Thank you so much for this one. ]I hate Seth Rogan!!

Maybe his career will crash and burn after this movie. :)

Anna Faris could take some heat for this, too, instead of unloading only on Seth Rogan.

(besides the two token "oh, and the crew, too.")

Thank you. Unfortunately, nobody is going to realize they are laughing at rape. This scene reinforces the idea that having sex with a woman who is passed out drunk is just sex, not rape.

Anna Farris should be held accountable, too, as she agreed to do this scene, despite the fact that her own sex is the one being raped like this a majority of the time. How I hate sharing a first name with her ;_;

Also, I would not give Seth Rogen the credit of thinking that something like that is wrong. The asshat doucheface pervert Seth in Superbad was modeled after Seth Rogen's life as a teen (I think.) I hardly doubt that this man gives a shit about women. I have yet to see any proof that he does.

Yeah I saw that trailer and it had me reeaaally squicked.
I have a serious question though! See whenever I say to men in real life or the internet, that rape doesnt seem like good joke material to me. They say "Well people joke about murder and death all the time, and that's worse right?"
And I really dont mind violent movies, i like my explosions and my bang bang shoot em ups. But i really dont feel comfortable with rape jokes! So what do I say? Am I just being a hypocrate

Given that this was written and directed by Jody Hill, is he the one that is to blame for this scene? How much power do actors and actresses like Seth Rogen and Anna Faris have? I remember when Katherine Heigl said Knocked Up was "a little bit sexist", and then was forced to backtrack.

Honestly, I don't see how the drunk rape scene is offensive.

Wow... just... wow. Not having a TV I miss the majority of the previews out there so I hadn't seen that one yet. And all that comes to mind is, what the FUCK?
Power-hungry angry scary men in uniforms, unwarranted police brutality, teenagers who are once again portrayed as trouble makers deserving of violent punishment, bad penis joke focussed on race, and date rape, all in one trailer? can't wait to see the movie. NOT.

look like there is consent there. where's the rape? she told him to go on. he actually looked worried at first that maybe he was fucking a sleeping (or worse) girl, hence no intent to sex her without her consent. she reassured him. where's the rape

This is why Mike Myers has Seth Rogen totally beat. From the "Austin Powers" script:

"They are both on the bed. She looks at him. He looks at her. There is an awkward silence.

She's about to kiss him, then he pulls away.

AUSTIN: I can't. You're drunk."

And he doesn't. And he's quite more of a lady's man and eternal horndog than any of Seth Rogen's characters!

I think the character is supposed to be some sort of bipolar psychopath along the lines of a chubbier Robert Deniro in Taxi Driver. Look I'm totally against date rape however I think just keeping it out of movies isn't helping the cause at all. Should we just pretend this shit doesn't happen? I haven't seen the movie, I don't know how this was handled. However I don't think it was supposed to be just "lol date rape" I think it was supposed to show what a morally corrupt person the character is.

Also everything an actor does in a movie doesn't mean they as a person would do it, or condone it. It's pretty hilarious that you can't separate the two.

I mean if you're going to be mad at Seth, be mad at him because a woman of his level of attractiveness could never make it in Hollywood.

Trolls!!!

OK, I've seen little more of Observe and Report than this trailer. Have you seen the entire bedroom scene?

Here's why I ask.

What I see in that clip is the following. Brandi appears to have fallen asleep during sex. Ronie notices this and stops "grinding away." (Is that what guys do, "grind"?) He asks if she's awake: "Brandi! Brandi! [pause] ... uh, Brandi?" Then the joke.

Ronnie is not having a "crisis of conscience"; he does not say anything like, "Fuck, what the hell am I doing?"

He is noticing, it seems, that that the situation has changed -- that a person he thought was awake is now asleep. (If he thought she was unconscious the whole time, then why say her name?)

I suppose it all depends upon the footage directly before that shot. Had she been unconscious for the duration? Had she been awake? Had she participated consensually in this act as it began?

Regardless, the scene is not as you say it is. And part of me wants to say "Fuck You" to anyone who tossed Fuck Yous around so lightly.

But there is a real debate, I suppose, even if the scene is exactly as I describe it (i.e., if Brandi has fallen asleep/passed out during sex).

