My Report report

Hey world, Observe and Report has something to say to you:

The mall is by design a source of many things, but in Jody Hill's Observe and Report, it's mostly a place to find misery. Through the double doors is a flasher, unrequited love that's more embarrassing than classically tragic (thus all the more tragic), a guy shooting up, a police beating and a pervasive sense of status anxiety. The shopping center as suffering center metaphor works perfectly in a film as deceptively noncommercial as this. It casts Seth Rogen, beloved Hollywood go-to schlub for middle-of-the-road yuks, as a rage-filled, racist failure in a film that's the fucked-up, reckless and cum-reeking brother of the decidedly frothier, much more popular Paul Blart: Mall Cop (that movie grossed over six times the amount of money Observe did in the U.S.). The people who did see Observe, who has no reason not to expect just another lighthearted stumble down the escalator, must have felt like this:

It's a film so slyly subversive, it's as though the point is to be unpopular. For the first half or so, we view Rogen's Ronnie, the head of security at Forest Ridge Mall who wears his personal insecurities like a badge (he berates a news reporter that dares to refer to him without his official title), as we would any other manchild-just-'cause in typical contemporary Hollywood comedy. We watch him bumble through the mall as he attempts to solve the case of a serial flasher who's been exposing himself to women ("I'm gonna fuck you!" "Touch it, slut!" "See my dick!" growls the flasher early on, setting up the film's ha...ha? tone). At the same time, we watch him fumble to win the heart of make-up-counter worker Brandi (Anna Faris), who's skeezy and kind of gross, but still way out of Ronnie's league. He doesn't do very well in any of his endeavors, of course. He's immediately upstaged by Detective Harrison, who's played by Ray Liotta (who I suspect has teamed up with Faye Dunaway to get matching plastic surgery so that they can become each other, a la Genesis P-Orridge and his departed soul mate Lady Jaye).

Little by little, the cracks start to show. Ronnie says inexcusable things ("Fuck you, Sadam Hussein of Iraq!") to an East Indian guy (played by Aziz Ansari), who works at a mall cart. He finds himself in the middle of a gang fight that he wins, tearing someone's flesh and exposing bone in the process (the film's flashes of brutal violence may distract some, but they feel really fucking honest to me). He admits to Brandi that he takes Clonazepam (you may know it as Klonopin), and she gladly helps herself to his stash (who's sadder?). Then, during an interview for his dream job (that of a real cop), he reveals that he has bipolar disorder. Here, Observe and Report ceases being the average dumb-guy-does-dumb-shit-because-dumb-is-funny comedy because it gives a reason for its anti-hero's behavior. In your average Will Ferrell farce, you're supposed to accept the idiocy and arrested development of the protagonist: why would you want to question anything that serves the comedy? And look, I get how absurdity works, but I can barely express how refreshing Observe's bit of levity is.

This explanation makes all the difference, and I'd argue that once Ronnie's condition is revealed, the film not only ceases being a dumb comedy, it ceases being a comedy all together. Sure, funny lines abound in either half of the film ("I have mace and Tasers. Fuck you."; "Part of me thinks this disgusting pervert is the best thing that ever happened to me."; "Everyone thinks they’re fine until someone puts something in them they don’t want in them."; "I’m switching to beer. I can pound those all day and still keep my shit together. And I’m doing it for you!" [The last one, by the way, belongs to Ronnie's mother, whose coddling, verbal abuse and overall inappropriateness also help explain why Ronnie is the way he is.]). Sure, the scene in which Ronnie and his security partner Dennis (Michael Peña) beat the shit out of rule-violating skateboarders is outrageous enough to elicit at least nervous laughter. But after Ronnie's reveal, it's unclear whether we're laughing at circumstance or his condition. Admirably, there are no easy answers, not even when Ronnie has sex with an inebriated Brandi after their date.

