That depends on how much respect that have for their subject - it’ll dictate how much work they’ll put into making sure they know what they’re talking about.
I thought that segment was much cleverer the way it was originally written (starting @ page 78 (warning, pdf)), and made more sense in the context of the scene.
I am white. I did not particularly like the macho-black Jay scene because it wasn’t funny. But the point of Jay’s character is to be a negative counterpoint to the hero. Andy’s friends in this movie are supposed to represent negative male qualities. The point is that a sweet, friendly guy who actually respects women has taken that positive trait and obsessed upon it so hard that it messed his life up.
We’re supposed to see the other guys that work at the store as people who are ahead of Andy by traditional male standards but way behind him in the standards that appeal to the filmmaker, and should to us. Jay is a man trapped by what he feels a man should be, a macho player who is covering up his sensitivity because he feels like he has to behave in a certain manner.
I’d be willing to bet that Apatow encouraged Malco to explore those feelings and act them out in a way that meant something to him as a black man, in the course of letting the role grow to fit the actor. To me the ridiculous stereotypes that Malco portrays speak to his personal discomfort with those stereotypes. We’re not supposed to like it when he behaves that way. I tend to agree that the scene fails as comedy, but as a commentary I think it works.
It’s a difficult question, because I don’t think that we’ll get to the point when a nuanced black character is a mainstream thing until we become comfortable with a negative portrayal. But I see the point that this could prolong the negative stereotypes, so it is very complicated. If you go too far in one direction, you see nothing but the Morgan Freeman-type wise old magic black character and nothing else, and I think we’d agree that this is itself a very limiting type.
I was always impressed with the black characterization (and white) in The Wire, a show which deals head-on with the fact that in their structure the criminal element is predominately black, but managed to characterize and nuance the entire cast in a way that rings true.
I have to agree.
I get that, but his character was portrayed in a hackneyed manner only because he was black. And so were the other black characters.
Ugh. I wonder if Mindy Kaling was was asked to act out the feelings of being stalked by an obsessive ex in a way that meant something to her as an Indian-American.
It works perfectly as a commentary - I understood their perception of blacks quite clearly. I just don’t think it’s a valid one.
What!? Why?
It’s not that complicated. There are already nuanced black characters in mainstream productions. The only ones struggling with this are hacks.
If you go too far in the direction of making black characters nuanced, they’ll end up one-dimensional. How does that make sense?
Poorly worded- I’m just saying that a sensitivity (among creators) about having a black character be anything other than an hilarious stereotype or a saint reduces nuance. I believe that that oversensitivity is the real issue.
It is odd, as you note, that a person is thought of as a “black character” at all, instead of just a character. Denzel Washington seems to have escaped that. I thought Forrest Whitaker’s character in The Shield was a good example too, that character had nothing to do with race. I don’t know, I’m just armchair quarterbacking.
You don’t have to be sensitive, all you have to do is tell the truth. Don’t tell us something that you’ve only seen in the movies or in a rap song, or halfway overheard, because it’ll invariably come off that way in the final product. And don’t overstate a particular characterization either. If that’s all you know, then realize the boundaries of your knowledge and let someone else tell it.
Yeah. But a character’s race can also factor into his portrayal without being hackneyed or ringing false.
So is the problem that there weren’t more black characters? I would think that would make him stand out MORE as a stereotype, if there were many other black characters who didn’t offend you. But I am coming to believe that there is no way to truly please you here, because you have an answer for everything and no amount of logic can “unoffend” someone.
I didn’t see him as any more excitable than Paul Rudd’s character, more angry than the Indian guy, more macho than Seth Rogan’s character. I just don’t. All the characters in this movie are flawed. As for talking slang, that was a choice made by Malco, and it was pretty funny.
I don’t think he embodies black man stereotypes per se. He embodies the player stereotype, which he puts a black spin on because of the actor’s choices.
It’s about a white dorky virgin surrounded by non-dorky non-virgins, all with severe relationship issues/problems with women. Jay embodied one type of screwed up male attitude, one that I don’t think is confined to or defined by blackness. It feels like you’re choosing to make this a racial issue when race is incidental to the character. YMMV, but I think there are far worse examples of racism in film than those you’re pointing out in 40 Year Old Virgin.
