The Change-Up

Throughout the annals of filmdom we’ve seen the same plots repeated time and again.  After all, according to some, only so many plots actually exist.  Some critics and experts alike will tell you that there is only seven classical plots to work from, where others will claim that twenty actually exist.  The argument continues to this day.  This article is not actually concerned with semantics however.  I only mention this as a brief prelude to my examination of The Change-Up, the new comedy starring Jason Bateman and Ryan Reynolds, a film that takes a classic, if not overdone, premise and attempts to make it new again.

The basic plot in The Change-Up is the “literally walking a mile in someone else’s shoes” plot that we’ve seen numerous times before.  The premise is rather simple; you take two people with seemingly contrasting lives and/or systems of values, simultaneously wishing they had the others life, an action that prompts a flash of lightning of some sort, and voila, the next morning the two characters awake to find that they have traded bodies with one another.   A few examples of some films that use this plot structure are Freaky Friday (1976), starring Barbara Harris and Jodie Foster, or the remake in 2003, with Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan, It’s a Boy Girl Thing and Rob Schneider’s The Hot Chick.

The Change-Up, while using this plot structure, well, changes things up a bit.  The writers, most notably famous for The Hangover films, take the traditionally ordinary and turn it upside down, providing exaggerations that take things to whole new comedic levels.    A few examples:

1.            The opening scene shows Jason Bateman’s character, Dave Lockwood, doing the ordinary parental task of changing diapers.  While this sort of activity is something that most every parent has experienced at one time or another, and has been overdone in countless films, The Change-Up ups the ante here.  Dave has just finished changing the first of his twins, with the only misfortune being a dose of baby powder to the face.  After he places the second twin on the changing table though the diapers are kicked out of reach.  He makes the mistake of undoing the diaper on his son before picking up the clean ones.  As he stretches for the diapers he does the proper thing and keeps one hand on his son, securing him so that he wouldn’t fall.  Just before he was able to retrieve the clean diaper and get to his son, the child relieves himself, of course, with Dave’s face being its landing space.  Now this scene has happened over and over, but mainly in regards to urination, but even to the extent shown in last years Life As We Know It.  Here, in The Change-Up, we not only get the visuals seen in Katherine Heigl’s film, but also find out Dave’s entire face was painted, including the insides of his nostrils and into his mouth.  Forced to clean up, he uses the clean diaper he had just picked up, much to the delight of his child.

2.            Throughout film mythological figures have played their role, from curses to healing as well as for wishing.  The fountain has become the symbol for making wishes.  We’ve seen characters seeking health and prosperity drink water from fountains.  They’ve thrown coins in fountains for good luck.  We’ve seen coins taken from fountains, as a good luck charm, often resulting though in nothing but bad luck.  In The Change-Up however, we see Bateman and Reynolds characters urinating into a fountain.  At which point we knew nothing good could be in store for Mitch and Dave.

3.            Sexuality is also something frequently overdone in film.  It’s to a point though that we come to expect some element of this sort to appear to some degree, in any movie dealing with romance but especially in comedies.  While one night stands and illicit or forbidden attractions are commonplace in many instances throughout the history of film, the nuances within the realm of sexuality really hasn’t been touched upon as much as it has been the past few years.  Even with this said there’s not much one can do to surprise the audience these days.  In an age where information is so freely available many a previously taboo subject is now known by far-reaching segments of the population.  In The Change-Up though, many incidents play upon this and in so doing offer up, while not novel, a definite surprise in the manner that they came to be.  Here are three such moments:

A.            Mitch has a weekly scheduled rendezvous with Tatiana, every Tuesday at 3:00am.  Mitch talks her up big time, how he’s waited for so long to meet someone like her.   He begs Dave, who at this point is in Mitch’s body, to not screw this up for him.  When Tatiana arrives on schedule, we see this beautiful girl, dressed in nothing but a trench coat.  The internal confliction Dave was experiencing, as to whether or not having relations in Mitch’s body would be considered cheating on his wife, was all but gone the minute he opened the door and saw her, beautiful and eager to give herself completely over to him.  However, this idea of turning things up a notch is continued.  While at first we see a beautiful woman with a seemingly amazing figure ready to drop her trench coat and bring the fantasy to reality, we then see, after the coat has hit the floor, that this beautiful woman is nine months pregnant.  Not only is she pregnant but we also get a glimpse of the baby kicking through her skin.  Dave feels upset that he’s been put in such a situation but also is freaked out by what his friend is into.  In addition, with this scene, as within a few others, Dave’s love for his wife is put on trial, and although he gets close a few times to “breaking vows” while in Mitch’s form, he never does, therefore keeping the sanctity of marriage true and his virtue remaining pure.

B.            Another example is seen when Dave is trying to Masturbate.  Again, not rare in todays comedic landscape on it’s own merits.  However, I can’t recall a scene in any movie where a man (Dave) is getting tips from another man (Mitch) as to what methods work best on his (Mitch) body.  This leads to both awkwardness and hilarity.

