The Hot Blog

OK, it's not The Three Stooges, but just to clarify, we're laughing at them (Ronnie, Brandi, Momma), not with them, right? It's seriocomedy. Why is Ronnie delusional and bi-polar, why is Brandi nuts, what make Momma tick; who are these people were laughing at? Hate to say it, but in Southern lit, it's always the fault of the crazy mother's influence on the son. I wish Hill had developed the script a little better with a more experienced writer because Ronnie's normal is so abnormal, it needs to be outrageous, but it's got to be controlled.

What concerns me about the discussion is the idea that 'Melanie is already established as a slut so it's ok'. However offensive that is on its face, the film doesn't actually state that Melanie sleeps around in the film. The only other time she is shown engaging in sexual behavior is towards the end of the film, long after the would-be date rape scene. That viewers are quick to assume that Anna Faris's character is portrayed as slutty right off the bat, purely because of her tight-fitting outfit and extreme valley girl vocabulary, says much about the character of those making such statements.

Cue Voynar and her feminist lecture on gender inequalities in 5... 4...

This movie RULED and was first remotely funny comedy since MY BEST FRIEND'S GIRL.

Way to prove you're not obsessed, David!

I have to say, when you get outraged about something, it seems like you don't always see the line between fiction and reality. Would I laugh at a family member in a similar sex scene in real life? Of course not. I don't laugh at real life police brutality either -- if you want to get into real-world connotations, Ray Liotta dropping Rogen off in the slum and presumably leaving him to die is a far worse transgression than sex with dubious consent.

Also, I don't want my sister to take a lakeside vacation, smoke pot, have unprotected sex, and get killed by a guy in a hockey mask. But I still like movies that depict same. I understand that they are fiction.

But...This...Is...A...Movie! And a pretty clearly fictional one. I think the scene both wants you to laugh AND then second-guess why you laughed. As most of the scenes in the movie do. I don't get how you see a wildly conflicting tone throughout.

And quit defending white trash from this flick. You ain't it, and genuine white trash folks love to laugh at folks who remind them of some guy they know (examples: Ernest and Larry the Cable Guy). Most "white trash" folks I know from high school would likely laugh their asses off at O&R.

Dave, it's so weird how you don't get it.

Ronnie is delusional. The scene is intended to show us the depths of his delusion. He doesn't believe he is taking advantage of her, he believes this is the culmination of a romantic night where

- he waited outside her house for hours because she forgot they had a date and went drinking with other people. In his delusion, he thinks this is romantic.

- they went to a restaurant and she proceeds to get utterly shit faced (of her own volition) and takes the medication he needs for his bi-polar disorder (of her own volition) and proceeds to act like a jackass. In his delusion, he thinks she is fun and they are having a great time.

- they came home and she vomits and he kisses her anyway. In his delusion, he believes this is a moment of deep connection.

The scene is not a joke on date rape (and seriously, so what if it was? Do you see the difference between being in bad taste about something and actually doing that thing? It's a HUGE DIFFERENCE. You're getting all 1980s Republican party on us here, Ed Meese). It's supposed to be uncomfortable and it's supposed to offer us insight into just how deeply delusional Ronnie is. He goes to Brandi the next day at the mall and doesn't understand why she isn't delighted to see her new boyfriend.

I would love for you to take this ignoring the facts of the text and confusing fiction with reality form of movie reviewing and use it on films like THERE WILL BE BLOOD. I want to see you get outraged at how bowling alleys are portrayed.

I'm not quite getting the brouhaha. The scene, which is - what, about 20 seconds long? - begins in flagrante delicto with Ronnie humping away on the apparently unconscious Brandi. He notices she's not moving and stops, calling her name in concern. She says "Why'd you stop, m-f'er?" and he resumes humping. Cut.

As far as we know, Ronnie didn't think she was unconscious when he started humping her. If he did, why would he stop and call her name as if just noticing it? Once she confirms that she's aware of what he's doing and gives him a fresh go-ahead, he gets back to it.

