This is the second entry in a dialogue about the films of Judd Apatow and the state of the romantic comedy among Double X Managing Editor Jessica Grose, Slate critic Troy Patterson, and Variety contributor Lael Loewenstein. Read the first entry here.
Colleagues:
Thank you inviting me into your ladyspace to talk about the movies. I will try to remember to put the seat down while I’m here. Also, I will try to get us wondering whether these shaggy Apatovian riffs on the problems and pleasures of male friendship are symptomatic of a crisis in American masculinity. I will begin by encouraging us to look beyond the three features Apatow has directed and take a gander at bromantic cinema in its broader context.
No meaningful discussion of the genre can be had without mention of two comedies put together at Apatow’s production company from scripts by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, Superbad and Pineapple Express. The first (which to my mind would be insufferable without the balm of Christopher Mintz-Plasse’s McLovin) is less a reflection on adolescent anxieties about becoming a man than a reflection of them. Superbad concerns the codependency of two uncool high-school seniors whose fear of girls is surpassed only by their passion for one another. Not the kind of passion that would encourage greater than friendly interests in each other’s genitals, the film insists between intermittent bursts of penis talk. No, no, no—the girls are there to deal with your penis. That is the point of them, and that’s why they’re so scary, and if you can just act cool, then you may be able to exchange liquor for fellatio.
The stoner-flick action odyssey Pineapple Express is a far more satisfying experience, partly because it demonstrates a reasonable level of maturity. That is, the film is mature enough to celebrate male intimacy without awkwardness and also immature enough that the celebration involves preposterous gun battles. There is much sweetness in the way the protagonists—played by Rogen and James Franco—learn to trust one another, work as a team, and express their mutual affection. They are man enough not to go into a code-orange cooties panic when they touch skin. And yet Rogen’s Dale Denton still behaves like an infant whenever his cardboard girlfriend—who is still in high school, even though Dale is in his mid-20s—makes the scene.
These two films point us toward I Love You, Man, which arrived this spring, manifestly embracing bromance as its central theme, thus emerging as the most Apatovian of all these movies even though Apatow does not actually have a credit on it. No matter: Its stars, Paul Rudd and Jason Segal, are fixtures of his universe, and its director, John Hamburg, worked for him on the T.V. show Undeclared. (In reviewing the movie for Spin, I posited that I Love You, Man shares with the Apatow oeuvre a crucial perspective on guy humor: hating jocks while loving locker-room jokes.) Rudd plays a socially inept hero achieving self-actualization through the companionship of Segel’s mellow dude. Rashida Jones plays his fiancée, a role requiring her to behave like a cute barrier to a beautiful friendship.
This is all to say that, no, Jessica, I don’t think that these and other Apatow-related comedies are sexist because they leave women out of their main storylines. I think that they’re problematic because of the particular way they treat women as obstacles to be cleared, and problems to be solved, and threats to the safety of Guyville. In Apatovia, women are not so much characters as plot wrinkles.
SNL: Equal Opportunity Objectifiers
Jon Hamm spent most of the Saturday Night Live episode he hosted last night shirtless.
Confessions of a Woman Comedy Writer
Allison Silverman accepts one from New York Women in Film & Television (and tells us why it's rare).
Comments
"You just don't get me!"
By: pfeytser | Tue, 08/04/2009 - 16:30
Looking at the movies that Apatow has written (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Pineapple Express, Funny People) and not even considering the ones he only directed or produced, I would suggest there is a particular approach to how women contribute to the the progression of the plot. The dudes are conflicted and complex, while chicks tend to be caricatures of successful women that can't seem to "truly" understand "their" men.
They're "guy flicks", not chick flicks
By: icpshootyz | Tue, 08/04/2009 - 07:39
Really, Apatow is just making movies based on his own viewpoint and experience. It's not sexist on some purposeful level, at least not any more so than Sex and the City is on the opposite scale. Was there a sexist outcry with Sex and the City? Or is that okay because it is female leads that hog the spotlight and treat men like obstacles and challenges? The problem with claims of sexism, racism, or any other -ism is that people who are looking to make those claims can usually find a million instances a day where they see it, regardless of whether it is really there. But then again, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail . . .
A sigh of relief..
By: Murasaki | Mon, 08/03/2009 - 10:44
Such wonderful insights and enlightened analyses. We could use some more broad-minded thought on the numerous gender-divide discussions on the Slate fora. Can I hire some mercenary thinkers to join me? :)
I agree that Apatow is probably doing more "write what you know" and less "use my creative voice to slam the target (women) of choice." However, I do wonder whether- as a previous poster suggests- Apatow's entire understanding of women is based on a trail of naggy motherwives, or whether this is his perception that MOST men's relationship patterns consist of conflicts with said motherwives. These possibilities aren't mutually exclusive, of course- people tend to assume everyone's relationships are like theirs.
