Hair of the Dog

[CrystalShadow]

skim

Ah see I was under the impression the movie was exactly the same. That seems to be Bob's mantra. That puts it in a slightly different context. Still the "joke" is in the surprise isn't it? I mean I have nothing against them if they are upfront but they are existentially hiding something major about themselves. A popular theme on Law & Order is that some people are gay but can't have sex unless on meth so they can blame it on the drugs. Maybe this is a similar thing? It was the drugs dude totally the drugs you know I'm not like that right?

While I'm not entirely clear about the overall point you're making here, the 'hiding something about yourself' problem has no obvious answer.
The nature of transsexuals makes being upfront and obvious about it kind of difficult. After all, you don't go announcing your gender and sexuality to everyone you meet right?

Trouble is, if a transsexual got what they wanted, you'd have no way of knowing they were one, even if you had sex with them.
That means they have to go out of their way to tell you something about themselves, because you'd never figure it out on your own.

That's a pretty difficult situation to be in. It's not 'hiding' something about yourself, so much as it is having to choose between people taking you at face value, or you having to explain to them what's going on.
Assuming they even know what you're saying.

If you tell someone you're a transsexual, I've found a lot of the time they don't actually know what you mean.
And typical explanations are frequently offensive, and don't mesh very well with how transsexuals think of themselves.

(Consider the psychological difference in perspective between thinking of yourself as a woman that happens to have a penis, VS a man pretending to be a woman. (or the reverse) - The second implies a kind of deceit that the first does not. - But, there we run into serious clashes in perspective between how transsexuals think about themselves, and how the rest of the world thinks about them.)

 

[Break]

Yes, I get it, Bob. You don't like that scene about the transexual hooker.

Could you please move on to something else that's wrong with the film? Like how Ken Jeong can go crawl in a hole and never come out?

Why? It's not a particularly interesting film. There's not a whole lot worth saying about it, and it's certainly not worth devoting an entire column listing specific examples of why the film isn't good, when he's already spent a video talking about it in broader terms. Conversely, the treatment of the transsexual prostitute in the movie is something that's already been brought up, is a strong illustration of the difference between the first movie and the sequel, and was a major topic of discussion and criticism in the comments of the review. He said it himself - if it didn't seem to warrant further discussion, then this week's column would've been About Critics Part 2. He didn't write this week's column because he was interested in further dissecting the nuanced cultural implications of The Hangover 2, he wrote this week's column as a response to his viewers.

Also, even if you find the topic dull and uninteresting, is it really beyond your abilities to understand that the dehumanisation of transsexuals is, in fact, a real problem that hurts people in a very real way? That it deserves, if nothing else, to be talked about? Or is your thought process really so simple as "I don't care, therefore, it doesn't matter"?

 

[Azaraxzealot]

This is a really well-reasoned point, entirely correct, and will clear a lot of things up.

Unless, of course, the people freaking out about your review are doing so because they are secretly homophobic themselves and don't want to admit it...

well that's the catch-22 of it isn't it?
you don't agree, you're homophobic.
you agree, and you hate the movie.

in any case, i won't be seeing it simply because i have yet to see any comedy movie POSSIBLY have a good sequel.

 

[Coldster]

Wow, I'm still in awe after reading that. Couldn't be said better Bob!

 

[Avistew]

While I'm not entirely clear about the overall point you're making here, the 'hiding something about yourself' problem has no obvious answer.
The nature of transsexuals makes being upfront and obvious about it kind of difficult. After all, you don't go announcing your gender and sexuality to everyone you meet right?

I think their point was that Stu actually likes being sodomised but blames it on the drugs. The person hiding something in that case wouldn't be the transsexual, but Stu. It wouldn't seem that much of a stretch, as it's not uncommon for men to believe that if they like it, it makes them gay, even if they only like when it's a woman doing it.

I haven't see the movie, but I'm getting here that the transwoman is pre-op? I thought you said transgender if there hadn't been surgery and transsexual only if there had been. At any rate, I'm assuming it was a flesh penis and not a toy, as otherwise the woman being transsexual or not has no relevance at all.