First question, can an inebriated person ever give consent?

Second question, if someone loses consciousness during sex and the partner realizes it -- for example, if Ronnie thinks that Brandi is talking in her sleep when she says "Why'd you stop" -- must that partner stop. (Recall that Rogan's character DOES stop. The problem might be that he starts up again. Does he think that she's asleep hen he does this? Does he think that she has stopped consenting?)

Third question, perhaps, is how many signs of consciousness does a partner have to show? Usually, talking is taken to be such a sign -- although the joke here is clearly that Faris's character also seems to be asleep.

Last question but perhaps the most important. Why so much ire not just for this scene or film, but for Seth Rogan -- an actor who seems to have done as much as any A-list actor to challenge and lampoon masculine and masculinist stereotypes?

I took this from an interview on aintitcool.com It seems like he thinks that people will know that its messed up, but its that awkwardness and relief when she yells at him about stopping allows the audience to laugh. I think its fucked up, but here's what he said about it.

Quint: And what’s fucked up even beyond that is that not only does that happen, but that’s also what redeems the character for all the straight guys in the movie.

Seth Rogen: Exactly! And somehow everyone thinks it’s heroic and it somehow just works. What I love about Jody, is he really paints the characters into a corner and then somehow gets them out, like in the eyes of the audience. He has the character do things where you are thinking “How will I ever like this person again? How will they redeem themselves from this? What is the thing that they will say that will actually make this OK?” They see me having sex with Anna Farris while she’s unconscious and you could tell the audience is thinking “What?!? How are they going to make this acceptable?” “What can possibly be said that makes this something that’s alright to put in a movie?”
And then he somehow comes up with the one thing that makes it all okay you know and it’s the same thing with the chase in the end, like I know the audience is thinking “How is this possibly going to end in a way that is satisfying? What is he going to do? How is this going to resolve itself?” And it does and he found the one way to do it and it does everything that you need it to and it’s very satisfying. It’s not much different than like action movies work, where you put your characters in these impossible situations and it’s like “How are they going to get out of it?” What the fuck is that?!?

I am confused. 1 in 6? I thought it was 1 in 3? Please cite source so I can educate myself.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from what I understand raping Brandi is just one of MANY horrid, immoral things Seth's character in the film does. (Can anyone confirm this here who has seen the movie?) From a critical/psuedo-literary standpoint, it sounds like the inclusion of such a scene is meant to reinforce the main characters terribleness, not glamorize or excuse his behavior in any way. Sure, it's a comedy. But it's a black comedy. It's not exactly meant to be interpreted in the same way dudebro/fratboy humor is supposed to, though there is no doubt the movie has been marketed that way.

From what I gather, the real problem here is not the inclusion of date rape in a "comical" way, but the misleading way the film has been advertised and the inevitable disconnect between it's target audience and the sort of comedy a film like this offers. The real problem lies in how it's presented, not so much in it's inclusion in the film. The sad truth is, most dudes who go see this movie will think they're supposed to be laughing at the cursing inebriated drunk girl getting fucked by a psycho loser, instead of nervously laughing at the mindblowing immorality of the situation. Does that make sense?

Again, haven't seen it.

white man makes movie about how hilarious it is to see a white man abusing power (including date rape)... how depressingly normal.

wait, i feel disgusting after watching this trailer. Why did you post it? Why!
Somehow that this is being packaged as "entertainment" makes it all the more gross.

Quick quiz:
Is this scene...
a) offensive
b) funny
c) both
d) not enough information to tell

Correct Answer: D

We have no idea the context in which this brief clip happens. Relevant questions: How drunk is Rogan's character? What happened when they started having sex? Was Faris's character conscious then? Are there any consequences to this sex? Is Rogan's character so bad at sex that Faris got bored and fell asleep? Is Rogan made to be a hero or a creep in this movie? etc, etc.

Feministing, I love you most of the time, but there is a nasty trend here of jumping to conclusions about things based on incomplete information that don't necessarily warrant such outrage.

When a film (or book) has a protagonist who does horrible things, does that make the director, writer, producers, actors, etc., culpable for condonding that behavior if the character doesn't get his comeuppance?

If the answer is "it depends," what are the mitigating factors?

