Observe and Report Q&A
In the comments section of the previous post on Observe and Report, T. Holly asks:
Sorry about my tone, but would like to know what you think of Rizov’ quiz Kim, and if you’d care to answer the four questions. I did, and not in a jokey way: A. is a script fix that I could realistically imagine an savvy Producer ordering, even as a pick-up/re-shoot to cover the bases (the button and the in-character come back; a third hit or payoff would only be necessary for the hearing impaired).
Thanks for the pointer, T. Holly. While GreenCine is usually one of my regular reads, I’ve been sick as hell this week and am way behind on my usual blog reading, and missed this piece, in which Vadim Rizov also writes about the “date rape” controversy over Observe and Report (and, good for him, also slams the writers who have been excoriating this film based solely on the trailer, which I agree is totally unprofessional). Unfortunately, this GreenCine piece didn’t turn up in my Google reader search as I was looking for any posts on the subject I might have missed, or I would have inluded a mention to it, so giving it a shout-out here.
At the end of his piece, Rizov posits that there’s a “massive misreading of the film going on” and offers what he sees as the “right” questions. Below are my answers to his questions — and here’s a link to the post T. Holly refers to, if you’d like to read his questions … it’s too much material for me to feel comfortable pasting in here, even with a link back to his piece. So go there and read what he has to say, then you can come back here and read my answers and see if you agree with them.
My answers are after the jump ….
A) I think I answer this one pretty thoroughly already in my column, so I won’t bore you going over exactly the same points again here. Short answer to the second part of the question, though: Yes, we are.
B) Multi-part question, here’s a breakdown of answers:
B-1) We can’t get a consensus because the scene is so vague, and I believe it is so vague because Jody Hill didn’t really know what he was going for here. Vadim rather astutely points out in his piece something I’d wanted to discuss further in my column, but had to cut due to length considerations: Ronnie is the most well-developed character Hill wrote for O&R; it’s almost as if he gave a great deal of thought to this particular character he wanted to explore, and then just surrounded him with a bunch of one-dimensional supporting characters he didn’t flesh out as fully, which is one of my problems with the film.
On the other hand, you could argue (as I did in the comments of David Poland’s review of the film on the Hot Blog) that this may be because Hill shows us everything in the film skewed through Ronnie’s delusional perspective. In digging through every single review with Jody Hill I could find online, I found one interview by Peter Keough for The Boston Phoenix that actually touched on this issue with this question and answer:
PK: Does the style of the film — blackouts, a disjointed continuity — reflect the state of mind of Seth Rogen’s character? Or am I reading too much into it?
JH: You’re exactly right. I’m glad you noticed that. Some people are just going to be annoyed. I hope it ends up working. I tried… he’s a manic depressive. So if you look at the way the film is structured he’s on the edge, then things start going good, so he goes off his medication, so he can feel the full effect of all the good things that are happening in his life. Then, when things start going bad, and since he’s off his meds, he goes off into a dark hole. Everything I’ve read, I’m no expert, but everything I’ve read says that. Certainly the hard cuts that we use and the … in a sense it’s 84 minutes but it’s a slower paced movie. Some of the scenes are slow, actually. The running time is low so people aren’t going to get bored and stuff. Certainly there will be times when we hit the music hard and it comes out of nowhere and that’s to get that juxtaposition of opposite ends.
KV again here: So, if Hill was deliberately skewing the film based on Ronnie’s state of mind throughout the story, it would make sense that Ronnie would be the most fully-realized character, because in his mind, he’s the most important person in his world — everyone and everything else is secondary to how he sees himself (although I’ll also note that his is more indicative of Ronnie in a constantly manic state, or even perhaps of someone with a narcissistic personality disorder on top of the M-D.)
The character of Brandi, in particular is very one-dimensional, and is only as meaningful to the film as she is because of what Anna Faris puts into the role — but the question is, whether Hill deliberately created her that way to reflect the singular (physical) nature of Ronnie’s .obsession with her — she’s essentially a living blow-up doll, complete with ample cleavage and pumped-up lips — or just because Hill was too lazy to flesh out the rest of the characters as he did Ronnie. And that I can’t answer.
Also, while I very much wish that Hill had put more thought into the “date rape” scene, based on all the interviews with him I’ve read, he just didn’t. I wish I could say I thought he was going for some deeper statement about the shift in the way sexuality (particularly the sexuality of young women) is viewed, but from all I can tell based on hsi interviews (and the interviews with Rogen and Faris) he was just going for a laugh. That doesn’t mean that the audience isn’t free to interpret more than that into it, or discuss the greater issues he raised, however unintentionally, by including the scene. But it’s vague, in part, because he wasn’t going for anything more than what’s there.
