We just got up from sitting down to watch the “manpic’ The Hangover and I got so say, we are still reeling from it. Billed as a comedy, the movie follows the bachelor party antics of four friends who flock off to Vegas to “party hardy,” leaving their girlfriends to do all the wedding preparations two days before a wedding, and engaging in an amnesiac round of exploitative, immature, drunken, and dangerous behaviour–driving while intoxicated, stealing cars, kidnapping citizens and generally engaging in the type of behaviour you’d expect to see from jail-bound seventeen year old males coming from dysfunctional family backgrounds.
It was horrible to watch.
One of the characters, married with a wife and child, complains how he is slowly dying in side ever since he got married and had children.
Another makes a joke about his pedophile past (oh I can’t get within 200 yards of children) and later pretends to masturbate a baby?!?!
A third exploits a vulnerable female by engaging in a clichéd Vegas wedding and they all drive around Vegas while blacked out from too much alcohol and drugs and because, according to the producer, the screenwriter, and the actor who hurls the line towards the end of the movie, “that’s just what men do.”
And this is a comedy?
Honest to God, we didn’t find anything funny about this movie and some of the scenes and commentary were frankly horrifying. In a world where between 1 in 5, and 1 in 3 women will experience some form of sexual abuse and assault before they are twenty, you do not makes jokes about pedophilia. In a world were ours sons and daughters are regularly run of the road and killed by drunk drivers, you do not condone getting behind the wheel while intoxicated. In a world were relationships fail at the rate of 1 in 2, and where children regularly experience the emotional pain of absent and unattached parents (can you imagine what a child watching this movie would think about his father, or feel about himself, after hearing the married man speak about his “slow death” at the hands of his wife and child?), you don’t make fifties style sexist jokes. The movie was made in 2009, this is the 21st century, and culturally we are beyond the sexist, irresponsible, childish culture of a boozed up and hopped up sixties and seventies.
Or so we would have thought.
And this is not even to mention the disturbing scenes where they show children engaging in police condoned electrical torture.
Excuse us but this movie was just not funny. It was, however, a very good example of how Hollywood, as a cultural and socialization mega-machine, defines our gender roles for us. The essence of the film is contained in Stu’s “manly” comment to his girlfriend when he says, basically, that drinking, driving, going to Vegas, exploiting women, trashing hotel rooms, stealing live animals, urinating in public, dissing your family, engaging in gender segregated peer exclusion, leaving the women to take care of the arrangements, trespassing, kidnapping, masturbating babies, and generally engaging in the activities of an emotional seventeen year old is just the fun stuff that guys do. Hollywood, if you can treat Hollywood like a block like that, does this a lot. From the puerile attempt to define mens’ emotional responses in the 2009 I love you man, which emphasizes (as all Hollywood films do) the physical and emotional separation of the sexes, to the Disney like attempt to bash us over the head with fantasy like scripts of relationships and marriages, Hollywood is in the business of telling us how to think and feel about each other, and how to act and behave. It’s also very clear from this movie that Hollywood is an irresponsible, immature, childish, offensive, and dated teacher with little sense of social responsibility, little concern for statistics about drunk driving, divorce, or sexual abuse, and an absent conscious and concern for the impact that garbage like this movie might have on society and the impressionable young people who watch it.
Personally, we think that’s the point though. While a lot of people might suffer whenever “the boys” go out and get drunk, or leave their families, or express their emotional disconnection, or kill someone while behind the wheel, bars don’t, and neither do casinos. It certainly benefits Las Vegas if we (men and women) believe it’s ok to abscond with the family cash and go drop $5,000 a nite on villas in Vegas. It certainly benefits industry when the people who say it’s not OK (Stu’s wife, for example) are painted as monstrous, cheating shrews and the “reasonable spouses” are the ones who remain accepting and/or oblivious to what their spouses (or fiances) are really up to (i.e. Tracy the blushing bride).