I thought that they may have started having sex, she passed out during it, he said, "Brandi?" as in "Are you still awake?" and then she said her line.

That's what I thought happened when I first saw the clip.

I think it's dangerous to judge an actor's lifestyle by the roles he or she chooses. If you always did that, it would be hard to believe that actors like Sean Penn, Josh Brolin and Terrence Howard--who've starred in socially progressive movies like Milk, I Am Sam, and Crash--are in fact convicted spousal abusers.

I posted about this last night in the community forum, after reading several takes on the movie (including the one I included in the post). Here's the thing, dormouse, that makes this such a unmitigated fail-no matter what the "setup" to this particular scene is, the inescapable fact of the matter is that the writers (and by proxy, the actors) have made light of a problem of massive proportions.

The worst of it? The target demographic of this movie.

Having two boys (one of whom is almost 16, and on the cusp of sexual awakening, and the other, a tween who absorbs every bit of "comedic" input like a goddamn sponge and can recite, verbatim, pretty much every stand up act he has been allowed to view-but still forget his lunch/homework/arse on a daily basis) I can say with some authority this is exactly the type of movie that they and their peers are sucked in by. Do I let them see it? HELL NO, and they get a steady dose of feminist penicillin to boot-we do what we can.
But, goddamn it is so hard to fight against the constant assault of fucking American Apparel ads, douche commercials,Disney channel produced, mass consumption sexist crap and the never ending barrage of stereotypical bullshit that we, as adults, may be able to shrug off, but kids still trying to figure out what the hell goes where in their lives...aren't necessarily able to do as easily.
This is the audience that pays to see this movie, and absorbs and internalizes the message. And that is simply goddamn irresponsible, period.

The question of placing this date rape scene in the broader context of the film should focus more on what happens AFTER this scene than what come BEFORE. I really don't think it's arguable that what is happening is rape. She is clearly sick drunk and unable to give consent by any legal or moral definition. He does not appear to be anywhere near that inebriated. He's raping her, and it appears to be played for a laugh.

The only way this could be justified using the "black comedy" argument introduced by some commenters is if the rest of the film somehow makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that this character and his actions are reprehensible and outside the social norm. Judging solely from the available information (trailer, blog posts, and interview clips) this doesn't seem to be the case.

The point about misleading marketing may be a good one--we'd all have to see the film to know for sure--but the fact that it can be marketed this way at all, and the only public outcry seems to be here in the feminist blogosphere, is a good indicator of just how fucked up we are when it comes to issues of rape and consent.

And I see no problem directing this "fuck you" to Seth Rogen. As the star, he becomes the public face of the movie. When he does interviews, it is he who takes responsibility for commenting on the content of the film. And the fact that apparently neither he, nor Anna Faris, nor anyone else involved with the film has made a public statement that UNEQUIVOCALLY condemns what we see happening in this scene is deplorable.

If they wished, the film's producers, stars, etc. could use this content as a vehicle to make a public statement AGAINST this type of behavior. But they have not done so. And when they don't, they play right into the "rape culture" norms that lead to ridiculous assault statistics and horrific consequences for the victims/survivors of such attacks. At the very least, this laissez-faire attitude is grossly insensitive, and offensive, to everyone in the audience who has been affected by sexual violence. And we all know what kind of a number that is.

Basically, this is a "fuck you" I'm more than willing to get behind.

The reviewer at the SF Chronicle thought the date rape scene was hilarious and calls Faris's character a "a dumb, amoral, slut".

Check out the review here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/10/MVIU16VAKV.DTL

I think it's important to note that this isn't the only movie or scene that he's done that shows a total lack of respect for women. This isn't a one-off thing, or a case of misinterpretation on anyone's part, or just an actor needing a paycheck, pretty much his entire filmography has been sexist in some way.

I have no desire to see this film, simply because the commercials aren't appealing, but I think the anger towards Rogen is misplaced. As someone previously stated, the "Fuck You" should go out to the marketing of this movie, since it is marketed as a light-hearted "bro" movie, when the humor is in fact black.

Also, if we're relying on Seth Rogen to be the bastion of morality, something isn't right. I myself love Seth Rogen, but I have yet to find reason to hate him. he's never made himself out to be a genius, and people who see his films aren't necessarily looking for a progressive political message. I say leave Seth Rogen alone, because he's the least of our worries. I'm a feminist, but the fact that I like to let loose and watch Seth Rogen films shouldn't negate that fact.

