Well first of all, I think the characters are supposed to be older than that. Paul Rudds character says “he’s like 10 years older than us”. Which would place them at around 30-ish (Rudd is 36 IRL). The characters in Old School are all in their 30s. Sandler’s character in Big Daddy “applied for Social Security at age [30 something]”.
Yes, the characters all ring true. I’ve spent most of my adult life in Boston and New York. That’s what young people do there. They go out drinking until 4am with their buddies and try to pick up girls. Some people never stop doing this.
Another thing that 20 somethings are supposed to do is figure out what they want to do with their lives. Do they want to have careers, get married, buy a home, whatever? These characters don’t. They avoid responsibility and just retreat deeper into a frat house style existance of getting baked or drunk at every opportunity as if they were still in a college environment.
Which is not to say those movies aren’t funny as shit. But I think that unlike movies like *Singles *where the characters are trying to come to terms with adulthood, these characters avoid it.
But how long can a society exist like that? Is it good for society in the long run?
Old School was written as a funny parallel to Fight Club. Both share themes of retreating from the tedium and disappointment of adult life into a fantasy world.
Then I must say, I totally disagree with your defintion of a “man-boy”. It should be more than they go out drinking with their buddies and try to pick up girls. The supporting characters in 40 Year Old Virgin are far, far, far different that Adam Sandler in Billy Madison or Chris Farley in Tommy Boy. They do have jobs and say it isn’t a “real job” is borderline offensive to those who have worked for years as retail store clerks. The fact that they don’t have a family life doesn’t mean that they are in a state of arrested development. Far from it.
They’re supposed to, sure, but the fact is that plenty of people don’t do that. Maybe it’s immature, but it’s how some people live. I don’t think it’s arrested development, it’s how things play out.
So I got two guys about the same age. One has a family, a house and a career while the other lives with three guys, goes clubbing every night until 3am and sleeps with every woman he sees? Which one would you characterize as “mature”?
What makes these characters man-boys is not just that they drink excessively or womanize (in the adult world that is often known as an alchoholic). It’s that they display a lack of maturity or judgement in nearly every aspect of their lives. They are aimless and unmotivated. They blow off work like it was sociology class. They speak and act and dress in a juvenile manner. They have juvenile interests and hobbies. They make innappropriate comments. They often hang out with college students even though they are years out of school. They use drugs excessively. The get themselves into or create situations that IRL someone at that age should recognize as dangerous and/or illegal.
All these characters usually do have jobs or careers though. Big Daddy was a lawyer. Harold & Khumar were an investment banker annalyst and a potential med school candidate. Even Tommy Callihan worked for the company.
But basically I think the appeal of these movies is that they appeal to the immature kid in all of us who would secretly still rather be doing beer funnels than going to work.
:dubious: Of course it’s good for society in the long run, for large numbers of people to spend many years trying out different things, and thinking hard and deep about what life choices will make them happy (and maybe be best for society), like Eric Foreman does; rather than just dropping into whatever slot might be available for them to make a living after high school, like Red Foreman did.
And yes, that does include getting stoned, drinking heavily, hanging out in strip clubs, avoiding steady employment, and generally acting like an immature and irresponsible “man-boy” (or “woman-girl”). All better for society, in the long run. May we never again have a society where such behavior is unacceptable, let alone impossible!
As Marley23 pointed out how does immaturity (or percieved immaturity) equal ‘arrested development’? Arrested development means far more than simply immaturity. Arrested development is not simply immaturity, but extreme immaturity. You’ll note in dictionaries, immaturity doesn’t show up as a synonym for arrested development.
One can even argue that certain individuals that you look at are actually more mature than those with a family, house, and career. The one with the family, and the house, and the career has conformed to society, while the the ones who hang out with their friends and don’t treat work all that seriously have rejected that societal entrapment. Sure, some of them, like Billy Madison are just simply kid-like half-retards. But others, like, say, Harold & Kumar are nothing like that. They have the skills, the smarts, and career (well one of them), but they don’t want to be like their fathers. You can argue juvenile, but on some level, their rejection of traditional notions of what your life to be is quite admirable.
While watching the 40 Year Old virgin, I didn’t come away from the movie saying any of them were in a state of arrested development or, even, juvenile (except Andy, who you can say is in a state of arrested development). They were just normal guys, who liked to hang out and drink. They went to work and did their jobs. They don’t care about work, but then most people hate their jobs. They do drugs, but so what? I don’t recall anyone of the supporting actors getting so drunk they couldn’t distinguish between their asses and their heads (the supporting actresses, on the other hand…). None of them hang out with college students. And as for ‘innapropriate comments’, if you’ve ever hung out with a bunch of guys who were close, no matter what the age, 17-70, you’ll hear more than your share of innapropriate comments and/or jokes.
Well put. At some point we have to question whether unthinkingly following familial or societal notions of what your life should be is really ‘mature’. Or does that display an even greater immaturity (like a child you do what your are told).
