Reading people's reactions to Observe and Report, be it reviews or internet comments, it's become clear to me that this movie is extremely polarizing. As perhaps not made as clear by the film's marketing as it could've been, Observe and Report is not your typical Seth Rogen belly-laugh affair. It's unapologetically mean, with Rogen playing a nigh-irredeemably disgusting character. Because of the questionable nature of his character's supposedly humorous antics, many are finding it too hard to laugh at—some even took offense.
(Be warned, this may contain mild spoilers about Observe and Report. Not too bad, though.)
One of the more vocal opponents of the film is the popular feminist blog Feministing, who are angered by an unbelievable scene in which Rogen has sex with a drugged-up, liquored-up and seemingly unconscious Anna Farris. They have declared this past Friday, the film's opening date, to be "Friday Feminist F--k You" for Seth Rogen and the crew of Observe and Report.
A big issue presented here is that many of the film's supporters foolishly try to argue that the scene isn't rape. Myself, even being a big fan of the film, take issue with that sort of ignorance. The scene in question is very clearly and unarguably a rape scene. Rogen's sober character gives her pills, buys her shots, then literally drags her barely conscious body into bed to have his way with her. Come on, kids, if you fail to realize that this is date rape, you need to spend more time in school.
And yet... It's really no cause for alarm.
Part of what makes Observe and Report so polarizing to audiences is that it's not just a comedy with edgy humor; it doesn't do crude envelope-pushing—it goes beyond that in the portrayal of its sad protagonist. At SXSW last month, writer-director Jody Hill aptly described the movie, "It's a comedy, I guess." I guess. There are certainly funny scenes, though I believe the film is more interested in following its protagonist's thought process through than getting big laughs. That includes having Ronnie fulfill his lust the only way he can (drugging a lady), as a clever but disturbing subversion of the usual macho romantic male leads in movies who never fails to woo the girl no matter how improbable (see: Rogen's own Knocked Up). That's why it's shockingly funny. It's not the fact that he's having sex with an unconscious girl. It's not even Anna Farris' woozy command for him not to stop. It's the fascinating idea of this bipolar man believing that such an inappropriate act of violation is a romantic triumph. The film later subverts another common cliche when Ronnie beats down a dozen (good) cops as his "hero moment." The film deliberately places us behind Ronnie all the way, even though we clearly know that what he's doing is both illegal and morally f--ked up, which makes for a more intelligent, thoughtful, and ultimately challenging comedy.
It's true that the film takes Ronnie's side, which perhaps confuses people into thinking that it condones its hero's actions, but that's why the film is superior to most comedies being peddled in the mainstream. I'm not the first person to compare Observe and Report to Martin Scorsese's brilliant-yet-provocative Taxi Driver, because it's obvious that Jody Hill was working from that template. Both present a vile misanthrope as the hero of his own making, and then let us judge his actions ourselves, the way Travis Bickle's happy ending has spawned interesting discussions over the years. And lest we forget that Taxi Driver, too, had many comically dark moments.
In one scene, a character hides in a closet to eavesdrop on Ronnie getting bad news delivered to him, only to awkwardly emerge moments later, apologizing to Ronnie sincerely, "Sorry. I was listening 'cause I thought this would be kinda funny... but it's actually kinda sad." That's Observe and Report.
Here's my main problem with the ladies of Feministing's argument. There's always a big problem when you take a scene out of the context of an entire film, because you're missing what the overall intended portrayal of the character is. If Rogen's character is the lovable figure he usually plays in the Judd Apatow oeuvre, or heck, if he's Paul Blart from that other mall cop movie, the criticism is certainly valid as it aligns an unacceptable behavior with an acceptable personality. But when the unhinged bipolar Ronnie is someone who spends the entire movie obsessing over guns, spewing racist diatribes, viciously injuring people and creepily stalking the Anna Farris character... What makes date rape so out-of-step with what he would do? And who decided that it's the line the film could not cross?
