Furious 7: An Arms Race of Stupidity

As long as it’s entertaining, who cares?

So goes the argument for franchises like Transformers and Resident Evil and Saw. The aspect of increasing diminished returns is of no concern as long as audiences get a coupla hours of dumb fun.

Well, what happens when dumb fun is just dumb? Enter Furious 7, the seventh (!) installment of The Fast and the Furious film series. Its only reason for being is because the last one made a fuckton of money. The previous film exists because the one before it made a fuckton of money. And so on, and so on.

Whether there was story left to be told about Dom and his crew (there isn’t) is as irreverent as the plot of Furious 7. There’s no point in explaining the story here because that’s not why it was made. It was made because apparently audiences don’t mind a film that doesn’t just ignore logic and physics, it joyfully gives them the middle finger. Trying to explain any aspect of Furious 7 using logic is an exercise in Sisyphean futility. Instead, any time you wonder about something in the film, the answer will always be, “Because reasons.”

Director James Wan – best known for Saw –  was chosen to replace Justin Lin because…I’m not sure. Having only stepped outside of horror once (the thriller Death Sentence) and having never done a big-budget anything, it appears he was chosen simply based on the criteria that 1.) He’s a director, and 2.) He was available.

That said, it appears Wan has graduated from torture porn to car crash porn. The sheer destruction in Furious is certainly the loudest and most obnoxious yet. If you like automotive mayhem on crack, this is your movie. To his credit, Wan does find brilliantly dumb ways to break shit throughout.

Meanwhile Chris Morgan continues to vie for worst screenwriter working today. The dialogue is as stilted as any of the seven films, but here it’s on a different level. The writing see-saws between cringe-worthy and laughably bad, and it can all be summed up in one line delivered by Vin Diesel: “Thing about a street fight is… the streets always win.” Give that any amount of analysis and you risk an aneurysm.

Speaking of Vin Diesel, he’s in full pause-acting mode in Furious 7. When he randomly pauses in the middle of gems like, “I don’t have friends… I got family,” you wonder if his lines were written with ellipses. He’s taken the torch handed off from William Shatner and is sprinting with it with gleeful abandon.

The rest of the cast? Paul Walker uses his usual deer-in-headlight expression for the majority of his performance, Michelle Rodriguez employs her “I’m fucking hard” look even when she’s happy, and Tyrese Gibson’s attempts at humor are painful to watch. At least Dwayne Johnson knows what ridiculous reality he’s in and plays Agent Hobbs accordingly.

Which is to say, Johnson understands just how stupid Furious is. Just how insanely stupid is this movie? Paul Walker and Tony Jaa don’t just have a fist fight, they have a fist fight as they’re riding a metal door down a flight of stairs. Vin Diesel and Jason Statham don’t have just one high-speed, head-on collision, they have two – and walk away from both. And the team isn’t just chased around L.A. by a gunship, they’re chased by a gunship that launches a Predator drone – because why the fuck not?

Simply put, the only way to outdo Fast and Furious 6 is to go from Hollywood-unbelievable to just plain unbelievable. Because Furious 7 can only justify its existence by topping previous films in terms of action setpieces, the threshold for “suspension of disbelief” asymptotically approaches infinity. Furious 7 is so stupid, if you don’t turn your brain off, your brain will turn itself off out of self-preservation.


On Louis C.K. and Common Sense Politics

Louis C.K. is undoubtedly the finest comedian working today. He marries the absurd and the profane and, in so doing, he’s allowed himself the freedom to go anywhere with his comedy. He’s as fearless as any comic in history.

He’s openly called one of his daughters “an asshole” on stage as well as discussing how nothing she says at age 5 is worth listening to. He’s says “faggot,” “cunt,” and “nigger” on stage without any hesitation. (Within that bit is an insightful discussion on language.) And then there’s “Of Course But Maybe,” a piece of comedy that may well go down as both the pinnacle of his career and an all-time classic routine.

Which brings me to politics. Over the last handful of comedy specials, Louis has emerged as a comedian doing political humor without being a political or topical comic in the vein of Lewis Black or Jon Stewart. That is, he doesn’t make his living being political, nor does his audience expect him to be so. Instead, when politics comes up in his act, it’s because that’s where the humor happens to be for whatever point he’s making. That said, the point found at the end of “Of Course” seems to have become a hallmark of Louis’s worldview – namely, politically minded but based on common sense. It’s interesting to note that common sense in this appears to be largely leftist in nature.

See, “Of Course But Maybe” (taken from his 2013 special Oh My God) ends on what is not only a fantastic punchline but also a valid point. I won’t ruin it, but it has to do with how humans are shitty to each other, and perhaps that’s how we achieved things like the Great Pyramids, the US railroad system and smartphones – in particular, iPhones and Foxconn. As he rightly declares, “There’s no end to what you can do when you don’t give a fuck about a particular people.”

God also find Louis talking about how men are the most dangerous threat to women and wondering why the latter would ever willingly spend time alone with the former. And he’s right. Over the course of history, he argues, men have been “shitty people” to women and it is a miracle that any woman would accept an invitation for a date with a man. It’s so historically recorded, ingrained and, at least for part of the population, sadly systemic of the male psyche that a term was created to describe the viewpoint of a man approaching a women on the street: Schrödinger’s Rapist. It’s seemingly feminist in its delivery and viewpoint. And is also derived from common sense.

But it’s only the beginning of Louis’s argument. He’s expanded on that same point – that people are shitty to each other – to include all white people. 2011’s Live at the Beacon Theater includes musings on when Europeans came over to America and called Native Americans “Indians”…even though they weren’t from India:

They weren’t even Indians. We called them that by accident, and we still call them that. Like, we knew in a month that it wasn’t Indians, but we just don’t give a shit. We never corrected.

