turn it to shit. No, you're not experiencing deja vu. I said that exact same line when I reviewed Paint Your Wagon. It's still true. 5 to 7 was a Netflix recommendation, so naturally I went into it expecting it to be a total shitstorm. Instead, I found it charming. The Netflix summary says: "an aspiring young novelist finds his conservative beliefs about love and relationships tested when a chance encounter outside a New York City hotel leads to an intense affair with a French diplomat's beautiful wife." Everything about this descriptions says this movie should be terrible. The main character is said to be conservative and I can't get into movies unless I can connect to the characters. An "affair" implies a secret, and the qualifier "intense" leads one to imagine this is some sort of dark romantic thriller. It was nothing like that. This was more like a romantic comedy, but surprisingly without any artificial conflict between the two lovers. Brian is very young (to my ancient, middle-aged eyes), a 24-year old would-be writer living in New York. Walking down the street, he sees a beautiful woman smoking outside of a hotel. He crosses the street and manufactures a reason to start talking to her. She seems antagonistic to his overtures but invites him to meet her again at the same time and place next week. So he does. His appearance at the appointed time surprises her and she invites him to spend a couple of hours with her at a museum between 5 and 7 the following Monday. He agrees to that too. So they spend the time wandering around the museum, and later the park, getting to know each other. I still feel that she is sending him prickly signals, but apparently she is just being French. Towards the end of their date, Ariel (as she is named) casually announces that she is married with 2 children and nearly a decade older than Brian. He is taken aback by this information and she responds as if confused that he would have a problem with it. She goes on to explain that she and her husband have an open marriage with very specific rules and it's all very normal and acceptable in her culture, and implies that Brian is a naive, uncultured, close-minded American and thinks his "conservative" monogamous beliefs are the weird ones. Brian is unable to accept that consent is the element that makes something ethical or unethical not an arbitrary adherence to someone else's structure, and says he can't see her. Ariel says that Brian knows where she will be every Friday afternoon if he should change his mind. 3 weeks later, he does. So she gives him a hotel room key and says to meet her there at 5. Apparently, according to Ariel, "5 to 7" is French slang for "open relationship", at least, of a particular type of open relationship. She says that it used to be literal - that it was a reasonable time of the day for a spouse's whereabouts to be ... fuzzy and unknown, so that's when people looked the other way while their spouses visited their affairs. Eventually, it morphed into a saying, something like a "5 to 7 relationship" that meant a primary marriage with side partners. But Ariel and her husband Valerie found the literal time to be convenient for their lifestyle so they keep with tradition. This makes her an "old-fashioned girl". The bulk of the movie is vignettes of Brian and Ariel spending time together and we see their feelings for each other grow. We learn that Valerie has a mistress of his own and the two women know each other, and everyone in the equation feels content with the arrangement, except Brian. Even their kids are cool with things and at one point tell Brian that they're glad he's mummy's boyfriend and they welcome him to the family (which throws him for a loop because he didn't realize the kids knew). So, at this point, I thought the movie was cute and all the non-monogamous people seemed well-adjusted and content, and I was willing to overlook the whole couple-privilege thing because everyone seemed to be happy with things, and the stuff that bothered Brian was less about the couple privilege and more about the very notion of non-monogamy. I got the impression that if they had more of a commune-style or network style relationship, he still would have been uncomfortable. Until it became about couple-privilege. As it always does, because that's what happens with privilege. And with rules. I have always said that if everyone just wanted to follow a rule, then a rule is not necessary. And if someone did not want to follow a rule, then a rule would not stop them. Throughout the movie, we learn about Ariel's and Valerie's rules, which are very much designed to protect their privileged status as an upper class monogamous couple. And that kept bothering me. It would be one thing if Ariel said "as a mother and wife of a diplomat, my schedule is very full. I have blocked off the hours of 5-7 for 'me time', which allows me the freedom to pursue relationships like this, but I have very many other things in my life that I value and this is all the time I am willing to spare right now." I might have wrinkled my nose a little bit, but honestly, my life isn't much more available. But instead, she said that she and her husband had a *rule*. They "agreed" on this thing, and this was what it was. The feelings of the new partner did not matter, and, in fact, the feelings of Ariel or Valerie did not matter. What