I noticed the SMH review for Observe & Report was up, with a hook line about the reviewer wanting to “vomit on his shoes”. Figuring that meant he didn’t like it, I was curious to see whether he’d picked up the problems it has from a feminist point of view (for which, see Sady: Um., Observe & Report: On Real Rape, I Lost It at the Movies and Important Announcement) or whether he just thought it was a bad movie.
Probably as I should have expected: more the latter than the former.
The review itself doesn’t show all that much sensitivity to anyone.
We have ablism: Byrnes refers to Rogen’s character as having a “personality disorder” because he is “a bipolar guard” (the guard bit is irrelevant). Later, he refers to Rogen’s medication as “bipolarity pills”. Uh, yeah…
We have sexism: Byrnes apparently sees no problem with the caricature of Rogen’s character’s mother in principle – the only problem he sees is that “there’s no great ingenuity in coming up with this gag”. (IOW: “It’s just a joke, girls! Sure, it’s not a particularly funny one, but that’s only because it’s unoriginal!”)
And more sexism: Anna Faris’s character is described as “blonde, fickle and slutty”. The rape scene is problematic, but:
There might be a way of making that funny rather than simply heartless. If she and Ronnie were just a little more innocent, maybe we could see their desperate grappling as something less victimising, but I guess that’s missing the point. Hill victimises everyone here, starting with audience expectations of what a comedy should be like.
Yeah, it would have been funny to see Anna Faris’s character raped if she was a little more innocent.
And the biggest problem with the movie, apparently, is that it doesn’t make Paul Byrnes laugh.
‘Cos, yeah. That’s what really matters.
