On the other hand we have Courtney at Feministing:
But Mr. Broman Comedy Dude of the moment, Seth Rogen, is seriously misguided if he thinks women are going to sit happily and giggle at the date rape scene in his new movie. Essentially Anna Faris' character gets horrifically drunk, throws up, and passes out in a bed. As Seth Rogen's character is basically grinding away, he suddenly pauses and appears to have a crisis of conscious, soothed immediately by Anna Faris' character coming to and grumbling, "Why'd you stop motherfucker?"
It's not funny Seth. First of all, one out of six women in this country is sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Which means a whole lot of your bromen are confused about what consensual sex is. Is the laugh you get worth making them even more confused? Basically giving them permission from one of the most adored dudes of the moment to not take rape seriously? Yeah, we didn't think so.
Come correct Seth. Put out a statement apologizing for your stupid humor and start working to prevent sexual assault instead of making light of it. Otherwise 52% of the movie-watching population just might stay at home when your movies hit the theaters. (italics added)
Majikthise has a bit more, including this from Time magazine's review:
Now that's character comedy, I mean tragedy, I mean tromedy, of the highest, I mean lowest, I mean high-lowest order. Beyond the weirdness, if you can get there, is a quick portrait of trailer-park America pursuing its urges by any means necessary. It's clear that Ronnie, no babe magnet, will take what he can get on this night of nights, even if it's not quite the exalted ecstasy he had hoped for; and that Brandi, who's been in this position once or twice before, wants the sexual exercise, even if she's not awake to take an active role in it — somewhere in her stupor, she's feeling a rote rumble of pleasure. The scene achieves what few American movies even attempt: to pinpoint the grim compromise, the desperation, that can attend the sex act. Don't call it love; don't call it grand; but whatever it is, don't stop.(emphasis added)
Beyerstein writes, in part:
Rogen is saying that the scene is a bait and switch: We're led to think Ronnie's a date rapist, but at the last possible minute we realize that Brandi consented after all. Psych!
That she's drunk, drugged out, covered with her own vomit, and unconscious is never in doubt.
Rogen excels at a brand of awkwardness-based humor where much of the laughter is tension release. Which means that the scene fails on its own terms, unless you believe that an unconscious person can consent. Without the unexpected "evidence" of consent, it's just a rape scene. If you see the encounter as rape, Brandi's slurred semi-conscious interjection just seems piteous. It doesn't make anything "okay."
Corliss apparently relishes the sexual violence in the spirit Rogen intended.
Corliss also reaffirms the patriarchal nostrum that slutty women consent to sex by default. He writes: "Brandi, who's been in this position once or twice before, wants the sexual exercise, even if she's not awake to take an active role in it — somewhere in her stupor, she's feeling a rote rumble of pleasure." So, even when she's unconscious, she's asking for it.
Don't even get me started on the "trailer park America" line--as if substance abuse and sexual assault are just for working class people. Tell that to the frat boys.
The scene as portrayed in the trailer on Feministing shows it in the context of the film - and Rogen's character is funny in the way that disturbing people can be funny. I honestly don't know if the scene was intended to be "funny"; both Faris' and Rogen's characters are portrayed as deeply flawed individuals, and I believe - having just watched a little snippet from the trailer, that we are supposed to laugh not so much at "date rape" as we are to cringe and laugh at ourselves because a line has been crossed.
Unlike Richard Corliss' review, however, I don't believe that this scene is some archetype of working class ("trailer park") sexual mores. I actually think his review is far more revealing of elite opinion regarding the working class than anything else. In fact, I find his review to be as disturbing as the scene in question.
My original thought in approaching this subject was to raise the issue of "liberal humorlessness" - the thought that there are lines which, a priori, should not be crossed when presenting words and images because they are offensive in some way or another. Is the racism in Blazing Saddles no longer appropriate, even though it is a presentation of racism done in such a way as to make us laugh at ourselves, yet also cringe with embarrassment at our own complicity in it (if such a thought can be attributed to Mel Brooks' smackdown of westerns)?
The film in question is described as a "dark comedy". These films always skirt lines of appropriateness precisely because they are offering us a glimpse of our baser natures. We may laugh and cringe simultaneously, but the person who is the object of these reactions should be - when it is done right - the audience more than the characters in question.
So, we have two separate issues here. On the one hand, we have the scene, and the movie of which it is a part. On the other we have, in particular, Richard Corliss' review in Time, a review that disturbs me far more than any film ever could.
Thoughts, anyone?
