Spoof comedy

Last year, a film titled "Hangover" emerged as a dark horse of the year. With a budget of only $35M, it garnered an impressive box office of $270M in North America and $460M worldwide, filling Warner Bros.' coffers. Following this, Bradley Cooper, after years of fluctuating in the third-tier actor ranks, skyrocketed, achieving a complete career turnaround. And then, in the recent Golden Globe Awards, the film won the Best Musical or Comedy award, taking its dark horse journey to the very end.

"Hangover" was a classic example of a satirical comedy. Its unexpected plot twists shone brightly, seizing an advantage from a creative perspective. Unanticipated moments of humor, actors unafraid to sacrifice their image for satire, combined with a plethora of absurdly ingenious lines—these elements created a work of miracles.

Following this, many producers started trying to replicate this formula, hoping to create another dark horse. After all, comedy investments had always been low, most of them below $50M, and the low-risk nature coupled with the ease of marketing and promotion, as long as the film achieved a box office above $100M in North America, profit was practically guaranteed. And this didn't even account for overseas box office. The low risk was undoubtedly a big advantage.

"Horrible Bosses" was born under this trend.

In reality, New Line Cinema had acquired the script created by Michael Markowitz in 2005. At the time, the negotiations for a director were with Frank Oz. However, New Line Cinema lacked sufficient confidence in this style of comedy, and the project never took off.

The immense success of "Hangover" prompted New Line Cinema to dust off this long-forgotten project. They brought in John Francis Daley and Jonathan M. Goldstein to collaborate on the script. Both of them were newcomers in the field of screenwriting. Prior to this, they had only written for the American TV series "Bones", completely unfamiliar with the realm of cinema. Yet, their distinct styles were quite evident. John was a young man of merely 24 years, while Jonathan was a middle-aged individual of 39. Both had experienced the ebb and flow, the twists and turns of Hollywood for quite some time. They had vastly different perspectives on the industry, yet they hadn't fallen victim to the industry's ingrained formulaic thinking, preserving their fresh creative energy.

As such, the script for "Horrible Bosses" was finally born!

The movie told the story of three unlucky common office workers. Nick's boss was an absolute jerk who wore his shamelessness on his sleeve, insufferably arrogant and narcissistic. He took pleasure in tormenting his subordinates and refused to promote them. Kurt's boss was a middle-aged, balding lunatic. He was slowly embezzling the company's assets while tarnishing Kurt's reputation, putting his career in jeopardy. Dale's boss was a seductive, single female doctor. However, this woman had serious sexual inclinations and would flirt with her male subordinates without consideration for the situation, causing great distress for Dale.

The three employees were close friends, and given their dire financial circumstances, quitting wasn't the best option. One night, fueled by alcohol and guided by a jittery African-American, they came up with a plan: to kill their bosses! Thus, the story began.

The concept of "Horrible Bosses" was both innovative and deeply relatable. In real life, almost everyone had experienced workplace troubles, and terrible bosses could turn everyday life into a disaster. Everyone longed to teach their bosses a lesson, but for the sake of their livelihoods, they had to swallow their pride.

This film emerged under such a backdrop, using an absurd and unrestrained approach to vent the inner pain of oppressed employees. However, the brilliance of the film lay not solely in this concept, but in the portrayal of the bosses as vivid and interesting characters—jerks, yet not repugnant.

John was responsible for writing the roles of the junior employees, while Jonathan took charge of crafting the characters of the bosses. The sparks of collision between these two and their ingenious thoughts were all displayed in the six characters. This ultimately gave rise to a script abundant in humor and yet grounded in believability.

The humor in "Horrible Bosses" stemmed from various sources. Part of it came from the oppression and humiliation suffered by the employees at the hands of their bosses. This satirical and witty humor sustained the first half of the film. The other part came from the foolish and unexpected actions of the employees during their attempts to murder their bosses in the latter half. The humor derived from the plot itself, the witty lines, and the actors' simple yet bewildering performances combined to magnify the allure of the comedy.

Without a doubt, "Horrible Bosses" was an ingeniously unique yet simultaneously tear-inducing comedy.

Objectively speaking, "Horrible Bosses" was a notch below "Hangover" in terms of quality. Both screenwriters were still a bit green, and the creation of comedic elements felt somewhat contrived and lackadaisical. In comparison, the two screenwriters of "Hangover" had previously collaborated on three projects, showcasing a more mature and unified thinking. In terms of directors, there was a significant gap as well. Todd Phillips already had a commendable reputation even before "Hangover", having achieved respectable box office results with "Road Trip", "Old School", and "Starsky & Hutch", whereas Seth Gordon was only directing a film for the second time.

