Now Playing

I think The Hangover is an interesting one. I suspect Mr. McKee might say that I'm making this more complicated than necessary, but here it goes: If I remember the movie correctly, Doug is missing in the morning and the guys fight each other and become friends as they try to find him. Near the end they are basically united but Doug is still missing. Then something somebody says cues them to look on the roof and they find Doug and get him to his wedding.

As such, I'm going to take a stab at a complex 'value-at-stake' to help convey the full picture.

Value-at-stake: 'Doug's safety and return' via 'solidarity'
Contrary: We're not sure where Doug is, the guys are indifferent toward each other.
Contradictory: We're sure Doug's in touble, the guys hate each other.
Neg of Neg: Doug's not back, but the guys are OK with each other.

I think the film was set up so that ONLY WHEN the guys unified were they able to work together to rescue Doug. If you consider an alternate ending in which Doug is rescued but the guys hate each other, you'll see that it's not very satisfying and almost feels like another Negation of the Negation, which is why I made the value-at-stake more complex than usual.

All this actually ties into my main complaint about the movie: it seemed too frivolous and happenstance to me that something somebody said cued a thought that lead to finding Doug based on the mattress having been thrown off the roof at the beginning of the guys' adventure. It worked as an ending because it tied in a few of the things they went through in the course of the movie, and we feel like it might not have happened if they hadn't gone through all that together. However, I wish that finding Doug had been even more dependent on them becoming friends, perhaps where they connect a few more dots from their adventure and finish each others sentences to conclude that Doug is on the roof. 

That's my $0.02. I welcome corrections or alternate POVs. I could use the practice understanding Negations of Negations.