Safety Not Guaranteed
by deerinthexenonarclights
Aubrey Plaza is an actress who was typecast before she was ever given a role, for years now all of her screen-time has been spent playing a specific modern mindset more than characters of any kind. Somehow she was chosen to be pop-culture’s embodiment of contemporary cynicism, she scoffs and rolls her eyes like every teenager to ever exist and she does it wonderfully. It is this fact, alongside her considerable charm and talent, that makes her perfect for playing the lead in Safety Not Guaranteed. Here – similar to her previous best performance as April Ludgate in Parks and Rec - Plaza is not simply placed in the film to be the butt of easy jokes – a stereotyped sigh – but to subvert that status; she stands as both an emotional counterpoint t a different kind of crazy and as someone to be converted. Something made all the more interesting considering that she isn’t just, as usual, embodying disaffected youth here but the very audience in which you sit.
See, Safety Not Guaranteed has the premise of a cold, high-concept comedy: three reporters find a ridiculous ad and seek out the author for a profile piece, hoping to make him that week’s water-skiing squirrel and it’s not hard to see why. Here is the ad, which was really published in a small press magazine:
You read that and laughed, did you not? Then maybe you thought about who would seriously write such a thing and probably gave out a few more giggles. It’s natural, that’s how we are all wired. This movie though is made to counter that modern reaction, that instinctual mocking. It asks you to treat something as silly as that letter sincerely, to treat it’s writer as a real human, to take that risk.
And you do, because all of the actors involved sell you on their characters completely. Darius shepherds you from scorn to sorrow as the film lets the two of you deeper and deeper into the world of Kenneth, a pretty amazing Duplass. He is a ridiculous figure and he does a lot of funny things that you can’t help but laugh at, but these never come at the cost of his character. Had a comedian been cast in the role instead then this would have been an entirely different film, but not necessarily a funnier one.
For me this movie had as many laughs as any other this year, and the audience I saw it with were obviously very entertained, but the comedy rarely came at the expense of. When it did act a little caustically the film usually had the right character in its cross-hairs. It would be easy to simply ridicule the crazy guy but instead it is Jake Johnson’s sleazy lead who we laugh at most, because he is commonly cruelly insulting and so these critiques are merely reflections of his own volleys.
Most people don’t much mind whether or not their comedy has a conscience so long as it is funny, and for the most part I would agree (to an extreme extent. I feel no topic is taboo provided it is handled with wit) but I do like seeing a comedy that cares because it means that we are also allowed to. So when the film stops and allows its characters to speak sincerely we are much more willing to listen and empathize then we would were they slipping on banana peels in the previous scene. Safety very much tries to be a film that is as heartfelt as it is hilarious and so this is both a necessary and brave step for it to take.
Instead of focusing on the cerebral rules and results of literal time travel Safety very cleverly utilizes it’s more metaphorical properties. Speaking of why he wants to go back Kenneth says this: “The mission is to do with regret and mistakes. The mission is also about love.” Regret, Mistakes and Love; those three words very much apply to the movie itself. Nobody here mentions Hitler and the suggestion of seeing dinosaurs because it would be cool is shot down immediately; if the machine is to be used it will be to go back and change certain events in the characters lives, times they took an emotional bet – times they cared – and lost.
This more emotional material lends the movie so much more impact and makes it a much more satisfying experience than if it had simply been a straight comedy, but it will likely also be what stops it from ever achieving massive mainstream success. Its exemplifying of earnestness is so important because of the prevalence of detachment, alienation and Plaza-esque cynicism in the modern audience – we are a people who prefer to hate-watch bad shows, splitting them limb to limb live on Twitter, than love-watch great ones – but it is this same plague that will probably prevent people from opening themselves up to it enough to get the proper experience; a contemporary catch-22. Know this: Safety Not Guaranteed is not a joke and though it is a risk you really should see it and see it with an open heart. It will be worth it, that I can guarantee.



