It’s not often that a 28 year old film’s impact reverberates far enough to be referenced in the legislative oversight of our public financial markets. The “Eddie Murphy Rule” references his second film, Trading Places. In it, the characters utilize privileged information to make a killing in the commodities futures market. Up until this past July when the President signed pertinent legislation, there had been no rules or laws in place to keep that very scenario from happening.
When something called the “the Eddie Murphy rule” comes across my radar I take notice. Maybe it’s because I worked in Hollywood for many years, or that I am a news junkie. Either way the headline prompted me to watch the film for the first time in many years. Which led me to an interesting realization.
The premise is quite simple. Two brothers who are Wall St. millionaires make a dubious bet. One believes “nature” is more important than “nurture” and the other feels the reverse holds true. So they conduct a science experiment with two humans as their lab rats. They take one of their employees, a respected (albeit pompous) commodities trader and literally swap his plush life with that of a petty thief/con man straight off the street. Did I mention that the the trader is white (Dan Aykroyd) and the street guy is black (Eddie Murphy)? Ultimately the unlikely duo team up to manipulate the commodities markets to strike revenge on the movie’s villains, while also cashing out big for themselves.
The movie was a home run critically and commercially. It catapulted Murphy’s star into another stratosphere. Without pulling any punches it used humor to make its point that all people are equally well suited to succeed, but some have to fight the circumstances of their upbringing more than others. Especially if they are being discriminated against by two old, rich white guys.
Can you imagine this movie being made today? Back when Paramount Pictures green lit Trading Places in 1982, the term “PC” didn’t mean anything to most people. Unless of course you were describing the new gizmos upon which Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were beginning to build their empires.
The PC police of 2011 would never allow a publicly traded company like Paramount (Viacom) to depict a minority as a marionette in order to illustrate a narrative point. Especially when we learn in the film that the much referenced “bet” between the brothers is for the princely sum of one dollar. The film blatantly shows us that there are still people out there who view others as their slaves or property. White or black.
Nevertheless, when it came out, there were no accusations of the movie being racially insensitive. I researched mainstream publications as well as those which stereotypically would be considered “targeted” like JET and Ebony. Not a peep. Nobody calls Murphy or the filmmakers on the carpet for anything -- except for having made an incredibly funny movie that managed to weave a meaningful point into its story.
Isn't it kind of sad that we have lost the ability to laugh at subjects which make us uncomfortable?
