Are you ready to be made angry? Welcome back to CraveOnline‘s Trolling, my dear contrarians, the series devoted to standing up and proudly thumbing our noses in the big, fat, stupid face of popular opinion. If it’s hated, we will rush to its defense. If it’s loved, we will do our all to tear it to shreds.
Edgar Wright’s 2010 film Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (based on the somewhat obscure manga-inspired Canadian comic books by Bryan Lee O’Malley) was not much of a financial success when it was released in theaters, but has since gone on to attain a kind of cult status in the geek community, filling midnight screenings, and selling incredibly well on home video. It has been praised endlessly by certain critics, and some of its fans have declared it an important motion picture that speaks the new language of a new generation. It’s a beloved and stylish movie that speaks to the way video games have influenced the lives of people currently in their late teens and early twenties.
Well, anything that is beloved is just askin‘ for it ’round these parts. Indeed, it won’t take too much intellectual delving to reveal that Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is actually a weak film that, in true Trolling parlance, sucks. Let us sit down, look at the movie, and disabuse the heck out of some notions.
Yes, it does possess a new aesthetic, and incorporates the true milieu of a new generation. The cast are all energetic and funny, and they sure do look cute. Indeed, it’s one of the funnier films about young people that has been made in the last few years. But is the film an important voice of a new generation, that displays just what the aesthetic and social state is like to Millennials? Or is it a vapid and action-packed style exercise that the makers hope would look like something more important?
Until next week, let the hate mail flow.
Witney Seibold is a featured contributor on the CraveOnline Film Channel, co-host of The B-Movies Podcast. You can read his weekly articles Trolling, Free Film School and The Series Project, and follow him on “Twitter” at @WitneySeibold, where he is slowly losing his mind.
Scott Pilgrim Sucks
-
Scott is a Jerk
Let's start with the main character. Scott Pilgrim himself (Michael Cera in full-tilt wispy mode) is rather a horrible person. He is dating a 17-year-old virgin whom he emotionally abuses and openly announces that he's stringing along, only to then openly start seeing another woman behind her back. He is a flake that never talks to his bandmates. One of his bandmates in an ex-girlfriend whom he has never properly apologized to.
This would be fine if he were also charming or funny or had an interesting personality, but he's also kind of a blank slate. Insensitive and awful, this kid, and we're supposed to like him? To root for his redemption? A redemption that, really, never really comes? The film is about an insensitive and kind of dumb clod who never learns anything.
-
Ramona Has No Personality
Scott Pilgrim's would-be squeeze is Ramona Flowers, an American girl who changes the color of her hair frequently, and rolls around town on in-line skates. In Scott's eyes, she is the coolest girl in the world. And, indeed, she looks cute in those ever-so-carefully chosen hipster outfits. But as a character, I can't describe Ramona to you at all. She banters a little bit, and reveals that she has dated seven people in the past, but aside from that, Ramona exists as the classically anti-feminist female character: A prize to be won.
Ramona has no input in the love story, and her actions only exist as plot motivation for Scott. Wouldn't it be nice if she were something beyond cute and mechanically quirky? Something more than bland?
-
It's a Love Story?
The central story of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World entails that Scott “fight” and “defeat” Ramona's six “evil” ex-boyfriends and one “evil” ex-girlfriend, in order that Scoot and Ramona may live happily ever after as the loving couple they so claim to be. The film, however, spends precious little time establishing the romance between the two characters, and way too much of the too-long 112 minutes devotes to video game fighting and slick special effects.
Aside from one quiet conversation had in a park, there doesn't seem to be much connection of any sort between the bland American girl, and the mean-spirited Canadian dolt. This means that the central romance of the film is pretty much nonexistent. So when Scott declares that he'll do anything for this girl, it rings hollow. He wants to impress a cool girl, sure, but is that a romance? Is that an interesting and human an believable love interaction between two characters? Is it anything more sophisticated or deep than spotting a cute girl at a party and not doing anything at all?
-
And What Did We Learn Today?
And if the main characters aren't convincingly in love, what is the ultimate message of the film? Well, let's say that the film is about Scott learning to fight for what he wants, rather than being passive and insensitive. Okay, I guess he does learn to fight. But is that a good thing? This film is about a romance, and all romances are at least partly about swallowing your pride, and perhaps learning to accept your partner's emotional and sexual history as a part of them.
Scott, however, never learns to swallow his pride. He never has a conversation with anyone about anything substantive. All his emotional conflicts are depicted as high-octane video game fights. All he knows is how to fight. He learned that from video games. We learned that cartoon violence is cool.
-
And While We're Not Learning, We're Cheapening Real Emotions
All emotional conflicts are tantamount to violence in the movie's head, and the violence is all cartoon violence. The finale of the film depicts not a final dropping of the fight mentality, but just more fighting. There is no lesson, other than, uh, keep fighting. And fighting. And fighting. Cause it's cool. Doesn't the violence, however colorful and slick, debase any sort of emotional honesty the film could have had? And doesn't the use of cartoon violence as an analogue for emotional conflict cheapen any real emotions people actually have? Watch Scott Pilgrim, then watch The Spectacular Now. Which is the better teen romance?
-
It Doesn't Have Much Positive To Say About Its Generation
If Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is the voice of a generation, it's a pretty awful voice, and the members of said generation should be insulted by it. The movie implies that this generation has been so deeply influenced by video games and popular culture, that they see video game elements everywhere. From comic book sound effect words hanging in the air, to “pee meters.” In the light of my previous argument, SPvTW also seems to imply that this generation, by extension, can no longer have any sort of emotional connection with other people, unless it's tempered by an over-simplified comic-book like fistfight.
Is this generation really so dumb? Are they really so afraid of actual honesty and laying themselves bare, that they must gloss over all their romances and conflicts and emotions with gooftastic video game dynamics? If that's the point of the movie, it's a tragic one. “Cool” is the reigning ethos of this generation. Just cool for the sake of it. Play in a band, play video games, and never seek anything more sophisticated.
-
Bi Furious
In addition to the previous points, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is also a somewhat homophobic movie. It turns out that Ramona once dated another girl named Roxy played by Mae Whitman. Scott was previously unaware of Ramona's bisexuality. But is Ramona bi? The film includes the truly insulting phrase, delivered with complete earnestness, right to the lesbian character's face: “I was going through a phase. I was bicurious.”
How many brow-beating parents, teachers, and other authority figures have forced those very words into the mouths of their lesbian daughters? Roxy is a cartoon whose gender only serves to titillate Scott, and who can only be reduced to a buffoonish homosexual. Scott, by the way, doesn't even “fight” her. So even in the emotionally simplified universe of the movie, Scott isn't willing to acknowledge that his girlfriend may be anything other than plainly heteronormative. Ramona rejects her lesbian past with a hard brusqueness, Roxy slinks away with a broken heart, and all is "well."