mattered is that the rule was followed. And people only follow the rules when they want to, until they don't, when they stop. As his feelings for Ariel grow, seeing her only from 5-7 on certain days is not enough for him. He wins an award for his writing and this is a very important moment in his life. Naturally, he wants to share it with the important people in his life. Ariel is not allowed to see him romantically outside of 5-7, but she is allowed to attend public functions with her husband while refusing to acknowledge her side relationships in public. Honestly, that would piss me off too. I'd rather someone stayed home than show up to something important in my life and pretend that we're mere acquaintances. She argues with him that rules are rules. I would argue that the rules did not always exist. At one time, they were negotiated. Now is a time for a renegotiation. So now, the conclusion of the film, because, as usual, it's the conclusion of the film that makes or breaks it for me in terms of whether or not something is to be classified as 'poly-ish". SPOILERS: Brian falls deeply in love with Ariel and asks her to marry him and allow him to be a stepfather to her children. Ariel's first reaction is anger that he has betrayed her by "breaking" their agreements. But her next reaction is to decide to divorce her husband and run away with Brian. I literally facepalmed here. This movie had the opportunity for some real personal growth for all the characters. This is the pivot point of the film - the part that determines the future. This one scene decides what happens to the characters for the rest of their lives. This point was a chance for Ariel and Valerie to examine their couple privilege, to really look at their arrangement and question if it was truly fair, truly *ethical* how they were treating their side partners. Is it really fair for anyone to place limitations on people's emotions? On their futures? On the structure of a relationship? To insist that people serve a relationship rather than a relationship serving the needs of the people in it? This was a moment where Ariel and Valerie could have taken a good look at the privileges they enjoy for pretending to participate in the mainstream culture while stepping outside of it at their whim but not in any way that inconveniences them while massively inconveniencing their partners. And at the same time, Brian could have had the opportunity to keep chipping away at his biases and his insecurities and his narrow exposure to other cultures and other beliefs. Brian could have really stretched his comfort zone by challenging himself to see Valerie as family, the way Valerie professed to see him (of course, he didn't really, as addressed in the previous bit about couple privilege, but that could have been his own growth opportunity). What was never even considered by literally anyone in the entire film was Ariel having two husbands. What if Brian could have become a part of their household? What if Valerie's girlfriend, Jane, could have had the potential to join, instead of merely accepting that this was always destined to be a short-term, time-filling, relationship? What if the children, who had grown attached to Brian, could have had a stay-at-home dad along with a socially active mom and a breadwinning father? And maybe another bread-winning mother? What if Valerie and Ariel had to learn that other people mattered and they couldn't always have things their way all the time? What if everyone had stopped paying lip-service to the term "family" and actually built one? In the end, many years have gone by and we see that all is as it should be - Brian finds a nice monogamous woman to settle down with and have children with, Jane gets her own husband, and Ariel and Valerie are the same old happy family-of-four that they've always been, polite, civilized, and appropriate. Brian and Ariel have now managed to romanticize their past relationship because it didn't last long enough for them to get out of the NRE stage and see each other as full people with flaws and quirks and gross little habits that they hate, and so live on in each other's memories as "perfect". Instead of recognizing that it's possible to love more than one person at a time. Oh, and one more thing, during Brian and Ariel's breakup, we learn that Ariel was apparently never in love with her husband and that she has only known Twu Wove with Brian - a man barely into adulthood who doesn't seem to understand her at all and with whom she only knew for a short time. It's not clear how long, but the children don't seem to have aged at all during their relationship. This comes out of left field. There is absolutely no indication anywhere in the film up to this point that Ariel's and Valerie's marriage is anything other than perfect and exactly what they both want. And I really hate it when writers do this to non-monogamous couples. People who are written and portrayed as happy together suddenly, without warning or lead-up, reveal that their whole relationship is a sham and everything is a lie. People who are happy together do not make the sorts of decisions that the writers need these people to make, so they invent a conflict that nobody ever saw until that conflict was necessary to drive the two people apart. I have been in those relationships where I was open and honest with my partner