Setting the Stage: A Quick Look at “Unfinished Business”
The cinematic world thrives on captivating narratives, compelling characters, and, crucially, the actors who breathe life into them. Casting decisions, often a make-or-break element, can elevate a film to iconic status or, conversely, leave audiences feeling a bit shortchanged. In the case of the 2015 comedy, “Unfinished Business,” starring Vince Vaughn, Tom Wilkinson, and Dave Franco, the casting choices, particularly in how some actors were utilized, generate an interesting question: did the film subtly “cheat” its audience, leveraging known talent in a way that impacted the overall viewing experience?
“Unfinished Business” presents the story of a small business owner, Dan Trunkman (played by Vince Vaughn), and his two partners, Timothy McWinters (Tom Wilkinson) and Mike Pancake (Dave Franco), as they attempt to seal a crucial business deal in Europe. The film revolves around their misadventures, both professional and personal, as they navigate cultural differences, romantic entanglements, and the often-absurd realities of the business world. While not a critical darling, “Unfinished Business” garnered a degree of attention upon release, largely due to the star power of its leads and the comedic potential of its premise.
Dissecting the Meaning of “Cheat” in Casting
Before delving into the specifics of the “Unfinished Business” cast, it’s essential to define what constitutes a “cheat” in the context of casting. This concept is, of course, subjective, heavily dependent on individual viewer expectations, and the nature of the project itself. However, we can identify a few potential scenarios that might qualify.
One form of a casting “cheat” involves the strategic deployment of established stars primarily for their name recognition and box-office appeal. This strategy, while potentially boosting a film’s commercial prospects, runs the risk of overshadowing the character with the actor’s pre-existing persona. Audiences may struggle to fully embrace the new role, instead constantly comparing it to the actor’s previous, more familiar work.
Another type of casting “cheat” involves the employment of actors whose previous roles create certain expectations that may or may not align with the film’s requirements. This is especially relevant when a dramatic actor is placed in a comedic role, or vice versa. The resulting contrast can work brilliantly, often subverting the audience’s expectations, yet, it can also feel forced or unnatural if not executed properly.
Finally, a casting “cheat” can arise when an actor’s fame and celebrity overshadow their role. The audience, captivated by the star’s personality and public image, may struggle to see the character as a distinct entity. This type of “cheat” can detract from the film, pulling viewers away from the plot and into the distraction of the star’s off-screen persona.
The heart of whether a cast is a “cheat” or not boils down to audience experience and how they percieve it.
Examining the Players: Vince Vaughn, The Familiar Face
Vince Vaughn, the undisputed comedic powerhouse, is undoubtedly the most prominent name in “Unfinished Business.” Throughout his career, Vaughn has cultivated a specific brand of sardonic humor, often playing the fast-talking, slightly exasperated everyman. Roles in films such as “Wedding Crashers,” “Swingers,” and “Old School” cemented his reputation as a comedic force, establishing a distinct screen persona that many viewers immediately recognize. This existing identity brings with it a pre-established set of expectations. Audiences anticipate a certain rhythm in his delivery, a particular type of comedic timing, and an overall vibe.
Considering his established comedic presence, Vaughn’s casting in “Unfinished Business” does indeed raise the question of whether it constitutes a type of “cheat.” It’s a question of utilizing known talent and playing on pre-existing expectations. The film clearly capitalizes on Vaughn’s established comedic persona. This means that the audience immediately perceives the character Dan Trunkman through the lens of Vaughn’s previous roles. While this familiarity can provide instant appeal, it can also create a disconnect if the character isn’t significantly different from Vaughn’s past roles. Does Vaughn as Dan feel fresh? Does his performance deliver a new comedic dimension that feels different from what came before? Some may argue it does. Others, that it simply offers more of the same.
The impact of this type of casting is multifaceted. On one hand, the film benefits from Vaughn’s built-in audience and the immediate recognition factor. His name on the poster is a guaranteed draw for many viewers. However, the inherent risk lies in overshadowing the character with the actor’s established persona. Some critics and viewers felt that Dan Trunkman was too similar to Vaughn’s previous characters, limiting his ability to create a truly unique presence and preventing a deeper exploration of the character.