B-2) Because this discussion is infinitely more interesting (and more culturally relevant) than a discussion about why the studio allowed the scene to be included in the film.
C) Yes.
D) Not true. Or to be fair, partially true, but that’s a vast oversimplification of that film.
There you go, T. Holly. And thanks for the pointer.
I do like post mortems. You’ve done a lot of work on behalf of this film, and I’d take note if I were involved with the film.
But having exposed the tempest in the teapot, it’s actually interesting to discuss how and why, who did what, but those people don’t do a lot of talking to the press, so I propose a new type of DVD extra: “the what we did wrong, from the script to the marketing, making of the movie” to give films that don’t play or work well more umph.
For me, it comes down to two questions:
1. What are the odds that a self-proclaimed “white knight” would have dragged his all-but-comatose “damsel in distress” into the bedroom, propped her limp body into position on the bed, disrobed her, and commenced to have sex like that? Seriously? THIS guy? Mr. Law and Order?
2. And if he DID do all of the above, because we’re saying that he’s basically a sick little puppy underneath all that chivalry, why would he suddenly stop in concern at the fact that she was completely immobile and non-responsive? Does that gel with the rest of this character’s infrastructure at all?
If it’s date rape if the girl ever loses conciousness at any point in the act of sex, no matter how consentual she was while awake, then, yeah, I guess that’s date rape. But then, if I lend somebody my car, and take a nap while they’re out, then that’s grand theft auto.
Amazing, you actually saw this movie and believe #1 or think there’s any question to #2 (wouldn’t it be easier for him if she moved around a little?). Jody Hill needs more guys like you to make his movies for, he’d be thrilled to know he fooled you.
Actually, I think Hallick makes some excellent points about the consistency of Ronnie’s character. Unfortunately, based on all the interviews with Jody Hill I’ve read, I don’t believe he gave this scene that much intellectual consideration. It seems pretty clear that, much as I would have liked for his intent with this scene to embody some larger statement, he was just going for the frat boy laugh. The tipping point on that for me was the interview where he said he thought the scene would have been funnier WITHOUT her waking up and saying “Why’d you stop, motherfucker?” He filmed it both ways, and this is the one that got into the film.
Sadly, I think much of the discussion of this scene has been more thoughtful and intelligent than what the director actually put into it.
Sex like what Hallick? He’s on top, she’s flat on her back, he barely thrusts once or twice. I think the director thought alot about it and knew it was borderline, and it is consistent with the the movie, and it’s not unusual to shoot takes with a line and without. Kim does a great explaining what Jody was thinking.
Sex like this: Brandi collapses at some point, Rogen’s character picks her up or drags her limp body into the bedroom, heaves it up onto the bed, takes off most of her clothes and then proceeds to rape her under the covers. It doesn’t compute with his character’s character unless the guy is so mentally gone, he doesn’t have a clue what’s happening right in front of his face and he thinks that they’re literally “making love”. In which case, Ronnie would have a pretty good Not Guilty By Reason of Mental Defect case going for him.
I actually understand what Jody Hill was thinking, in regards to whether the scene is funnier with the punchline in there or not. There are a few ways it could have gone if Brandi doesn’t wake up to say that line. You could have had Rogen slinking away in confusion and embarassment. You could have had a jump cut to his character running besides her stretcher at the hospital, either trying to gingerly explain to the doctors what they were doing; or more likely, treating the docs the same way he treats Liotta’s cop, and running roughshod over the nurses and “taking charge” of the ER. Hill’s saying that doesn’t really have anything to do with the circumstances of this encounter.
Having finally seen the entire movie, along with the few seconds of the date sequence that you can’t find online, I’ve come to the conclusion that everybody overlooked the real violation Ronnie committed and fixated on the imaginary one.
Given the circumstances, I don’t see how you can call it date rape unless you’re of the school of thought that says if a drunk woman has sex with a man, she’s being raped due to the fact that her judgement is impared. Brandi is passed out in the middle of the act, but she’s also the one saying “What are you stopping for, motherfucker!?”. It would have been a lot more grey area without that line, but the line is in there, so no grey area.
What tickles the hell out of me is the fact that Ronnie had earlier all but held Brandi captive until she agreed to go out with him on this date, and we’re not discussing that little psycho move at all; a move which was clearly off-putting and creepy to the nth degree.
And on a side note, why was there so little discussion of Ronnie’s home life – specifically his mother, a fall-down drunk herself. If that’s what Ronnie’s used to being around, then Brandi’s condition was just par for the course to him. He still loves and accepts his mother, so he’s going to stick with Brandi when she’s in a way that would cause other men to retreat.