Crimitism

What, you're still here?

I saw Step Brothers (YES, I KNOW)

Posted by Richie on September 22, 2008

Look, try and see things from my point of view: I’d spent the last fortnight writing a fifty-seven-page budget for a class assignment – they didn’t mention “an entire semester dedicated to the frustration-riddled vagaries of accounting” during the open day, for some reason – and had had almost no contact with the outside world, especially the parts where I might see movie trailers. So, when class ended on Friday afternoon and somebody asked “Hey, do you want to see Step Brothers?”, I agreed without knowing what it was actually about. You at least know what you’re getting into with Robo Vampire – well, sort of – but for all I knew Step Brothers was a gritty coming-of-age story about a disintegrating family in Salford. By the time I saw the poster, I was in Ferrell stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as sitting through the sodding thing.

You know when someone’s so convinced of their own hilarity that they lose all sense of self-awareness and start laughing at their own jokes, even though nobody else is? That’s Step Brothers. There’s an improvised scene, early on, when Ferrell and Reilly sleepwalk into a kitchen, pick up random objects and then start smashing them up whilst screaming in weird voices. That’s… that’s the entire scene. It’s not that it isn’t remotely funny, it’s that it’s bewildering. You can’t work out what went wrong with it, because you can’t work out what they were actually trying to accomplish in the first place. When the scene abruptly ended with no punchline, payoff or explanation, my friend turned around and whispered “What the fuck is this shit?”, and I had absolutely no idea how to respond. When it’s not the cinematic equivalent of Darkknight1987′s YouTube account, it’s desperately trying to generate Napoleon Dynamite-esque catch phrases, as if it seriously expects dullards worldwide to start wearing “Imagine all the activities we could do!” Cafepress shirts. You also get to see Will Ferrell’s testicles in a scene so monumentally misjudged that even the people – if they can reasonably be called “people” – who were otherwise in hysterics fell deathly silent.

There is one moment, however, where the film looks like it might provoke the target audience to ask questions about their lives. One of the titular step brohters’ parents – I honestly can’t remember which one, because I was past caring at this point (roughly ten minutes in) – wonders aloud, “Where did he get this sense of entitlement from?”. These guys spend their days on the couch watching TV, expect other people to cook and clean for them, think their natural talents (one’s a drummer, one’s a singer) mean they’re special and don’t need to work, that women are obligated to sleep with them, and that anything which makes them vaguely uncomfortable, no matter how miniscule, is as dramatic as Ride of the fucking Valkyries. They are, in other words, the target audience, only a couple of decades older. Is the film going to run with this, then? Is it going to say, hey, do you want to keep heading in this direction? Do you want to turn out like this when you’re forty?

God, do you even need me to answer that question?

This is another entry in the proud tradition of slacker comedies about following your dreams in the face of what The Man tells you. And in that same proud tradition, the dreams on display here involve acting like a spoiled child and expecting everybody else to rearrange their lives around you, because obviously the only reason anybody might take issue with your behaviour is that they’ve sold out their principles to the corporate machine, man. It takes a heady cocktail of privilege and self-delusion to turn “expecting a reward for doing absolutely nothing” into a form of rebellion, but since Step Brothers has already grossed over $100 million, you can understand why people might try. And since we started this adventure on campus, it’s worth pointing out that at least two female students I’m friends with have such overwhelming workloads and financial issues that they’ve become physically sick from stress. I say “at least” because they don’t go around whining about it all day and I only found out indirectly. Which students do whine about their lives all day…? Yes, exactly. It’s odd that we treat whining as a feminine characteristic (“whiny bitch”, “whining like a girl”) when the ratio of whiny men to whiny women is, based on personal experience, about 10:1. IT’S SO HARD BEING A NICE GUY OH GOD WHY ARE THOSE UGLY BITCHES SO SHALLOW.