about having other partners and being polyamorous, and after a while, they begged me to go monogamous with them. Those breakup conversations are all the same. They always included a moment where I had to say something like "what part of this didn't you understand?!" And, knowing what I know about how the brain works and what happens to our memories, I fully believe that this weird sort of "we were totally happy together and then she let me think it could be just the two of us, but then she chose him over me for no good reason!" disjointed story is what many of those exes remember of our time together. I would be completely unsurprised to learn that they felt my responses to our relationship made about as much sense as these sorts of characters in movies do, like Ariel and like Mason and Samantha in Fling. But being the person that other people think makes "out of character" decisions, I just think that those who write their characters to make out of character choices don't really understand their characters very well. So we end up with a woman whose life is happy and perfect and exactly the way she wants it to be, until she decides to throw it all away to live monogamously with some kid she hardly knows, except she then chooses "duty" and "family honor" to stay with a man she never really loved to begin with. I have a lot to say about the dysfunction of their relationship with their couplehood and their rules and their devaluing of their other partners, but her actions and decisions here made no sense. Each time she flip-flopped, it was totally contrary to everything we knew of her character up until that point. But at the same time, when you think you can legislate feelings, you are in for a surprise when those feelings jump up and do something unexpected to challenge that legislation. And this is why making rules like this is bad. Sure, the original family group remained intact. That's the goal for most of these rule-makers and their rules - protect the family at all costs. So, by that standard you could say the rules and their relationship as structured were successful. But that price tag... Neither of the main characters are with the people they believe that they truly love. And when there was an alternative that would not have "destroyed the family" that was never even considered... I had thought of adding this to the list under the criteria for "if the movie shows positive and/or realistic scenarios of poly issues & situations, such as coming-out conversations, dealing with discrimination, overcoming jealousy, reaching out to metamours, etc." because "other criteria" also allow for a movie's inclusion if the relationship ends and Ariel had some good defenses to Brian's reaction of her marriage. But for a movie to be included even when the relationship ends, it has to end "due to outside pressure or personality conflicts, but seems to be an otherwise functional and happy relationship and it was not the polyamory that caused the breakup". And, in this case, I feel that the primary plot relationship ended because of the open nature of the relationship. Brian could not accept a non-monogamous relationship. I have no problem with him having a problem with the time restrictions and not allowing their relationship to grow into a more traditional-marriage-like arrangement. But he wanted a *monogamous* marriage with her. It never occurred to either of them to have a live-in Vee, or even an N with Valerie's mistress. When Ariel accepted Brian's proposal, she also wanted monogamy. But then when she changed her mind and chose to stay with her husband, she did not even think to offer a compromise of having two husbands. She broke up with Brian because he wanted something different than what she originally offered and she would not compromise or consider alternatives. The open relationship is what broke them up. She chose her life with her husband, and she ended her relationship with Brian. She did not offer to keep what they always had and nobody considered any alternatives. She chose her husband over Brian. And "the movie makes any character choose one partner over another, and especially if it implies that choosing one makes the protagonist happy in spite of the jilted lover being a decent partner" is one of the "does not make the list" criteria. Also, "the movie seems to be written with a tone that implies that open relationships cannot work," it does NOT go on the list, i.e. the poly characters' decisions only make sense in the context of a writer who doesn't understand polyamory. So, with that, I will not include this on the polyish movie list, in spite of there being some reasonable defenses of their lifestyle in the early conversations between Ariel and Brian. I also left out a whole bunch of details, if anyone still wants to see the film. It was charming, for me, right up until the end.   polyamory; polyamorous; poly; polya; polyam; poly-ish; nonmonogamy; non-monogamy; ethical non-monogamy; consensual non-monogamy; ENM; CNM; open marriage; open relationship; hierarchy; hierarchical; couple privilege; love triangle; vee; relationship; polycule; couple; rbamp; movie review

