We all know that for decades Hollywood has been creating preachy, leftist films all with the sole intention of annoying conservatives. Conservatives have responded with numerous complaints, and then with complacency. We now tend to ignore the liberal themes and watch the movies anyway, cheering on the hero, regardless of whether or not we actually believe in his ultimate goal. Recently, however, Hollywood has pulled another weapon out of its arsenal to annoy conservatives, but it is destroying comedy in the process.
As the readers of Big Hollywood know too well, Hollywood began its attacks by ridiculing those of us who hold our values dear–claiming a pluralistic high ground that all beliefs are equal and we shouldn’t judge others (unless you happen to be one of those white, bigoted, hillbilly Jesus freaks). Now that pluralism no longer seems to ignite conservatives with the same fervent anger, Hollywood has turned to nihilism; because, after all, when everything is true, nothing is true. With no truth, Hollywood can no longer give its heroes any reason to mature or chase after dreams because lives and journeys have no meaning, draining the enjoyment out of their films.
Admittedly, nihilism is not a new tool in Hollywood’s toolbox. Numerous dramatic films and even comedies (see Woody Allen) have examined the dreary nothingness of life, but now this mindset has permeated into the realm of feel-good comedies. I believe this is one step too far. From “Knocked Up” to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” Hollywood’s last few comedy hits have provided plenty of laughs, but, in the end, nihilism sucks the meaning from these films, and, as a result, the humor gives way to gloom.
This phenomenon cropped up most recently in “I Love You, Man.” The film follows Peter, played by Paul Rudd, on his quest to find a best man. Peter is a nice enough guy who does his best to do the right thing in any given situation. However, if the going gets tough, Peter takes off. When faced with difficult decisions, Peter is too insecure to make a choice and retreats into the safety of his personal bubble. As a result, Peter finds himself with no best man for his upcoming wedding.
During his search, Peter meets Sydney, portrayed by Jason Segal. Unlike Peter, Sydney doesn’t care about right and wrong and is therefore never intimidated by any situation. He’s only concerned with what he wants in the moment, and thus lives the life of an overgrown adolescent, doing as he pleases without regard for the consequences.
The dichotomy between these two men could be a perfect setup for a humorous tale in which both men are confronted with their flaws and overcome them as their relationship deepens–a modern day “The Odd Couple,” if you will. However, since the film avoids advocating any value system whatsoever, neither character has any incentive to grow. Therefore, neither man does.
The friction between Peter and Sydney’s opposing lifestyles finally takes its toll and the two men break off all contact with one another. When faced with the unfortunate end of their new friendship, neither man finds a reason to mature and attempt reconciliation, but instead both retreat into their old patterns.
**SPOILERS**
Peter, as usual, avoids confrontation and uses a random collection of guys as his groomsmen, despite having no intimate connection with most of them. At his wedding, his fiancé, Zoe, sees how lonely Peter is and calls Sydney to tell him to come to the ceremony. Sydney is already on his way to the wedding when she calls. Having been rejected by other friends when trying to make plans for the weekend, Sydney decides his best plan of action is to crash the wedding. Rather than think of how this could impact the ceremony, Sydney is only selfishly concerned about how much better he will feel when he sees Peter again.
In the end, the two men make up, and Sydney stands by Peter as his best man. But does this reconciliation really mean anything? Since neither man has changed, what exactly are we cheering for? Would Peter have ever reconciled with Sydney if Zoe hadn’t intervened? There’s no reason to think so. Will Sydney continue his adolescent lifestyle as Peter moves into a new stage of life, causing their friendship to fall apart again at some point down the road? Most likely. If each man can look at his flaws and find no reason to change, what was the point of their struggle throughout the film; and why should we care whether or not their friendship endures?
**END SPOILERS**
In the good old days, Hollywood knew how to use a story to create endearing characters. Felix Unger and Oscar Madison, another pair of unlikely friends, became Hollywood legend in the film adaption of Neil Simon’s “The Odd Couple.” These two men battle it out as uptight Felix deals with his pending divorce, and slovenly Oscar still reels from his own divorce, months earlier. Both men lead miserable lives in the wake of the demise of their marriages, and yet, through their friendship; even with its own rocky moments, each man reinvents himself. Oscar finally moves on from his wife; leaving the past in the past, while Felix lives up to his responsibilities, paying his alimony and taking an interest keeping his former pigsty of an apartment clean.
Yet, in the end, its not that both of these men have grown up, but, rather that we have seen a friendship come to the brink of disaster and back, strengthening the bond between the two friends that draws the us in. From the beginning, when Felix worries that Oscar is trying to kill himself, to when Oscar prefaces his rant against Felix’s laziness with his profound gratitude to Felix taking him in, it is apparent that these two men truly care for each other. It is this fact that allows us to care as well.
This is nihilism’s greatest failing in “I Love You, Man.” When there is no meaning in life, one is left with nothing but oneself, and so nihilism gives way to narcissism. Peter never takes an interest in helping Sydney get off his couch, so that Sydney may do something with his life. Rather, Peter goes along with all of Sydney’s whims, no matter how uncomfortable he is with them. Peter just wants any guy to be his friend so that he can perfect the facade that is his life. Sydney, while perhaps taking a modicum of interest in getting Peter to break out of his uptight shell, only does so for the sole purpose of having another guy legitimize his juvenile way of life. If Peter is willing to waste an afternoon away in the man cave, then Sydney doesn’t have the to face the fact that fact that his life is completely empty. Neither man is invested in the friendship beyond his own selfish desires.
When a feel-good ending is finally pushed on the audience, the shallowness of Peter and Sydney’s bond become glaringly apparent. The audience has been betrayed into thinking that they are laughing along with their protagonists as they improve themselves and save their friendship, when, in reality, the audience has just been laughing at these two men…period. Where is the feel good in that?
So, congratulations Hollywood; you have found yet another way to annoy conservatives at the box office – turning comedy into tragedy. Where you once used humor in films to give Americans an escape from everyday life, you now only pile on the discontent and misery. This time, however, you’re not lulling this conservative into a sense of complacency. In fact, I may not even notice the next time you release one of your so-called comedies – I’ll be too busy working on my own!
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.