But women really do want a fortysomething manchild who (literally) can’t wipe his ass properly, if Step Brothers is any indication. One of the brothers – again, I can’t remember which, since they’re essentially exactly the same character – has a non-step brother who’s hugely successful and rich… BECAUSE HE’S A JERK. There are, remember, absolutely no shades of grey in this movie, even by slacker comedy standards. If you’re of the same generation as the leads and have more money than them – parents are allowed to have money, because it’s their job to support you – then it’s obviously because you’re an aggressive, status-obsessed dickblister who everybody secretly hates. God knows I hate people like that too, but there’s a huge difference between yuppie protoplasm and, say, people who need money because they have to make ends meet and can’t rely on their parents for financial support. Look, being privileged enough to get by without working doesn’t make you a dick by definition, but refusing to acknowledge that you’ve actually got a pretty good thing going takes you perilously close, and actually complaining that your life is hard tips you far, far over the edge. No, wait, we’re in reality again, back to the movie. The step brother’s brother (realises this will become really annoying to type, checks IMDB) Derrick pays for his crimes against slackerdom when (IMDB tab still open) Dale punches him in the face, which really, really turns his wife on, because Derrick’s an abusive asshole and Dale is… uh, yeah. She then throws herself at Dale and explains what she wants to do with him in a monologue that’s probably quite funny if you laugh every time somebody says “vagina”, but is otherwise as funny as everything else in the film. The one played by Will Ferrell (IMDB tab still open, but can’t be fucked) also manages to hook up with his therapist, after she realises how great he is because he’s not as boring as her other patients. See, they talk about issues they had with their parents, while the one played by Will Ferrell is hugely obnoxious and keeps trying to get her to go out with him, which isn’t really harassment because she secretly wants him. So very, very secretly that she doesn’t even realise it herself.

The movie eventually ends with everybody realising how great and underappreciated Dale and the one played by Will Ferrell are, after they salvage a disastrous wine mixer by performing (don’t need to check IMDB because I’m pretentious) Por Ti Volare after the original band leaves under circumstances too boring to recall. Because, see, Dale is a genius on the drums and Will Ferrell has a fantastic voice. You know, their natural talents that they don’t ever need to actually work on or develop. So… they don’t actually accomplish anything or develop as characters, and the only people who learn a lesson are the ones who asked them to question their behaviour. This also makes the “Oh, but they’re idiots, you’re not meant to want to be like them” argument lose all meaning, since every single character in the movie has fallen in love with them by the end.

“Where did he get this sense of entitlement from?”. Yeah, I wonder.

About these ads

21 Responses to “I saw Step Brothers (YES, I KNOW)”

  1. innercitygarden said

    Have you considered changing your header to “Crimiticism: Going to the cinema so you don’t have to”? You really are providing a great social service.

  2. bellatrys said

    Oh, oi.

    Compare/contrast to Martin Millar’s book Lonely Werewolf Girl, which really is a sprawling 19th century tragicomedy of manners that just happens to be set in contemporary London, Scotland, and the Faerie Realms – two of the large cast are a pair of twin sisters, orphan heiresses, the black ewe lambs of their aristocratic family, who set out to be rock stars but, well, got involved with the booze and drugs and smashing guitars and trashing hotel rooms before they got very far, and stuck. And it didn’t matter because they had a fortune and could just get wasted and not worry about the bills.

    Eventually the family politics gets so intense that their votes are being competed for to elect the new Thane, so the supporters of one heir come up with a plan to win their support – make them successful musicians!

    It involves an iron regimen of controlling their booze and pot intake, forcing them to practice, practice, practice, practice, and going out dealing with music venue owners, handing out flyers, all the grunt work involved in doing something with raw talent that’s been let go to seed…this is achieved by appealing to their pride and sense of insult that “the boys who live over the shop down the road” and sneer at them are actually getting gigs and press coverage…combined with a lot of verbal ass-kicking by their cousin, a bored Classics major who doesn’t care if they write hateful songs about her so long as they get sober enough to perform without falling off the stage this time. (Yes, it passes the Bechdel-Wallace test many times over.)

