Ingrid reveals she is HIV+. Her sister is trying to get her into a clinical trial, and there’s discussion of antiretrovirals and a possible vaccine. The film takes place in 2016 (for some reason), but the HIV dialogue sounds like it’s from 1997 when these clinical trials were mainstreamed. (A friend of mine was in the first clinical trial of the antiretrovirals in 1996.) The HIV plot point is a problem mainly because it is a plot point, although I’m not sure what the plot is. It ends up trivializing the issue as well as confusing the history of HIV treatment.
In many ways, the film is a Woody Allen pastiche, or just Woody Allen fanfic, without Allen’s sense of humor. Ivy is supposed to be wise beyond her years, just out of the teenager stage, but still with enough wherewithal – and financial means – to have rented what she calls a “sex apartment” for hookups with this one guy. Plausible? I suppose. But not as Ivy is presented here by Milligan, who says everything with a small childish laugh behind her voice. Whether or not you “get” or even like Allen, his sense of humor undercut the self-seriousness of the characters and there’s satire present. Is Lipsky satirizing something? And if so, what?
In the Goldilocks story, Goldilocks enters the bears’ home and takes over their belongings. It’s one of the most popular fairy tales of all time and can be “read” a number of different ways. Goldilocks could be seen as a colonizer, barging in where she doesn’t belong. Go home, Goldilocks. Make your own porridge. Here, it’s Goldilocks’ home, and the two “bears” have barged in uninvited. You could “read” it as a story of corrupted innocence, but Ivy once rented a sex apartment. Good for her, but it muddies the metaphorical waters. Ian has a beard and Ingrid doesn’t shave her armpits or pubic hair (this is referenced in the language and visually). Is Lipsky’s conception as simple as: Ivy is blonde and smooth, and the other two are hairy like bears? Aren’t metaphors supposed to lead somewhere else?
“Goldilocks and the Two Bears” is probably supposed to be “provocative,” “shocking,” and “playful,” the title being what it is. The film is none of these things. I’m not in academia, but I am an educated, liberated woman, and even I Kant figure this out.