In the end the movie was a thoroughly distasteful experience that left us with two questions. The first question was the most obvious one. For a movie that played like a 100 minute advertisement for Las Vegas we wondered, did a Vegas casino front the money to pay for the production of the movie? And the second question, less obvious, but more difficult, how did watching this movie make people feel? What was the expectation? Where we supposed to cheer as Alan Garner (the pedophile character who couldn’t come within 200 yards of children) pretends to masturbate a baby in public? Where we expected to LOL as police encourage children to torture prisoners? Where we supposed to nod in sympathy as Phil Wenneck tells the world his family is killing him, or think “how cool” when he steels money from his students to fund his Vegas debauchery?
Well, if these were the things we were supposed to feel then the movie failed because neither of us felt any of these things. Really it was just 100 minutes of head shaking wonderment that, in the 21st century, with a trillion bits of social research, and society that knows better, such cultural trash could ever make it onto the big Hollywood screen.
Further Reading
What everyone needs to know about drunk driving
January 8th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Michael I can understand you concern about this movie, however you could probably trash hundreds of other movies that have similar if not worse themes. Did you not read the content warning before watching it? And if you did, you must have accepted it as something you wanted to watch.
Just some notes on your article:
1)The movie is rated for the ages of 15 and over, so a child should have no business watching this movie.
2)Alan Garner was not a pedophile, you misquoted him. He was not allowed within 200 yards of a school not a child. And he didn’t simulate masturbating a baby, he simulated as if the baby was masturbating himself. I watched it twice and the only time I got the impression that he may have been a pedophile was when I read your article.
3)And this is probably true how “some” men would like to behave. Other than that, to do what they did is pure Hollywood comedy fiction. For example Rohypnol would have knocked them out fully, they would not have even been able to speak let alone walk. The Rohypnol theme was just used to create the cause for their memory loss.
Anyway I loved the movie and I can watch an adult comedy and know that it is fiction without it making me think it is cool to do what those guys did. I just enjoyed watching them being idiots. And I know that women also love this movie. Sometimes it great to get a break from all the over-political correctness preached by control freaks who must have never put a foot wrong in their own lives.
I think you are worrying about nothing. Sometimes it good not to take life too seriously.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Hi Zoso, thanks for the commentary.
Did you not read the content warning before watching it? And if you did, you must have accepted it as something you wanted to watch.
I don’t believe a “content warning” justifies regressive trash like this movie. And ya while it is an “adult” movie, and kids under 15 are unlikely to see it, you’re assumption that people over sixteen are automatically adults and will not be duly influenced by this movie is wrong. Young males, the ideological target of this movie, are responsible for the most accidents and deaths due to intoxicated driving in their age group. Just ask any insurance company. At that minimum level this movie is irresponsible since it makes drunk driving look cool.
Alan Garner was clearly a pedophile. There is only reason that someone is ordered by the law to stay away from school yards and that is because they did something inappropriate to other people’s children. And while Alan Garner might suggest that what was on his mind was innocent, his later graphic masturbation of the baby would suggest a rather overt theme of pedophilia. You know, if you masturbate a baby like that, the law will make no distinction whether it was you, or the baby, with his hands on the penis. It is inappropriate. And we read other reviews online. There was a lot of concern when this movie came out over that aspect of it.
And this has nothing to do with PC so if you don’t mind, take that critical dialogue stultifying meme as far away from this blog as possible. This movie romanticized so many psychopathic, anti-social, and violent behaviors that I’m still shaking my head about it.
You know, my wife hated this movie to and for exactly the same reason. It portrays and romanticizes regressive gender behaviors, adolescent antics, drunk driving, slipping people drugs, torture, theft of wild animals, trashing hotel rooms, and something that “men do.” Well you know, I’m no prude and I’m not a member of the moral majority. But this movie was pure cultural trash and the actors and directors who did it should be ashamed.