When she says, "Why are you stopping motherfucker?" she's giving consent?In which case its not date rape. I don't see the problem, what am I missing here?

Also, the movie is comedic because this is precisely what you're NOT supposed to do; it portrays the guys as Keystone Kops. I think that's pretty clear.

I am taking a class which focuses on gender issues within the media, with a heavy focus on film. This week we screened Silence of the Lambs to compliment some critiques and deconstructions of the Horror/Slasher genres. Unlike popular belief, these writers point out that viewers hardly identify with the killer. For the most part, these films are targeted to young adolescent boys, so obviously there would be some danger with these young men identifying with a murderous fiend who frequently targets women. Instead, the audience tends to identify with the "final girl" (a term coined by Carol Clover) who ends up defeating the monster/villain. There is a whole breakdown of the formula that sometimes puts the villain and final girl as complimentary figures, and also uses Fruedian analysis on either character. The point I am trying to make, however, is that in this violent genre, there is little to fear for young, impressionable, male spectators.

I will consider the problematic nature of this film, but what I am more concerned about is the fact that this critique of Rogan's film is highly oversimplified. From all of the press coverage I've seen, including the trailer and a "Reel Comedy" episode about it on Comedy Central, I would argue that Rogan and Faris are conscious of their characters' faults. They admit to how dysfunctional and unstable these characters are. Rogan makes note that his character is a racist, incompetent, stalker. Faris also comments that her character has serious mental health and addiction issues. However, they are also conscious that this film is intended to be a Black Comedy. While there is no evidence to support this, I wouldn't be surprised if Rogan's character gets in trouble for the "rape" later in the game at least in some form. He's clearly getting in trouble in other areas. If doesn't receive his comeuppance for the rape, then the film will more than likely present the situation for what it is, and not make light of the situation because it was "lol date rape" but because these characters are SO fucked up they can't even recognize date rape when they commit it/are the victim. And that is the joke here, in my opinion. These characters want to believe so badly that they are the ones in control of everything and that everything is going well, when in reality everything is fucked up.

I intend on seeing this, but probably not until it hits dollar theaters. I still need to see I Love You, Man.

All that said, rape is not funny and not okay. The situation of this particular offense, however, changes things in my opinion.

So, I followed the link drydock (above) provided to the San Francisco Chronicle review of this film.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/10/MVIU16VAKV.DTL

Then I followed another link to the New York Times review.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/movies/10obse.html?8dpc.

These two reviews pretty handily delineate two opposing "readings" of this film. Both points of view sound quite similar to some of what I think I'm hearing from Feministing commenters above. (Basically, legitimate black comedy vs. callous and offensive.) So without a doubt--as is the case with any piece of "art" or media--what any individual viewer takes away from the date rape scene, and the movie as a whole, is going to hinge largely on one's personal experience and value system.

(A side note: Notice the SF Chronicle reviewer's cavalier use of the word "slut" to describe Faris's character. And no, I don't think he's using it ironically, as a consciously negative cultural reference. If that isn't an indicator of where he's coming from, I don't know what is.)

Unfortunately, the fact that this stuff does seem to sell so well indicates that unlike most of us at Feministing, the bulk of its audience is not approaching it critically. Because when you look at the content the way the NY times reviewer does, it loses significant entertainment value.

So, I'm gonna have to reiterate something I said in my earlier comment. The people making and promoting this film have a media platform at their disposal. They can influence the way in which their work is viewed. And so far, they have not done a good job of using this platform to promote a nuanced or critical viewpoint. Indeed, why would they if that might make it more difficult to market to the masses?

Seth Rogen and all the rest are making several choices here. They are choosing to participate in creating and marketing this material. They're choosing to ignore the broader cultural implications. They're choosing the laugh and the almighty dollar over an opportunity to promote positive social change.