Yet another movie named "3" - will this one have some polyamory in it?  Or will it be another cheating film?  Joreth reviews the German film Drei, or 3, for polyamorous content.   I've updated my Netflix queue with poly movies so long ago, I can't remember anymore which movies were added because I saw them on a poly movie list somewhere and which were added because Netflix recommended it to me based on some movie from a poly list that I had just added. So I have no idea where this "3" came from. The Netflix summary reads: "Berliners Hanna and Simon, a couple in their 40s, have grown comfortable in their marriage. Independently, each meets and romances Adam, a handsome younger man. When Hanna becomes pregnant, all three must face what they've tried to ignore." This has every element of a movie I will hate - infidelity, secrecy, Relationship Broken Add More People, and babies as plot devices. This movie isn't going to get a Get Out Of Jail Free card on these points. But I actually liked the movie anyway. First of all, the description isn't exactly accurate. It's pretty close, certainly closer than Sleep With Me was. But Hanna and Simon aren't exactly "comfortable". They seem fairly happy, if settled with each other. I mean, sure, they do seem comfortable with each other, but the description would seem to imply the use of the word "comfortable" as a stand-in for bored or in a rut. This couple still has an active sex life and still expresses affection and love for each other. Their relationship isn't broken and neither of them go out looking for something to fix it, or their lives. They seem more or less content with their lives, although they experience some tragedy early on in the movie. They are "comfortable" if you use the definition of your favorite blanket that you curl up with to watch your favorite movies with. So, they have a fairly happy, long-term relationship that experiences some stress that just comes from life. Then they each independently meet Adam. The description seems to suggest that each half of the couple were the ones to pursue Adam, but I got the impression that he's the one who put the moves on the couple. Adam is, apparently, bisexual and fine with casual flings. He has interludes with Hanna and Simon, and then goes about his business. But Hanna and Simon keep thinking about Adam and seek him out for more (which he is certainly amenable to). And yet, Hanna and Simon still seem happy with each other, and they're still both sexually active together. So, as the summary gives away, Hanna discovers she's pregnant and doesn't know who the father is. So, like in Cafe au Lait, the infidelity is revealed and they all have to deal with it. And this is where I have to give away the ending in order to explain why I think it's a poly-ish movie. I do wish I could start finding some poly-ish movies where the polyamory is the plot (or just another element in the story) and not the conclusion. Anyway, here goes. SPOILERS: When the infidelity is revealed, everyone splits up and stops seeing each other for a while. But then Hanna receives tickets to a show from Simon and when they meet up, they talk. Both admit to missing each other and both admit to missing Adam. Meanwhile, Adam has a conversation with his ex-wife in which it is revealed that he's in love but has lost his chance (he doesn't say who he is in love with). I don't think that the baby was really a plot device to bring them back together. Hanna didn't have some weird "you must now both do your parental duty" moment, at least, I didn't interpret any of the scenes like that. The pregnancy seemed to be an excuse to get Hanna to barge into Adam's apartment when Simon was still there, thereby revealing the connections. But what seemed to bring them back together was that they genuinely missed and loved each other. I feel that the movie could have been written without a pregnancy and the reunion scenes could have still happened as-written (minus the dialog about the status of the pregnancy). So the couple shows up at Adams house together and the final scene is a very artistic threesome that shows everyone naked and everyone loving each other. This film was more artsy than I generally prefer, but then most foreign films are (this being a German film). It did have some gorgeous scenes, including a beautiful dance between a woman and two men that was fairly blatant foreshadowing. But for once, I didn't find the characters hard to relate to. I found Hanna to be the most disagreeable, but she was intelligent and knowledgeable and she liked to argue politics and she was involved in media. Her husband was quiet and passionate and artistic with a soft heart, filled with compassion. And Adam was a brilliant scientist trying to save the world in spite of the public's Luddite fears holding back his research. I think it was obvious why each of the characters liked the others, whether I liked them or not. They were nuanced and complex, and that always wins big points with me. So, yes, the story starts out with an infidelity. Unfortunately, so do many poly attempts, which means that we will have that plot represented in our media. And yes, they added a baby. But it wasn't a cautionary tale, there wasn't any hypocrisy really, and no one was rewarded for truly evil behaviour. I found myself drawn into the story and I would recommend watching it.   polyamory; polyamorous; poly; polya; polyam; poly-ish; nonmonogamy; non-monogamy; love triangle; adultery; cheating; affair; infidelity; group sex; rbamp; couple; throuple; thruple; gay; bisexual; LGBTQ; LGBTQIA+; movie review