It’s not politically correct in its tone. It is, however, more in line with the movement to excise racism from sports than it is with the view that Redskins is “just a name.” Which is to say, a bit left. And, again, common sense: Why call a person born in America an Indian and not a Native American if you knew better?

He then goes on to argue white people might not be from Earth because “we don’t like it here.” He observes that we need “smooth surfaces,” “right angles,” and the temperature to be just right. Then he moves on to discussing environmentalism and Christianity – or, rather, that many who oppose environmental regulations because they hurt the economy are also Christians, and how odd it is:

If you believe that God gave you the Earth, that God created the Earth for you, why would you not have to look after it? Why would you not think when He came back, he wouldn’t go, “What the fuck did you do? I gave this to you, motherfucker. Are you crazy?!

He then imagines a conversation between a person and God, where God is asking why this person started drilling for oil. Louis imagines him meekly replying with “Because I wanted to go faster, I’m not fast enough” and because he was cold. God replies, “What do you mean cold? I gave you everything you need, you piece of shit.” The man responds, “Because…jobs.”

God then demands an explanation of what a job is and why anyone would need one. The man explains jobs are for money, for food. God says money isn’t needed because food is in nature. “Yeah, but it doesn’t have bacon around it.” It’s absurdist, to be sure. Yet, under the silliness lies some seriously biting commentary of people, especially Americans. Yes, Americans are stereotypically gluttonous and the phrase “bacon wrapped” is a microcosm of that. Go a little further, though, and you find the seedlings of leftist economic thought: Communism.

[I’d like to pause here to note something. When I suggest that a portion of a Louis C.K. bit might be communist or leans towards a communist notion, I don’t mean it pejoratively. I’m not using it to frame an American media “Us v Them” mentality or anything of the sort. I’m not trying to be a talking head spouting off crazy shit on a cable news network to secure ratings. I’m simply applying outside analysis to help make a larger point. (This is to say nothing of the fact that I have a political science degree and can actually explain what Communism is and is not.) I’m also trying to avoid any arguments later that might devolve into this.]

Louis’s point is: What did humans truly need money or jobs or an economy for when life as we know it began? Humanity did more or less have everything it needed before money or government was invented, so what’s the point? Which, effectively, is what Karl Marx envisioned: true Communism removes the need for wealth, jobs or government. Hell, you could easily argue that the Garden of Eden was the first Communist society. Perhaps God is a commie. (I’d love it if one day we found out God is a Marxist. Holy shit, would that piss off the Red States. I think Ted Cruz’s head would explode.)

Whatever your opinion of Communism or leftist economic thought, Louis simply worked backwards from basic logic to arrive where he did. In that hypothetical exchange between God and man, he cut away any excess in human life to get to “What do you need money for?!” in a spectacularly simple fashion. He path was abstract and silly, but that’s what makes comedy so great: Louis CK goes places no one else would go, or even think to go. It’s also what makes his politically-minded bits so powerful – they’re based on reason and logic, with emotion and stupidity completely stripped away.

This brings us back to the trifecta of faggot, cunt and nigger. Louis’s use of all three on stage is defended by the comedian himself through a very plain argument: they’re just words. On stage, he didn’t and doesn’t use them towards a gay person, a black person or a woman. The terms are just that, terms. People may use these three – or any “offensive” word – to hurt others, but that isn’t Louis’s intention. As he explains:

A lotta words, they’re not bad words. No words are bad, but some people start using them to hurt other people and then they become bad. There’s words that I love that I can’t use ’cause other people use them wrong – to hurt other people.

His belief in the freedom of speech, especially in extreme cases, is consistent with other common sense views mentioned above. It’s certainly a liberal viewpoint – “liberal” here being classical liberalism, not the left-right bullshit term used in the US – but that doesn’t make it any less reasonable.

“Reasonable” is perhaps the best way to describe his stance on gay marriage from 2006’s Shameless: “Who gives a shit? It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t have any effect on your life. What the fuck do you care?” He then addresses the social component of those opposed to same-sex marriage:

Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show and say, “How am I supposed to explain to my child that two men are getting married?” I dunno, it’s your shitty kid. You fucking tell them. Why is that anyone else’s problem? Two guys are in love but they can’t get married ’cause you don’t wanna talk to your ugly child for five minutes?

Marriage, it should be noted, is how G.W. F. Hegel believed civil society should function: Everyone in a society should act as if s/he needs everyone else in a quasi-symbiotic relationship. It’s elegant in its simplicity and in its common sense approach. Or, to put that in Louis’s parlance: If we could all just be a little nicer to each other, we’d be so much better off. Which, again, is a leftist view. Perhaps more accurately, it’s more left than right. What’s truly noteworthy, though, is just how many times common sense has apparently led Louis C.K. to form left-leaning opinions.





Welcome to my website. I’ve never owned my own site before, so should be an interesting experiment. This site will primarily serve as an outlet for my musings, rants or other comments on pop culture. I may have a thought or two on politics occasionally, but that won’t be the norm here and isn’t my reason for starting this blog.

A few quick things about me. I started writing for the Badger Herald while attending the University of Wisconsin, between September 2007 and April 2009. Have a look at my work for BH here. I essentially learned to write as I went along, and my published work for BH reflects that.

After graduation, I moved on to The Line of Best Fit in March of 2009, a music blog that I continue to write for. You can view my portfolio (in reverse chronological order) by clicking here.

I’ve also written for ZME Music, another music blog. You can view my work there at this link.

Music is what I know best and what I’ve written the most about, so expect more opinions on music than anything else. However, that doesn’t mean I won’t occasionally write about television, film, books or whatever else I have publish-worthy thoughts on.

Anyhow, stop back once in a while for my thoughts on…stuff.