What Offensive Photo from 'The Hangover 2' are Ebert and Roeper Talking About?
Were you offended? Should you be?
Photo: Eddie Adams
In case you don't know what I'm referring to, at the end of The Hangover Part II, just like the first film, there is a photo montage of what really went down during the forgotten night the film revolves around. Among the debauchery on display there is what appears to be a recreation of Eddie Adams' Pulitzer Prize-winning photo you see above. Two characters from the film (I'm sorry, I don't remember which characters they were, maybe someone can help us out in the comments) recreate the photo with one holding a gun to the head of the other. It's brief, but I saw it and I wasn't alone, though reactions to the photo seem to vary.
When I saw it, I thought to myself, Nah, that couldn't have been an example of the Hangover boys mocking one of the most famous photos to come out of the Vietnam War in which a man was actually killed. After all, The Hangover Part II takes place in Bangkok, 612 miles from Ho Chi Minh City and it has nothing to do with the Vietnam War so why recreate the photo? I guess I was in denial because former "At the Movies" duo, Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, weren't as quick to dismiss the photo.
Ebert writes in his review, "[The Hangover Part II] is a raunch fest, yes, but not an offense against humanity (except for that photo, which is a desecration of one of the two most famous photos to come out of the Vietnam War)."
In Roeper's video review he says, "The most offensive and gutsy joke in the movie is a Vietnam War visual reference that takes place over the closing credits."
I guess I could argue against both guys in what is most offensive when it comes to The Hangover Part II as it really matters what group you belong to. I'm sure Asians and transsexuals will also have a thing or two to say about some of what takes place in the film as much as defenders of the photo. Taking everything into consideration, however, I have to wonder, at what point does offensive become funny? Alternatively, at what point is something so offensive that people need to stand up and fight back? Is The Hangover Part II so offensive it deserves resistance?
If box-office numbers represented opinions it would mean The Hangover Part II was a unanimous success and everyone got the joke. The film opened to a massive $31.66 million yesterday, a record opening for a non-animated comedy and third best Thursday opener in history behind Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith and The Matrix Reloaded. The film is predicted to potentially hit $125 million over the course of the five-day weekend. If it is deemed "offensive" by the masses will the overwhelming success be loud enough to shout down any detractors? Taking it even further… is it really all that offensive?
I can certainly see arguments for why it would be offensive, but I'm not sure it's offensive to the point it's worth making a fuss over. However, it wasn't necessarily I who was offended as much as I thought a lot of it simply seemed mean-spirited and in bad taste, or to put it differently, stupid and not funny. As circumstances in this instance would have it, it's easier to stand on my side of the street when you're not personally attacked, so I'd be interested in hearing from those that may have taken exception to some aspects of the film.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 53 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Bad taste. Not funny, not geographical accuracy, and offensive.
These guys are really thinking too hard and are trying to make a controversy out of nothing. I saw the Hangover 2 today and in the photos Mr. Chow was pointing the gun at everyone. Phil took the gun from him and jokingly pointed it at Mr. Chow. I respect the opinions of Ebert and Roeper but if they think the photo was the worst part they really weren't watching the movie. The scene where the guys are talking to a stripper really made me sick.
I totally agree. I hate when people are mad that they didn't like a film and instead of telling us what they didn't like about it, they dissect it for "offensive" things. The "raciest" robots in transformers are a perfect example.
The real story behind that pic is very interesting. The photographer ended up wishing he never shot it.
In the photo it was Phil (Bradley Cooper) pointing a gun at Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong)
Haven't seen it yet, but if it even counts as being "offensive," it sounds like a split second in a 100-minute film, not nearly enough to bring down a film. It probably couldn't even decrease the gross by $1 million.
Guess what? Taken out of context in the plain black and white of this website (or Roger Ebert's Review) this joke is very offensive. However, in the realm of comedy, nothing is untouched. People tell jokes about pedophilia, the holocaust, religion, rapists, race, etc. That is the purview of the medium. While some jokes may be in "more" poor taste then others; however, to laugh at these jokes is to laugh at the very absurdity of things such as war which created this horrific photo to begin with.
War, and the other horrors of this life are sometimes eased by poking fun at them – instead of with solemnity. I still believe that there is a time and a place that should be considered when crafting visual gags such as this – however, within a few frames of the raunchfest that is The Hangover Part II, I believe this is acceptable.
