There seems to be a lot of surprise over the fact that the new vehicle from Amy Schumer and Judd Apatow, Trainwreck, totally favors monogamy.
But is this that shocking? Should conservative and liberal critics be shocked that a Hollywood film favors monogamy over commitment to one night stands? The liberal contingency has given more of a tired sigh over yet another Apatow film favoring “conservative mores” while Conservatives seem pleased.
Honestly, I have not issue with Apatow films favoring the idea that monogamy is good. I will go as far as to say…I think it is silly to complain about it. As film critic Peter Chattaway noted, at this point, should anyone be surprised that an Apatow makes a film that favors monogamy and marriage?
One might note that Amy Schumer is the screenwriter, so that surprises them. But has there been proof that Schumer would normally oppose the message of the film (I confess, I have only seen bits of Amy’s standup and clips from her show which have been “uncomfortably” hilarious)? And really, based on the previews? Did people really think the film was going to favor the lead *not* falling in love?
I would actually suggest that Hollywood has rarely gone against monogamy. Most films about relationships end with the relationship succeeding. The main set of films in the American Pie franchise all tend to favor committed relationships, mining more casual sexual encounters for laughs.
Trainwreck sets it up in the previews…Amy’s drunken dad (Colin Quinn) teaches her that monogamy is a sham, them she meets a guy (Bill Hader) who challenges her notions of relationships…where do we really think that is going?
I have not seen the film yet, but I think being shocked that it favors relationships and monogamy over sleeping around is…naive.
Leave a Reply