I think to know if it's about transphobia, you'd need to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if it was a woman who wasn't trans who had pegged him.

Anyways, I agree with Bob's point. It doesn't really matter if Stu's reaction is realistic, this isn't a drama, it's a comedy. So it was supposed to be funny, and I don't see how it is. Either he genuinely feels violated and it's sad because it's nobody's fault (she did what he hired her for) or he's just being a douche and that's not funny either.

Actually, I have an equivalent to that. There are lots of "jokes" that are about a man happening to be naked and other characters going "ewww" or "I don't need to see this". And I'm always curious what's funny about that. The only thing it seems to say is that male bodies are apparently ugly, which I couldn't disagree with more, and that the characters are immature enough to still have a "eww" reaction about it instead of just not looking if they don't want to see it. But it seems to me it's a North American thing, I haven't really noticed that same attitude towards nudity here.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I was just going to agree with the point that there's a pretty big difference between being accepting of the LGBT community and a straight man unknowingly having sex with a transsexual, and it doesn't make someone a bigot if they freak out as a result.

That said, this thread has already been won.

Straight white male outraged at the insensitivity of society toward minority groups expresses his outrage to show how he is different and compassionate; Film at 11

EDIT: Yeah I personally would have freaked a bit, too. I know enough people that don't identify as heterosexual to know that it's absolutely not unusual to feel strange after doing something in bed that made you question your exact sexuality, I wouldn't have a nervous breakdown but I'm not going to sit around and say it wouldn't affect me.

 

[RTR]

Haven't seen Part II as of now.

Bob, what you're saying is that that particular scene would've been better if
1. Wasn't trying to be a re-hash of the same scene from Part I
2. Deliver the big reveal and then just get it over with; as in not turning the hooker into a de-humanized being by having Stu go nuts

Right?

 

[RTR]

Articles like these make me realize that I still have a lot to learn about how good movies are made.

 

[TheSnesDuckling]

This is the first time in my lifetime where I disagree with movie bob. I saw the movie with friends, and we all laughed. Stu had gay sex. He has a dem*cough* semen in him. It's FUNNY.

 

[brums405]

While I mostly agree, Bob, I think you might be missing what I found the coolest (for lack of a better word) part of that scene. I liked how the director tricked the audience into what amounts to a psychological mind-fuck by showing the strippers topless first. Leading the entirety of the audience to silently comment to themselves, "Now THOSE are some nice breasts" and then revealing that they are breasts attached to someone with a dick maybe me chuckle at all of the people having to face that unorthodox question: are those breasts still nice even on him/her?

It is unfortunate that it had to come at the expense of an entire sexual society, but that is comedy.

 

[TheKruzdawg]

Pro tip: if you're thinking of going to see hangover 2, save yourself a few quid by watching the dvd if the first one and squinting. it's indistinguishable

I completely agree with you. I saw it this weekend and I only remember laughing ONCE the entire movie, although I can't for the life of my remember what I laughed at, which says a lot about the quality of the movie. I immensely enjoyed the first one and still laugh at it, having seen it at least 5 or 6 times.

I'm really glad I didn't pay for my ticket, but feel kind of bad that someone else did.

 

[MB202]

I remember the Hooker from the first Hangover. She was probably my favorite character, next to Mike Tyson who's just awesome.

 

[irtaco]

Preach it, Father Bob!

 

[John Funk]

Straight white male outraged at the insensitivity of society toward minority groups expresses his outrage to show how he is different and compassionate; Film at 11

Orrrrr, how about speaking out about these things because they deserve to be spoken out against, no matter who you are?

Try to use your privilege for the benefit of others who lack it.

 

[incal11]

I was just going to agree with the point that there's a pretty big difference between being accepting of the LGBT community and a straight man unknowingly having sex with a transsexual, and it doesn't make someone a bigot if they freak out as a result.

That said, this thread has already been won.

Straight white male outraged at the insensitivity of society toward minority groups expresses his outrage to show how he is different and compassionate; Film at 11

Justified outrage belittled by short sighted bigots once again.