Thems the facts
GREAT way to put that. I agree 100%.
Well said my friend!
Ebert just likes to pick apart anything and everything. It's like he's the world policeman of movies or something — so who died and made him boss? OOPS! Was that a tacky joke about Siskel that shouldn't have been said?
IT'S ALL IN HOW YOU WANT TO TAKE IT.
Ebert should get over himself. It's comic entertainment and I'm afraid that means that really nothing is off-limits.
To be fair you need to read the whole Ebert review.
He actually gave The Hangover 2 a decent rating he just felt that the picture didn't add anything to the film so shouldn't have been used.
I would tend to agree with The Jackal's rough stance. Some comedians can explore that territory and get an audience on their side and some just try and fail.
But Todd Phillips isn't a comedian (or an artist) who has the skill to try to push boundaries and intelligently make humourous remarks about the kinds of things Jackal lists (or the photo in question) as part of a larger context or point.
He's just going for the cheap shot………….because he's a cheap schmuck himself.
I wouldn't expect everyone would find it offensive (for those who 'get' the connection in the first place, because not everyone will) though.
Yeah right, man. People don't make fun of the Holocaust. This really sounds a lot like white people getting all defensive for stupid jokes made in bad taste. I'm willing to bet money that if the tables were turned and a black man made stupid jokes parodying the suffering of white people in a major war, then there'd be a huge uproar. For example, Chelsea Handler said that she has a problem with Asians, blacks, and Russians and that she tries to make fun of minorities all the time. Not only is this racist unpunished, she's being rewarded with another TV show on NBC. If a minority said the same thing about white people, he'd be kicked off the air, and his career would be over. Talk about a double standard.
She is a minority. She's a Jewish woman.
"Stupid jokes" You contradict yourself, fool.
There have been far more offensive jokes in other comedy movies/ stand up comedy shows/ Tosh.0. People just need to relax. If Ken Jeong is willing to put his face in this "desecration" others should be willing to understand comedy for what it is.
Ken Jeong did it for the money. It's called greed, dude…
So you think because he was paid for his performance that he had ZERO option to decline shooting that photo if he were really offended?
Definitely a bad taste joke, but not offensive to me. But well, I'm 26.
If Ebert and Roeper were offended, probably it's because the Vietnam war was actually something they lived through and isn't just that easy for them to laugh about it, right?
I don't know, but if I had lost a friend in the Vietnam war I would probably be very offended by this 'joke'.
I'm pretty sure if they made a bad taste joke about the 9/11, the reaction would've been stronger from the audiences.
But the thing, most americans won't get this. Most people have no idea what picture is this (as famous as it may be) and the demographic for The Hangover II clearly isn't the 60's generation. Regardless, it's a bad joke and I don't think the director or the studio cares anyway.
It's not the first time that photo has been recreated or used for "comical" effect in the media. They also had a very similar joke in the Clerks cartoon where a character points to a yearbook that shows a recreation of that photo.
I don't get what is offensive at all. Can someone explain how recreating the photo is offensive?
Because it's apparently making light of an important image that signifies brutality & unnecessary murder during the Vietnam War. I guess.
It would be like making fun of a 9/11 photo some 30 years from now; that's how I imagine it being.
I still don't get what the big deal is. It's just a photo after all.
Saying this is "just a photo after all" really shows that you're very ignorant. I do not mean to say that you're stupid, and I really don't mean it as an insult, but you are very uninformed.
I think that if you look at the photo for more than a second you should be able to see pretty clearly that this is not "just a photo." Look at the ruthlessness in the general's face, and the fear in the prisoner's. What you are witnessing here is murder. The man was shot after this photo was taken, in the middle of the street, in a nation's biggest city.
Imagine if someone was shot execution style in New York, and before the trigger was pulled someone took a picture. Now imagine that 17% (about 1 out of every 5) of Americans died over a 15 year period while this was happening. If you can't do that, how about instead you imagine that in a Vietnamese movie they made fun of people jumping out of the burning twin towers in 9/11. Then you might get it.
Noooo, that's not what I meant. I understand the importance of THIS photo, I just don't understand the importance of the Hangover's. What's the big deal? They put a photo in their credits that mimicked this one. How is it offensive? Why are people making a fuss about it? It's just a photo. It's not like they took a whole scene in the movie to make fun of this historical picture.