Seth Rogen himself made it sound like the rape scene bothered him (as it should). He told ComingSoon in an interview:
I think we shot one take of it. As long as it takes to watch is as long as it took to shoot. We did it once and we were like, "Okay guys lets get the f--k out of here." I remember everyone couldn't believe we were done. It was scheduled as the first scene of the day and literally 30 seconds later we were like, "Okay we're done. Let's move on."
The recipient of the film's date rape, Anna Farris, thought the scene would never even end up on screen, as she told The AV Club.
I’m so grateful I was cast, but when I read the script, I thought, “Well, this is Warner Brothers. This is a studio movie, so this is all gonna be softened up. It’s a comedy, right?” So when we were shooting it, even the date-rape scene—or as I refer to it, “The Tender Love-Making Scene”—I just thought, “We’ll shoot it, but it’s not gonna be in the movie. I don’t have to worry about that one.” And yet there it is.
We're so used to wishy-washy comedies and cookie-cutter studio-approved anti-heroes that we've come to expect Hollywood films to take no risks. And we bitch about that constantly. Yet when they do so, and pull it off courageously, we are unsure.
I admit that I'm a big apologist for comedy. I believe that comedy is a both an effective transmitter for political issues (I've gotten used to referring to Bill Hicks as a preacher rather than a comic) and also a great tool to make sense of real world horrors. I don't know why we aren't allowed to make light of serious issues, as if cracking a joke automatically disqualifies you from caring. Perhaps that's why my comedic sensibilities tend to walk further into the dark side (I'm wearing an "I (Plane) NY" t-shirt as I'm typing this; Serendipity, I love thee).
Rape is never funny? That's bullshit. It's just not funny to you.
No, I can imagine that being raped wouldn't be funny. Neither are 9/11, domestic abuse, mental handicap, molestation, cancer, or whatever it is that's taboo these days. But misery always begets comedy. Always. We just tolerate different levels of miseries, almost arbitrarily, according to which victims we feel sorry for. Boundaries in comedy is a fallacy, an imaginary line drawn by people who see themselves fit to dictate what is "too much." Such guidelines simply don't exist. Who's to say that turning murder into a joke is okay, but rape isn't? Or, who's to say that prison anal rape can be a gag, but date rape can't? We crack jokes about morbid situations because we joke about the world in general, and like it or not, assault of any kind, sexual or otherwise, is a part of that world. To pretend that it's not by limiting its use is disingenuous and hypocritical.
A popular retort is the ever-wise question, "Would you still find it funny if it happened to YOU?"
Well, no, I don't think I'd find it funny then. But someone else would, and that's okay. Perhaps if tonight I walk down to my local grocery store and a junkie stabs me with his HIV-infected syringe, I wouldn't laugh about it. Neither would my friends and family. But if some schmoe somewhere read about me on the news and successfully turns my tragic situation into a hilarious joke, my hats off to that person. That's how great jokes are born. We have great political jokes because the state of the world is perpetually and endlessly f--ked.
It's true that a portrayal of sexual assault and making light of it might bring painful memories to victims of such a crime, and a laugh isn't worth that. Sounds dangerously close to "security over liberty," but let's not go there for now. This, from an immediate perspective, is a valid concern; but, again, limiting a movie's topics by pandering to a specific group.
The FFFU video explains that Rogen's position as current king of all "Bro-men" (whatever the hell that means, or whoever the idiot was that coined such a redundant term) creates a problem because many frat-boy fans of his previous films will see the rape scene and confused into thinking that this is something okay to do. I don't disagree that this is certainly true. Not to say that all men are that clueless, of course, but some will miss the point and see the character's behavior as an endorsement. We can't help it, idiots do get around, like the ones buying into the cult of Tyler Durden as Fight Club's irony goes over their heads.
The problem is when we start catering our movies to morons. We fear that because there are people who cannot or will not think for themselves, we have to hold their hands and take them on a guided tour. "They might not get it, so let's make it obvious what we're really trying to say."
At that point, we might as well give up on the arts.
