ThisFilmIsOn

Upon coming home from watching Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World my housemate, colleague and (if he had the correct genitalia) would-be lover Joe succinctly and eloquently summed up the film thus; “Visually the film is stunning. 10 out of 10 for the look. 5 star quality, fight choreography. The problem is…Scott Pilgrim is a film for wankers.”

This Bob-omb shell left me a little shook up. My diminutive friend’s opinion is usually bang on the money leaving me with a lose-lose situation. When watching Edgar Wright’s latest I’ll either be faced with the crushing disappointment of a film I’ve been looking forward to for a long time being a bit shit, or in the eyes of my good buddy I’ll be, “a wanker”.

Turns out it’s a little bit of both.

So what is the criteria for being ‘a wanker’. It’s definitely not the indisputable pleasure of onanism. Anybody that hasn’t known the blues of having to ‘love oneself’ is either a non-sexual freak or so good with the opposite sex that they are in fact ‘a wanker’. Wankerism, in the forms we’re talking about here, is defined by ‘coolness’ which in and of itself is, in a wonderfully Wittgenstein-ian way, impossible to define.

Arguably all human beings are wankers. It just depends what group you fall into. Here’s an easy, quick and completely free way of finding out.

Do you wear “funny” film reference t-shirts? Do you get overly excited about the latest release from some hero director you’ve promoted to Demi-God status? Do you realise you’re a bit of a wanker?
If you answered yes to all three, then you’re a geeky wanker.

Do you like things for about a month and then get bored of them? Do you have more than one haircut on your head? Do you think you’re not a wanker?
If you answered yes to all three, then you’re a hipster wanker.

Regardless of what type of wanker you are (and there are plenty more types) Scott Pilgrim doesn’t work. Many of ‘the haters’ (to use the parlance of our times) will blame Michael Cera. I don’t. I like the guy. I liked him in Arrested Development, Juno, and I’ve even got a soft spot for Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist. Does he play the same character over and over again? Yes, is the simple answer but so did Humphrey Bogart and I don’t see anyone setting up www.IH8Bogie.org (perhaps because most internet savvy users have no idea who one of the greatest actors of all time is…the wankers). The argument does stand, however, that this could be the tipping point. It could be that he can no longer do faux-smug with the audience thinking, “Oh he’s too nice to be smug, the funny little pasty-faced loser”.

Witness the opening scene where he brags about his 17 year old Chinese girlfriend and you’re completely with his ex when she says “If your life had a face I’d punch it”. For over 3/4 of the film Scott is an unsympathetic asshole. Perhaps now, at the ripe old age of 22, Cera’s success has made him dislikeable, unsympathetic. Or maybe it’s the poorly written character.

The cliché of “sympathetic hero overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles” (the definition of pretty much every mainstream movie ever made) does need to be subverted to keep film fresh, but the fact that Scott, as a character, is so devoid of any sympathy makes Scott, as a film, a genuine struggle.

Tim (Spaced) and Shaun (of the Dead) were both, like Scott, slightly whiny, self obsessed men-children but the difference was they were injected with a modicum of sympathy. It’s this sympathy that made you want them to “Wake the fuck up!” because you did genuinely want them to wake the fuck up. Because Mr. Pilgrim (that’s a wankery name too) spends so much time in dream/fantasy-land if he did “Wake the fuck up” the film would be over. The mark of fine cinema is the audience should never want the film to be over.

To compare Scott Pilgrim Vs The World to Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz would seem a little unfair. It’s a bigger, all together more American affair. And it has to be with an estimated budget of $60,000,000. But the audience is still the same. That you couldn’t find a poor line amongst the former Wright stuff may have been down to Simon Pegg’s (and in the beginning Jessica Stevenson’s) ability to rip out lines that don’t work, yet even the most cursory of glances at the script would telegraph the message that “I’m in Lesbians with you” is a poor sit-com, set-up and pay-off. Not worthy of a deleted scene from the Spaced inevitable 15 year anniversary box set. That a ‘geeky wanker’ like me will buy.

So does the film attack or worship the hipsters, the fickle, the fashion chasers, the absolute bell-ends like the guy who attended the screening I went to last night in a green vest top and a pork pie hat, even though it was raining outside. The ‘end of level’ last evil ex is exactly the kind of ‘hipster wanker’ Scott Pilgrim is supposed to be against. It’s the geek vs the cool. It’s the loser vs. the big-shot. It’s us vs. them. Isn’t it?

Sadly no. If you worship at the feet of Scott you’re more likely one of them, than one of us. Too self-obsessed to see beyond yourself, too smug, too self-satisfied to realise you’re a wanker. With such fuzzy lines and poor character development, Scott Pilgrim, wonderful visuals aside, is exactly the kind of film people will jump on for its coolness, not its heart.

If you’re a ‘geeky wanker’ like me, it’s gotta be about the heart.