    But no, there’s no magical Mary-Sue/Gary-Stu triumph over adversity by sheer hope and star-wishing…

  3. Richie said

    None of these characters even seem to *hope* anymore, do they? It’s just I DESERVE THIS GIVE IT TO ME NOW. I mean, I’m studying film now, I studied writing before that, and what unites everybody I’ve ended up disliking in both fields is that they think they’re too good to need improvement. It doesn’t help that you hear stuff like “Oh, you can’t TEACH creativity…” and “Don’t pay attention to the rules, because then you’ll produce stuff that’s exactly like everybody else’s…” a lot in that context because, yeah, there’s a grain of truth to it, but it doesn’t mean you can just crap out whatever’s on top of your head today and it’ll work. There lies the path of Eragon.

  4. Torri said

    it’s too bad you never saw the adds for it as they are enough to make me sneer in hatred at my television screen. Two grown men fight with each other like 8 year old children and this is supposed to be funny? I pity you immeasurably that you had to sit through it since it sounds so much worse then the add actually looked (and I didn’t think that was possible!)
    I think the only thing I’ve seen and liked featuring Will Farrell was ‘Stranger then Fiction’, you know the one that was relatively intelligent and subdued and all the people who usually like Farrell hated…. *sigh*

  5. Richie said

    I actually passed on Stranger than Fiction purely because it had Will Ferrell in it, and my only previous exposure to him playing a likeable everyman was in Bewitched (yeah, I saw that too… I still haven’t seen Casablanca, by the way), but I might get around to it now. I also don’t remember if I actually liked Anchorman, or just convinced myself I did because all my (then) friends were obsessed with it.

  6. Jubilation said

    One of my girlfriends actually saw this and said it was great, and told me to go see it. Thank god I found this site first lol the guy looks like a big fat baby in real life, so I’m not surprised that this is his next chronological step. I’ve never seen a will ferrell movie in my life (I don’t use capitals for his name because that would make him seem too important) so I don’t know if he acts like this in all his movies. Frankly, I’d rather not find out the hard way…

  7. bellatrys said

    I mean, I’m studying film now, I studied writing before that, and what unites everybody I’ve ended up disliking in both fields is that they think they’re too good to need improvement.

    Gee, and I thought they all went into Sales & Marketing!

    (No, you’re right, seriously, this is death to quality. Even a half-decent or mediocre artist can turn into a howling purveyor of Gary-Stu/Mary-Sue laden refuse, if they get too popular and are able to tell editors to slope off (see also: Anne Rice, Tom Clancy)

    Or *coughEragoncough* if their parents own a publishing company and are rwa to put what should have been a refrigerator drawing on the press…)

  8. citywood said

    But… isn’t this just part of The Evil Feminist Plot to make men look horrible?

  9. Richie said

    Well, that goes without saying.

  10. llencelyn said

    Two grown men fight with each other like 8 year old children and this is supposed to be funny?

    Oh wow. Actually, until I read this review, I didn’t realize they were supposed to be playing grown men. I saw the previews during the summer and thought they were supposed to be playing children – kinda like those movies where kids played adults, but in reverse.

    Sweet mother of pearl…

  11. Seren said

    I am ashamed to say Will Ferrell sometimes makes me laugh. I am a failure. :(

    in all seriousness though, films like this, in addition to their annoying message, are so offensively un-creative. I know that sounds like a weird thing to be offended by, but as a writer and artist, a certain level of genericism begins to look downright disgusting to me.

    Also, I just noticed that you have an idiotic panel from the… er… festive comic Better Days under your ‘about the author.’ You are my e-hero.

  12. Richie said

    as a writer and artist, a certain level of genericism begins to look downright disgusting to me.

    Oh yeah, definitely. My particular pet hate is “Two guys hanging out and talking about popular culture”, because obviously student film is really crying out for more of that. And back in the indie game development, at least 120% of the output was “A young man with a dark, tortured past must fight the greatest enemy of all… HIMSELF”.

    And yes, Better Days is a source of endless entertainment.

  13. [...] Lauredhel observed that the Ad Standards Bureau agrees with Jim Bean that lesbianism is a tragedy. Richie at Crimitism admits to seeing the movie Step Brothers. [...]

