This film depicts two assistant-managers, at one of the branches of a supermarket chain, applying for the position of manager. One is an American. One is Canadian. They struggle for a promotion to step- up the corporate ladder.
Competition for corporate promotions, and this is particularly true with chains or franchises, causes anxiety and tension by pitting competing employees against one another. Corporate politics, between front-line and mid-managers, often results in unfair and unnecessary control and manipulation by management. This does not promote good relations, between competing employees, and may result in anger and frustration.
In this film, the director and writer (Steve Conrad) and the writer stereotype the actors playing characters who are considered to be insiders or outsiders (this is clearly seen in characterizations by Seann William Scott and John C. Reilly). One is portrayed as the included "shoe-in". One is depicted as the excluded 'fall-guy'. Other actors are stereotyped as 'being gay', or 'being Hispanic', and so on. Are all Americans and Canadians alike? Are all gays, all Hispanics, and all etceteras alike? Stereotypical generalizations, so prevalent in the media (including films), is disturbing. John C. Reilly may become unnecessarily stereotyped, as an actor, by being portrayed as the 'fall-guy' (stereotypically portraying an 'addict', a 'retard', a 'weirdo', and etcetera). Why is an 'outsider' forced into exclusion, and considered to be inferior? Why is an 'insider' forced into inclusion, and considered to be superior?
In this film, a competing employee from Canada is treated as a scapegoat, by a competing American employee, as well as his American corporate managers and subordinates? The Canadian employee is excluded and shabbily treated--and is depicted as being 'different' (diverse) and 'weird' (unusual). Diversity and the unusual are not well managed in corporate America and in American society. Why is any individual, or group, forced into being the scapegoat?
This film, in fact, reinforces exclusion and scapegoating as being a natural course of life. Such things are not a natural course of life as they result in discrimination, inequality, prejudice, and unfairness.
I rank this film a 6 out of 10, as it opens the door for discussion about exclusion and scapegoating. It is very unfortunate that the film does not go far enough in the exploration of exclusion's and scapegoating's harmful and negative results. Why must there always be a loser and a winner? Why does the loser never win? Why do we always cheer the winner, and seldom cheer the loser?
Competition for corporate promotions, and this is particularly true with chains or franchises, causes anxiety and tension by pitting competing employees against one another. Corporate politics, between front-line and mid-managers, often results in unfair and unnecessary control and manipulation by management. This does not promote good relations, between competing employees, and may result in anger and frustration.
In this film, the director and writer (Steve Conrad) and the writer stereotype the actors playing characters who are considered to be insiders or outsiders (this is clearly seen in characterizations by Seann William Scott and John C. Reilly). One is portrayed as the included "shoe-in". One is depicted as the excluded 'fall-guy'. Other actors are stereotyped as 'being gay', or 'being Hispanic', and so on. Are all Americans and Canadians alike? Are all gays, all Hispanics, and all etceteras alike? Stereotypical generalizations, so prevalent in the media (including films), is disturbing. John C. Reilly may become unnecessarily stereotyped, as an actor, by being portrayed as the 'fall-guy' (stereotypically portraying an 'addict', a 'retard', a 'weirdo', and etcetera). Why is an 'outsider' forced into exclusion, and considered to be inferior? Why is an 'insider' forced into inclusion, and considered to be superior?
In this film, a competing employee from Canada is treated as a scapegoat, by a competing American employee, as well as his American corporate managers and subordinates? The Canadian employee is excluded and shabbily treated--and is depicted as being 'different' (diverse) and 'weird' (unusual). Diversity and the unusual are not well managed in corporate America and in American society. Why is any individual, or group, forced into being the scapegoat?
This film, in fact, reinforces exclusion and scapegoating as being a natural course of life. Such things are not a natural course of life as they result in discrimination, inequality, prejudice, and unfairness.
I rank this film a 6 out of 10, as it opens the door for discussion about exclusion and scapegoating. It is very unfortunate that the film does not go far enough in the exploration of exclusion's and scapegoating's harmful and negative results. Why must there always be a loser and a winner? Why does the loser never win? Why do we always cheer the winner, and seldom cheer the loser?