An armchair for two returns to the cinema. But is it appropriate to screen such a controversial comedy?

This year too An armchair for two she is a healthy carrier of controversy. The comedy of 1983 directed by John Landis not only will he accompany us on Italia 1 on Christmas Eve, as has been the tradition for the last thirty years of generalist TV, but he will also be at the cinema on 9, 10 and 11 December distributed by Adler Entertainment in its restored version. It’s inexplicable how a title that has been so opposed (and rightly so) in recent years even has the possibility of being screened in theaters for three days, especially after the debates which he has brought with him in recent times. The “censorship yes, censorship no” issue dates back to 2021 and affected some of the most famous titles in popular cinema, ranging from very famous animated works to films starring Dan Aykroyd, Eddy Murphy and Jamie Lee Curtis.

If, however, for Disney feature films it is only a question a special initial hat where it is explained why the representation of the crows in is wrong Dumboa speck of the racial laws, or that the term “redskin” used by Peter Pan it is in a derogatory sense, for works such as An armchair for two it becomes much more complicated. The problem, in fact, is that we tend to justify one clearly retrograde trend that permeates the film of the Eighties. And even though he does it precisely for dismantle some of the prejudices it brings into playit is equally obvious that she risks running into it herself.

From Dan Aykroyd to blackface: what would change today

It is rather unpleasant, to this day, to listen to one of the Duke brothers in the film, tycoons who embark on a scientific experiment in which they make a bum a businessman and a businessman a bum, use the «N-word» to appeal to the character of Billy Ray Valentine (Murphy). And it is equally important to realize that, against the background of the halls of power, there is only one African American servitude. There is no doubt, then, that some of these characters emancipate themselves by underlining the spectator inherent racism which characterizes the social fabric in which they move (like the waiter who ironically accepts the five dollar Christmas bonus from entrepreneurs, marking their stinginess). But it is equally so in highlighting how the film never worries about condemning someone despicable mentality and daughter of a past to be ashamed of, actually using it to create sketches and jokes which, by now, are out of time.

For example, we challenge anyone to say that the blackface of Aykroyd’s character make you laugh again. It is certainly, of all things, the thing that stands out the most in contemporary times offensive, reactionary And anti-progressive. And perhaps you would even be surprised to discover that the actor himself agrees. In an interview with The Daily Beast, the actor stated that, in this day and age, he probably wouldn’t accept a role like the Louis Winthorpe III Of An armchair for two. «In the world there are many things to comment on that do not fall within the scope of offense», he explained. «As a writer, you can branch out into other areas and still be successful. Scatological humor is funny. It makes you laugh easily. But there is more intelligent writing that can be achieved if one stays away from offensive material which should rightfully be deleted due to its nature.”

If Louis Winthorpe III also knew how to change, why shouldn’t we? After all, this is precisely the ultimate meaning of An armchair for twoinspired by The prince and the pauper by Mark Twaina film where we question our own nature and whether it is innate or the result of conditioning due to the environment around us.

An armchair for two and all the problems of representation

An attitude to which another very current topic is added, namely the way in which the sex worker by Jamie Lee Curtiswhere her unmotivated nudity and total two-dimensionality make her a character who would never surpass the Bechdel testmethod to see if at least two female characters coexist in a work who, when speaking to each other, do not refer to a man. Not to mention a couple of sketches where women are used only as objectsfrom the unflattering insistence of Billy Ray Valentine’s character (Murphy) towards a stranger, who makes a point of shouting “bitch” at her after she walks away, to Curtis’s skimpy Swede suit on the train in one of the final sequences .

Although the stereotypes of the story can be a reinforcement to underline the low and narrow conception of a society that we hope has improved, in 2024 it is not enough to just let a film be shown, but it would be useful to talk about it and reflect on it to yes, contextualize it, but above all to not hold back when it comes to pointing out what it contained (and contains) that was inappropriate. A warning so that such language is not reproduced, which in contemporary times no longer needs to be ostentatious for us to grasp the point. Remember that through cinema we can learn, also and above all from our mistakes.