C.            Nicknames in their own right are commonplace.  Nicknames for sexual positions are just beneath nicknames in general when it comes to being overused in literature and in film.  However, once again the writers here go the extra mile, using names such as The Arsenio Hall or The Bryant Gumbel to describe certain, unspecified sexual positions.

With raunchy jokes and vulgarity galore this isn’t a film for the younger audience.  With the action being framed and filtered through a male point of view, this is primarily a film intended for male audiences.  However, when you think of the wide-ranging audiences of The Hangover films and that of a primarily female driven film in Bridesmaids, a case can be made that The Change-Up will work for a wide-ranging audience as well.

While I found the play on the traditional as the most enjoyable notions in this film, I also must state that the film isn’t solely about turning things upside down and changing things up.  The film has a moral, which really isn’t different than the other films using this plot structure.  Each person has their own unique sets of circumstances, each containing both positive and negative aspects.  While it may seem like a good idea to walk a mile in another person’s shoes, to trade places with another what we will find is that it’s not easier on the other side, that others have things just as hard as we do, but in different ways.  Yet what these films also accomplish is seeing your own life through a different scope.  You can see how your attitude, actions, lifestyle shapes the way you’re seen and who you are in other peoples eyes. 

Mitch finds out what it’s like to have a family.  He finds out that being a professional is extremely difficult, and that stating your mind has its consequences.  He also learns that he’s seen by others as being a quitter and from his body swapping with Dave he figures out how to change that stigma, how to become a better person. 

Dave finds out what he’s missing in life.  At first Mitch’s lifestyle is difficult for him because it’s not something he’s used to.  He then learns that although he could never handle a permanency living the way Mitch does, he’s able to see his own flaws, particularly shown through a conversation he has with his wife while he’s in Mitch’s body.  Dave was overworked and overwhelmed.  He was always searching for that next thing, hoping each subsequent accomplishment will bring him the happiness he’s searching for.  He’s envious of Mitch and others who are free to go and do whatever, with whomever they please.  He’s able to slow down, relax a bit, and through this he’s able to focus on what’s most important to him, which of course is found out to be his wife and children.

Sabrina, played by Olivia Wilde, is Dave’s object of desire, his fantasy.  The moment he’s about to live out this fantasy, he sees a tattoo on her thigh, of a multi-speckled butterfly, which he instantly sees his daughter from an earlier scene.  At this moment he chooses to go home, to leave his fantasy for the fantasy he already has.  One also gets the sense that Dave gave his daughter the wrong answer in that earlier scene, when he told her that the Monarch was just a glorified moth.  Now we get the feeling that all other butterflies are overhyped moths when compared to the butterflies he already has.

While I’ve read a few reviews stating how The Change-Up is simply a rehashing of an aged plot, filled with cliché and retread, I have to disagree with these reviewers takes.  The Change-Up, is a rehashing of an aged plot, filled with retread and cliché, yet it’s the way the plot, the structure and these clichéd moments of retread are spun about and reconfigured that makes it new again.  On top of this, I guess the most important thing to mention when discussing a comedy is, was it funny?  My answer to this question, as well as the answers of those in the crowded theater I shared the viewing with, which I must add was primarily male in gender, laughed out loud fairly consistently throughout the showing.  So I would have to say yeah, it was pretty funny, much, much funnier than I had expected it to be.

Horrible Bosses

Horrible Bosses

Horrible Bosses is the story of three friends, each finding themselves in less than ideal occupational predicaments.

Nick Hendricks, (Jason Bateman), is the overworked employee that has dedicated his days, many of which had extended into night and weekend.  He is subjected on an almost scheduled basis, to psychological abuse.  He’s missed out on many important events, including his grandmother’s passing, all because of work.  He’s put up with the situation for the promise of promotion; a vindication for what he’s been forced to deal with.  Now he finds out there will not be a promotion.  He discusses his dissatisfaction with his boss, only to be threatened and demoralized once more.

Dale Arbus, (Charlie Day), is the unlikely victim of workplace sexual harassment.  He is happily involved with his fiancée and is as uncomfortable as one could be under such circumstances.  He consistently refuses each advance, only to see his fiancée drawn into the mix.  When he refuses yet another time, his boss threatens him, indicating she would inform his fiancée that they had sex.  An enraged Dale states he’d deny it; only to find out she has compromising photographs of him, which she took when he was unconscious during a dental procedure.  To compound his situation he has yet another flag about him, one that could prevent other employers from hiring him.

Kurt Buckman, (Jason Sudeikis), is next in line to take over the reigns of the company he works for.  His boss (Donald Sutherland) is one of his closest friends; he’s like family to Kurt.  All seems great for him, until fate unleashes a twist of its own.  His boss has a heart attack and the company is turned over to the hands of his bosses’ son.  Kurt doesn’t like Bobby but figures he’ll make do.  This philosophy unravels as he finds out Bobby’s true intentions, of squeezing the company dry and using it as his own personal ATM, with no concern for the lives that shall be turned in his ravenous wake.