A society where whatever you slept with while high warrant equal amounts of freaking out would definitely be less bigotted. Sure, as you are now, with sexual orientation being such a big deal this may be hard to accept. But you just need to put things in perspective.
In a way Hangover2 to is a lot like those old movies who used to make stupid fun of blacks and asians. Hopefully future generations will distance themselves from that kind of movie the same way we distanced ourselves from these old movies.

 

[CrystalShadow]

While I'm not entirely clear about the overall point you're making here, the 'hiding something about yourself' problem has no obvious answer.
The nature of transsexuals makes being upfront and obvious about it kind of difficult. After all, you don't go announcing your gender and sexuality to everyone you meet right?

I think their point was that Stu actually likes being sodomised but blames it on the drugs. The person hiding something in that case wouldn't be the transsexual, but Stu. It wouldn't seem that much of a stretch, as it's not uncommon for men to believe that if they like it, it makes them gay, even if they only like when it's a woman doing it.

I haven't see the movie, but I'm getting here that the transwoman is pre-op? I thought you said transgender if there hadn't been surgery and transsexual only if there had been. At any rate, I'm assuming it was a flesh penis and not a toy, as otherwise the woman being transsexual or not has no relevance at all.

I think to know if it's about transphobia, you'd need to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if it was a woman who wasn't trans who had pegged him.

Anyways, I agree with Bob's point. It doesn't really matter if Stu's reaction is realistic, this isn't a drama, it's a comedy. So it was supposed to be funny, and I don't see how it is. Either he genuinely feels violated and it's sad because it's nobody's fault (she did what he hired her for) or he's just being a douche and that's not funny either.

Actually, I have an equivalent to that. There are lots of "jokes" that are about a man happening to be naked and other characters going "ewww" or "I don't need to see this". And I'm always curious what's funny about that. The only thing it seems to say is that male bodies are apparently ugly, which I couldn't disagree with more, and that the characters are immature enough to still have a "eww" reaction about it instead of just not looking if they don't want to see it. But it seems to me it's a North American thing, I haven't really noticed that same attitude towards nudity here.

Ok, that makes a bit more sense as to what the situation was about.

As to the terms transgender & transsexual, they're a bit messed up in how they get used, so don't expect an entirely consistent usage.

In general though, transgender is kind of a catch-all term for a lot of different issues and things that might be going on. It includes transsexuals, and a whole lot of people that for one reason or another don't comfortably fit into gender norms.

A transsexual is specifically someone who thinks they are the opposite sex, whether or not they've had surgery, or anything else. (Technical medical definitions mean it actually only applies to someone who has a strong enough feeling to want surgery. If that's not the case it's usually referred to as gender disphoria)

Basically though, a pre-op transwoman isn't transgender, she's still a transsexual. It's based on intent, not the physical situation.

A transsexual will, circumstances permitting, want hormone treatment and surgery. A transgender person may not necessarily want any kind of treatment at all.

 

[ManInRed]

The French Mistake is inherently funny; it's your basic situational humor where one character is hurt emotionally due to an event that is unexpected. And like most situational humor, the individual who is hurt is enough of a jerk that the audience doesn't feel bad at laughing at their pain. By giving away the surprise to the joke, Bob has essentially killed whatever punch line the joke had. Though, it's probably safe to say Yasmine Lee is more famous than MovieBob, and considering we're also dealing with a Bangkok hooker, I don't this it's much of a spoiler, so I'll let that slide.

Now, not seeing the actual scene in question, I can't argue it wasn't done in an offensive way. It doesn't take much imagination to see how someone could screw up making that joke funny. Transgender people are one of the few groups still made into minstrel shows. But I don't think this type of joke is inherently offensive or meant to be made disgusting to audiences. There's a large gap between the podium scene is Policy Academy and the apple pie scene in American Pie.

I'm actually a little impress a movie like Hangover 2 actually cast a real she-male porn star into their film. Whatever treatment the character actual got in the film, allowing a transgender to play the role of a transgender openly, is more than I'd expect from a main stream male targeted comedy to do. Getting her penis out there for everyone to see encourages discussion to segment of society people often ignore exists, though the impact of that is obviously lessen by setting the story outside of America.

