1. Was there a point to this movie other than "Swanson is an entitled, sociopathic hipster douchebag bored with life"?
2. Why did most of the people that Swanson enacted his schtick upon just respond with silence? I'm surprised there weren't more confrontational moments, considering his behavior.
3. Why did the girl Swanson mistook as a prostitute attack the cab driver?
1.) Don't be this guy?
2.) We all know of people who should get their butt kicked or otherwise put in their place everytime they subject themselves to the public, but that doesn't mean it happens.
3.) Easier than running after Swanson.
Swanson is never held accountable for his actions, like a child. He's an entitled white male with money and never has to answer for his stupid/silly decisions. That's an over-analyzed answer for question #3.
share[deleted]
People don't think about it much, I suspect, but unfortunately it's not smell-o-vision. Can you imagine how often Swanson reeked of liquor to some of these people? If someone's obviously been drinking A LOT, and you haven't, you're less likely to take what they say seriously.
shareTrying to start something? Yes, I was trying to start something: a conversation about this film. It is painfully obvious to me that the real reason you can't answer that question is because you don't have a "bright" response. In fact, you don't have any response whatsoever to that question. That's fine, but don't try to deflect your lack of an answer by saying I'm trying to start "something" or that I'm not bright.
As for number 2, I don't really recall him flaunting his wealth and privilege to many of the people he harassed. Maybe the sister-in-law, but she obviously already knew he was wealthy. The random strangers he messed with didn't know he was entitled. I'm not saying he would get into a fist fight every time he started his schtick, but I think more people would have called him out on his actions. Particularly those black guys in the bar. It's a movie, so it's obviously not going to be 100% realistic, but it certainly felt like the tone they were going for was realism. This made the choice of having people not respond to him a little baffling.
By the way, I want to clarify that I liked The Comedy (particularly Tim Heidecker's performance). It wasn't great, but it was very good, and certainly provocative, so I suppose the major point of the film was to raise questions. I just wish the film itself had some more in-depth answers to his behavior other than "he's entitled".
[deleted]
Yep :)
I disagree how it's "baffling" that no one confronted him. We are presented with literally days or weeks out of this guy's life. It's like the camera is zooming in on him for a little while.
That's the thing with movies, we expect a perfect beginning, middle, and end - a perfect plot and resolution. That's not what this movie is about.
[deleted]
the script:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvATW2nfYZg
I mostly agree with what everyone has said here, but I'd like to add something in reference to your second point.
A lot of people on these boards like to pick at movies for "realism" - "real people wouldn't do this" or "real people wouldn't act like that" and so forth. Movies aren't always completely about realism. Go watch a Cohen Brother's movie or Glengarry Glenross and tell me that people act EXACTLY like that. There's probably been no movie that has ever portrayed people with 100 percent realism, and you wouldn't want to watch it if there was. It would just be like someone flipping on a camera and filming home movies. Most of the time things are done as a matter of artistic choices and style, not "realism."
In this movie, for instance, they were obviously going for an EFFECT. They were trying to basically suck all of the air out the movie. That's part of the statement it's making. If people had reacted to the character's shenanigans, then the movie would have degenerated into an ACTUAL comedy, and that's precisely what they were trying to avoid - which, mind you, wasn't an easy thing to do. It's hard to make a movie about people who take nothing seriously and who are constantly screwing around and have it NOT play for laughs AT ALL.
Take the scene at the beginning with the male nurse. Sure, someone MIGHT have told him off. Someone might have just rolled their eyes and laughed too. But, I can also believe that someone could have just stared blankly at him too, and it's enough that it's BELIEVABLE. And, in the end, it's not just about picking the MOST realistic option; it's about picking the one that gets the point across. In this case, the non-reaction does nothing to defuse the scene. Swanson's hateful baiting just hangs in the air like a wet fart. THAT'S the point. And, I'll admit that makes the movie a fairly ugly and unpleasant experience and I can totally sympathize with someone who dislikes the movie on those grounds, but that's what they were going for. And that alone shows you that "realism" isn't the primary concern. You can't set out to portray a deliberately skewed vision to provoke a certain feeling from the audience, and still worry about maintaining absolute realism. Those are conflicting goals.
I understand that films aren't based around 100% realism. That's why I said this:
"It's a movie, so it's obviously not going to be 100% realistic, but it certainly felt like the tone they were going for was realism."
However, I do believe that some films feature more realism than others. The Comedy feels more naturally realistic than, say, a David Lynch film.
You do make a very good point about the film-maker's intent. You are absolutely right that he was going for a particular effect, which was the silence from the various individuals that Swanson messed with absolutely highlighted his ridiculous behavior more.
However, I think that particular trick was relied on too a little bit heavily in the film. After a while, it became a tad repetitive. Just for the sake of variety, it would have been interesting to see a different reaction other than silence. I'm also not sure if the film would have turned into a flat-out comedy if people had responded to Swanson's behavior. I guess it would have depended on their particular reaction. It could have given the film a dose of conflict and drama. I'm not saying something uber-melodramatic had to happen, either, but just something besides the usual reaction.
Anyway, thank you for the intelligent response. It's definitely something to think about.
I think the repetitive aspect also stemmed some from the fact that there really wasn't a main driving storyline at all (something that bothered me to some degree.) It mostly just felt like it just moved from scene to scene. Rinse, wash, and repeat.
share1. No, that's pretty much it. I mean, they're satirizing guys like this, but they're doing it by way of straightforward presentation, so I don't think it works. There's no edge to it.
2. Because if they behaved more realistically and cut off his BS, as most people naturally would, there'd be no movie at all.
3. Ably answered upthread. I would add only that I don't think Swanson really thought she was a prostitute. He just wanted to create some conflict.
"I know he's not real, but we're very close."