Wedding Crashers

by **FourthBase** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:45 am

Saw this for the first time this weekend. Some of Vaughn's relationship advice scenes are funny, the rest of it wasn't funny. Anyone else see this movie as a laughless yet absurdist spy allegory? The dossiers, the role playing, the quest to infiltrate. Even had a subtext of child sex blackmail: every scene involving Vince Vaughn and the "zany" girl seemed to imply that she's a child. Also note the possible allusion to 9/11: The Wedding. Crash. Wedding Crashers.

by **FourthBase** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:05 am

Has no one else seen this movie? I'm 100% serious about this. It's not a simple comedy.

by **FourthBase** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:16 pm

Plot involves the marriage between two powerful families: The Clearys and the Lodges. Clearance...Masonic Lodge? Repeated shots of the Washington monument. "Grab that net and catch that beautiful butterfly, pal!" Butterfly = Monarch? "She had to have her sweet sixteen on her thirteenth birthday!" They even go on a quail hunt. And Vaughn gets shot in the ass. There's mention of "The Most Dangerous Game". <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Jeremy Grey: That'd be awesome. We could get something like big game. Even like a gorilla or a rhinoceros or a fucking human being! That'll get you jacked up. John Beckwith: That's a little heavy. Jeremy Grey: I mean like, hunt a human being right now, "Most Dangerous Game". Like a worthy adversary. Not a human being that's armed, but a clever, a clever, human being who knows the jungle. Or the woods.<hr></blockquote>

by **sunny** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:02 pm

I saw it, and frankly thought it was very un-funny. I didn't even finish watching it. But, FourB, I think you are on to something. Could this dim-witted comedy really be trying to tell us something? What? Is it just an inside joke, ha ha, see what they are up to? Or is it "hey folks, open your eyes?"

by **professorpan** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:41 pm

This is another example of looking for things that aren't there. Just one exampe -- the reference to "The Most Dangerous Game." The original film was produced in the 1930s, and was based on a short story. There's plot device has been used over and over again since then in TV shows and films. When we filter everything through conspiracy lenses, everything becomes part of the conspiracy, including bad comedies and animated children's movies.

by **JerkyLeBoeuf** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:47 pm

I thought it was pretty funny, actually. Not a screamer, but a pleasant waste of two hours. Although I'm pretty sensitive to esoteric thematic subplots in film, I didn't spot any in this one, at first glance. And the examples you cited have failed to sway me.

by **Ted the dog** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:05 pm

I saw this movie. There were some funny parts, but I thought it was pretty bad. it seemed rushed, and it could have been better. I didn't really pick up on any weird symbolism....but one thing I did notice (maybe this is off-topic here), is that the direction (most of the time) is HORRIBLE. Watch it again and notice how almost every single scene in the entire movie is made up of quick jump-cuts: VAUGHN: Hey Buddy! WILSON: Yeah! VAUGHN: Crazy!! WILSON: Fuckin' A!! ...but imagine that dialogue going on for 15 minutes straight and NEVER seeing the two characters on the screen at the same time. it's just constant jumps, back and forth...as if Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson weren't even on the same set for the scenes. It's really distracting. once you realize it, you can't not notice it. Personally, I didn't understand at all why the movie took place in DC and was set against the backdrop of the political world. it's not like it was really necessary. they could have easily staged the film in LA or NYC against the backdrop of snobby socialite bullshit. Also, check the scenes in Washington DC...I think all the environments and the backgrounds are CGI, although I may be wrong. they look too fake and everything is an un-natural pinkish yellow. Just another weird "why was this so poorly made?" log to toss on the Wedding Crashers fire.

by **FourthBase** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Personally, I didn't understand at all why the movie took place in DC and was set against the backdrop of the political world. it's not like it was really necessary.<hr></blockquote> Exactly. The very beginning of the movie is about them crashing weddings, then the rest of it -- most of it -- is about their interactions with a presidential candidate's family. Next time anyone watches the movie just imagine that it's an absurdist allegory about two CIA agents infiltrating various countries then infiltrating a presidential inner circle which compromises them with, among other things, child rape blackmail.

by **Ted the dog** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:55 pm

I will say, Fourth, that the transition from child-like teenage appearance to full grown woman in regards to the redheaded actress was pretty extreme. you really couldn't tell how old she was through the initial scenes....she really did seem like a 12 year old child. then all of a sudden, surprise! "I was bullshitting you about being a virgin..." and she's depicted as a full grown woman. That was a little strange, I have to admit. I think the movie has a very "off-putting" vibe to it in general.