  14. [...] I saw Step Brothers (YES, I KNOW) over at Crimitism is pretty self-explanatory. An excellent take down of an excrement film. [...]

  15. wiggles said

    If you’re of the same generation as the leads and have more money than them – parents are allowed to have money, because it’s their job to support you – then it’s obviously because you’re an aggressive, status-obsessed dickblister who everybody secretly hates.

    Ever see Accepted? The first indication that the protagonist’s love interest’s inconvenient (and wealthy and chisel-jawed, of course) boyfriend was a jerk was that the protagonist insulted him. He did it the minute the boyfriend turned up on the screen, without the boyfriend even doing anything jerky yet. This is all they did to establish the character dynamic. It’s such a cliche, the intent was understood, but still – if you were somehow unaware of the inconvenient-boyfriend-of-love-interest-as-douchebag trope, or were expecting a movie that didn’t go straight to DVD to make the slightest effort at character development, from the protagonist’s behavior toward the boyfriend, for the first half of the movie, you would have thought the protagonist was supposed to be the asshole.
    That might be kind of interesting, actually. If someone made a slacker movie in which it turns out the inconvenient boyfriend is just a normal person, and the whiny Nice GuyTM protagonist figures out he’s been a whiny Nice GuyTM all along, because the love interest tells him so in a rousing 3-minute monologue. Oh and if the love interest had something going on besides her looks and her love of fart jokes. That would be a new dynamic.

  16. Richie said

    We were actually talking about that in class the other day. “Coming Soon: Pricks”.

  17. tipsy said

    Posted by “Monsieur Chauvin” on Charliegrrl. Not directly relevent, I know, but sort of relevent in the sense that the guy who wrote it is clearly a self-assured twit.

    “Do Women Have Lower General Intelligence Than Men?

    There are multiple ways in which to conceptualize the lesser intelligence of the human female. The best way to comprehend female intellectual inferiority to the superior mental capacity of the male gender is by constructing a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait distribution within a given population demographic. There are two fundamental operationalizations around which gravitate those statistical polarities synthesized from the standard gaussian distribution of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence; the first serves as an important basis upon which the typical gaussian distribution of gender-based differences in mental capacity rests. This can be readily observed in its primary function as being a scientific methodology which generates both an epistemological praxis and workable data on the basis of objective statistical and empirical information. A second function that needs to be emphasized is that such a mathematical tool also serves as a means of conducting a rigorous analysis of corresponding normal distribution curves whose final pupose is to calculate the relative probabilities which determine the likelihood of the average male being more intelligent than the average female and vice versa. This is achieved by standardizing the product of the raw score subtracted from its population mean and than further dividing the product by the standard deviation. The final step involves converting the end result into a z-score or standardized variable as statistically computed from a standard normal distribution table and than subsequently expressing the result as a percentage of the pattern of continuous probability distribution.

    The analytical process itself functions as an underlying computational methodology which enables us to fully grasp the fact that the average male has significantly greater levels of ‘g’ (a construct first developed in the early twentieth century by the famed British psychometrician C. Spearman) than the average female; it is this process which highlights the fact that this can only be done by gaining an exact knowledge of what is the relative probability that the average male has significantly higher levels of intelligence than the human female. To be fair, the body of statistical data used for constructing such a level of probability shall be the gaussian distribution of male-female differences in mental capacity provided by the WISC-R, a test specifically designed to assess the intelligence of children between the ages of 6 – 16.5. It is also an IQ test notorious for furnishing experimenters with one of the most conservative measures of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence; the overall format of the test is structured in such a way as to largely lean in the direction of minimizing sex differences. Another important aspect of the data collected from the administration of the WISC-R is that the test is generally designed to assess the ‘g’ of the developing child; although male intellectual capacity may be closer to the female in childhood, the gap in intelligence between both male and female genders widens by up to 10 points as the juvenile gradually matures into adulthood. Furthermore, it is also important to point out that, with the onset of old age, the average female IQ declines at a much more rapid pace than the male.