Seriously, I wonder if they even bother to consider the potential negative impact of a movie like this on the young and impressionable sub-adults of this world.
I think the difference between you and I might be, no offense, that I’m not naive about the political and social agenda of Hollywood. You see innocent entertainment, but we see an attempt to construct gender roles and direct human behavior. You do not see the ideological and political power of Hollywood, or the fact that they do engage in social manipulation and control, but we do.
And ya you’re right, we could trash a lot of movies like that. The movie “I Love you Man” was a transparent attempt to manipulate our gender behaviours by suggesting that emotional attachments should be gender based and exclusive (girls do girl things and boys do boy things). From our perspective that’s a very regressive and ideological message since gender separation is the fundamental conceptual prop around which our system builds it’s structures of gender oppression (see our blog on gendered activities)
Of course, Hollywood is not of a piece. The movie Four Christmases showed positive gender relations, i.e. a tight couple who did everything together, and the couples primary concern was with the emotional well being of the dyad rather than the pathological attachments of their family. They survived because they isolated themselves from the dysfunction and pathology around them, and not by “diving into it” as they did in The Hangover.
Anyway, your attempt to stifle criticism by waving the PC flag won’t fly here. If you want to discuss these things, that’s great, but leave that particular meme at the door. We don’t buy it. And you know, sometimes you have to take things seriously. For example, are you aware of the statistics on child sexual abuse and how prevalent it is in our society? Further, are you aware of initiatives like MADD, and the destructive influence of drunk driving? Are you aware of how many relationships fail, how many divorces there are, and have you ever considered that traditional gender roles and gender exclusions, and Hollywood’s often peurile view of the genders as separate and isolated, might have something to do with that? Take a look at the skyrocketing rates of mental illness in our “so called” advanced societies. You don’t think the growing distress, dysfunction and angst is something we should take seriously?
m&g
m & g
January 8th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the fast response. Yes I did view The Hangover as just another movie and thought little of it, until by chance I came across your article. Yes the pedophile theme was not needed, I didn’t think that part (and some other parts) were funny, however I never really thought about until now (just another dumb scene, take it or leave it). Also I should have wrote that I didn’t assume Alan to be a pedophile instead of writing he was not a pedophile. On a serious note I am totally with you on the drinking to excess and the drink driving issues. As for the Gender Exclusion issue, that is something that I also agree on in the real world. I have three daughters and ever since the first one was born I said to myself and my wife (who I am no longer married to, which I’ll touch on later) I do not want them to grow up thinking that they have to be slaves to their partners. In promoting that it gave me motivation to actually do things I wouldn’t usually do on a regular basis, like cooking, cleaning, washing and hanging out clothes, doing the dishes etc. Because I wanted them to think it was a natural thing without having to tell them it was. And I can also say without a lie that when they were babies when they woke in the middle of the night for a feed I got up every time with my wife (I did not miss one feed). I even held one of my daughters on my wife’s breast while my wife fell asleep. And when they converted to bottles it was me who got up in the night to feed them every single time as my wife slept. I also worked a six day (sometimes seven) a week job. But I did it because I wanted to. I would also like to see women on equal terms with men (and even on some occasions more dominant when the need calls). We have come a long way forward over the last century and we are still moving in that direction. It’s slow going but we will make it.
Concerning the relationship issues the movie puts forward, yes your view is valid. However, Phil (the school teacher)in the end does come to realize the value of his family. And Stu does come to realize and end his destructive relationship with his girlfriend (not wife) before he marries her and starts a dysfunctional family. And as for his girlfriend being portrayed as an evil controlling witch, equality is a double edged sword. By that I mean we can’t portray either sex as being perfect. I know intimate relationship’s break up rate is high and I accept that, due to my view that all intimate relationships are temporary but true friendship is for life.
