I am muchly enjoying the Netflix subscription, and it's giving me the chance to see movies I'm vaguely interested in seeing but have never gone out of my way for. Now, when The 40-Year-Old Virgin was in theaters, my reaction to trailers was basically summarized by a loud groan. But in the last year or so, some friends told me "No, it's not at all what you're thinking. It's actually a pretty good movie; I think you'd like it."
So, I gave it a try. Now, the geek in me is not offended. When you get right down to it, the movie's message is that you gotta be yourself, and when "normal" people try to change you, you'll just make an idiot of yourself if you follow their advice. Oh, and they're not so normal and emulation-worthy anyway. I probably would have liked it more if not for two things:
1) I'm a woman.
2) I'm a writer.
I understand that the premise of the movie, 3 "normal" guys trying to get their virgin kinda-friend laid by any means, basically dictates the objectification of women, in those segments. But, it's not very well balanced out in the "real relationship" segments. I think this movie could be done in a less offensive way, putting more effort into showing the 3 'normal' guys as REALLY messed up in their attitudes towards women. Maybe if we showed some positive women. Like, plural? (Bechdel's law is, as usual, totally in the toilet.)
I think part of the problem is that Hollywood was tripping over its own messed up ideas of sexuality that it tries to push down our throats. For one, I refuse to believe that sex on the first date is normative. Most of my female friends want to at least be reasonably sure their new beau is not Jack the Ripper, and you really can't be sure of that after two hours. I know that having your boyfriend of 3 1/2 weeks take your teenage daughter to the birth control clinic is not normal, nor is "I love you, let's get married" less than two months in! This movie really needed a more realistic and healthy attitude towards sex, and relationships, and especially towards women, and for whatever reason the makers couldn't bring themselves to do that.
That nicely leads into my second problem with the movie: People just don't act like that. I don't even know where to start. Just picking something at random, the store they work in apparently changed its name from Prohibited Harrassment R Us. One call to corporate HR would clear this place out. Andy is far too intelligent to let someone too drunk to stand, actually drive. I spent half the movie thinking "why didn't they just hire a prostitute", and then a good chunk of the second going "OK, now what if you hire a real prostitute instead of a movie prostitute?" What guy is going to say "I cheat because I'm insecure"? Honestly, who even has that kind of insight into themselves? I don't really see a woman freaking out upon finding out her boyfriend has a huge collection of porn; I personally half expect it in this day and age. And I'm just hitting some random points. I lost count of how many times I said "No one talks like that" or "No one acts like that." It's like watching a bunch of hand puppets try to act out a sex comedy.
Oh, and it is officially the winner for weirdest ending segment I have yet seen. And I saw the 2003 Zatoichi remake with the Japanese Riverdance bit out of nowhere, just to put that in perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I do agree that the movie objectifies women, I believe that you missed the point of the movie. It is a comedy, and has to be portrayed as off-kilter. Separated from reality. In 98% of all comedies, no one talks like the characters in real life. As funny as Ace Ventura is, no one talks like him. As deeply honest and insightful as Juno is, no pregnant teenage girl talks like her. Comedies are off-kilter realities.
ReplyDeleteAnd the point of the movie was that Andy's coworkers were putting him in the worst possible situations. And as a result, inadvertently preventing him from being with the woman he was supposed to be with. Their goal was just to get him laid. So they threw him in with hookers, transvestites, drunk women and such. Situations in which they thought he was most likely to lose his virginity. But they were dead wrong. He was supposed to be with the lady in the Ebay store.
Yes, the movie objectified women. Such is the nature of sex comedies. But this movie knew that it was wrong by focusing on the one relationship that was right.
First, I challenge the idea that a sex comedy must objectify women. If I said one must objectify men, you'd look at me funny and list off ones that don't -- including, I'd say, this one. Comedic does not mean that half the human race has to be reduced to props; that doesn't make me laugh.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, though, I will agree that this is not the sort of comedy I like. (It's funny you mention Ace Ventura; I dislike most Jim Carrey movies.) I think a comedy is better with a straight element -- when the comedic characters are zany in situ, not just part of a zany not-fully-sensical world. For examples from my own collection, "Ed Wood", and "Arsenic and Old Lace" are all humorous by showing the craziness of a small group of people in an otherwise sane world, while "The Producers" has wonderful straight-man/funny-man trade-offs between Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. In my opinion, 40-Year-Old Virgin lacks a good "straight element"; it's basically on Trish and her daughter, and they just don't get enough quality air time to carry it all themselves.
I saw the point they were trying to make. I just think they failed.