Lay the Favorite

Motto : There is such a thing as broken code that's fun to read.
It's called literature, and it has to be broken in certain ways.

Lay the Favoriteⁱ is the definitive sopirla piece of the NEET "culture"ⁱⁱ. Pretty much everything pertaining to that sorry lot is captured in there, and the age gap between the adult actors/crew discreetely laughing their asses off at the completely imbecile young retards versus the completely imbecile young retards taking themselves seriously and, like, totally-doing-it-reddit is so glaringly obvious as to necessarily pass unnoticed by the unintended audience. It's like a perfectly done Disney movie about a pair of slutty twin sisters and all the fun they had up in Chicago which you can watch with your five year old and he'll see an endearing bit of nonsense about two rabbits and no more. Except of course in this case the five year old is biologically thirty or so, which makes it anything but endearing...

The Mary Sue character, this "always-in-short-pants-and-blouses" mousy chick (hey, legs are out so she's still sexy, but cute and like, totally not skanky or anything, rite ?) has a father, who totally supports her and everything (read : thinks it's a great idea for her to go whore out in Vegasⁱⁱⁱ) and doesn't die^iv but nevertheless fades away in a totally-not-how-this-goes way so that Mary Sue can be adopted (quite literally, in the DJB manner) by a couple of you know, urban old ladies. The words "they adopted a special needs hamster" are, literally, included in the film. What more could you ask for ?

Every single trope of specifically-NEET failure, idiocy, worthlessness, inadequacy, you name it -- is included. In a most typical vein of Luciferian tradition the damned are strictly apt to see it as neutral characterization rather than the plain damnation it so very plainly is. The Mary Sue has very obviously regressed to the level of a pet dog, that has no understanding of causation but merely responds to emotional cues^v -- and a pet dog is included! and used for at least two visual gags based on the exact identity! Yet the very stupid "actress" that's "acting"^vi (except not at all) literally thinks, in the used litterbox that plays the role of a brainbox in her case, that she's signifying and someone's about to thank her for her leadership.

I was entertaint ; and Bruce Willis was evidently just as entertained.

Pro tip : sometimes when they say it was fun working with you there's... more to it than that.

1. 2012, by Stephen Frears, with Bruce Willis, Catherine Zeta-Jones (who's so embarassed of this catastrophe she's not even in the top billed list). Apparently the nonsense was based on some inept piece of Mary Sue fic by one Mary Beth Raymer (a sort of fratire-for-chicks author, I'm guessing). [↩]
2. Let's call it that, though "used adult diapers" would probably be more descriptive. [↩]
3. But totally not in a skanky way or anything. Are you starting to see a pattern emerge ?

   I hope you see a pattern emerge in a totally non-skanky way if you know what The New York Times thinks is good for you. [↩]

4. As the "character" is to be protected, see ? She can't experience anything, that's why the inexistent tits require a bra even in bra-intolerant dresses. [↩]
5. Literally -- now things are good, yee! Now they are bad -- awww! Like a three month old baby responding to mother's face without any inkling of a clue as to what the fuck happened behind that face, exactly so here. "It worked" or "It didn't work", what do you mean "how" ? A "business"! What do you mean... etcetera [↩]
6. Her "acting" entirely consists of some kind of obligation implicitly foisted on the viewer to pretend to not notice that she's just being herself, and instead pretend that what the chair is doing standing unmoved is the very competent work of a totally not-chair "actor" that's merely ACTING the part of a piece of furniture, and doing SUCH A GREAT JOB OF IT!!11 [↩]