Yeah, yeah, they're entertainers, they're not obligated to speak for everyone or promote anything other than themselves, I get that. But many of us here seem to believe in using our social and professional "platforms", such as they are, to reinforce and promote a value system built around equality and "do no harm." The people who made this movie are making a very different choice. We have every right--and some would say, a responsibility--to call them on this.

as one of those "1 in 6", i just think there are much more important problems out there than a tasteless scene in a seth rogan movie. seth rogan movies don't affect rape - people do, policies do, shitty parenting does. but an offensive movie? really? this is how you want to be taken seriously?

two people get blackout drunk and then fuck and you see it as a man taking advantage of a drunk woman? I saw two idiots too drunk to know what the hell they were doing. A pox on both of them. Equal opportunity stupidity is what I saw. Fuck Seth Rogen indeed, but fuck him twice.

Yeah two drunk people agree to have sex, and somehow the woman loses her agency & the guy becomes a criminal...That really strains logic, as well as feminist theory.

Really, is this why we're feminists? Because we really want to return to the days of patriarchy, where men were empowered to do what they thought was right for women??? Ah, Prince Charming rides to the rescue of Cinderella. That would require too much of men, and too little of us.

"But a lot of men who rape don't realize what they are doing is rape, they just feel they have conquered a holder of the sacred pussy, and think that they have a right to her body, so it can't be rape."

This situation was clearly rape. But in many situations where the guy reasonably believes there's consent but the girl is less enthusiastic and actually feels used, she might wonder if she was raped. In that situation, a hell of a lot of women don't know they're being "raped" either -- e.g., the infamous Ms. Magazine survey that insisted one out of four college women are raped. But for the majority, even when they were told that what they described was rape (according to the surveyors' constricted definiton of consent), the women refused to agree. If you accept the women's characterizations of their own experiences, the number was more like one in 23.

So it isn't just the dudes thinking they own pussy (thanks so much for your colorful imagery and "empowered" language -- for those who object to my sarcasm, f*ck you, too).

I agree with the people that questioned targeting Seth Rogen for this scene. Yes, he agreed to go through with a scene that is morally questionable, but he isn't the one that decided the scene was funny-- the writer (Jody Hill) did. Isn't that more of a crime? At the very least, shouldn't we at least say that BOTH Rogen and Hill are at fault, Hill for writing it and Rogen for agreeing to go through with it? I don't think it makes sense to single out Rogen for this.

Also, to answer a speculation someone posed, he isn't the executive producer or anything in this film, just the lead actor.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1197628/

Ok, at the risk of making a lot of people angry, this scene was not as bad as I feared. I got the impression from the trailer that she had given consent and then passed out while they were having sex. I thought Seth stops, not because he is having a moment of his conscious bothering him, but because Anna has stopped answering him and he just realized she is passed out. He then continues after she yells at him to. My impression was that if she had not yelled at him to continue he would have stopped for good. I realize that having sex with somebody who is wasted but awake and gives consent can be considered rape and I think sometimes it is. If the girl doesn't know what is going on cause she is so wasted, for example. However, I think the situation has to be taken into context. I have had a lot of sex with my ex while wasted and twice with dates while drunk. And yes, the bf sex was sometimes after I was so drunk I puked. (I since learned my limit) I wanted the sex and knew what I was doing and never felt taken advantage of. Granted, the guys were smart and good enough to ask for multiple reassurances that I wanted sex and to continue, etc. This movie scene makes me somewhat uneasy because I do believe that it may further add to the confusion of what is rape and not, but I don't really consider Rogen a rapist in this film just from the trailer. I would need to see more of the film and what is said before they start having sex to judge that.

I was blown away by that scene, and I couldn't believe the laughter in the audience. But I guess I'm just naive.

But the whole movie was just god-awful, I really wanted to leave halfway through.

The whole movie is about Seth Rogen's character Ronnie, who is obviously mentally disturbed. He is a very delusion and violent person whose life has obviously been extremely shitty (mother is an alcoholic, father left him and his mother because he didn't want to take care of a "mentally challenged" son, there aren't that many parts of the movie that talk about his past but the general vibe his life sucks)

The character Ronnie is also an extreme asshole, he makes a homophobic joke about a guy who works with Anna Faris's character (than does the whole "i'm just kidding" thing). He is mean to this one girl who gives him coffee all the time (even though he is also sweet and caring, and they end up dating at the end of the movie, where he makes a disgusting comment about how his girlfriend is a born again virgin who made a promise to not have sex before marriage but he is planning on "making her break that promise"). Also, Seth Rogen's character is racist, especially towards a character, Saddamn, who is Arab (he calls him a terrorist and Saddamn tells a detective that Ronnie is always harassing him).