It's also worth making the concession that this is very much the Brotherhood of the Travelling Pants, and I have to say, I find at least the underlying principal of it pleasant. It took a lot longer for women to claim enough social currency to have a "sisters before misters" ideology (and sadly I think it's still vastly underrepresented), but the male variant (the boys in my neighborhood called it "bros before hos") isn't too dissimilar. Both of these ideologies represent affirming the value of friendships in the face of relationships that, we are told, are supposed to eclipse them (romantic relationships and marriage). As someone who advocates a general social shift towards viewing one's romantic partner as a friend first and foremost (for the health of both the relationship and the constellation of friendships around it), anything that lowers the pedestal of romance a couple inches isn't all bad. Even if I think it's cinematic tripe and, personally, would sooner eat glass.
women as obstacles
By: anna p | Fri, 07/31/2009 - 07:38
I agree with your analysis, Troy, regarding why Apatow/Apatovian movies are "problematic." (To say the least.) Lots of film-makers have focused on capturing the social idiosyncracies of one group or another, which is what Apatow does. I mean, take Scorsese or someone. He deals prominently with Italian men from blue collar families in New York. He's writing what he knows. So does Apatow. And it doesn't make him sexist, it makes him an examiner of a particular white, post-feminist group of infantile man-boys engaging in the "crisis of American masculinity."
What elicited this crisis, though? I am genuinely asking.
So say Apatow is searching for a comfortable masculine identity in these movies. I feel he's asking: How can guys be comfortable with themselves? How can they be secure in their friendships and relationships? Often there is the implication that relationships cause men to sacrifice their friendships (I love you, man). Or that responsibility and family life is a bane for dudehood (Knocked Up). Dudehood is also generally more cherished a bond than other kinds of bonds; it represents selfhood and self-fulfillment more than marriage or relationships do. And this is really all because Apatow adheres to the idea that women and men are from different planets, and he reinforces gender differences all the time. Women and men have different priorities and different life goals in his movies. I just wish his heroes would be a little less fatalistic about gender difference and start thinking of ways to bridge gaps in understanding.
p.bateman - maybe this is
By: tinyredcar | Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:16
p.bateman - maybe this is more common for some guys than for others, but all the boys I knew when I was at high school were far far more interested in getting drunk or high than in sex. The sex obsession definitely came along later.
You know, I'm a woman, and I like Judd Apatow's films. To me, it's more that the women in his films aren't the focus of the story. We're seeing them through the eyes of men, men who don't know much about women (a lot of the women I know are hilarious and multi-faceted and complicated, often more so than the guys). I would be interested to see if Apatow could make a comedy about a woman and make it as funny and as prescient as his other films.
the beavis & butthead stereotypyes are real
By: p.bateman | Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:45
movies and media shows what happens in the real world. people want to see what seems real and what happens in the real world.
there is no onus on movies and bring about a change. the young men in movies like SUPERBAD are real. young adulthood is a phase in mens life when sexual frustration may hit a peak. it needs to be accepted that it can become difficult for many young guys to get sex at a time when their sex drives are at the peak. its just the way it is. more often its girls who dont feel they are 'ready' to have sex, some girls want sex only in a serious relationship and this means the SUPPLY for these late teenage guys becomes limited. the remaining girls who do want to have casual sex are too SELECTIVE. so when the regular frustrated chap is unable to get laid, its blamed totally on his lack of 'self-esteem', his lack of social skills, confidence etc.
when this frustrated chap watches porn, reads playboy, buys a sex toy, he is labeled a PERVERT and is looked down upon. little do people realize that these guys are going through a phase that should be as much blamed on the SEX MARKET as on their own shortcomings.
the resentment over "NO GIRLS ALLOWED", wtf?
By: p.bateman | Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:04
the author calls it sexist that how girls are left out of the plot in order to 'save' the dude relationship or something.
i have seen plenty of movies where boyfriends/guys are the main threat to friendships of girls and in the end they are suposed to 'get over it', dump the guys or something and learn the 'sisters before misters' rule etc.
i never saw a guy complain about this. why are some women so sensitive that they find these little shitty things in movies SEXIST. they cant take a joke even.
i bet that these women would fcuking raise an outcry if a male equivalent of SEX & THE CITY was made! i mean you wont be able to take it, not to mention it would be too politically incorrect for the anal retentives out there.
OOPS! i didnt read the authors name (TROY) he is male and he thinks the movies based on lives of young men are sexist because women are left out of the main plot...amazing!
I think we are all missing a crucial point, here
By: weatherwax | Thu, 07/30/2009 - 10:45
All of the guys in Apatow's comedies have the same crucial flaw: they are grown-up children, trying to figure out how to make the next step to adulthood. What other kind of women would these so-called men attract than the kind that have some sort of belief that they can "change" their men for the better? Come on, in real life the naggy mom-wife exists. We've all seen her, and her slouch of a husband. Instead of engaging in an equal relationship, one is constantly harping on the other for everything from not picking up his socks to not helping with the bills. I think these movies may speak more for the relationships Apatow has experienced. One has to wonder if this type of woman is the only one he and his writing partners have ever encountered. Which is sad on many levels, no?
Thank you
By: Janipurr | Thu, 07/30/2009 - 00:57
Thank you for reminding me this is the same guy who made Pineapple Express. Because of that, I now realize just how much I need to avoid this movie. Pineapple Express was such a god-awful piece of c**p, I can't imagine going to see another movie made by this loser. Which is weird, because 40 year old Virgin was pretty simple, but really not that bad. Aren't people supposed to get *better* at their craft as they go along?