Granted, this skirts the issue of her level of impairment and therefore consent, but I think what's there is close enough for comedy, especially of this type.

The biggest issue with O&R is the constant gearshift from first gear to fourth. The sound of the gears scraping constantly took me out of the film.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't create a guy like Ronnie Dobbs, a bi-polar delusional mess of a human being, and take us to those dark places of his crazy reality and then just give him everything back he lost and have him get the girl in the end.

Had the film ended like it always should have, with Ronnie being removed from society and reviled for his actions, the film would have sat so much better with me. To have Ronnie's delusions and actions turn him into the hero is the film's cardinal sin. If Hill and company had just gone for it and made the film a fascinating downer, i would have loved it. As is, it's a tonal mess.

Have to say I agree with Devin's take on the scene. Seriously: I was very surprised when this whole "date rape" controversy arose, because I didn't think about that at all when I first viewed the film at SXSW.

I haven't seen O&R so am not best placed to comment, but during debates like these it does well to recall the words of Billy Connolly -'finding comedy in horrible things is not the same thing as finding horrible things funny'. The ultimate litmus case for this maxim, is, of course, Life Is Beautiful - which split opinion but still won Oscars.

Ronnie is clearly a pig and rapist... he's clearly a repulsive character, so it doesn't surprise me that he would rape Anna Faris's character. However, I don't find it funny.

No, it's you guys who just Don"t Get It.

Snogging an unconscious girl is rape. I'm pretty appalled at how guys can just say it's OK.

You wouldn't do it? Well, gee, thanks for that, but this film rape is for comic effect, and that context makes it all the more offensive and disturbing. How much does it take before you feel sexually debasing a female is inappropriate fodder for comedy?

Date rape is often condoned or excused by males who try to explain it away, or don't even recognize it as rape. I hear and read it all the time. The message going around, and in some of these comments is... get a girl high or drunk and she deserves what she gets. Worse, the feeling is she'll enjoy it, as tho she is actually aware of what is happening to her and has a choice.

People do stupid things when drunk or high, and can be victimized. Even you boys probably have experienced that. Well... lets try this on for size... suppose you were sexually debased by another male while nearly unconscious? Would you laugh about it? It doesn't even matter if you were gay or straight. If you didn't have the capacity to defend yourself from the sexual advances, would you think what happened was "ok" ?

We shouldn't be taking our lessons in what constitutes offensive behavior from movies like Observe and Report. And that many of you couldn't even recognize that the scene in question was offensive and disturbing, is sad.

Yup, it was rape, no doubt about it. Convicting Ronnie of it is like charging a retarded juvenile though. The movie is upside down like Anghus said.

Following up on Anghus, the rules can be broken. O&R is underdeveloped, it got greenlit fast with Donald De Line leading the way in a flawed process that involves having certain people put a stamp of approval on you. Has Jody Hill ever been pushed to write something really great? Can he, on his own? Anghus, do you think Hill would follow the script you laid out or do you think he failed at not laying out the script you didn't lay out?

When I was in high school, there was this kid who was charged with raping a girl who'd passed out at a party. I think the charges were ultimately dropped.

But somebody I knew told me he confessed to him that he didn't have sex with her -- he only "felt her box."

I was in a pseudo-punk band back then, so we went and wrote a song about this confession called "Box," and set it to the riff from "Gonna Make You Sweat" by C+C Music Factory.

Wow...I'm STILL shocked this is even being discussed. Where does intent come into this discussion? Where does poor little Brandi's intentions come into this discussion?

As Devin put it so well; the whole thing serves to show how screwed up and nuts Ronnie is. He thinks it's the real thing. He didn't take her out, get her drunk and take advantage of her. She went out with him, after getting dropped off by 2 guys who, if I recal, make reference to the fact they just had a 3-way or at least sex with her- and proceeds to get shitfaced. I don't know if it's my own inner sleazebag, but I just thought Brandi's the kind of girl who goes out with guys she doesn't like so she can get free food and drinks and then breaks them off some sex as a form of repayment.

