My objection to ‘The Dilemma’

Let me start by saying: I like Vince Vaughn, I like Kevin James, and I generally like Ron Howard films.  I didn’t go into ‘The Dilemma’ expecting some meta-physical experience, or life changing realization.  I knew it would be Vince Vaughn doing his signature schtick, with Kevin James as the sidekick straight-man, and I thought it would be a nice 2hour break.  And I was enjoying myself for roughly the first thirty minutes, until a particular scene set me on edge, a scene I thought about for the duration of the film and am still mentally replaying.  Vince and Kevin are pitching their idea for a new energy efficient car that sounds like a classic muscle car,Vince then launches into a monologue about what’s wrong with the current hybrid/smart cars.

And he says: “These cars are gay.  Not homosexual gay, but parents chaperoning your high school dance, tuck em in and wear em real high, gay”

I’m not sure exactly what an anger stroke feels like, but I imagine it’s akin to what I experienced after hearing those words.  And when I looked around the theatre, no one seemed even a quarter as disturbed as I was–in fact, some people laughed approvingly after that statement.  There is no educated way to say that I was angry. Just plain angry, and angry at a lot of people.

Angry at whomever penned the script and knew it was a cheap joke, one that elicited laughs in grade school and would surely garner them again.  Angry at the editors and producers for letting the line stand, for willfully ignoring the hate and oppression behind that word, behind its use as an insult.  And angry at Vince Vaughn for failing to ask that the line be removed.

Not only is this line insulting, but it creates a space where gay is removed from homosexuality and as such is ‘okay’ as an insult.  The contextualization of “not gay as in homosexual” gives permission for its use, so every child who is told not to use the expression “that’s so gay” need just say that they’re not referring to homosexuality and according to this movie, it’ll be fine.  I say that because the reaction of the actors in the scene is nothing short of apathetic at best, and agreement at worst.  There are perhaps 8actors in the scene with Vaughn, all whom are portraying automotive executives, and when he uses this language in a formal presentation, they don’t bat an eye.  Well, perhaps one person has a perturbed expression on their face, but no one asks him to leave, no one reprimands his language, and no one mentions anything about zero tolerance.

Which I imagine means that: either we are to believe all those actors are heterosexual, in which case Vaughn is making an “in crowd” joke, or they are so engrossed in his “edgy” presentation that they don’t feel compelled to correct him.

Either one of those scenarios is both dangerous and a little frightening to me, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

And my last issue with this line, is that it clearly affirms that ‘gay’ is still an acceptable derogatory term.  I was hopeful that we were largely conquering its use as a weapon of hate,and I was proven wrong.

Now I imagine some of you may say, “Liz, aren’t you over-reacting a little? A weapon of hate, really?” and to you I say, no, I am not over-reacting.  If we refuse to acknowledge the emotional and psychological baggage that accompanies that word, the years of blind hate and rage with which it was spat out, and the movement to reclaim it; it’s an erasure that I cannot abide.  It cannot be bandied about so lightly, or excused by a cheap justification.  I would liken it to using the ‘N’ word, with the qualifier that you don’t mean Black people.  The value implicit in that statement is that ‘gay’ is less than, and we as consumers deserve to rise above it, deserve to be devoid of it.

I sincerely hope this is an isolated incident, and that we do not see it reappear in upcoming films, though I have an unfortunate feeling that we will.