    The data furnished by the WISC-R is converted into a z-value by means of standardizing the raw scores. This is done by statistically computing them on the basis of a standard normal distribution table. The equation that expresses this function is:

    Z = X – mu / sigma, where Z represents the z-score, mu represents the mean population distribution, and sigma symbolizes the standard deviation of the continuous probability distribution of X. This is ultimately calculated by converting the end result into the z-values of the standard normal statistical tables, and than finally expressing the figure as a percentage of the probability of X.

    A further, much more practical example is needed in order to fully elucidate this point. For the purposes of instruction, our mathematical calculation of the probability that the average man will be considerably more intelligent than the average female and vice versa shall be directly based on the raw data gathered by the WISC-R, as established by the researchers A.R. Jensen and C.R. Reynolds (1983). The subsequent equation will look thus:

    103.08 – 101.41 / 13.55 = 0.123 = 0.4510535 = 0.45 = 45%

    This equation expresses the fact that the probability of the average woman being more intelligent than the average man is 0.45. Expressed as a percentage of its own probability distribution, it indicates that 45% of the female population demographic will be smarter than 100% of the male population demographic.

    101.41 – 103.08 / 14.54 = – 0.115 = 0.5457775 = 0.55 = 55%

    The solution of this equation expresses the fact that the average man has a 55% probability of being considerably more intelligent than the average female; this means that 55% of males will be substantially more intelligent than 100% of the female population demographic.If the values provided by the more liberal estimates of Lynn and Irwing (2005) were substituted into the equation itself, than the probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female would increase from 55% to approximately 65%; correspondingly, the probability that the average female would be more intelligent than the average male would decrease from 45% to 35%.

    By way of explanation, the gaussian distribution of gender-based differences in human intelligence as extrapolated from both child and adult versions of Weschler’s intelligence scale is just a small amount of the substantial psychometric evidence pointing in the direction of tremendous sexual dimorphism in human intelligence. Only somebody possessing the limited intelligence of a lesser evolved and more primitive female central nervous system would assume that the bell curve itself is dimorphic; what the gaussian distribution demonstrates is that the disparity between male and female levels of intelligence can be mathematically substantiated through the rigorous application of non-overlapping analytic geometrical co-ordinates.

    Gender-based differences in mental capacity are obviously sexually dimorphic because both traits are unevenly distributed between both genders. There are substantial neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological factors, such as higher levels of circulating androgens and greater relative brain size in males, which are responsible for the sexual differentiation in human cognition that leads to men having significantly higher levels of intelligence than females. Just because gender-based differences in human intelligence demonstrate some degree of overlap in no way invalidates the accepted scientific fact that the average male is significantly more intelligent than the average female. For example, male and female levels of aggression also show some degree of overlap, but this in no way invalidates the fact that there is considerable sexual dimorphism in levels of human aggression; gender differences in aggression gravitate around certain statistical polarities which indicate that, regardless of the degree of overlap, men are considerably more aggressive than women. It is the very universality of both higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, within all societies and across all cultures, as well as the substantial body of both neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological evidence, which makes them both sexually differentiated traits just as dimorphic as gender differences in genitalia (which also demonstrate some degree of overlap, if one takes such intersexual phenomena as hermaphroditism into consideration).

    Expressed another way, one could say that the higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, as well as the male reproductive organs, are all sexually dimorphic traits because the expression of all three is the result of higher levels of circulating androgens within the male body; in contrast, the lower levels of intelligence and aggression in the human female, as well as the female reproductive organs, are sexually dimorphic traits because of the presence of higher levels of circulating estrogens within the female bloodstream.