Can’t wait.
LOVE your description of Plaza in the first paragraph. That was so intelligent and insightful. I love your words. Consider me a fan!
Really want to see this movie.
So what you’re really saying is that it all went downhill from there?
Seriously though, thanks. It is nice enough to have someone actually read my ramblings, let alone like them. And consider the feeling replicated, will be following your reviews from here on out and look forward to hearing what you think of this one in particular when it gets a wide release.
I was pretty damn underwhelmed by this movie. The friend I saw it with loved it though.
For me it didn’t resemble anything that I understand or have experienced about relationships. It felt like a romance movie made by someone who has never been in love, never had a girlfriend, never had their heart broken, never kissed a girl and felt like the happiest man alive. It all felt so forced and inauthentic in this film. The movie wanted so badly to be moving, but for me it just fell flat.
Whereas films like, say, Ruby Sparks, or Scott Pilgrim vs the World, stick with me because of how much they worked emotionally (despite the fact that they also have fun with wacky concepts like mind control and videogame kung-fu). Sparks and Pilgrim connected deeply to my understanding and experiences about love. I was hoping for an experience like that with Safety Not Guaranteed. I didn’t get it. But I’m glad that Deer did, and the friend I saw it with, and I’m sure many others too.
From the sounds of it part of that disappointment (a very small part, if it had worked for you then the why wouldn’t have mattered) may have come from your own obsession with women. I simply don’t think that Safety was really trying to deliver an experience like the one you describe and so I’m not surprised that it didn’t.
Yes the film’s emotional core comes from a relationship between two characters, one male and one female, but for me it wasn’t so simple as to say that it was thus meant to be a love story. All romances are relationships but not all relationships require romance.
Had it been a film about Duplass and Kristen Bell then sure, but as Kenneth himself says “The mission is to do with regret and mistakes. The mission is also about love.” Love comes in second place, that story is simply a sub-plot and the real focus is on a whole other host of interpersonal emotions (honesty, faith, cynicism, openness, etc., etc.).
It’s hard to explain why but to me the difference between seeing Safety as a simple love story and this other, secondary thing is similar to that between seeing Jackie Cogan as ‘America’ or as one slice in a cross-section. Sometimes the actual answer is not so simple, sometimes though that simple answer is more satisfying.
Again though, this is all posthumous discussion; the film should still have satisfied as a comedy (did you not find it chuckle worthy?) and as an emotional experience regardless of what you may have wanted from it: you can want to be watching a sitcom and still appreciate The Godfather, good is good.
That Safety didn’t for you is a shame but your expectations aren’t to blame. I just thought I should clarify that this wasn’t me saying ‘you watched it wrong!’ just justifying why it did work for me. Seems like next time I’m in Sydney I should just hang out with this Josh guy instead!
Yeah, I mean- the laughs were hit and miss for me. There were two HILARIOUS moments, and a dozen or so chuckles. That’s about it.
Aubrey Plaza was great. But this is the first movie I’ve seen Duplass in, and I dunno man, something about that dude just annoys me. Not the character, but the actor.
I will make my rebuttal, but you already covered it for me- If a movie is good enough, it can shake someone out of their expectations and make them think “Hey, what I’m actually getting is pretty good after all!”. That didn’t happen for me. I thought the film was just mildly enjoyable throughout, and it frustrated me because I was admittedly expecting something great. The characters and the emotions just didn’t resonate for me all that much in the end.
PS. You’ve mentioned that Sid wasn’t a fan of the film either. What were his reasons, if I may ask?
The logic of the time travel didn’t make sense RE: Kristen Bell.
Presumably also other stuff though.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. Him and his “logic”.
I actually liked the ambiguity maintained about what exactly was or wasn’t the case with Kristen Bell.
Maybe it was meant to be clear to most people what the answer was. I didn’t fully “get it” myself, but that was something that actually worked for me.