It's also important to remember that this joke is kind of on the audience, or at least on audience members that would be disgusted or respond with negative comments. Because those are naturally the funniest people to get to question their sexuality, when they realized they were fooled. Still, I have a hard time seeing anything wrong with this sort of "exhibitionist transgender fooling straight men" joke, as it is being done by individuals that want nothing more than to be accepted as a gender that doesn't match the genitals they've been given. And every time the joke succeeds in making people laugh or get outraged, that means for a few minutes they succeeded in getting people to accept them as a woman. Flashing their cock to piss off bigots who hate them is probably just the icing on the cake for them.

 

[Mister Linton]

I was just going to agree with the point that there's a pretty big difference between being accepting of the LGBT community and a straight man unknowingly having sex with a transsexual, and it doesn't make someone a bigot if they freak out as a result.

That said, this thread has already been won.

Straight white male outraged at the insensitivity of society toward minority groups expresses his outrage to show how he is different and compassionate; Film at 11

Justified outrage belittled by short sighted bigots once again.

A society where whatever you slept with while high warrant equal amounts of freaking out would definitely be less bigotted. Sure, as you are now, with sexual orientation being such a big deal this may be hard to accept. But you just need to put things in perspective.
In a way Hangover2 to is a lot like those old movies who used to make stupid fun of blacks and asians. Hopefully future generations will distance themselves from that kind of movie the same way we distanced ourselves from these old movies.

Because in your magical fairytale politically correct future everyone is bisexual and doesn't think it makes a difference which gender they sleep with while intoxicated?

 

[InsomniJack]

Why? It's not a particularly interesting film. There's not a whole lot worth saying about it, and it's certainly not worth devoting an entire column listing specific examples of why the film isn't good, when he's already spent a video talking about it in broader terms. Conversely, the treatment of the transsexual prostitute in the movie is something that's already been brought up, is a strong illustration of the difference between the first movie and the sequel, and was a major topic of discussion and criticism in the comments of the review. He said it himself - if it didn't seem to warrant further discussion, then this week's column would've been About Critics Part 2. He didn't write this week's column because he was interested in further dissecting the nuanced cultural implications of The Hangover 2, he wrote this week's column as a response to his viewers.

Also, even if you find the topic dull and uninteresting, is it really beyond your abilities to understand that the dehumanisation of transsexuals is, in fact, a real problem that hurts people in a very real way? That it deserves, if nothing else, to be talked about? Or is your thought process really so simple as "I don't care, therefore, it doesn't matter"?

And yet, he did further dissect the nuanced cultural implications of The Hangover 2 and it just happens to be catagorized as a response to his viewers. Though I appreciated his view on Las Vegas, his issue with the second movie seemed to be focused upon that one scene. Even if he finds the other jokes simple re-hashes in a contest to one-up the previous film, it certainly wouldn't be difficult to mention other aspects of the film. Like character performances. Are they pretty much the same as the previous movie, or are they worse? Do the supporting cast live up to the three main characters, or are they just about ignored after the plot gets underway? Are the guest stars just a waste of time? And how about runtime? Is the banality of the film further accentuated by how long it is? Is the ending horrible? I understand that this film probably didn't warrant much words to say about it, but the way that it's delivered, it feels like Bob gets hung up on one scene and condemns the movie because of it. Again, this is not what's really happening, but how it appears to be happening.

Also, I believed he already did talk about the problem with the portrayal of the transexual: in the video. Rather extensively. So much so that I felt he had said his piece as much as was necessary in that video. Coming back to it again just further drives that appearance of damning a movie simply because it had a scene that he didn't agree with, and tacking a "it's a re-hash of old, stale jokes" along with it. If he feels that the movie is a waste of time, then it's surely not unreasonable to ask what else is wrong with the film other than what he calls into attention. Or do I simply need to go to another critic to get my answer?

Finally, I would ask that you please not assume what is "beyond my abilities to understand", as well as the connotations of my very few words by using such terms as "dull" and "uninteresting", when you know quite well that I've never even said anything to that degree. Just because I say few words does not mean I haven't chosen them carefully.