I'm Vietnamese and I knew immediately what the reference was when I saw the ending credits, but after watching the entire movie and it's off the wall content, I can honestly say it didn't bother me. It's a comedy. Humor and what is labeled "funny" has changed over the year. Nowadays people find it in stereotypes, politically correct, sexual orientation, race, blah blah. This movie had all that and then some. And I loved it.
I saw the movie last night and caught the reference to the photo. I remember the photo well because I grew up during the Viet Nam War. I turned 10 in August 1968, the photo was taken in February of 1968. I've seen the image hundreds of time since then and it's still powerful. What made the connection wasn't the fact that Phil was now holding the gun on Chow, it was Chow's stance and the grimace on his face. I immediately said to the person next to me that still was a play on the Vietnamese general executing a Viet Cong soldier in public.
Is it offensive? I suppose it could be viewed as offensive. What I find more offensive is that we haven't learned much since Viet Nam. We still engage in ground wars with countries we could annihilate without losing a single US young man or woman. We are in the most horrendous debt in our history because of these wars. That money could have funded universal health care or any number of programs that would change people's lives for the better.
The photo is offensive in and of itself, but I'm glad it was taken and published. For most of us it's a sobering reminder of just how twisted and insane war is. We obviously haven't learned much since Nixon pulled the plug on Viet Nam in order to secure his reelection in 1972. Like I said earlier, that's more offensive to me than any way this photo could be used or presented.
You want to annihilate other countries? That sounds pretty offensive to me.
No, I want you to learn to read.
No, we totally COULD but we DON'T. The fact that you don't recognize that fact offends me. (Personally, I wish we WOULD. Just on general principles – I'd like to start with YOURS, whatever it is.)
"We still engage in ground wars with countries we could annihilate without losing a single US young man or woman."
Ummm that seems to be what you wrote…lol.
I'am not quite sure what you were trying to say with this sentence, but the rest of what you wrote seems agreeable.
ReesterFX got it; the Clerks cartoon from 10+ years ago did the same exact joke & no one made a stir then (though that show was cancelled after a couple of episodes, so most likely no one saw that joke anyway).
Offensive yeah, but I was the only one in my theater who even got the joke, everyone else was completely silent during that picture. I doubt it's as big a deal as they're making it out to be. Most of the audience for the film probably don't even know what the reference is.
Hes saying were in wars with countries were just overdominating in power. Instead of defense. We wouldn't invade china or russia. Just the weak countries. Its easy for america to take over the world if we go to the easier countries first.
Something can be offensive yet you can still laugh at it and not be offended even though you know it's offensive.
Nothing is offensive, something being offensive is a personal thing. Like thinking someone is "scary", a random person might not think they are scary, but you do, so they aren't scary.
You're taking this too literally. Take a breath and quit telling people what they think and know.
When I saw that photo at the end, I let out an ohhhh ho ho type of laugh/groan, while the rest of the theater was silent. I asked my friends if they got it, and no one did. Being only 25, I guess thats what I get for being well read and interested in learning about anything and everything. I just quickly searched "nguyen loan the hangover" and it brought me here.
It was a very quick look and as stated earlier, if it wasn't for the expression on Chow's face and his stance, I wouldn't have made the connection. But that image along with the napalm girl running down the road have stuck with me since I was a kid. The person I was with didn't catch it even though she is very politically astute, is my age and knew the photo I was talking about when I told her about it.
Make a movie 30 years from now with an indirect joke about people jumping from the towers during 911 and most people that posted on this board will be offended while the new generation will be disconnected and state, "what's the big deal it's just a photo".rinse/repeat. Now you understand what JMS was referring to.
So you consider mimicking the killing of a vietnamese murderer the equivalent of mocking desperate people being forced to commit suicide from by jumping from a burning building in the world's most horrid single terrorist attack?
The joke is educational.
Some 10 million North Americans who saw the Hangover 2 this weekend are now reminded of -or first exposed to- an important event of recent history. One that's still relevant today.
What a load of crap. The Hangover: Part II is educational? LOL.
Team America: World Police.
How many of that movie's viewers knew who Kim Jong-il was, or where North Korea was, or the difference between North and South Korea, before watching?
If a joke leads to conversation -like this one- or some extra clicks to a wikipedia page, then yes it is educational.
So its offensive to show a photo that mimics the killing of a murderer now?