Before whoever it was said this scene depicted date rape, I swear, that thought never crossed anyones mind. It's like the 4 people who complained to standards aboiut Janet Jacksons nipple slip and then there was a brouhaha. I mean really people...talk about false indignation and overwrought histrionics.

Furthermore...isn't the scene an example of how Brandi operates? Some people like to go get fucked up and fuck. Why was no one calling date rape in "Role Models" when the Stiffler character takes Ambien with the hot counsellor and has sex with her? Oh, because people liked "Role Models" and it didn't freak them out or offend them.

Isn't it bad enough most people aren't seeing a GREAT movie and those who are are getting their panties in a twist? Why pile on? Especially over a non-issue.

Who wouldn't conceive of that scene as a form of date rape? He's fucking a drunk unconscious woman. What connections do you need? Whether this is funny or not, I leave to the madding crowd. But I find it's usually over-defensive dudes who say, "Aw shit, shutup you feminist bitches, this is only a comedy!"

Not that authorial intention is the final arbiter but: The guy who wrote the scene and the woman who played it don't think it's rape. It's also worth discussing the fact that we do not see the "negotiation" (or whatever you want to call it between the outside-the-house kiss and the in-bed scene) and the actual act. If that scene were in the movie, we might be better able to judge what happens next and whether Brandi is in a position to consent (we also don't know how much time elapses there). More significantly, there is no indication later that Brandi has any problem with what transpired. Yeah, she still can't stand him, but there's no "I felt uncomfortable about that" or "I didn't want to do that" or "I wish we hadn't done that."

The seriocomedy is that he doesn't know what he's fucking. He seriously doesn't get it that she's becoming really ill at dinner. He watches her go downhill and he doesn't process it -- at all. He's immune to what he's "observing." Why? The movie fails because we don't know who any of these characters are. It would be much funnier to know them.

Again: Based solely on what we see on screen, it's reasonable to assume that Brandi was fully conscious when they began having sex (as chris says, we don't see the "negotiation," so we have to extrapolate from what we actually DO see). Then at a certain point, Ronnie realizes she's not moving. This takes him out of the moment and he calls her name. Her line of dialogue gives him consent to resume.

OF COURSE, having sex with an unconscious woman is rape, but there is no evidence that Brandi was unconscious when Ronnie started humping her. And he in fact stops when he thinks she might be unconscious. I get the impression that some folks have imagined a much longer scene than what they saw.

Oh and by "fully conscious" (in my above post) I don't mean to imply that I don't think Brandi is impaired. Clearly she is. But there's nothing to confirm that Ronnie decided to take advantage of her after she passed out, if she did in fact pass out.

Maybe we'll see the "negotiation" in the unrated director's cut?

Can I call ENOUGH and TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT on this fucking O&R thread? Yes, the 15 second "date rape" scene borders on the uncomfortable and pushes the taste envelope, but IT'S A THROWAWAY GAG IN A BLACK COMEDY. And damned if it doesn't bring the house down. And considering the fact that WB prominently featured THE ENTIRE SCENE AND PUNCHLINE in the trailers, why are people suddenly "shocked shocked shocked!" ala Claude Rains now? The only thing worse than Nikki Finke's "Gotcha!" posts are her blue-nosed "Shame!" ones. Sad to see Poland taking a play from her book.

I've got an idea: why not change the name of this site to Womyns City News and stage a virtual "Take Back the Night" rally where we burn "offensive" DVDs in a bonfire? Jeez....

Hill should be unhappy with the cut of the movie. Jody, call me, baby, I'll hook you up. Yancy, that's a specious argument, you don't need to see the negotiation when you saw she couldn't crawl from the car to her front door. At a future midnight screening a la The Room, the audience would probably be screaming "no Ronnie, don't do it."

Dietcock is exactly the kind of "over-defensive dude" I'm talking about.

