A recently released movie trailer for the upcoming comedy The Dilemma has caused something of an online stir and some offense. The film, directed by Ron Howard, stars Vince Vaughn and Kevin James in what amounts to a buddy movie. The part that’s stirring up trouble happens early in the trailer, when Vaughn and James address a boardroom. Vaughn begins with the following statement: "Ladies and Gentlemen: Electric cars... are gay. I mean, not homosexual gay, but, you know, 'my-parents-are-chaperoning-the-dance' gay.”

A number of posts on a YouTube discussion board are expressing frustration with the film’s use of the word ‘gay’. To put it in the words of one online user, "I am SO sick of hearing the word 'gay' used as a synonym for 'less than' or 'strange'. So screw this movie."

I loathe homophobia, and I’ve seen how the use of the word ‘gay’ to disparage something can be hurtful. The current situation raises a plethora of questions about what the artists were thinking when they wrote that line.

I find it unlikely that the filmmakers are homophobic. A recurring misunderstanding about dramatic art forms is that the characters act as mouthpieces through which the writers voice their opinions. In most cases, only bad novels, movies and plays state their morals so explicitly. Most writers know that audiences don’t like to be preached at, so they stay off the soapbox and examine their themes with more subtlety.

Literary art forms, including film, essentially scrutinize humans in intimate, personal detail. Authors, particularly in dramatic writing, pay meticulous attention to each character’s unique vocabulary and speaking style, because the way a person talks can tell us a lot about who they are, including their perceptions and attitudes. In which case, one can imagine the screenwriter for The Dilemma selected the word ‘gay’ in order to demonstrate Vaughn’s character’s tactlessness.

The question is whether or not the film is obligated to condemn this kind of behaviour. In a way, it already has. As Vaughn speaks, the other men and women in the boardroom uncomfortably look around. As a result, the film acknowledges that this use of the word 'gay' is an awkward faux pas.

If, however, the film didn’t acknowledge the impropriety at all, some could still argue the artists are not in the wrong. Esthetic philosopher John Carey claims the great strength of literature is that it exposes readers to different personas, thereby compelling viewers to appraise a wide gamut of dispositions and viewpoints. This process develops critical thinking, he argues. Unpleasant characters, such as Richard III and Hannibal Lecter, offer the opportunity for readers and audiences to witness and learn from the dark side of humanity.

But maybe I’m giving the screenwriter too much credit. Maybe he just thought the ‘gay’ line would add some shock-value humour. And the role of the Hollywood screenwriter is easily taken over by directors, producers and actors who rewrite lines in order to suit their needs. I can imagine any one of these people catering the dialogue to Vaughn, who gained his marketability by appearing in a number of frat-boy comedies. The ‘gay’ line may be appealing to the sense of humour of white-collar jocks who appreciate movies like Old School, Wedding Crashers and Dodgeball. The artists themselves may not discriminate against homosexuals, but they may be using the pejorative term knowing some audiences will find it funny.

Playwright Dario Fo has probably hurt the feelings of many in the Catholic church, but his intentions are political, jabbing at church policies he regards as destructive. That’s one thing. But to knowingly hurt the feelings of a group of people — for no reason other than to get laughs and sell tickets — is entirely another thing. That’s poor taste and bad art.

Ultimately, we can’t get a better sense of the artists’ intentions until The Dilemma is released. The appearance of the ‘gay’ line in the trailer is either a marketing misstep by well-intentioned people, or a thoughtless attempt to sell the movie to a specific crowd at the expense of others. Either way, the filmmakers shouldn’t be condemned (at least not solely); they’re only responding to forces that still, regrettably, exist in our culture.