The Steady Hand: Tom Wilkinson’s Presence
Tom Wilkinson, the veteran actor, brings a level of gravitas and respectability to “Unfinished Business.” Known for his numerous dramatic roles in films such as “Michael Clayton,” “Batman Begins,” and “In the Bedroom,” Wilkinson possesses a commanding presence, a distinct acting style, and a renowned reputation for strong, realistic acting. In “Unfinished Business”, Wilkinson plays Timothy McWinters, a partner of Dan’s.
The presence of Wilkinson, with his established filmography, can be said to have a level of “cheat” to it, though a different flavor than Vaughn. His dramatic prowess, while incredibly respected, is often linked with a sense of deep performance. For many viewers, Wilkinson comes loaded with a certain history and expectations. This can become an advantage. Wilkinson adds a grounded counterpoint to Vaughn’s comedic energy, grounding the film. His talent adds a layer of credibility.
Wilkinson’s performance is strong, yet it’s possible that this casting choice, while adding weight to the film, could be considered a “cheat” because it relies on the actor’s already-established reputation to provide substance. The film leans heavily on the audience’s pre-existing knowledge of Wilkinson’s capabilities to automatically grant his performance credibility. Viewers already understand he’s a capable actor, so less work has to be done.
The Wild Card: Dave Franco and the Ensemble
Dave Franco, known for his comedic performances in films like “Neighbors” and “21 Jump Street,” occupies the role of Mike Pancake, the youngest member of the trio. Franco often plays the younger, sometimes more hapless character, adding a degree of lightheartedness and energy to the cast.
Franco could be considered a “cheat” in the sense that he brings a younger, more contemporary appeal to the film. His reputation is based on the comedy roles he has played in the past.
It’s worth noting that the supporting cast, including Sienna Miller, whose role as a potential romantic interest adds another layer to the film, also contributes to the dynamic. However, the critical evaluation of “cheat casting” mostly applies to the main players.
Counterpoints and the Art of the Balancing Act
It’s vital to acknowledge that casting decisions, especially in ensemble comedies, are rarely straightforward. While the concept of a casting “cheat” might seem to imply a negative connotation, it’s important to consider several counterarguments:
The Actor’s Ability
Regardless of past roles or perceived typecasting, the actors themselves are professionals who can deliver compelling performances. Each actor brings their own style, skills, and presence to the table. This includes the power of comedic timing.
Commercial Viability
High-profile actors are often necessary to secure funding, distribution, and marketing for a film. Their presence draws audiences and guarantees a higher level of commercial success. This reality is, unfortunately, a part of the movie business.
The Value of Familiarity
For many viewers, the comfort of recognizing a familiar face is part of the enjoyment of watching a film. Audiences often appreciate seeing actors who have proven themselves, who have shown that they can deliver.
The Director’s Vision
Ultimately, the director is the driving force behind the movie. The director is in charge of their vision and may think the casting is perfect for the project.
The Effect on the Bottom Line: Assessing Critical and Commercial Success
Did the perceived “cheats” in casting have a discernible effect on the film’s performance? The film had a relatively mixed reaction from critics, though generally, they found it to be an uneven but still enjoyable comedy. The box office returns were disappointing.
The casting choices likely played a part in both the successes and the shortcomings of the film. Vaughn’s presence certainly helped attract viewers. However, the familiarity of his comedic persona may have also limited the film’s appeal to some viewers. The film may have also needed a stronger script that better utilized the talents of all the actors. It’s possible to argue that the casting of “Unfinished Business” served its purpose and did what was needed, despite not being a smashing hit.
Final Thoughts: Is it a Cheat or Smart Business?
Ultimately, whether the casting of “Unfinished Business” constitutes a “cheat” is subjective and relies on how much the audience wanted something new or something familiar. The film likely made its decisions based on commercial expectations, taking advantage of the market and star power available.
While the use of known actors, and their familiar character types, could be considered a strategic play to attract audiences, it’s also possible to view the casting as a clever use of talent to create a film that had the potential to satisfy many. Whether it entirely succeeded remains open to debate. What’s clear is that the film, whether on purpose or by chance, plays upon its audiences’ familiarity with the cast. This is the central reason the question of “cheat” is so compelling. The story, the production, all came to be a unique result of the actors who were chosen.
In the intricate world of casting, the lines between calculated risk and inspired artistry are often blurred. The final product depends on the interplay between script, direction, and the individuals chosen to bring the story to life. Regardless of the intent, “Unfinished Business” reminds us that casting, like the film itself, is always open to audience interpretation.