Anna Faris is hot as fuck in this when she's all doing shots and popping pills. AWESOME CHICK.

Also, someone above said there was no evidence she was actually promiscuous in the movie. What the fuck? You didn't notice she gets dropped off for her "date" with Rogen by like SIX sketchy dudes thanking her for a good time? The implication being those dudes all just banged her and Rogen doesn't even notice?

That shit was funny as hell.

First funny comedy of the year.

And everyone here needs to chill out. It's a movie. For people who are AWESOME, not for people with a stick up their ass or chicks who are all feminist.

Definition of feminist: Chick who isn't hot.

Like all gender inequality bullshit, you can bet your ass NO hot, sexy chick who guys actually want to bang ever gets offended by anything, ever.

LexG, the new Diceman.

T. Holly: Yes, Brandi is impaired. She's drunk and high and Ronnie has to help her inside. A nice, reasonable, non-delusional guy would tuck her in and leave. This being a dark comedy with a, shall we say, problematic protagonist, they have sex. He doesn't think he's raping her, and she doesn't think she's being raped. They may be wrong, but it allows some wiggle room for black comedy.

DICE RULES. "Hickory dickory DOCK, some chick was sucking..."

I can't believe you people are even debating this shit. It was funny as fuck.

And I saw this in JeffymacTown, with an audience that was probably 99% Obama-loving, thrift store wearing, Green Planet, bearded, Whole Foods-ass vegan limp-dick outta-state plate transplant left-wing elitist pot-smoking sensitive-guy indie band pussies (who nonetheless studiously avoid interaction with people "beneath" them):

And the whole fucking places erupted in laughter at the scene in question.

CASE FUCKING CLOSED.

Just for the record, of the 15 descriptors in the above post, I only fit 4 1/2 of them.

Still growing that 1/2 beard, huh jeff? ;-)

"And I saw this in JeffymacTown, with an audience that was probably 99% Obama-loving, thrift store wearing, Green Planet, bearded, Whole Foods-ass vegan limp-dick outta-state plate transplant left-wing elitist pot-smoking sensitive-guy indie band pussies (who nonetheless studiously avoid interaction with people 'beneath' them)"

Stuff White People Like is so 2007.

"LexG, the new Diceman."

Or the old Tom Leykis.

"Observe and Report" was promoted as a mall cop rip-off. The opening weekend numbers prove it.

@don: That wardrobe malfunction was not a big deal until censorship advocates carpet-bombed the FCC with complaints.

"Stuff White People Like is so 2007."

I don't even know what that means, beyond The Wire once being cited in some magazine as qualifying.

If it's some book or edict that calls out Silver Lake hipsters who try way too fucking hard to reinvent themselves as "cool" here after growing up as a last-picked-for-dodgeball douche in their home town, then I commend their accuracy, but I didn't rip that shit off.

Extra points if they call out Obamaniacs who display absolutely none of their Personal Jesus's "supposed" goodwill, openhearted acceptance, charity, and liberal bonhommie.

See, Christian, Lazarus, McDouche, Wells, Poland, Bitch Perm, every single Democrat in Los Angeles, etc etc etc etc.

At least I'm honest about NOT GIVING A FUCK about other people, not having a shred of hope for humanity.

"At least I'm honest about NOT GIVING A FUCK about other people, not having a shred of hope for humanity."

Liar.

It was funny, that's why it was in the trailer. Stu VanAirsdale has a good review up about the movie. Yancy, what saves the rape scene from not being a rape scene is that you don't see the negotiation (and she, or he, keeps her bra on, that helps a lot too). Don't take this in any way personally, but Hill's not dumb enough to show his anti-hero negotiating with Brandi, no matter how lucid she may have momentarily been. Hill has a long, long way to go in the writing department. See my above comments. Letting this movie go down in flames over this scene is an act of mercy.

How come nobody's upset at this film's depiction of bipolar disorder? To complain about the context of a scene depicting a date rape and ignore the issue of a man with a common mental disorder being portrayed as a violent sociopath seems hypocritical to me. I thought the film was very funny AND quite disturbing, which in my opinion is obviously the point.

And in some unrelated news: Adult film star Marilyn Chambers was found dead at her home in Northern Los Angeles County. Most famous for the adult film Behind the Green Door, where it is said that she fainted after a 45 minute 'session' with well endowed african american Johnny Keyes. (No relation to Alan Keyes.)

That sound you hear is Joe Leydon weeping.

Lex, I've only called you out on your frat-like misogyny. Which is hateful. And then I repeatedly defended you against banning. I practice what I preach. And so what if you're a misanthrope. Real brave stand. You want a cookie?

ANNA FARIS IS HOT AS HELL and this movie is fucking king. That's really all that needs to be said.

Except if you're going to be OFFENDED by a trivial, 86 minute BLACK COMEDY as if it's actually REAL or something, how come there aren't any op-ed pieces about the preceding scene, in which a smoking hot chick totally uses a schlubby insane guy she hates just to get free drinks?

Funny how beating up kids and killing motherfuckers and shooting up heroin (all of which are funny as hell in this, too) don't even cause the batting of an eye with the P.C. Brigade, but fourteen seconds of hilarious consensual sex (after a killer bad-taste setup) is bringing out the Gloria Steinham Brigade.

I AM WOMAN, HEAR ME ROAR! Yeah, whatever. Now go put on a sexy outfit or no one cares.

ZING.

See Lex, that's why you're not getting laid.

Lex, you got a job and some doh, you value eduction -- you have 3 degrees -- why not sponor one of those Sugar Babies? I'm sure there's a connection there between doing that and your shot at fame: "My Year of Sponsorship."

Christian, a link for you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

Oh, that explains everything.

I have a stock answer for anyone who says that rape can NEVER be funny:

Imagine Barney the dinosaur raping Ronald Reagan.

I would argue that Lex's "I'm just keeeding" attitude is the actual ironic layer here.

Arguing about offensive comedy is a rather redundant past time.

DPs personal attacks on Jodi Hill as a person are funnier than anything in the film unfortunately.

I thought the documentary RAW DEAL was a comedy and Andrea Dworkin is kinda hot so what the hell do I know.

Monday after Observe and Report opens, all anyone is talking about the sex scene. Would we be talking about this movie at all if the sex scene weren't in it? Perhaps, and I'm just throwing that out there, that's why the director left it in. Just make it shocking so people talk about it. I haven't seen it, so can't comment if it was gratuitous or not. Just a thought.

Cue Voynar and her feminist lecture on gender inequalities in 5... 4...

Lex, I've not chimed in on this thread today because I've been busy writing my Wednesday column on this very topic. And I suspect you'll be rather surprised at my take on it.

I'll be posting the column to my blog as well, to have a space for discussion on it. I'll look for your thoughts on my "feminist lecture" after you'd read what I have to say. :-)

Er, after "you've" read it, not "you'd." What can I say? I'm just all a-flutter over the screening of 17 Again I'm headed out to. Must be killing my concentration.

17 Again? MICHELLE TRACHTENBERG is HOT AS HELL.

She and Anna Faris should be in a remake of PERSONAL BEST.

GOOD. IDEA.

Not that I'm likening women to dogs but: Is killing dogs funny? No, Michael Vick, it is not. Is killing dogs in "A Fish Called Wanda" funny? Yep.

>>"17 Again? MICHELLE TRACHTENBERG is HOT AS HELL.

She and Anna Faris should be in a remake of PERSONAL BEST.

GOOD. IDEA."

There are so many layers of hilarious film geek deadpan genius going on in that last LexG post that my jaw dropped. Posts like these are the reason why I will boycott this site if Lex is ever banned permanently. Kudos.

'I've got an idea: why not change the name of this site to Womyns City News and stage a virtual "Take Back the Night" rally where we burn "offensive" DVDs in a bonfire? Jeez....'

dietcock, comments like that are why i wish you would boycott this site because you sound like a right wanker

well I disliked Role Models for the same reason I disliked O & R.

Main problem: I didn't think O & R was funny. I think I could accept it better if it was a DRAMA about a fucked up douchebag who has to get someone drugged/drunk etc to consent (or not consent) to sexual activity of any kind. Since we don;t really see the entire chronological scene, not sure what I think about the scene re. date rape.

However, Lex's responses about it confirm that if anything, the writer or director or both almost are trying to get audience complicity that she somehow 'deserves' her treatment...so that more than what was portrayed itself increases the yuck factor--and I think that is really influencing the audience feeling on that score in many respects.

The fairly packed college crowd I saw it with laughed rarely to be honest. They were mostly WTF.

Anna Faris I think has talent, she deserves better than the OTP bimbos on pills or booze.

Kevin James is definitely...the funnier schlub.

He would have tried to keep Anna awake.

Ronnie is a terrible character/human being, and the very definition of an anti-hero, which is why Edelstein brings up all the horrible stuff he does. We're not supposed to like him, though his movie star power may convince people to think about him as many do other outsider anti-heroes, regardless of the text (the Scorsese films, Kubrick's little Alex). Whether it's rape or not it doesn't change one's interpretation of the character, though the film does set him up as someone who may or may not have had sex before. On some level the scene, which comes in the middle of the movie is the definitive moment that one is supposed to separate Seth Rogen, likeable schlub, from Ronnie, a delusional psychopath. People still like Alex and root for him, even after staging a rape to Singing in the Rain.

Brandi doesn't seem to care before during or after. In that, as much as the film may signify her character as being a slut/whatever derogatory term one wishes to call her, that she's okay with it is just as damning a portrait of the culture being portrayed as anything else. This is a satire.

In fact, a Clockwork Orange is a good comparison. The audience is sad when Ronnie loses, and happy when he shows the world what he's made of by being "cured, all right" by shooting an unarmed flasher.

Who is lionizing Ronnie? I haven't seen anyone, though audiences might, I guess. But people lionize Scarface too. But violence is more forgivable than rape in our society.

I can't get the Taxi Driver bent from O & R. For one thing--O&R genres seem to be Action/comedy.

I felt a twinge of pity towards Alex (in ACO) when he was being experimented on...only a slight bit as I think he and society would have been better served by him meeting with a bullet head on.

"Brandi doesn't seem to care before during or after." Maybe. Maybe the director/writer is just lame in how he conceives women in his plots.

LeahNZ: Believe it or not, your critique struck a nerve, so I'd like to clarify and elaborate upon my position.

Admittedly, the "womyn" and "take back the night" lines in my post were a bit over-the-top, even though intended ironically, and make it easy to dismiss my philosophical problems with this ridiculous circular conversation as one more example of anti-feminist screed. So let me humbly and sincerely apologize for my poor choice of words if you found them offensive and see if we can move on. The words were poorly chosen because they obscured the crux of my argument.

For anyone who plunked down $12 to see O&R and was offended by the scene in question, I hope you all promptly got up, walked out and attempted to demand a refund. And to anyone who hasn't seen the film who THINKS they might be offended by the scene (which is prominenly featured in the trailer, so it will be very easy to check it out for free and make the determination), by all means don't go to see the movie and don't give the studio your hard-earned money.

Personally, I'm not even really that big a fan of the film. I admired elements of it, but didn't think it really cohered and also thought Seth Rogen was fatally miscast. Also, my expectations were probably set way too high because of "Eastbound and Down." Be that as it may, I'm glad the film exists and I'm glad that the combination of Hill's heat and Rogen's star-power allowed it to be made and slip through the cracks.

What I have a problem with is the suggestion (by Finke, explicitly, and by Poland, implicitly) that the scene in question had no business being in the film and that the studio should be ashamed of itself for letting it be included. I'm sorry, but that just smacks of censorship, plain and simple. If you don't like something, walk out, don't give it your money, or change the channel. But don't deny someone else his/her right to see it. There seems to be a tendency by zealots on both the right AND the left to impose their morality upon everybody else: "I don't like this, therefore it shouldn't have a right to exist."

I don't buy that argument. WB is already a studio where the CEO Alan Horn won't greenlight a movie if the characters smoke. Fanning the flames of this ridiculous tempest in a teapot controversy will only make it harder for the next filmmaker with vision (and like him or hate him, Hill definitely has a vision, even if he doesn't quite have the chops to fully articulate it) to stick to his/her guns.

"WB is already a studio where the CEO Alan Horn won't greenlight a movie if the characters smoke"

What about ones where characters smoke out of their pussies?

dietcock, you sound sincere there and it was big of you to man up and explain your thoughts further, i'm glad you did (i'm not sure i would describe my comment to you as a 'critique', tho, that's a bit kind on your part, more like a very brief tirade; what you said just sounded like yet another tired misogynist 'feminazi' screed and got up my nose, but to be fair your comment wasn't the only one, it just focused my rage more than some of the others. 'despite all my rage i am still just a rat in a cage...' maybe i'm pissed off today without even knowing it, i seem to be getting into more scrapes than usual)

i agree with your sentiments on censorship and the imposing of 'morality' (just whose morality should that be, then?); i wish i were in a position to chime in on what looks to be a quite controversial scene in 'o & r', but controversy comes part-and-parcel with free speech, so bring it on, get people talking. humour is a terrific medium for biting social commentary/provoking debate. or not, perhaps it's just obnoxious and ill-conceived and silly, i don't know, i guess that's up to everyone to decide for themselves.

leah, hit me up on my blog or on email someday.

Do you look like Kristen Stewart?

leah, hit me up on my blog or on email someday.

Do you look like Kristen Stewart?

Drunken 3am Fun Lexfact:

I think I might have issues with women.

That's as honest as you'll ever get and I wish I could rectify that shit, or I wish I would've had some cool sister(s) so women wouldn't have seemed like THE OTHER growing up... but blame it on that, and childhood exposure to religion, and thus growing up to have a classic Madonna/Whore complex.

lex, god help me i wrote something on your blog because i felt weird doing it here, just so you know

"What about ones where characters smoke out of their pussies?"

Ummm...only if they can roll them there first, and the director doesn't bite on Michael Bay's style with a lens flare.

"What I have a problem with is the suggestion (by Finke, explicitly, and by Poland, implicitly) that the scene in question had no business being in the film and that the studio should be ashamed of itself for letting it be included. I'm sorry, but that just smacks of censorship, plain and simple."

Finke and Poland thinking that the scene had no business being in the film and that the studio should be ashamed of itself is not censorship. It's a personal sentiment, which is just as free to exist as the scene and the movie are. They aren't restricting the creation of the scene, they aren't removing the scene from prints of the film, and they aren't jailing the filmmakers for making the scene.

Personally, I don't get the ruckus over it. I haven't seen the movie yet, but the detailed descriptions I've read seem to describe a scene that is understandably a little creepy and a little funny. Even if it was 100% date rape without the save of that "What the fuck are you stopping for?" line, guess what, it can be played for laughs, and its up to the audience to decide if the laugh is good or disgusting. News flash: jokes are often mean and immoral and OFFENSIVE, and people LAUGH AT THEM ALL THE SAME.

Censorship is a government saying "you can't". It isn't bloggers saying "I wouldn't" or telling studios "you shouldn't".

I can say, unequivocally, that someone liking O&R does not disqualify them morally in my eyes, for the date rape scene or any other politically incorrect scene.

Ack, what is Poland doing in here??? I was walking around in my underwear!

"Ack, what is Poland doing in here??? I was walking around in my underwear!"

See what it took!!!

Shame is a useful tool for society as a whole to regulate undesirable behavior. Certainly it's preferable to censorship.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)