Whether or not you’ll enjoy Seth MacFarlane’s Ted depends on a number of things but the most important might be what you mean when you say a film is good. If you mean that you like a film that is crafted with some measure of skill, you might find things to appreciate. If, however, you require a film’s content to be enjoyable or otherwise interesting, you’ll find yourself facing an uphill battle.
Ted is the story of a man named John who, as a lonely eight-year-old boy, received a large teddy bear for Christmas. That plush toy, named Ted, magically came to life and pledged to be John’s lifelong friend. After a brief stint as a celebrity sensation (he was a talking teddy bear, after all), Ted (voiced by MacFarlane) has spent most of the ensuing 27 years remaining the best friend of John (Mark Walhberg), growing along with him in some ways but essentially anchoring him to juvenilia and validating his extant adolescent impulses.
MacFarlane makes his debut as a feature film director and is surprisingly adept at it. Given that he’s made his name in animation, he takes easily to the live-action format. His compositions and editing are considered without being ostentatious. And, unlike many mainstream comedies, Ted is not a series of set-pieces and sketches haphazardly strung together in the general shape of a motion picture. MacFarlane is actually telling a story here using thought-out sequences that build upon one another. Most remarkably, a hotel room brawl between John and Ted when things in the friendship get tense is both believable and brutal, not to mention more than a little funny.
To the extent that Ted works, it’s due to Wahlberg. His notable chemistry with the CGI bear is enough to make you forget that Ted is clearly a CGI bear. Wahlberg has always been at his best playing good-natured dopes (Three Kings, The Fighter) and John fits that bill exquisitely. His overall wide-eyed pleasantness not only makes the case for why his girlfriend (Mila Kunis) keeps taking him back, it even makes the awful jokes MacFarlane has written nearly forgivable.
If it seems that this review is positive so far, that’s because the things that make this a bad movie – overpowering though they may be – are rather simple. Mainly, it’s just not funny. Not only is it not funny, it’s unfunny. The better part of a decade ago, when someone like a Sarah Silverman was ironically racist in her act, the surprise of it was enough to make it worthwhile (if not exactly hilarious). All these years later, the irony part of such an approach has lost all usefulness. Making racist jokes isn’t shocking anymore. It’s just racist. That’s especially true when there isn’t even a real joke to speak of. Someone should tell MacFarlane that the word “Jew” isn’t a punchline in and of itself. Also, someone should give him the news that women are allowed to be funny. It’s insulting and embarrassingly old-fashioned to cast as capable a comedic actress as Mila Kunis and not allow her any laughs; to, in fact, make repeated jokes out of the premise that she is unable to keep up with her male counterparts’ back and forth repartee.
Those are just examples of the main problem, really, which is that the film is stale. For the most part, these jokes have been made. What’s more, this story has been told. Thematically (and I do at least respect MacFarlane for caring about his theme), this is something we’ve been seeing for years now. Ted is the manifestation of John’s inability to grow up even when doing so would earn him a rewarding romantic and professional life. Judd Apatow made his cinematic name with that outline. MacFarlane may regurgitate it skillfully but the execution is hollow and pointless.
So if you want to see competent work from a filmmaker who could likely make something interesting out of someone else’s screenplay, perhaps Ted is for you. But if you are seeking something that could be described as watchable, you’d do well to skip it.
Your comment on the fact that Seth Macfarlene uses the word Jew in as a punch line isn’t true, if the line is offensive to anyone it’s people who live in Boston. It’s a joke about anti-semitism being prevalent in boston not about jewish people. Though it is true that the movie uses the ironic racism trope where for example and asian man comes in with a duck and a “Long Duck Dong” accent where it’s racist but it’s heightened to a ridiculous extant that the filmmaker can hide under the protection of irony. And I do acknowledge that using that trope is at the least uncomfortable and at most highly dangerous I do think that in the film the character is not used to have an easy punch line, but rather to expose the ridiculousness of that stereo type.
The joke is that the spirit of Christmas (acceptance, peace, love) is subverted to be a jingoistic expression of conformity by the people who supposedly believe in Christmas the most.
Oh just so you know I’m a huge fan of the podcast, it’s the first podcast I listen to when I get a new episode I don’t agree with you guy’s all the time but your analysis is always interesting and intelligent.