    In the final analysis, we can see that the notion that the average male is likely to be just as intelligent as the average female is a propagandistic falsehood based on the radical social constructionist interpretive framework of Marxist cultural anthropology. It is impossible to maintain such a ridiculous notion when one recognizes the fact that the average male is about as likely to share equal intelligence with the average female as plants are likely to share the same anatomical structural isomorphism with mammalian species. The statistical tabulation of the probability that males have a 55% chance of having a greater likelihood of being more intelligent than the average female leads to the higher probability that males will be more intelligent than females. This is almost simultaneously translated into average male intelligence being considerably than average levels of female mental capacity.Thus, if males have a 55% probability of being more intelligent than the average woman and females have a 45% probability of being more intelligent than the average man, it follows that this directly leads, by logical extension, to more average men being significantly more intelligent than greater numbers of average women; the higher the probability that a certain proportion of men will be more intelligent than 100% of women means a substantially larger number of average men who are more intelligent than average women; this in turn leads to higher levels of overall male intelligence in relation to the female. In short, it is virtually impossible to deny the existence of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence. The above statistical computations yield but one conclusion only: it reveals that most men, atleast on average, are smarter than most women.

    For further information on female intellectual inferiority, this excellent link is highly recommended:

    http://iqcomparisonsite.com/SexDifferences.aspx

    Ergo, women have lower intelligence than men.”

    Ergo, what does Will Fareel and the author of this monstrosity have in common?

  18. Richie said

    I’ve just been informed that women can’t be proper fans of anything (because men inherently possess some obsession-gene) and that they’re crap at video games AND sport because they “lack spatial awareness”.

  19. bellatrys said

    I’ve just been informed that women can’t be proper fans of anything (because men inherently possess some obsession-gene) and that they’re crap at video games AND sport because they “lack spatial awareness”.

    You know, after trying to explain to a customer at the print shop I worked at ten years ago who was a doctor or something important like that, for the fourth time, why I couldn’t take his square originals and enlarge them on to a rectangular sheet of paper without a) white space on either side, b) significantly distorting the image by stretching it to fill the space, and having to c) actually stretch one so he’d understand what I was talking about because using words like “1-to-1 ratio vs 1-to-2 ratio” were simply not registering anywhere in his gray matter and neither was my holding up a ruler and showing how the geometry didn’t match up, I came to the conclusion this claim of superior male spatial relations was utter crap.

    Of course, I had my suspicious, given the number of times as a teenager that I’d been involved in disastrous or semi-disastrous attempts at moving furniture under the command of male relatives who didn’t seem able to make the mental correlation between h x w x d of furniture vis-a-vis dimensions of stairways/doorways/walls/windows/etc… Better at rotating objects in head? Not any guys that I know personally – at least, not the macho ones who insist on not listening to mere women! “Of course this giant steel desk will fit around that corner – urgh! oof! yargh! @#$%!”

  20. Richie said

    I can confirm I’m really, really bad at Tetris.

  21. bellatrys said

    I can confirm I’m really, really bad at Tetris.

    LOL! I’m good at it when the music is turned off – I’ve found that I respond *extremely* strongly to aural cues, to the point that I can’t concentrate at all on anything else when there’s suspenseful or scary – or *annoying* – music, so if I’m going to play video games where things are trying to get me (like Descent) then I have to turn the soundtrack off (but not the sound effects – I also need to have the windows open when I’m driving, even in winter, to better hear other cars and also the reflected sound from things along the road, or I start stressing out from lack of feedback).

    Like reading maps, I don’t think it’s a gender thing so much as a) lots of practice (I *used* to stink at map-reading, until I’d been a courier for several months!) and b) some individual “knack” just like with any body-mind coordination. Frex, I *can’t* do things well requiring fast eye-hand coordination over larger distances like ping-pong or tennis, my depth-perception is so bad and always has been due to acute myopia (my glasses prescriptions destroy focal plane length) and so I was always the Last Kid Picked on Girls’ Volleyball in gym, but up close I have pretty good reflexes, which is partly I think, innate. But mainly, I spent a LOT of time as a junior nerd making dioramas and building models, which, you know, requires a lot of prior mental rotating of parts vis-a-vis badly-drawn diagrams, to make them fit so you don’t get model cement where it will have to be sanded off…

    And there’s no No Girls Allowed rule about building model ships and airplanes!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37 other followers

%d bloggers like this: