Wikio

Observe and Report

Influencer or influenced?

2009

Review: April 14, 2009

Director: Jody Hill

Starring: Seth Rogen, Anna Faris, Ray Liotta, Michael Pena

Sure

THE SETUP:

Disturbed mall security guard does his disturbed thing.

DISCUSSION:

After seeing two movies, Monsters vs. Aliens and Adventureland, that I had absolutely nothing to say about and which offered very little to think about afterward, it’s refreshing to see a movie that at least provokes some thought. It seems that critics are divided on this one, and both sides' issues are with the film’s moral content, which you have to admit is something of a rarity. Some are outraged by the outrageously violent behavior of the main character, and disturbed that there are people out there who would find this funny, and would interpret the film as supporting that behavior. For example, Manhola Darges in the New York Times says that "If you thought Abu Ghraib was a laff riot, you're gonna love Observe and Report." On the other hand are the people who DO find it funny, seeing it rather as a reflection of our violent culture and obsession with personal triumph, taking a distance from supporting the main character’s actions. And I have to say I am one of the latter.

We open with a slow-motion montage of the denizens of a New Mexico mall, obese, walking dazed, and consuming. While this goes on a song is heard, saying “Some day everything will be different, when I paint that masterpiece.” We meet Seth Rogen as Ronnie. He is the head of mall security, a job that he takes way too seriously. He and two Chinese identical twins, the Yuens, wish they were allowed to carry real guns. The mall is besieged by a flasher, bringing the attention of the police, which Ronnie is outraged by, as he considers this “his case.” He also aspires to become a real police officer, a job he interprets to be all about having authority, beating and killing people. He gets very nervous at the thought the police might run a background check on him. He demands a “ride-along” with Ray Liotta as Detective Harrison, the guy who was on the flasher case that Ronnie screwed up with his intrusive amateur policing. Harrison abandons Ronnie at the most dangerous drug-dealing area of the city. We see Ronnie brutally beat several of the thugs in the neighborhood, but when he returns to the police station, he says he left “Six dead crackheads back there.” Did he really kill them all? Well, the movie isn’t telling us.

At home, Ronnie is doted on by his adoring mother—during the few moments when the drunk woman is conscious. At one point she falls out of her chair onto the floor, and Ronnie simply leaves her where she is, gently placing a blanket over her. At work his eye is on Anna Faris as Brandi, the none-too-bright clerk at the makeup counter. Brandi wants nothing to do with Ronnie, but he pines for her, and appoints himself her protector when she is flashed. Then she still wants nothing to do with him. He coerces her into going to dinner with him, which he takes as a hot date, and which she completely forgets about.

On their date Brandi checks to make sure that Ronnie is paying, then starts ordering big drinks and several shots, all of which she downs with demented gusto. Ronnie gets out the pills he takes to control his manic-depression, and her eyes get wide. She asks for one, and Ronnie gives her the whole bottle. It passes without much comment, but it’s important to remember that for the majority of the movie to follow. Ronnie is off his medication. Brandi downs a great many of the pills, saying she thought the night would be a total loss, but look, now she has all these ‘scrips! On the way out, she throws up a little bit, and Ronnie kisses her right on the messy lips. The next thing we see, he is having sex with her, pounding away at her unconscious form, a stain of vomit running from her mouth. He stops momentarily, and she suddenly wakes to say “Why did you stop?” before falling lifeless again. Many interpret this, justifiably, as a straightforward date rape, with her line about wanting him to continue put in there simply to AVOID appearing like it’s a straight date rape.

So Ronnie goes in for his psychological exam, where he tells the psychologist that the reason he wants to be a police officer is so he can have guns. He says he has a dream, where there are kids playing, and above them gathers a “cloud of cancer and pus.” Ronnie appears with a shotgun and blows the cloud away, saving the day. His mother then throws a party for Ronnie joining the force [although he doesn’t make it], and his cake is in the form of a gun.

SPOILERS > > >
Now throughout has been Dennis, this Hispanic with a jeri-curl and player-esque facial hair, who has been a big supporter of Ronnie throughout. Ronnie has given up hope after being rejected by police, and feels like giving up. Dennis takes Ronnie over his wing and has him smoke pot, do cocaine, drink, and inject IV drugs. They then go out and beat a group of about 12 skateboarding kids in the parking lot, going so far as to break their boards over the kids’ heads. Dennis is then revealed to be the person who has been robbing the mall lately, which he is able to accomplish precisely because Ronnie is such a boob. Ronnie draws the line here, so Dennis bashes a stool over his head and he passes out.

Now here’s where I have a slight reservation. I know we’re being all distant and ironic about this, but there does seem to be something uncomfortable in the way the movie uses as a laugh the fact that OF COURSE the Hispanic is deep into drugs, and seduces our hero, and is the thief of the mall. There’s just something uncomfortable in the matter-of-factness of it. Ronnie is fired, by the way.

So now Ronnie decides to “go undercover” [i.e. not wear his uniform] and continue to police the mall. During this we hear his voice-over as he delivers a litany of cliches picked up from action movies, about how it’s all up to him, and he will be invisible, he will lay down the justice, etc. I think this is one of the key sequences of the film, as it shows what made Ronnie what he is, which is both action movies and television, but also the myths of the American hero who never gives up, persists against all odds, sticks to what he knows is right, etc. This is where the movie is saying Ronnie is the PRODUCT of that culture, rather than an independent vigilante the movie is trying to hold up as a hero. And this is much of what makes me not offended by this movie and actually think it is pretty canny.

Hey, so I said, SPOILERS, right? Because I wasn’t kidding, and now we’re going to discuss the “shocking” ending. Ronnie is at the mall where the flasher has struck again, and after a long chase, Ronnie whips out a gun and shoots him! There is a huge spatter of blood, and a moment where the movie splits into unreality [or something], because that guy was SHOT, but is okay to get into Ronnie’s car and is generally fine when driven to the police station. So again, the movie is kind of having it both ways, showing the shocking violence, then backpedaling and saying “Oh no, that guy’s fine.” Ronnie is given his job back, and a crowd claps for him.
< < < SPOILERS END

There are many things to say. First, there is an interview with the writer/director in the Onion, where he specifically addresses those moments where the film goes for one extremely violent effect, the jumps back and reverses itself. He says he is comfortable with the ambiguity, and doesn’t mind if people think that perhaps we have entered Ronnie’s head and left reality. Some, like the Times, find it a cynical ploy to have the violence but get out of moral responsibility by appending “not really,” to the end.

This is similar to the whole argument against this movie, which is that it is holding this dangerously violent and out-of-control person up to be a hero, and apparently condoning his attacks. I don’t read it this way. I think the movie takes enough distance from Ronnie—it tells us that he was a special needs child, we know that he is manic-depressive and off his meds, that he is dangerously obsessed with guns, and that he harbors grossly distorted fantasies about stepping in and solving a situation—with extreme violence—and being hailed as a hero. So the movie makes extra clear that this is a deeply disturbed individual, and I don’t think the humor of the movie comes so much from what Ronnie does, but that no one is able to stop him.

A confusing area are the little shifts into unreality, such as when Ronnie is given his job back and applauded by the gathered crowd for something that would obviously, in reality, land him in jail. While perhaps the director is taking a cop-out and trying to have it both ways by saying that he “doesn’t mind” the ambiguity of whether this is really happening or not, I took it as part of the parody of American ideals of heroism, almost always linked to extreme violence, that RESULT in something like Abu Ghraib, rather than encouraging us to also applaud this behavior and perhaps begin to act more like it ourselves. So I think the movie is asking us to laugh at how appalling Ronnie’s behavior is and how all of the other violent things in America that ARE unabashedly and unironically celebrated result in THIS, rather than applauding Ronnie and saying we should all be more like him.

The movie is being mentioned with Taxi Driver and Dirty Harry, and certainly Dirty Harry is probably one of the things that Ronnie watched which made him what he is. Two movies I think should also be mentioned in relation to this film are Bigger, Faster, Stronger, the documentary about steroid use that also concentrated on the American fantasy of winning at all costs, of being a hero who never gives up despite the damage he’s doing, and how all of this is transmitted to citizens through popular culture, in particular action movies. The second film this is a child of is Freddy Got Fingered, which pioneered the particular charge of sadistic humor this film is trading on, the shock of being appalled at violent and demented behavior.

All that said, aside from the issues it brings up, is the movie worth seeing? It’s okay. I saw it in a relatively empty theater, where most of the sequences were met with complete silence, which makes them play very different than when an entire audience might erupt in shocked laughter. The movie itself is a bit meandering and has no focus, and steps back from delivering a “statement.” It’s also not really that funny and doesn’t leave one with much except a lot of moral issues to consider. Still, it's kind of a kick and I was chucking to myself long after it was over. I say see it, at least it's interesting and will give you something to talk about.

SHOULD YOU WATCH IT?

Yes. It may not be the best or funniest, but it's very provocative and I think will grow in everyone's estimation over time.