"Even when they're the 'right' ones, living with them may be just as hard as if they'd made the 'wrong' ones. But once you've made them, there's no way to know for sure."

How very Sartrean of you.

The purpose of Apatow-written films seems to be 99% humor, with the remaining left to mask 2 hour TV shows.

I and a bunch of my friends have noticed that Knocked-Up sounds way too scripted upon a second viewing, whereas Superbad never stops sounding natural; Superbad is clearly the more successful "real movie" for this reason, not just a string of bits, gags, and one-liners. I can tell Superbad is the authentic sort of chronicle that, say, Welcome to the Dollhouse is (although the tone of these films is very different); but Knocked-Up seems more founded on comedic ideas than fluid reality. There is nothing as stilted as, "what's up Scorsese on coke," in Superbad. The comedy comes more out of character than contrivance.

But at least Knocked-Up isn't the complete fail of Juno, which on first viewing sounds more affected than Knocked-Up after 10.

Anyway, the point is -- I think Apatow finds much untapped comedy in the the unexplored area of slacker males + hot women, and throws in the meaning and drama later to tie all the SNL fanfare together. I doubt there is some program here, beyond a niche area of laughs. The ultimate extreme would be the Todd Solondz picture Happiness, which becomes a brilliant tragedy the more I watch. Almost nothing there simply exists to be funny.

I don't know how much credit Apatow can take for the role itself, but Linda Cardellini's character in "Freaks and Geeks" is a far more believable and fully-developed female lead than any of the "plucky and sympathetic" ladies sporting feathered hair in John Hughes' films. How often do we get to see a young woman character be smart, witty, and complex without having to be the ugly-duckling in thick glasses or spew snappy, scripty dialogue every time she's in the frame? Attractive without being a sex object? Dressed down and wary of girliness without being branded as a tomboy and working after school as an auto mechanic? Interested in the opposite sex but not locked in a plot that gave her no aspirations beyond Mr. Right?

Now I'm imagining that character all grown up and finding herself among her old castmates in a film like Knocked Up, and amazingly it doesn't seem that far-fetched. On the other hand, she wouldn't last a minute on Sex in the City or any chick flick...

Catherine Keener's character in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" "pretty much takes the blame for making the poor guy sell all his collectible model toys

Er... Steve Carell blames her, but it's clear he's just lashing out at the change in his life and taking it out on her, and quite unfairly. This isn't even subtext; it's right there all over the scene. Dollar doesn't seem to have very good critical thinking skills.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in "Superbad" the girls are minor characters, in John Hughes movies the girls mentioned are the protagonists. It's more incidental than anything that they happen to be women. Of course the protagonists of any movie are going to be more well developed and less of a caricature than the minor characters.

What next, a diatribe that the cops in superbad aren't as richly drawn as the ones in the French Connection?

I doubt Kristen Bell would be offended to have her character described as "plucky" I am almost positive I have heard Kristen herself describe her character Veronica Mars with that word, and if not plucky than definetly spunky!

Sorry, but it seems a bit of a leap from "patronizing contrivance" to "refuge of a misogynist". I wouldn't be surprised if a few hack writers had impeccable credentials in off-screen gender relations. Plus, without slighting Apatow at all, I'm still a fan of Hughes's plucky, sympathetic heroines. I don't follow the logic here. (Of course I am familiar with your dialectic methods, Emerson.)

JE: I've always felt that being patronizing is just a more socially acceptable and insidious form of bigotry, because it can be disguised as "positive." (See Stephen Colbert and his "black friend," or the "great little housewife" cliches of TV and movies up through the 1970s.) I object to "sympathetic" being used as a positive attribute, when it's really just as much of an artificial construct as, say, "villainous" or "unlikeable." You can like or dislike a character for all kinds of reasons, but there's nothing inherently valuable about presenting one as "sympathetic." As for "plucky" -- well, I can only imagine it being used sarcastically to describe a cliche... So, I see what you're saying (somebody's gotta make a movie called "Pluck and Sympathy"), I just don't like the condescending tone of the labels themselves.

Thanks for your response, Jim. The "great little housewife" and "black friend" categories are certainly clear examples of what you're saying. Seinfeld did a great episode where George is desperately trying to call every black person he ever met to convince his boss (Sugar Ray Leonard) that he isn't racist. And, of course, for every clear example there are scores of others that are more nebulous. I would still argue that Hughes doesn't seem to be in that camp. I may be misunderstanding you, though, as to whether you think his films were patronizing or just that the Steve Dollar comments about them were. And don't think I'm defending all aspects of Hughes's characters. Maybe Molly Ringwald just rose that far above the material.

I also think there are certain characters who represent a more characteristicly female, and often maternal, way of dealing with the harrowing obstacles thrown at them by the plot, who I find much more believable and, yes, sympathetic, than the "girl power" cliches of strapping on some big hardware and kicking some ass. (For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the male characters who choose brawn over brains, either.) You could simply call it courageous or determined but I don't think that the mere fact that "plucky" is reserved for females makes it inherently patronizing. I think, at least as used by some writers, it describes a certain, perfectly admirable, way of dealing that just happens to be more typically feminine.

Other than the fact that the non-written by, non-directed by Judd Apatow "Forgetting Veronica Mars" just came out this weekend, why is all this writing and analysis being wasted on Judd Apatow? Will this much energy be expended on "Pineapple Express?" "Harold and Kumar 2?"

Damn kids and your youthful romantic comedies. Get the hell off my lawn.

I believe that we turn to movies for more than entertainment. We have a very ancient need to know ourselves as people through the use of stories---myths, fairytales, epics all help us see who we are. That is why films that break through a well-established narrative create so much tumult in certain quarters (e.g., films banned in their country of origin or vilified as unpatriotic, as Errol Morris' Standard Operating Procedure surely will be), such as Dollar's reaction to this film. So I understand his "where are the real men and women" complaint.

Words like "plucky" and "sympathetic" come from another generation, one less confused or troubled about gender assignments. Once the people who took these assignments as givens (hardly condescending if you don't acknowledge another world view) are dead and replaced by the Apatows of the world, we'll have a whole other set of narratives by which to measure our lives. And those won't be any more satisfying or permanent than those of the previous generation.

Honestly, having passed the the Apatow stage of life, I find little need to worry too much about his world view other than to say that it is HIS world view. It will speak to his demographic most strongly, showing them their lived experience. When Apatow ages, he may continue his cohort's journey through relationships at a more mature level. We'll find out what happened to the 40-year-old virgin when he turns 50 or 60.

And then maybe we'll find out what's universal about the experience of trying to love and live together.

I kind of enjoy some of John Hughes' films. But when people talk about, saaay, "The Breakfast Club" as being an accurate depiction of High School - I have to laugh. It's such a ridiculous and absurd notion. Cliche upon cliche is piled up until with no more story left to tell and all of the character's problems solved - they have a dance-off! Not at all realistic. "Lucas" is a far more accurate depiction. But they're children! Children follow cliques and grab onto fashions. They grow out of that and become lost and wonder who they really are and what it is they really want.

It's almost like the boys and girls from the movies of Hughes have grown up and become the young adults of the Apatow films.