Ebert sucks he gave Krull thumbs down, nuff said.
If white audiences don't find it offensive, it can't possibly be offensive now, can it.
If memory serves me correctly, the immediate image after the parodied one in question was of Ken Jeong's character (Chow) turning the gun on Bradley Cooper's character (Phil), the latter with an extremely goofy look on his face.
If you observe the parodied image by ITSELF and completely OUT OF CONTEXT, I can understand why it is so offensive. But when place within a montage, it's absurd to the point of laughter…which is what the movie is all about and what it's promoted itself as since the first installment two years ago.
SPOILER ALERT. I was ten when that photo made headlines. I thought it was in poor taste to recreate it. But then, in the context of this movie, it was not shocking.
The original was very funny and well . . . ORIGINAL!!! Hangover Redux is just boring. And anyone old enough to recognize the "execution" photo recreation, probably saw the "Crying Game" reveal from miles away as well. Also, was anyone surprised when Chow jumped fr the ice machine?
Yep, for most of the movie I just wanted the 100+ minutes of my life back: that is, until the end when graphic shots of beastiality were shown. Now I'm mad. I guess since the simulated copulation of an infant in the first movie didn't throw the film in NC17 territory, this was inevitable. Will Hangover 3 have the gang rape a mentally disabled person? That would be hilarious. And it would be – liking fondling an infant or animal – illegal.
RECOMMENDATION: Save your money; Don't see H2; Buy/Rent "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell" instead. Extremely crude and graphic heterosexual male humor; horrifically funny because free will – badly executed – w/ no regrets/remorse is.
Ebert and Roeper are back together?
Anyway, I'm happy I didn't spend money on this mess.
Um..where was this outrage when Seinfeld did the JFK parody, oh 15 years ago? It's exactly the same thing. Its a joke, people.
I thought the photo was in bad taste, but it would/could have been different if the context was funny.
'The Hangover II' is just not funny, and THAT'S that problem.
I just saw it tonight (6-8-2011). With sites like Rotten Tomatoes I was ready to wait for video on this one. My girlfriend, however, was looking for a night out. Knowing the ratings, I chose this one. As expected, the story was way too accurately reconstructed and rehashed for part two. However, they really upped the ante with the photos at the end. I believe the recreated photo, 'Execution of Viet Cong'(google it), in question was the last photo to be shown in the credits. There really was no other reason for this recreation – and yes, it was very obviously recreated – other than pure shock value. I'm early 40's and for me there are a couple of photos that really encapsulate the ugliness of war – neither have room for funny – this is certainly one of them. The other is called 'Napalm Girl'. Goggle it and if you laugh till you cry, you will get their reasoning for adding the other recreation at the end. To be disappointed in the lack of creativity on part two is one thing. But to have to endure a completely senseless recreation that serves no purpose other than to offend is another. If I'm full of s*** and just too old to understand the real joke here, than I will submit the following for your enjoyment. These are photos that "changed the world" and just so happen to have the two that I address. Enjoy!! http://pinejuice.blogspot.com/2009/06/photos-that-changed-world.html
Oh Roger Ebert and his "holier than thou" self. Who cares what that pompous little no-jawed toad has to say. He thinks that because he reviews movies for a living for a major media outlet, that it's his own personal soapbox to use to promote/dictate his own "quasi-intelligentsia" liberal views.
The man misses the mark on most everything he reviews and if you've ever read any of his stuff, he gets a large portion of the facts and stats completely wrong, because he's making so much of an effort to be snarky and condescending about everything in the movie he doesn't like. Or should I say, "doesn't approve of".
There was nothing offensive in HO2 when it came to this particular image in the closing montage.
The only reason it's an issue is simply because one wants to MAKE it an issue. Otherwise, nobody would have ever said a thing about it.
Life sucks, if you don't like it, then shut up and move on. Am I right? Yes, I am.
Oh- and let me add – if most people knew the real story behind Eddie Adams photograph/film of the "execution", they'd have not a lot to say. The guy being shot in the head was a terrorist, spy, war-criminal. He had executed countless South Vietnamese and US Soldiers. He got caught, and General Loan administered justice on the spot. Exactly the called-for AND ALLOWED actions of a general who catches a spy/terrorist/murderer.
Not a thing wrong with the picture. It had to be done and I would have done the same had I been him and caught him as well.
The guy who was killed was no angel, and he had it coming to him.