Summary

Exploring the Unexpected

August 7, 2009

Having thoroughly explored the compelling plot elements of the film, the attention now turns towards the thematic elements. It’s important to note that all these aspects of story work in tandem. Theme does not exist without plot and in point of fact, is based on what that plot actually is. To understand this concept further, it becomes important to specifically define what theme really is.

A Sophisticated Look at Theme

The Dramatica theory of story has a very different interpretation of theme when compared to most popular story paradigms. Unlike its famous cousins, Dramatica does not fall back on the overly-used examples of theme like “man vs. nature” or the over-used “Greed leads to self-destruction.” While semi-helpful in categorizing a completed story, these concepts of theme are of little help towards the actual creation of a story. So what if greed leads to self-destruction? What is an author to do with that?!

Instead, the Dramatica theory of story provides an author with the touchstones of theme that a story revolves around. For instance, the aforementioned example of greed might be explored through the conflict of self-interest and benevolence. Which one is better? Well, that is up to the author.

Certainly the obvious approach would be to show how every instance of self-interest a character partakes in results in something bad happening to them. On the other side of the argument, an author could show how every time a character puts others before themselves really good things happen to them. This works and it’s OK in the world of storytelling, but it’s ultimately boring, at least for most sophisticated readers.

A better approach would be to go ahead and do the above, but sprinkle the story with other instances where selfish characters actually win out, and benevolent characters lose. The author mixes and matches the good with the bad and ultimately at the end, the audience is able to cipher out exactly what it was the author was trying to say. In this way the audience becomes a willing participant in the synthesizing of the author’s message in their own minds.

The issues of self-interest vs. benevolence are a favorites of Western culture and thus explains why they are so often used. But imagine how much more interesting the exploration of greed leading to self-destruction would be if the thematic issues explored were say, one’s sense of self vs. who they really are. In this kind of story, you might have some characters struggling with what they see as their greedy natures compelling them towards acts of self-destruction. On the other hand, some of the characters might, in fact, be greedy self-destructives! Either way is fine, the important point is that the topics being explored feel more interesting and compelling.

And this is precisely why The Hangover feels so fresh.

Taking The Less Obvious Approach

The easiest path to take in The Hangover would have been something closer to the self-interest vs. benevolence argument. The characters, lost and confused in Vegas, would have struggled with doing what is best for themselves vs. doing what is best for the best friend, Doug.

Consequently, Stu would have been dealing with his preconceptions of marriage, Phil (Bradley Cooper) would have been pounding on him to “stop denying his true inner feelings” and the story ultimately would have been about Phil changing Stu into a self-made man. The results? A familiar predictable story that has been told way too many times in Western culture. The jokes would have been there, but that feeling that the film was something uniquely different, wouldn’t.

Instead, the writers took a different approach. How do we know? Previously we had determined that the goal of The Hangover was to resolve the situation of the missing groom. The characters are forced into a situation that they must deal with immediately. Matters of self-interest don’t come into play.

When an author examines the ramifications of self-interest or benevolence, what they are really focusing on are the character’s efforts towards achieving something. The problem isn’t about finding Doug as much as it is overcoming their situation.

Thus, the story focused more on what the characters knew they could do vs. their attempts to try something they’ve never done before (like working for a very upset Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong)). These are natural explorations for a story about immediacy, as are the results of who they attract (Heather Graham’s Jade) and who they repel (the local deputies).

Likewise, when you have a character like Stu who spends his whole time appeasing the shrill voice of his beloved fiance, what he is allowed to do vs. what he feels he is lacking as a prospective groom feels like a more natural exploration. Who cares whether or not he’s open to other relationships or whether or not he is putting any effort into putting off his own wedding? It’s what he is permitted to do that is central to the story.

It’s because of these issues that the film feels more urgent, more current, more about the here and now than the well worn approach. The film takes place in one day, all problems must be solved within those 24 hours. To explore the self-interest example would have slowed things down considerably.

It’s why the film feels so unique and so different. Western (read American) audiences aren’t much concerned with what they are permitted and not permitted to do. They just do.

Cultural Preferences

Lost in Vegas, the boys contemplate their next best move.

These issues of vain attempts and struggles with permission are not the kind of things most Western audiences are familiar with exploring. In fact, if you were raised in such a culture, you probably don’t even have a clue how to make an argument between what one is allowed to do vs. what one is lacking. What the heck does that even mean?!

Instead, these are the kinds of issues that are more often explored in foreign or independent films. Films like Amelie or Welcome to the Dollhouse are right at home exploring these kinds of things. Why? It most likely has to do with cultural blindspots and what certain groups of people are aware of deep inside them. It’s probably safe to say that some groups of people have no problems saying what other groups of people would never dare dream of unraveling (for fear of unraveling their whole system of life).

This is why The Hangover feels so fresh and why audiences have returned time and time again to see it (subconsciously that is…consciously they’re returning because it’s so funny). The filmmakers provided audiences a different set of standards by which to evaluate the often told “What happens in Vegas…” story. In short, it’s basically a foreign independent film with dick jokes!

Finding new ways to tell old stories is the cornerstone of successful entertainment. One way to achieve this is to set about exploring thematic issues that an audience subconsciously is not even aware of or better yet, could be quite uncomfortable with. The creators of The Hangover, whether they meant to or not, were able to do just this: they built a story that was not only entertaining, but also structurally solid and meaningful.