The experience gap led to a difference in the completeness of the two works, which was evident from the critics' reviews. "Hangover" received a media composite score of 73, while "Horrible Bosses" scored only 57. Nevertheless, in the world of comedy, this score could still be considered a passing grade.

Even so, "Horrible Bosses" was warmly embraced by the audience after its release. Similar to "Hangover", it was made on a $35M budget and garnered a box office of $117M in North America, reaching a global total of $209M. This made New Line Cinema a bit of profit. At this point, New Line Cinema had already been acquired by Warner Bros., making it a subsidiary label. In other words, Warner Bros. had achieved success from both "Hangover" and "Horrible Bosses".

"Hangover" eventually turned into a trilogy, and naturally, a sequel for "Horrible Bosses" was put on the agenda. However, the sequel for "Hangover" failed to satisfy, earning box office success but faltering in terms of reputation. This led to a drastic decline in both box office earnings and reputation for the third installment. The same happened with "Horrible Bosses"; the second installment faced a comprehensive collapse, and consequently, plans for a third installment were scrapped.

Despite all this, "Horrible Bosses" could still be considered a successful comedy, leaving a lasting impression.

When Renly saw that the script in his hands was actually "Horrible Bosses", he couldn't help but admire Andy's boldness and decisiveness. Judging from the first twenty pages of the script alone, it was indeed a script that shone brilliantly. However, the challenge posed by the roles was also extremely daunting.

Given Renly's age, he naturally couldn't play a boss, only a junior employee. Each of the three employees had their own set of woes.

Nick's character is the one being trampled upon. In the first half of the story, his performance has relatively lower difficulty, mainly depicting the misery and torment of the overworked. Following the script is sufficient; he has limited personal space. However, his transformation in the second half becomes more pronounced. He shifts from being organized and efficient to becoming chaotic and reckless, from a wise elite to a clueless rookie.

Kurt is a conflicted character. Underneath his image as a kind-hearted person, he must endure his boss's greed and revulsion. This role is quite intriguing. He seems to be the typical good-natured gentleman on the surface, but once he drops his guard, he becomes foolish, and this contrast is hilariously entertaining.

Dale is the violated character. In simple terms, he needs to be like Liu Xiaohui, facing various temptations and provocations yet remaining faithful. What's important is that he occasionally faces direct attacks on a man's sensitive areas. His shyness and panic are truly amusing. However, he isn't the type of testosterone-fueled man like Dwayne Johnson; he's more like... the side that endures in a bromance.

It can be said that each of the three characters has their own uniqueness and brilliance, and naturally, their acting challenges are different.

If Renly were to choose, he personally believes that Nick's role has the lowest acting difficulty. The role's own contrast and depth are relatively limited, making him more like a character playing the role of a pretentious person throughout the entire film. This prevents the movie from devolving into mindless circus acts, but it also makes the challenge rather mediocre.

Kurt and Dale each have their merits. Kurt is a master of foolishness, oscillating between his innocent and foolish sides—this performance would undoubtedly be very interesting. On the other hand, Dale is a passive-aggressive punching bag who endures his boss's wandering hands, unable to retaliate. Just imagining his performance in his mind would be enough to send people into fits of laughter.

No matter which of these two roles Renly portrayed, it would be a subversive performance, especially Dale's. However, compared to the three employees, Renly felt that the roles of the three bosses were even more challenging and truly groundbreaking performances. Unfortunately, he was too young; not really suitable. Even though his soul was already sufficiently seasoned.

This was indeed a regret.

Renly didn't have much knowledge about comedy scripts, but he knew that a major shortcoming of "Horrible Bosses" lay in the fact that the script's characterization of the three bosses was precise and accurate, like a surgeon's scalpel. This provided actors with greater room to perform, making the roles easier to shine, while also infusing the movie with more comedic moments. However, the roles of the three employees were not as distinct; instead, they were a bit muddled. Similar foolishness, similar frustration, and similar confusion led to some repetition in the humor, making it less likely for sparks to fly.

If the screenwriters could give the three employee characters more distinct main storylines, corresponding to the three bosses, then the overall quality of the work would be elevated. This doesn't necessarily refer to the depth of the characters or the depth of their performances; it's about the comedic elements that naturally emanate from the characters themselves. This includes character traits and comedic styles. Comedy's essence lies in making the audience laugh, and this is also the most crucial task for actors, isn't it?

But taking a step back, challenging comedic acting is incredibly difficult for Renly, regardless of which employee character he would play. Comedy's style and rhythm are different from those of drama. Even when portraying foolishness, it's not something that can easily make the audience laugh. In other words, comedy requires true "comedic talent".