Male friendship and the
‘Neighbors’ conundrum

There’s a scene at the end of

“Neighbors” that’s always bugged
me. Zac Efron (“Baywatch”) and
Dave Franco (“The Little Hours”)
are best friends who have been
fighting and growing apart over
the course of the movie, but
now Efron’s character is about
to turn himself into the police
to save his friends and they’re
forced to make up. It starts out
sweet, touching even. They tell
each other they love each other
(“I fucking love you man,” “I love
YOU dawg”) and their eyes are
welling over with tears. “I love
you!” Efron says again. “That’s
why I gotta go out there!” Franco
starts bouncing up and down and
screams “BE in this moment!
Live in this shit with me!” They
scream “I LOVE YOU!” and “I
FUCKING LOVE YOU MAN”
over and over again, both crying
and hugging each other, to the
point that Efron puts a stop to it.
“Look, man, I love you and all,”
he says, “but like, I’ve gotta go...
so....”

It’s a funny scene — Franco

and
Efron
are
both
really

good at embodying their frat
bro personas while seeing the
inherent humor in their macho
posturing, and they’re talented
comic actors. The music swells
dramatically while the editing is
lots of quick cuts between their
two faces as they trade shouts of
love at each other. Just bros being
dudes, you know? It’s supposed
to be funny, and it is. But my
question is, why does this have to
be funny at all?

Make no mistake: The butt of

the joke is the fact that these are

two big, handsome frat guys who
are having a moment of genuine
love, friendship and emotion. But I
don’t know. I don’t know if there’s
anything particularly hilarious
about honest connection and
friendship between two people
who really care about each other.
The only way to make that kind of
thing funny at all is through the
ironic, winking way the writers
frame the scene. As if there’s
something inherently unmanly,
overemotional and embarrassing
about the way they’re acting.

I can’t help but wonder how

much more powerful that scene
could have been if instead of
shouting their declarations of
love in an increasingly ridiculous
affectation, the characters had
looked each other in the eyes and
said, “I love you. You’re my best
friend.” And that would be that.
No need to cover the feelings
in layers of disingenuous irony
and this inflated, self-conscious
posturing.

I’ve seen this scene play out in

so many movies and TV shows.
There’s a whole episode in “New
Girl” dedicated to Nick’s inability
to accept Schmidt’s friendship
and love, and it culminates in
three men crying all over each
other and confessing how much
they care about each other. Only
instead of playing the moment
straight, the editing and framing
(they all awkwardly walk away,
clearly embarrassed) are telling
us to laugh. Same thing in
“Superbad,” and so many other
contemporary comedies.

It’s a little heartbreaking.

The message being delivered
to young male audiences here
is
undeniable:
Your
feelings

are
funny.
Your
friendships

are laughable. Your moments
of honest connection are not

masculine
and
need
to
be

displaced and distanced from
you with a good dose of self-
awareness and quippiness. Of
course, it’s not like these movies
exist in a vacuum — they’re
reflecting the way we as a
culture see masculinity and male
friendships in the real world. But
can’t our media be more than
a mirror? Can’t we be a little
aspirational? Why not hope for
a kinder, more gentle world, one
in which men can just tell their
friends they love each other
without being seen as effeminate
or overemotional?

This isn’t a small thing,

limited to a few late 2010s
comedies. There are real and
awful
consequences
to
the

reinforcement of this worldview.
The undercurrent to all this
is a belief that actions coded
feminine (you know, little things
like expressions of love, emotion
and tenderness) are inherently
embarrassing. It’s the belief
that women are fundamentally
inferior, and being seen as
womanly is the very worst thing
a man can be. Thinking this,
holding it as true, growing up
with it embedded deep in the core
of who you are, it hurts people.
It causes men to be angry and
violent, and deeply, deeply sad.

I think we can do better. I

think we can use our media to
create better models of behavior,
ones that are a little less incisive
and clever, and a little more
human. I think modern comedies
can be hilarious and sharp and
full of heart. I think men can find
ways to be a little more gentle
with each other. I really believe
that — no irony, no distance, no
posturing. We can all be a little
more gentle with each other. This
is a place to start.

ASIF BECHER
Daily Arts Writer

Crocs and their unlikely
comback in luxury retail

Distaste
for
Crocs
once

seemed
like
the
absolute

bottom threshold for sartorial
taste. Now, the iconic mid-
aughts children’s shoe has been
adopted by the elitist world of
high fashion. British designer
Christopher Kane prominently
featured his take on the rubber
shoe in his SS18 collection,
a decision that was met by
general praise by critics, and
absolute horror by me.

If I could squelch one trend

it would be high fashion Crocs.
On the list of things the world
needs,
crystal
encrusted

Crocs round out the bottom. I
would prefer to live in a world
where the term “luxurious
Crocs”
remains
exclusively

oxymoronic. Prior to today, I
thought just about everyone
would want to stay in that
relative-utopia,
except
for,

maybe, Mario Batali.

Kane’s Crocs are neither

innovative, nor clever, and
frankly extremely ugly. Being
fashionable does not necessitate
looking good (nor should it),
but this is ridiculous and also
slightly bothersome. I find it
generally distasteful when the
fashion
world
appropriates,

and marks-up, working-class
items. Like the Moschino SS16
collection, which was inspired
by “tradesmen” and featured
this take on high-vis workwear
as well as the use of a traffic
cone as a purse, which was sold
for $1,195.

It’s
unclear
how
much

Kane will sell his new Croc
designs for. But if they’re
priced similarly to previous
Croc collaborations (yes, that’s
right, this collection is not the
designer’s first dalliance with
the the Croc brand), they’re
likely to be quite expensive.
Currently there is a pair of
“slip-on Crocs clogs” being
sold on the Christopher Kane

website for $545.

For that price, you could buy

20 actual Crocs, 180 jibbitz, or
something that isn’t trash.

While Kane may have been

the first major designer to
collaborate with Crocs, he was
not the last. Only two weeks
after Kane sent his latest Croc-
collab down the runway, Demna
Gvasalia of Balenciaga unveiled
a pair of his own. It’s honestly
hard to say which collaboration
is worse, but I would give it to
Balenciaga. The iconic French
fashion house barely adapted
the classic design at all, simply
slapped on a platform.

It’s pretty shocking that

two different designers would
collaborate
with
the
same

third-party brand for a given
season, but the fact that this
brand is Crocs is absolutely
insane. It’s too early to tell if
the other major designers will
hop on the Croc bandwagon,
or if the trend will fizzle and
die once more. I, for one, am
rooting for the latter.

TESS TOBIN
Daily Arts Writer

COURTEST OF BALENCIAGA

FILM NOTEBOOK

6A — Monday, October 9, 2017
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

STYLE