Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story v. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

A silly post in which we will argue that the silly movie Dodgeball is better than the silly movie Anchorman.

Concept & Structure

Okay, both concepts are really SNL sketches. And both are ridiculously paint-by-numbers structurally... the kinds of films where you feel the reversals coming, and don't believe them (see: most of Ben Stiller's work in the last decade).

But what Dodgeball has going for it that Anchorman doesn't, is actual cohesion of story. Virtually every scene in Dodgeball is directly related to the plot-- they need the money to beat the rivals, they train, they do the dodgeball tourney, the rivals are in it too... it all fits and I understand where it's going.

As opposed to Anchorman, in which it feels like every third scene was created in a vacuum (or, maybe, bandied about in a room full of non-writers) and no one bothered to figure out (or care) about how it fit into the story. Case in point: the anchorman rumble. Arguably the funniest scene in the film, and the perfect example of a scene that made no impact whatsoever story-wise. Jumping from scene to scene without a driving story is just so tiring.

The Hero

Anchorman seems to be missing one. Are we supposed to ever be on side with Ron Burgundy? Is this a new trend, in which the heroes of comedies are self-parodying? In which the whole performance feels overwrought and underfunny? The problem with this film is, we've got nobody to like or care about. I'm starting to miss Adam Sandler.

In Dodgeball, Vince Vaughn dials it in. And I don't think he actually has an arc of any kind-- there's some kind of did-he-sell-out-or-didn't-he reversal at the end, but nobody's really buying that. Come on. But you know what? It doesn't matter. He's the straight man to everyone else's shtick. And we like him. When he's on screen, you actually want to look, as opposed to the cringing and the turning away... to make Dodgeball as unlikable as Anchorman, you'd make the Ben Stiller character the hero.

Ben Stiller

In Dodgeball, he commits to playing an over-the-top villain. In Anchorman, he's Ben Stiller playing "cameo by Ben Stiller".

The Love Interest, aka Christine v. Christina

Christine Taylor perfected the only-sane-character-in-the-movie bit in Zoolander, and resurrects it here. And it works just fine. Her character works as someone who's genuinely part of the team. She likes Vince and the men. Ergo, we do too.

Christina Applegate is Veronica Corningstone, love interest and "feminist" rival for Ron Burgundy. Sounds promising-- the woman who's going to be down-to-earth and actually put the idiots through the ringer? Instead, the movie has her first falling in love with Ron (proving she's not down-to-earth at all, she's a character that could only exist in the world of this movie-- a world where feminism is pretty much a '70s-period joke) and then has her pining for him even as she loathes him. By loving him, she betrays us.

Secondary Characters, Some of Whom Believe They Are Pirates

No doubt, the supporting cast of both movies is pushing the silly factor into just plain dumb. But the Anchorman dumb is boring... characters feel so artificial, it's actually painful spending any time with them-- who's funnier, the guy who's really stupid, or the guy who wears a cowboy hat? At least in Dodgeball, if they're not always funny, they're strange and sweet. Justin earnestly wants to be a cheerleader, and he's so earnest, dammit if I don't want that for him too. And then there's Steve the Pirate... just bizarre enough to be funny a couple of times, and the film doesn't try to get more laughs out of him than that.

In Conclusion

Maybe what it all really comes down to is, in Dodgeball, we're on the underdogs' side. In Anchorman, it's impossible to take sides. Everybody just... loses.