Oh please. I already said he didn’t offend me. And the above logic makes no sense. Take the attitude somewhere else and then talk to me.
pizzabrat is obviously offended, and you clearly have a problem or you wouldn’t be making an argument. Really, I think I have less attitude than you do. I don’t have to “take it” anywhere. It’s already where it belongs, since this is the Pit. Love it or leave it, asshole-- people are going to disagree with you, people are going to point out illogic when they see it.
Apatow can’t win-- if he wrote Jay, it’s lazy writing. If the actor adlibbed, he’s allowing him to promulgate racial stereotypes and should correct the actor. Truly, no way to please you unless the character is written by you, to conform to your ideas of how a black character should be. Thus, your criticisms aren’t really substantive IMO.
Plus, Apatow’s style is also one of guiding the actors, but letting them have a lot of fun and improvise. The characters in Undeclared were basically exaggerated versions of the actors playing them. Need he abandon that style just in case one actor might do something some people might consider offensive sometime?
Consider it a critique, if you will. People can find fault in something without being offended. I believe that the Jay character could have been handled better by the director. Big fucking deal. If you’re seeing passion and red hot flames of anger in my post, it’s only because you’re imagining it.
Really? It wasn’t me who went all personal with the " I am coming to believe that there is no way to truly please you" ying yang, was it? That’s the attitude that I’m talking about and I haven’t the patience to deal with it right now.
Newsflash: He’s an artist. Artists get critiqued.
Here you go again with the personal shit.
Look, you disagree with my position. I disagree with yours. I contend that the portrayal of Jay takes on a racial flavor when he’s the only main black character in a predominately white cast and his behavior conforms to played-out black stereotypes. If there were other blacks in the cast to balance him out, then he would come off as less like a schtick and I would find less of a problem with that character. That’s all.
I just want to make a small tangent here. Was that second “The Office” intentional? Did you mean to say “several other Office cast members”? I don’t know whether this issue has enough legs for a new thread.
Christ, I don’t know what to say other than repeat myself. I tried to shield myself from being pigeon-holed from the start but I guess it’s futile with discussions like this.
First of all, that little dichotomy doesn’t even make sense - yes, the movie’s already made, he can’t win now. Second, when did I say that my problem with the film is that it was promulgating racial stereotypes? My problem is with his hackneyed, cliched performance in a movie by a director known for eschewing lazy, chiched characterizations, and further annoyed the hackiness was race-based.
Is that really what we’ve been talking about the whole time?
Can someone please indicate which scene this links to? The video has been taken down. I’m a bit astonished, given all the discussion here, that none of the posts have given a clue regarding which scene this is.
Huh, that’s funny. It’s the scene where Jay and a black customer argue.
Thanks.
The dichotomy doesn’t make sense, but the problem with it is with your argument. The title of the thread is bitching about Apatow’s writing. It has been compellingly suggested that Apatow didn’t write the Jay stuff that is bothering you. Have you withdrawn your criticism of Apatow’s writing and criticized Malco instead? Nope, it’s still Apatow’s fault.
You insist that Jay’s characteristics were race-based. Except for the scene where he confronts the black customer (which I did mention in my post), nothing Jay says or does seems black-specific to me. If you didn’t like that scene, OK, you’re entitled to your opinion. It didn’t seem that out of line to me, and there is MUCH worse writing of minorities out there. Also, your allegations of lazy writing and cliche don’t hold up if Apatow didn’t write that scene, but Malco did.
Aaaand you’re overreacting. Flames of anger? Where did I say that? I said you were offended. OK, you’re not. I still think your criticisms of 40YOV are pretty baseless. That better?
How the fuck is it personal? I don’t think that you can be satisfied. Even if Apatow didn’t write the lines for Jay that you don’t like, it’s still Apatow’s fault somehow. Please indicate how this is a personal attack. It’s an attack on your argument.
I only have one black co-worker at my job. Clearly Andy in 40YOV also only had one black co-worker in the movie. You didn’t like his portrayal, but saying Apatow should have had more black characters, and that’s the only way you could have approved of Jay, seems a bit ridiculous.