With Anna Faris's character, Brandi, there are a few creepy incidents before and after the date rape incident.

To get Anna Faris's character on a date, he offers to drive her to her car (she is scared because the of the flasher) however Ronnie does not let Anna Faris's character get out of the car until she promises to go out on a date with him (he even strokes her hair even though it is obvious she is turned off by him). This scene is supposed to be portray Ronnie has a creepy, delusional loser who really thinks he has a chance.

Sidenote: The character of Brandi is depicted as a stupid, bitchy slut who parties all the time. I personally think the writer did this in order to make the things Ronnie does to her "okay".

During the scene before the date rape, Ronnie waits outside Brandi's house. She comes back pretty late from a night of partying, obviously already pretty buzzed. She agrees to go on the date (first she says she has to pee and Ronnie says "should I come in with you". Again, this is used to make Ronnie seem like a creepy clueless loser.)
At dinner, both Brandi and Ronnie are drinking, but Brandi is obviously ten times more fucked up the Ronnie through the whole dinner. What makes Brandi even more out of it is that she sees Ronnie taking medication and asks to take some. Ronnie gives her the pills to keep and Brandi ingests a bunch of pills. So while Ronnie only had a few drinks and is obviously extremely sober, Brandi is extremely wasted and now extremely high off the pills as well.

Another side note: Before the date, Ronnie has a conversation with her mother. The mother tells him how when she first met her father she knew she would "fuck him that night and marry him". Ronnie says "I hope that happens too". So Ronnie is definitely going into the date with the mindset "I will fuck Brandi".

Ronnie and Brandi get back home, Brandi pukes a little, obviously fucked up, and Ronnie says "I accept who you are" and kisses her. The kiss is very creepy because he basically pulls her towards her and forced his lips upon her. Than Ronnie walks Brandi to her house (she can barely even stand). Than the movie cuts to the scene you see in the trailer.

I definitely saw it as date rape because she is obviously out of it (there is no way she couldn't have been) and Ronnie's character would definitely date rape someone, and the writer and the movie are aware of this. He is an anti-hero, he is a bad person, and bad people date rape.

Another part of this movie that extremely pissed me off and that made no logical sense to me is "why didn't Ronnie go to fucking jail"?

For those who didn't see the movie (spoilers coming up) Ronnie does a couple things that should have sent him to jail for life.

During the movie, while Ronnie is having a break down and going crazier and crazier, Ronnie goes under cover to catch the flasher. During one of the days Ronnie is going under cover he is looking at Brandi through binoculars (because he is in love with her and always fucking creepy) and sees her leaving the mall and being sneaky. Ronnie than goes to see what she is up to and catches Brandi fucking the detective (Ronnie's enemy in the movie).

After this, Ronnie goes to Brandi and screams at her, calling her a bitch and slut, and breaking the glass counter because she "cheated on him". This causes Ronnie to be fired.

However, Ronnie refuses to leave the mall. So the mall calls the cops. The cops come, plus the detective, and end up having to physically escort Ronnie out of the building. Ronnie ends up getting in a major brawl with the cops and beats up at least 15 or more of them with a giant heavy flash light. Isn't assaulting a cop a federal crime? Ronnie loses, and is sent to jail, but he gets out in what seems after a few short days.

What came to my mind was "Because Ronnie is a white male, he got away with bashing 15 cops in the head." There are very little consequences for Ronnie besides getting the shit beat out of him and losing his job. Ronnie is still allowed into the mall and does not go to jail for a long time, or it seems like a short time.

The next thing that confused the shit out of me is the final part of the movie.

The flasher comes back, flashes Ronnie and his girlfriend Nell (the born again virgin). There is a chase seen (during the chase seen Ronnie punches out Saddamn, emphasizing him being a racist.)Ronnie knocks into a dude and falls. The flasher makes a creepy grin and thinks he got away. Ronnie than goes a different way.

Than, the flasher sees Brandi, gets excited, charges towards her, she is freaking out, and than, out of fucking nowhere...

Ronnie shots the flasher almost point blank in the chest!

What the fuck!

And guess what, EVERYONE APPLAUDS!
Ronnie brings the flasher to the police station, curses out everyone (the detective and the cops) and gets on his motor bike and drives away.

THAN...

Ronnie gets his job back as head of mall security.

All is well.

He should be in fucking jail for illegally (mall security guards can't have or use guns) and unnecessarily (why not charge the flasher down, taze him, even though tazing is still very violent and can lead to death, in the movie it is apparent that it is legal for mall security guards to taze someone.

Another side note: Ronnie tazes an innocent man for no reason. Again, showing he is an asshole. But the fact that the innocent man was a person of color made it worse for me, even though tazing in general is disturbing. )

Also, one of the only people of color in the movie, the character Dennis, turns out out to be a druggie, alcoholic thief. That pissed me off as well. Also, the only other prominent people of color in the movie besides Dennis and Sadammn are the two twin security guards John Yuen and Matt Yuen, a group of kids who are drug dealers, and a black female news reporter.

This movie is definitely for those who are part of out ignorant culture. Everything about pop culture is political. It is nearly impossible for this not to be true. Something as seemingly simple as a billboard is political (why is it so hard to have diverse ads that reflect America's amazing collective of people and stories? For some reason skinny, young, "beautiful" white people is seen as the only way to market products). Those who are into the movies like Knocked Up and Superbad will go into the movie thinking it is one of those comedies because of purposely bad marketing. However, I bet these people will leave the movie not really getting the point. My friend is one of them, who after I said "he dated raped her" tried to argue that it wasn't date rape, she gave consent, and I replied with "if in the future you ever have sex with a girl who is obviously fucked up out of her mind...that is rape, so don't do it".

Our pop culture thrives on people not questioning the hidden messages.
Hollywood thrives on people not question the hidden messages.
This movie is still another Hollywood movie, it still is run by the same people whose main goal is to "make money by whatever means necessary".
If thinking twice about a joke or a concept in a movie will get in the way of making the big bucks, it's not going to happen.

I think a lot of people are missing the point about the consent issue in this trailer.

The point is NOT whether or not this particular encounter between these particular people does or does not constitute rape. She consents so, yeah.

The point IS that this scene mirrors more or less exactly a large amount of REAL RAPES, and the fact that she consents in this scene will allow men to assume consent is "implied" in other real life (i.e. not almost wholly unbelievable bad-taste comedy movie life) situations, which may in fact lead to more women being RAPED in REAL LIFE.

Arguing about whether or not this scene is rape misses the point, because the fact that this scene clearly DOES NOT portray the act as rape is exactly what will lead to further rape apologists denying the occurence of real date rape.

This topic is necessary for young, college and high school aged people to consider. That's why the Antioch College policy from the early 1990s is so right on:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_36/ai_61487446/

I can totally see why Antioch men would be on board with this. They are hot feminist men!

I'm curious as to how many people who are calling this movie black humor have actually seen it? It was definitely marketed wrong, but I didn't think that it created an interesting social commentary, or even an interesting story, that made use of black humor.

I like black humor, I like things that are twisted but still funny. This was not that.

By the time of the date rape scene, the movie had been so packed full of homophobia, racism, sexism, and ableism that I was sick to my stomach. But I'm just a humorless feminist.

Also, I was really, really, really disturbed by the portrayal of mental illness and alcoholic families. I don't think Bi-Polar depression is funny, at all, and jokes about it are over-played and inaccurate, which trivializes it. He was just shown as a general craze-o, there was no treatment of episodes of mania followed by depression (you know, accurately characterized by a week or longer), and they just generally perpetuated myths about what it means to be Bi-Polar. The stigma of depression in this country is really damaging, and movies like this just make it worse. And I don't even know where to begin with the alcoholic mother. Alcoholism is a disease, a fatal one, which affects a whole lot of people and their families, and this movie played on misconceptions and over-tired stereotypes about alcoholism that are downright offensive.

(Spoiler alert) My dad has always criticized the Simpsons (and shows like Titus) because he says that it gives you the feeling at the end of the episode that everything is all okay even though it's not (in light of whatever crazy things happened throughout the course of the episode) and thereby normalizes dysfunctional families. I always thought he was an over-serious liberal and missed the humor in those shows because of that, but that's exactly how I felt about this movie. Sure he's the super-antihero, and a BAD guy, but in the end, everything goes his way! It's a happy ending! He get's his job back, accolades for "catching" the pervert, a girlfriend, and his mom announces she's switching to beer! There's no lesson learned, but really all of his behavior has been validated. So sure, call it black humor, but it's amorality is pretty disturbing.

But it was over for me after the rape scene. YES it was a rape, and what you saw in the trailer is it, nothing happens earlier or later that changes how you see it, there are no mitigating circumstances. They cut from them on the lawn (he kisses her after she vomits) to that scene to the next day. She was absolutely wasted (vomiting on the lawn and all that) and he wasn't. It is IMPOSSIBLE to give consent at that level of inebriation. This DOES MATTER because it feeds rape culture, which tells you that she was asking for it and he can't control himself.

So there was the rape scene, the violence, the voyeurism, the comment that he will make his born again girlfriend break her promise, the "funny" drunk mother... I should have walked out, but didn't because I was in a large group of people.

My boyfriend and I played "what was wrong with that movie" on the way home.

(This was on Tuesday, and I've been waiting all week for the blogosphere's response to it, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who had issues with it.)

Sort of a meta-question --

Why are there so many people in this thread who don't think that having sex with a passed out drunk woman is rape, or even anything but perfectly fine & dandy?? What happened?? This is not okay.

This feministing post is being reported on by Wired:

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2009/04/observe-and-rep.html

That article also quotes Faris saying that when she was filming the "sex" scene, she thought it would get cut out of the final movie so she "didn't have to worry about it." Why would she say that? Is she implying that it shouldn't have made it to the movie? Does she feel bad about filming it now that its caused all this controversy?

The comments on the Wired article made me realize how important questioning and discussing pop culture is.

Already, in the first few comments there were the expected comments about not wanting to fuck feminists, feminists being lesbians, and misogynistic jokes and other such idiotic replies.

This comment I thought was interesting though:

"I'm honestly more offended by the some of the reactions people are having than to the date-rape scene itself. "Reinforces rape culture"? What? Whatever happened to people having their own internalized set of morals and standards of behavior? It's called accountability, folks, and anyone mature enough to be viewing a film like this in the first place ought to have a firm grasp of it.
As for the notion of defining sexuality for "impressionable children," that's completely ludicrous. Discretion is absolutely necessary when viewing adult material, which Observe and Report certainly is. You, as a parent, don't let your impressionable adolescent go see an adult film by themselves and without guidance. When I was 14, if I saw an R-rated film, I would see it with my parents, and we would discuss it. They were actively involved in parenting, instead of acting out whatever simulacrum passes as such these days.
There's also the complete disregard for the fact that as a comedy, not only is it not meant to be taken seriously, but the situations are dramatically exaggerated for comedic effect. It's also a black comedy, whose humor draws from the amoral and reprehensible antics of the protagonist.
Media is a product of culture, and if people have moral concerns with media, they ought to confront the culture itself rather than the offensive media."

One, this commenter assumes that all adults are mature and intelligent. At my summer camp I met plenty of "adults" who acted like immature assholes and if these assholes saw a movie like Observe and Report I doubt they will see the date rape as nothing more than a fantasy they would love to make come true.

Two, this commenter assumes that all youths are idiots. Even though at a young age one is more heavily influenced by pop culture, I think in our culture we never give kids a chance to develop their own opinion. We need to give kids the tools to question pop culture but not force morals down their throat, because than too many kids will (and I've seen this many times) see questioning as work and fall prey to the culture.

Finally, isn't commenting on a movie (that is automatically part of pop culture because it is a movie in theaters all the country and the world) confronting the culture itself?

Side note: The writer Jody Hill's TV Eastbound and Down kind of has the same theme (a giant racist, sexist, homophobic assholes who is an anti-hero). Even though I admit I didn't watch the whole series, I did catch part of the series finale and I didn't think it was that funny (and I am a person who can find things that shouldn't be funny). Maybe Jody Hill's writing isn't for everyone, but everyone is in some way going to be in contact with his media, and just saying "it's a movie" seems insufficient (especially with Jody Hill's material).