Like Jake mentioned, it’s way more about white, gentile prejudice than anything having to do with the Jewish people. What struck me as funny about that moment was Ted going out of his way to hide his racism under the rush of cocaine, claiming he would never outwardly discriminate against a race that has been integrated with white society, but will happily shut out one that hasn’t (the end tag about “No Mexicans”).
And I really don’t see how the opening bit could possibly be construed as racist. Jake hit it right on the nose, besides the fact that none of our sympathies are meant to lie with the aggressors, and we’re invited to laugh at John for wanting to join in. In fact, the joke upon John’s entrance is that he’s so desperate to fit in, he’ll happily join them in beating the kid up, which one could extrapolate out to say all kinds of things about socio-political history.
For the record, I never used the opening scene as an example. I don’t think that scene’s funny but it’s not as problematic for me as the restaurant discussion. Especially ending with “No Mexicans.” Maybe I’m jaded by years of alt-comedy ironic racism but I just don’t see the point or the humor in that kind of joke. It doesn’t shock or surprise me. It’s only cause for eye-rolling.
Well, somehow my reply to this entire conversation got placed in the middle of the thread, but, uh, yeah, it was supposed to come after David’s last comment.
The fact that anyone would bring up the fact that there restaurant wouldn’t be restricted to gentiles is so weird and out of place for this century At this period of time restaurants would never (I assume) think about being restricted . It’s also kind of funny that the character of Ted when he says that the restaurant wouldn’t be restricted he says it like he’s some moral hero, it is (i think) making fun of certain liberals who make a big deal of the fact that they aren’t prejudiced in a way that basically no one is.
Your comment on the fact that Seth Macfarlene uses the word Jew in as a punch line isn’t true, if the line is offensive to anyone it’s people who live in Boston. It’s a joke about anti-semitism being prevalent in boston not about jewish people. Though it is true that the movie uses the ironic racism trope where for example and asian man comes in with a duck and a “Long Duck Dong” accent where it’s racist but it’s heightened to a ridiculous extant that the filmmaker can hide under the protection of irony. And I do acknowledge that using that trope is at the least uncomfortable and at most highly dangerous I do think that in the film the character is not used to have an easy punch line, but rather to expose the ridiculousness of that stereo type.
Reply
Whether it’s about Jewish people or Bostonians, there’s still no real joke to the joke.
– David
Reply
The joke is that the spirit of Christmas (acceptance, peace, love) is subverted to be a jingoistic expression of conformity by the people who supposedly believe in Christmas the most.
Reply
What about all the other Jewish “jokes”? Like the plan to open a restaurant that won’t be restricted? How is that funny?
– David
Reply
Oh just so you know I’m a huge fan of the podcast, it’s the first podcast I listen to when I get a new episode I don’t agree with you guy’s all the time but your analysis is always interesting and intelligent.
Reply
Like Jake mentioned, it’s way more about white, gentile prejudice than anything having to do with the Jewish people. What struck me as funny about that moment was Ted going out of his way to hide his racism under the rush of cocaine, claiming he would never outwardly discriminate against a race that has been integrated with white society, but will happily shut out one that hasn’t (the end tag about “No Mexicans”).
And I really don’t see how the opening bit could possibly be construed as racist. Jake hit it right on the nose, besides the fact that none of our sympathies are meant to lie with the aggressors, and we’re invited to laugh at John for wanting to join in. In fact, the joke upon John’s entrance is that he’s so desperate to fit in, he’ll happily join them in beating the kid up, which one could extrapolate out to say all kinds of things about socio-political history.
Reply
For the record, I never used the opening scene as an example. I don’t think that scene’s funny but it’s not as problematic for me as the restaurant discussion. Especially ending with “No Mexicans.” Maybe I’m jaded by years of alt-comedy ironic racism but I just don’t see the point or the humor in that kind of joke. It doesn’t shock or surprise me. It’s only cause for eye-rolling.
– David
Reply
Well, somehow my reply to this entire conversation got placed in the middle of the thread, but, uh, yeah, it was supposed to come after David’s last comment.
Reply
The fact that anyone would bring up the fact that there restaurant wouldn’t be restricted to gentiles is so weird and out of place for this century At this period of time restaurants would never (I assume) think about being restricted . It’s also kind of funny that the character of Ted when he says that the restaurant wouldn’t be restricted he says it like he’s some moral hero, it is (i think) making fun of certain liberals who make a big deal of the fact that they aren’t prejudiced in a way that basically no one is.
Reply