by **FourthBase** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:03 am

Ted, remember that scene where she pouts and stomps her feet?

by **Ted the dog** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:35 pm

sorry for the late reply, but yes, that's actually the scene that I vividly remember thinking, "Weird...she seems like a 12 year old...". I re-watched this movie the other night and while I still can't say I see the connections, I do think it's a strange movie.

by **FourthBase** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Just one exampe -- the reference to "The Most Dangerous Game." The original film was produced in the 1930s, and was based on a short story. There's plot device has been used over and over again since then in TV shows and films.<hr></blockquote> I get your point, Pan, but this reference occurred in the context of a quail hunt involving a presidential candidate, in a movie that sometimes seems to suggest child rape blackmail. Remember that not only does the immature "woman" seem to be portrayed as a child, but she ties Vaughn up to the bedposts, sexes him up, and later her disturbed brother (who also seems to be childish) comes in and sexes him up. The reaction of Walken when he walks in is weirder than your average Walken weirdness, as he reminds Vaughn that he's a very powerful man. Then you have the black servant who offers Vaughn the grandmother, the dog... What gets me is the characters' strange mix of obliviousness and awareness.

by **robertdreed** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:39 am

Oh, come on...put your attention as conspiracy sniffers somewhere else besides movies, television, video games, and fiction. The writers of Wedding Crashers are simply hip to the Zeitgeist of Elite Deviance, that's all. There's so much provocative symbolism around in films, television, comedy, and films because it's reflecting society, albeit in an exaggerated form that makes for more of an entertainment experience. Reflecting reality, not creating it. Unless you're so weak-minded that you take all of your cues from mass media enterprises. ( Whether it's the Catholic League of Decency, the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, the Mad Mullahs of Theocratistan, or the Left Political Correctness Bureau, I swear, when it comes to hunting "pernicious, anti-social, and parasitic" subtexts, it's all the same can of worms... ) If you want serious, go to the library, not to the mall court cinema. Find some history, and book it. Speaking of non-fiction, anyone else out there read the book Overworld? (Edit: I've disabled the following link, because some of you might not want to follow the path to it through RI. The author is CIA, and one of Adnan Khashoggi's sons-in-law. Not that there's anything wrong with that... larryjkolb.com ) ( And no, I don't want to get into a wrangle with some post-modernist on the ambiguous nature of the divide between "fiction" and "non-fiction"...I've been through that. ) Also on my recent loan list: American Dynasty, by Kevin Phillips The Family, by Kitty Kelley Fortunate Son, by James Hatfield Osama Bin Laden, by Yusef Bodansky American Gulag, by Mark Dow Down By The River, by Charles Bowden Fooling America, by Robert Parry ( by the way, there's a great recent Parry article here <a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032106M.shtml">www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032106M.shtml</a> ) Then there are my thrift store purchases, like Sufism In Action: Achievement, Inspiration, and Integrity In A Tough World, by H. J. Witteveen, "former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund"...who knew? Haven't read it yet, just leafed through it a little. Read. THEN go see a movie. I recommend Dave Chappelle's Block Party, which isn't a comedy routine movie, it's a concert movie. As good as Monterey Pop, or Festival Express, in my opinion. Highly recommended. But read some books, first. ( That is, if your eyes haven't atrophied from squinting at low-resolution slo-mo digital video clips of highly uncertain provenance purporting to provide clinching evidence that God is Mickey Mouse, etc... ) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 3/25/06 9:26 am

by **FourthBase** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:33 am

Great recommendations, Robert. Thank you. But the placement is a little -- how shall I say? -- obnoxious! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b"> I just happened to see this movie that all my friends love. Woop dee fucking doo. Back on topic... Now is there ANYONE ELSE who saw Wedding Crashers? Anyone besides the people who've already posted?

by **robertdreed** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:04 am

I loved the movie, myself. Finding the chinks in the armor of Privilege and running with it- that's what I call fun. A tactic the Resistance should embrace, not recoil from. I thought all of the female leads were hot- and there was a sexy middle-aged woman character, instead of making it all about ingenues. And eventually, the writers even slipped a morality fable or three in there. Sort of like "Tom Jones" meets "The Confessions of St. Augustine." next...