|
As a movie lover, I am very fond of movie trailers. If I can’t get to a movie in time to see the previews, I won’t go. Don’t get the wrong impression. I’m actually pretty laid back. For me, “fussy” is used to describe the Ralph Lauren linen blouse in his Equestrian line that has one too many ruffles. But I digress.
I have developed a highly complex critical paradigm that I reserve for movie trailers, with categories such as: “I don’t need to go to that movie, as I just saw and understood the entire plot and/or dramatic/comedic arc in 30 seconds.” Or, “I have seen that movie a hundred times.” Or, “Hmm, that looks interesting.” And then there are what I call the "Leo" movies, for Leonardo di Caprio, where you're pretty sure the main character will die in the end.
I’ve now viewed a trailer twice that generated a reaction (although “critique” sounds so much more well-reasoned) that is usually reserved for any preview with the promise of unbridled nudity/sex, too much violence or any movie with “Saw” in the title. I refer to this genre as “Ewwww, that looks disgusting” or “Okay, I’m offended”. In other words, trailer trash. The most recent culprit? A movie called Dinner for Schmucks. It’s not come out, I haven’t seen it, and I’m not presuming to judge the thing on its merits. It’s the premise I’m objecting to. From what I can gather from the trailer, two suave, successful corporate or financial types play a game where they try to outdo each other in finding the weirdest person they can and inviting them to a dinner party. At the dinner, the “guests” are encouraged to be their strangest selves, and the two hosts will laugh at, make fun of, and ultimately sit in judgment of the invitees. In the movie, the two friends enlist a new colleague (Paul Rudd) to join the game. Anxious to be accepted as “one of the guys” he sets out to find the oddest oddball he can find (Steve Carell). Now I like both those actors, and I have a hunch that the weirdos will triumph in the way of Revenge of the Nerds, and either physically hurt or embarrass the corporate game players, or affect some miraculous change of heart, but the premise of the movie as shown in the trailer continues to bother me.
This movie is built around the idea that deliberate cruelty is funny. Further, the implication is that to be successful in terms of what society deems success to be, you had better be prepared to do what it takes, and what it takes is often disgusting, callous and cruel, but you know, cool. Funny. This is junior high on steroids, where you have grown-up power, authority and money to perpetrate your little humiliations. I can’t think of a worse message to be sending to young people.
This is the age of cyber-bullying, sexting and Face Book feuds that can result in physical and psychological harm to insecure, impressionable teens and young adults. Why build a movie around the idea that it’s funny to humiliate those that may not fit the profile of what society says is cool and hip?
I may be wrong. I haven’t seen the movie. It could be a charmer, a real heart-warming tale. But it’s not marketed that way, and the studio must believe that the strongest selling point, the way to get people to see the movie is to lead viewers to believe they are going to see some real weirdos acting really strangely while we get to sit back and laugh with the big boys over dinner. I don’t think I could sit through the hour and 45 minutes of set-up to get to the fairy tale ending where the “cool guys” are proven to be the schmucks of the title. The damage is done by then. Heck, the damage was been done in the 30 second trailer.
|
Comments
No Comments, be the first to Comment
Add new Comment
RDBS Comment developed by Robert Deutz Business Solution