Also if couple’s differences cannot be resolved over time, why should they stay together wasting their lives living a lie pretending to be happy when clearly they are not. Even with children involved, do we think it is more beneficial for a child to grow up in an unhappy household where the parents stay together for the sake of the children? Or is it better to grow up in a happy environment with one parent or shared care. Also when it comes to gender exclusions, the Child Care Authorities blatantly practice sexism in favor of the female parent. Now my personal opinion on intimate relationships is most of the time one person is trying to act the way that they think pleases their partner. And they also expect there partner to act the way that they think they should be acting. And their partner is doing exactly the same thing back to them. So essentially there are 4 false beliefs undermining each relationship which makes it very difficult to endure over the long run unless you have a high level of acceptance.
It’s very interesting reading material on your site. And regarding child abuse and sexual abuse this may interest you – 1) http://www.prisonplanet.com/ai.....-porn.html
2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/no.....reets.html
January 8th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I know intimate relationship’s break up rate is high and I accept that, due to my view that all intimate relationships are temporary but true friendship is for life.
Ya but a healthy intimate relationship should be the depth of friendship. You make good points though.
Also if couple’s differences cannot be resolved over time, why should they stay together wasting their lives living a lie pretending to be happy when clearly they are not. Even with children involved, do we think it is more beneficial for a child to grow up in an unhappy household where the parents stay together for the sake of the children? Or is it better to grow up in a happy environment with one parent or shared care.
I guess that depends how bad it is, and how good the parents are at covering it up. Agree with you though, if you can manage to find a healthy relationship for your kiddlings, that’s the ideal. A lot of people though are broken emotionally in our culture though so it makes finding healthy relationships where you can become very intimate, very difficult. I think you’re right, most relationships are unhealthy compromises. I think though this is a pathology and if we had a more open dialogue, one that didn’t kow tow to gender stereotypes, or prostrate at the alter of The System or of individuality, we might be able to fix this.
I’m familiar with prisonplanet. I’m not a big fan of that site. They often take things to a paranoid and ridiculous extreme, doing the same thing all media outlets do and selling copy via exaggeration, inaccuracy, and sensationalism (though using their supposedly critical stance to “one up” the mainstream media in this regard). I don’t know about the United States but in Canada they are rolling these scanners out now. However, as it sits now, if you are one of the “randomly selected passengers” (more likely if you fit their profiles) you can either choose the scanner, or submit to a standard search. I don’t imagine children will ever be required to pass through those scanners, just like children now are not subject to these kinds of searches. And if they are I imagine it wouldn’t take much litigation to stop that from happening. I think if we are concerned about child porn we should focus on priests and the churches, as a start (just google Bishop Raymond Lahey).
m
1) http://www.prisonplanet.com/ai.....-porn.html
2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/no.....our-naked-
January 8th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Thanks for the insight into prisonplanet. Here in Australia the Mainstream Media keep us in the dark concerning world issues. To inform ourselves better we need to hunt for information on the internet. Trying to find a healthy balance on news happening in America and Europe on what to believe and what not to believe is a challenge. And mostly by watching the US is like looking into Australia’s future, as a lot of changes they make to their policies Australia mirrors in some degree in the future.
Also we have great TV program on the ABC called Hungry Beast which recently screened a report on how a new program for pedophiles in Germany is working on protecting children. http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/.....hey-offend
Thank you for your time, great site, I leave a little wiser than when I entered.
January 9th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Ya I know the mainstream media sucks as much as the alternative media in some cases. Our media in canada is bad as well. We’ve been an occupying force in Afghanistan for several years now. The media started off by calling it a “peace keeping” mission and somewhere between then and now they started calling it a war. it was a very slick and very Orwellian move. They basically got a country to accept war by gently adjusting our consciousness about it. those dirty rascals. They should be ashamed as well.
thanx for the link on Germany’s program. Very progressive. I also found this link on female pedophiles. I have also been enlightened as you have passed through this site!
http://equalwrites.org/2009/11.....edophiles/