Three friends, mired by their individual circumstances, meet for drinks.  Each complaining how bad their scenarios seem.  The commonality of their situations, the villain in each of their oppressive worlds, is their bosses.  It is at this moment, in a beer-driven brainstorming session, the trio designs a primitive blueprint for the reversal of their fortunes; a plan to which they would all eventually agree upon.   They decide their horrible bosses have to die.

From this point forward we see a bumbling and a stumbling, a botched effort after crazy mistake, as they plan and attempt to devise plans of attack, to bring their plan to fruition.   These men may be frustrated and at wits end, they may have made the culpable decision to engage in such a desperate act as murder, but these three friends are not killers.  In fact, the trio may be the worst criminals around.  From using stereotype and racism as their initial guide, by Dale saving one of the intended targets lives, where Nick is pursued by the police when he runs a red light and when Kurt’s libido takes him off the murderous path, we find out these guys are completely clueless when it comes to criminal activity, let alone pulling off three murders.

The film is loaded with blunders and funny moments, playing with and exposing the weaknesses and nuances of the various characters in the story.  There’s a lot of adult humor, but there’s also subtle comedic moments, made at the expense of the current economic environment, referencing the outsourcing of jobs and exaggerating the lowest points a man’s desperation can take him to.  There’s a ton of subtle humor scattered throughout the film that are really funny if you catch them, but some of them you’ll miss, only to get the punch-line a few hours after you’ve left the theater.

The movie works because of three different dynamics.  The first being it’s a comedy based on something that could actually occur, no matter where you’re from or who you are.  This type of far-fetched plan, hatched upon a drunken night spent with friends, is universal in its appeal.  After all, who hasn’t given passing consideration of how their life would be different if their bosses weren’t apart of it?

The second dynamic is the way the script refrained from glorifying the three friends’ murderous conspiracy.  Just in the way the notion came about, over drinking, when your inhibitions are at weakened states, shows that this type of “plan” should never be something realistically considered. The next key centers upon the incompetence of the heroes in their attempts to complete the murders.  The writers do a really nice job with the script on multiple levels, but for this particular consideration, they really tie into the audience’s moral side.  The audience can understand the motives, even appreciate the decision to go forward with the idea, but eventually we find ourselves in agreement, that this type of activity isn’t in us, as it isn’t in the heroes either, nor should it be.

The characterization is the final dynamic that makes the film work so well.  The evil bosses are caricatures that combine the worst possible qualities, thus making their potential demise less threatening to the ethical within the audience.  However, each villain is layered in ways that make them not as evil, elements that deepen their personas. 

Kevin Spacey’s character, Dave Harken, is by far the worst of the three horrible bosses, yet he has a genuine anxiety that is developed from his unfaithful wife.  One could easily argue that it’s probably more likely that his attitude brought upon the unfaithfulness but nevertheless he’s experiencing a genuine problem that is easily relatable to the majority of moviegoers. 

Jennifer Anniston’s role, Dr. Julia Harris, D.D.S, is the least horrible of the bosses, which doesn’t condone her actions, but she deals with addiction, like so many others in the world.  While some people are addicted to gambling, alcohol or cigarettes, her addiction is sex.

Colin Farrell’s character, Bobby Pelitt is a loathsome person and if it weren’t for a brief interaction with his father early in the film, we’d come away feeling he’s completely reprehensible.  We still feel this way, yet we can sympathize for a man who had bigger and better things planned for his life, only to not see them realized.  We can understand the internal agony that surrounds him; in reference to someone that feels another person has taken his place as a Son in the eyes of his own father.    

I recommend this film for the above stated reasons, but also because of the acting.  Acting, not only in the sense of believability, but for being able to see some actors do what they do best, while getting to see others excel at something they aren’t traditionally known for. 

Colin Farrell and Jennifer Aniston are great in their roles, and while they may very well have done similar roles in the past I can’t remember Farrell in this specific role nor can I recall Anniston playing a morality depraved sexual deviant. 

Kevin Spacey is absolutely brilliant.  His portrayal of Dave Harken is about as good as I could have wished for in the most Horrible of the Horrible Bosses.

Sudeikis plays this type of character in the majority of his films and always does a nice job with it.  Charlie Day also does a good job as the nervous, anxious type that seems to be the guy that says the wrong thing at the wrong time.  The cocaine-induced scenes are his best by far. It’s Bateman though who continuous his march upwards in the comedic world.  The way he plays the quiet, straight-man type gets better with each film I see him in.  This type of role is one that he truly excels at. 

Horrible Bosses is not a roll on the floor, laugh a minute comedy, but it’s an above average one that uses a combination of idiocy, farce and subtle humor to deliver a good laugh here and there, which makes for a good time had at the movies, preferably with a friend or two.