One thing I liked about the 40-Year-Old Virgin was that Andy was a really together guy, despite his issues and lack of experience with relationships. He had his hobbies like playing video games and collecting action figures, but really, how is that “bad” or “weird” compared to adult males who play golf or watch sports or work on their cars? It doesn’t fit into a traditional adult male role, but I never thought there was anything wrong with him as a result. He also worked out and kept himself in good shape, maintained his appearance (even if he lacked “cool” fashion sense), was a good cook, friendly to his neighbors, and a reliable employee at work. While the movie could have gone for mean-spirited Farrelly Brothers-style humor by portraying virginal Andy as a pathetic loser, I think they created a character that was content to be who he was, and was a pretty good guy, all things considered. His friends were all pretty good guys too (despite some faults), and completely normal, compared to most late-20s/early-30s people I’ve ever known.
I think you’re supposed to feel that Andy has made those hobbies fill gaps in his life in a way that’s not crazy or anything, but not entirely healthy. And he’s sort of in arrested development in regard to women - he had that one bad experience when he was young and that was it. Other than that, I don’t think the label applies. He’s made to seem kind of childlike because on top of the sexual stuff, he’s a straightforward, innocent, naive kind of guy. But like you, I’m glad there was actually more to his character.
Harold and Kumar… isn’t a “man-boy” movie and it isn’t a stoner movie. It’s a race movie (although it does have a stoner premise). The positions that Harold and Kumar find themselves in with regards to money, responsibility, adulthood and expectations are ones that are common among young Asian-Americans. The Asian idea of what people should be living like in their twenties is pretty different than the American view, and HAKGTWC explores the places in between that people like H&K live in.
Of course, it’s also a silly comedy and most of the scenes don’t have a deep point to them. But the Asian-American experience is a major theme.
Were we watching the same movie? What I found most notable was that Harold and Kumar were thoroughly culturally assimilated. They acted and spoke and thought exactly like middle-class Anglo-American white boys of the same age – a point driven home when Kumar is confronted by his father, who still carried his Indian accent. And (unlike the scene in Fargo, where Chief Gunderson interviews a childhood friend of hers who looks Japanese but talks like an Upper-Midwestern Scandahoovian) there was really no sense of disconnect. H&K belong. The whole film is about their pursuit of their stoner interpretation of the American Dream: Getting exactly what you want! You wanna eat at White Castle? Yeah! Let’s spend the whole night having adventures in quest of a White Castle!
Hmm. I detect at least three sub-categories here. One is the simple “prolonged adolescence” movie. The appeal seems pretty obvious – flattering somewhat-immature guys by showing juvenile behavior by middle-aged men as hilarious.
Then there are movies that use the “childlike innocent” as a storytelling device (seeing the world through the unspoiled eyes of a child, etc.). Big comes to mind.
Finally, there are the odd depictions of actual mental retards. This, in my mind, sets Gump apart from most of the other examples cited. Although I forget what the explanation was for Sandler’s various idiot man-boy characters – was their an implicit suggestion of mental defectiveness? These are weird because they can’t always decide whether to mine the retardation for humor, pathos, inspiration, or something else. And if they go for inspiration, will it be treacly and unrealistic?
[hijack]How realistic is it for someone to superficially look and act normal but be “retarded?” Most of the retarded people I’ve come across have Down’s or another pretty-visible manifestation. The movie retards, though, are normal-looking-and-acting but we’re just supposed to believe they’re really stupid (yet functional). Gump is one example that comes to mind, also Charlize Theron’s recent guest stint on Arrested Development[/hijack]
I’m trying to think of additional female equivalents to the “childlike adult.” Wasn’t Sarah Jessica Parker’s character in L.A. Story kind of in that vein? Clearly, though, it’s perceived as funnier for some reason when it’s a guy.
Well, Forrest Gump is not actually retarded – just a temperamentally incurious person of dull-normal intelligence (IQ about 80, IIRC); which is how his mother (after applying strong persuasion to the principal ) manages to get him educationally mainstreamed. I think Hanks looks right enough for the part, as does the younger actor (forget his name) who plays Forrest as a boy.
In both Swingers and Free Enterprise, the men don’t really approach women with any sort maturity.
A few weeks ago, at a Christmas party I met this great woman, who unfortunately there with her boyfriend. I left at about the same time they left and I walked in on her boyfriend and the host, another guy, talking about a girl the host liked and they were arranging for the guest to ask her if she liked him etc. etc…
As the three of us walked out she commented.
“You guys are such girls!”
Then in a teen-girl voice
“Does she like me? Do you think she likes me? Will you write her a note?”
Then back to her own voice
"Just ask her out for Christ sake, what’s the worst that could happen?’
So I started in with the "public humiliation and stuff and she responded.
“You know we all grew up and are like 30 now?”
Then there is the fact that the men in Swingers are not really advancing in their careers, but don’t seem to be too bothered to do much about it.
Were we watching the same movie? What I found most notable was that Harold and Kumar were thoroughly culturally assimilated. They acted and spoke and thought exactly like middle-class Anglo-American white boys of the same age – a point driven home when Kumar is confronted by his father, who still carried his Indian accent. And (unlike the scene in Fargo, where Chief Gunderson interviews a childhood friend of hers who looks Japanese but talks like an Upper-Midwestern Scandahoovian) there was really no sense of disconnect. H&K belong. The whole film is about their pursuit of their stoner interpretation of the American Dream: Getting exactly what you want! You wanna eat at White Castle? Yeah! Let’s spend the whole night having adventures in quest of a White Castle!
) manages to get him educationally mainstreamed. I think Hanks looks right enough for the part, as does the younger actor (forget his name) who plays Forrest as a boy.