The controversial scene opens with him on top of her, and she appears to be passed out with vomit next to her. He stops mid-thrust and asks if she's OK. She comes to and slurs, "Why'd you stop motherfucker?" The scene sparked outrage in people who saw it as rape played for laughs. Antonia Zerbisias wrote, "...Retroactive consent is not consent," but the thing is that we have no idea whether the expressed consent is retroactive -- the scene jumps from outside of Brandi's house, so that we are unsure how aware she was moments before we cut in (if having sex with an obliterated girl constitutes rape, virtually every straight guy in America is a rapist). Regardless, this is a bold edit that shrouds the possible violation in the kind of ambiguity Observe is wrapped in. We could be watching rape, we could be watching two fucked-up people fucking. (It seems consensual to me -- they're both fucked up in their own ways and neither want to stop having sex.) Hill leaves the conclusion up to the viewer. There's barely an implied laugh track to be found in Observe and Report, and that might be the most disturbing thing about it.

Comments

[Jess]

OH MY GOD. This shit is as bad as the Jezebel comments. Now Rich must know how Tracie feels!

[Kerlyssa]

Than perhaps these oblivious men should examine their sexuality more closely, if they are so close to committing sexual assault without realizing it, Cizmad. When the result of ignorance is that someone rapes, and another person is raped, the solution is for the rapist to step up and quit being so willfully stupid, not for us to hold his hand and say there's no way for him to have known better, everyone does it.

[Bobbie]

For the record: I'm a woman, and I actually saw the movie, and I liked it. I think it's clear that that sex scene is *supposed* to be absolutely horrifying for about five seconds.

But then Anna Faris delivers that line, and it becomes a different scene.

[cizmad]

Or perhaps we should accept that as long as we're saying "It's always the woman's fault" or "It's always the man's fault" and denying the possibility that responsibility for individual behavior exists on both sides, we're never going to be able to discuss or understand it in any realistically applicable way?

Since there doesn't seem to be that much common ground though, I think a better idea is we all collectively stop turning Rich's blog into Weekend Rape Dialogue Forum 2009.

My bad.

[matthew]

Yeah let's talk about ANTM instead . I noticed they got rid of the reward-challenge winner this week. I think they like doing that- it makes them feel like they're unpredictable "or something"

[matthew]

Or the arrest of Roman Polanski. That would trigger some great comment threads LOL

[Vera]

has it really even been suggested as a possibility by the "That is obviously rape" camp that women, straight or queer, are capable of committing rape?

Yes, but this sort of question is really a derailment. No feminist I know denies that women are capable of committing rape, and that a small number have done so, but the problem is so overwhelmingly with men that saying "BUT WOMEN DO IT TOO!!!" just comes off as trying to shift the problem. Can you really deny that the rate of men raping women is astronomically higher than the rate of women raping men? Rape is a matter of one party exerting an unconscionable amount of power over the other, and women are rarely in a position to do so; nor are women raised to think, the way men are, that they're entitled to men's bodies at all times.

we should step away from it because if we keep calling all of the ambiguities rape, eventually we'll forget what rape actually IS - an intentional violation, not a mistake or a miscommunication.

So if she says no and he doesn't hear her, is it not rape? If she's too afraid to say no, is it not rape? If he's aware she's completely smashed, but he doesn't think that's rape, is it not rape?

If she does say no but he believes she's "really" saying yes, is it not rape?

None of those are intentional; all of those are rape.

[Vera]

To clarify: I mean that "she was super-drunk but I thought it was cool!" is no better, to my mind, than, "she had a short skirt on so she clearly wanted it." By unintentional, I mean that the man is arguing in either case that it was so.

[Kerlyssa]

cizmad, perhaps you should read more carefully what I've said. You yourself claimed that it was unfair to men to call something rape when men just don't know any better. I responded that it was the man's responsibility to know. Ignorance, and in this time and this culture it's willful ignorance, is not a defense.

It is you who is now making this into evil men, good women. Most men aren't rapists. Women's moral status has nothing to do with whether or not they've been raped.

Defending the men because of their ignorance does not make the rape go away, it makes the woman bear all the consequences for it. Perhaps in your mind that's 'fair'. You seem to want a crime where the responsibility lies equally with perpetrator and victim so you can then erase it as a crime. Sadly, No. A judge may decide to go easy on someone who wasn't aware of property laws, but they're still going to be punished for breaking into your home and trashing the place. And there's damn few people who can lay an honest claim to being ignorant of society's attitude on this.

As for 'radical', you yourself seem to acknowledge that radical does not mean wrong, so I'm unsure why you keep bringing it up. It appears to tie into your 'let's just stop talking about it or trying to change male behavior' schtick though.

[I_Hate_People]

cizmad, I just can't with you...first of all, anyone who gives their resume as proof of their "higher knowledge" is nothing short of a jackass.

I didn't see the movie. I can't stand Anna Ferris (or whatever her name...I won't be bothered to scroll up and check) I can't stand Seth Rogen (again, whatever) but I do have an opinion on all this rape talk.

Do you know how you make sure you aren't raping someone? It's really super easy...ask. Ask if it's okay that you two have sex. I know, I know...unromantic! Kills the mood! Guess what, so do fetching condoms but (thankfully) most of us got over that by the 90's.
Now as to the too drunk to consent...I hate to be the bearer of bad news but in most states those laws do exist and they exist for a reason. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, I don't care what your dad told you before you went off to college, when you're carrying some poor drunken college girl back to your room to have sex with her unsuspecting self you are committing rape. It is not some collegiate rite of passage. Use some simple common sense!! It's really that easy! You know when someone is drunk, you know. But noooo, people want to victim blame and excuse their best friends behavior because no one wants to know a rapist.
Now, I'm not saying that women can't do things to protect themselves a little to help lower the chances of being assaulted...Let's not put ourselves in situations that we might not be able to control. Let's learn to defend ourselves. But ultimately, no matter what, if a woman says no the answer is no. No matter the circumstances, no matter what she's wearing, where she is, what time it is...no means no.

[E]

I normally don't comment on blog's (although love this one), but I feel some people are missing the benefit of a scene like this in a movie. Whether or not it was rape is not clear by current social and legal standards, however strongly one's individual opinion is. The beautiful thing about this scene is that it encourages people to think about what is consensual sex, and to talk about it. That a "No" is always a "No" and a "Maybe" is a "No" is easy. Whether or not a "Yes" can be a "No" is a lot harder. Although I know that intoxication is more often than not a contributing factor in date rape, excusing everyone's self responsibility due to that state of mind is a dangerous slope. If you can't give consent when you are intoxicated, who's to say that an equally intoxicated individual can be held responsible for their actions. Rich's comment wasn't flippant or anti-woman, it was accurate. If you view all sex between one or more intoxicated individuals as non-consensual, than most of the people in our society are victims or perpetrators of rape. And in case you are wondering, yes I am a woman. And yes, I have been sexually assaulted.

[cizmad]

<>

Do I deny this? No. But by your definition of "having sex with someone while they are intoxicated, even if they say they consent at the time, is rape", this isn't. You just seem to ignore that women have sex with drunk men just as often as men have sex with drunk women.

<

If she does say no but he believes she's "really" saying yes, is it not rape?>>

If she says no, no matter what he believes, and he continues, it is rape. If she's too afraid to say no, and her body language makes that apparent? That's rape. If he's aware, and she's completely smashed, and no consent is given, that's rape. Again, you're not arguing with Billy Q. Daterapist here.

But as it stands, and by your logic, a girl and guy can get (equally) drunk, have sex that is mutually initiated, and the girl can decide the next day that she was uncomfortable with it and taken advantage of, and decide that since she was intoxicated and unable to give consent, she was raped. Because, of course, only the rape victim knows rape when it happens.

<>

The conversation spawned specifically from an occasion where the common sense answer of no means no, WHICH IS COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE, doesn't apply. Two very drunk individuals go home and begin to have sex, one passes out in the middle, the other sees that and STOPS, at which point the passed-out partner says "Don't stop". So we've entered the territory of "Sometimes yes means no", which is a far cry from the "carrying some poor drunken college girl back to your room to have sex with her unsuspecting self" that you seem to think I'm defending. If you're carrying a girl back to your room to have sex with her, that's pretty much as obvious a case as dark alley, trench coat, and is not what we're talking about here at all.

Basically, my point is the same as what E just said, so maybe having it come from a woman will get all of you less up at arms.

And I_Hate_People the "resume" wasn't intended to be proof of my higher knowledge, it was intended to keep you people from having the easy out of assuming the only people who don't agree with you are frat-boy rape apologists with no exposure to the standard feminist theory party-line point of view you're all defending.

[cizmad]

Ugh, my decision of quoting style erased the quotes - they were as follows.

Can you really deny that the rate of men raping women is astronomically higher than the rate of women raping men?

So if she says no and he doesn't hear her, is it not rape? If she's too afraid to say no, is it not rape? If he's aware she's completely smashed, but he doesn't think that's rape, is it not rape?

Use some simple common sense!! It's really that easy!

[Mike Owen]

"When a girl is so drunk that she has puked on the pillow next to you and can barely speak, she cannot give consent."

Molly, you missed the point entirely. The movie does not show whether she gave consent or not. As well, since when do movies have to demonstrate some form of agreed upon morality? No shit, rape is bad, but I have a sneaking suspicion that people are going to rape whether they see this movie or not. Read the review again and see if you can understand it. It may take you a few times.

[Lizzie (greeneyed fem)]

"Having sex with an obliterated girl" DOES constitute rape. Jesus H. Christ on a cracker.

I'm not talking about the movie and I'm not talking about the varying degrees of drunk hook-ups. But if a girl is passed out and a guy decides that's a good opportunity to bypass the whole consent issue and get off, that is fucking rape.

I was really shocked to read this on your blog, Rich.

[Chantal Goya]

I think anyone who has not seen this movie should shut the fuck up! Don't come in here with a "I haven't seen the movie, BUT..." Stupid frat boys aren't really Rich's demo, so everyone here pretty much agrees that RAPE IS BAD. Let's give Rich the benefit of the doubt, shall we.

[s2couto]

For those of you who are "fighting" with this "rape is a gray area" group, you do realize rapists and bleeding heart liberals have access to the internet, right? I wouldn't get too upset. They don't care to absorb your point because they took the Philosophy of Love and Sex in college. They are also one of those whom believe pedophiles can be rehabilitated and murder is a human error. Moreover, people's consciences are wonderful blockades. And yes, most people do not have the fortitude to deal with knowing/being related to/continuing friendsip with a rapist. Rape happens all the time; it's very rarely reported. As someone who works in the criminal justice system I can say it's a very common charge. That's an uncomfortable equation, no?

[zamblee]

Wah wah wah... some crappy movie that nobody saw promotes rape. Wah wah wah the movie also gets bipolar disorder wrong. What a bunch of whiners.

[Kerlyssa]

He said what he said. If you believe that having sex with a passed out person is rape, he said virtually everyone is a rapist. Pretty nasty PoV there.

[kt]

I can't believe anyone actually thought that implied rape...I thought I was hypersensitive about stuff like that, but apparently I'm not even the tip of the damn iceberg.

SHE TOLD HIM NOT TO STOP. How in hell does that even remotely sound like rape?!

Argh. People like this make real feminists look bad. :(

[Kerlyssa]

People like you just make you look bad, kt. Keep on generalizing and not reading what people have said.

[Jake]

Uh....wow?

Who actually saw the movie? Who is actually aware of the context of that scene? Who actually understood the entire...oh, I don't know...POINT of the review that Rich gave?

Really now...

[jeremy]

I just thought it was such an inconsequential movie about white-male impotency that it barely garnered attention. Fight Club is a better made, funnier film, even thought it sucks, too.

[jenny]

This was the one movie that I saw in theatres that I would have walked out of. The only reason I didn't was because I was with a big group of people who wanted to stay till the end.

I thought this movie was sad and disgusting. The only character worth liking was the fast food girl with the broken foot. At least she had a little dignity.

At the end of the day, my feelings for this movie are summed up by 5 words--I want my money back.

[MinDC]

Rich wrote a movie review not a piece of legislation on drunk raping. K?