Who Should Be Offended by 'Tropic Thunder?'
A coalition of disability group has called for a boycott of the R-rated satire Tropic Thunder. They are asking people not to see the movie because they say it demeans, insults, and harms individuals with intellectual disabilities by using the...
Filed Under: awards,
bamboozled,
ben stiller,
bigotry,
boycott,
controversy,
critic,
dancing in september,
isiah washington,
nicole ari parker,
retard,
special olympics,
tropic thunder
If one is in a creative profession there is only one possible response to those who are offended and that is to say, "Well, damn them, let them be offended." We cannot spend our lives and our energies worrying about the tender feelings of strangers.
Unfortunately, the people who defend the disabled can sometimes be as unthinking and instinctual as the people who insult the disabled. There's something ironic about a knee jerk reaction from those whose main message is that we shouldn't make broad assumptions and apply easy labels.
Well said (both Movie Mom and the previous commenters. I've often found people who are dedicated to a single cause, and are passionate to the core about it, often have blind spots. They sure mean well, but they're so close to the subject at hand they can't bring the proper perspective to it.
An example. When I lived in DC one dog rescue group wouldn't let people who didn't have a home with a backyard adopt from their kennel. So ... they'd rather a dog either be put down or stay in the shelter for months, if not years, rather than let a couple in a small home adopt them? I had no backyard when I lived in DC, but I took my pup to the dog park almost every day.
The shelter meant well, but their vision was blurry.
Nell, you said:
"It is often demeaning when a "magical" minority or disabled character is used to as a narrative mechanism to give the "normal" characters a lesson or inspire them. And it is infuriating when the disability is the only characteristic..."
I couldn't agree more, Nell. A particularly egregious recent example of this was in the Diane Keaton movie, "The Family Stone," in which a relatively uptight, conservative woman (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) meets her fiancee's family at Christmas time. She is uncomfortable around their gay son.
He's not just gay, he's also deaf. He's not just gay and deaf, he also has an African-American lover. He's not just gay and deaf and in an interracial relationship, he's also saintly. When I saw this film, this portrait of the "magical, deaf, gay, unpredjudiced, saintly son" made me sick. It's being portrayed as "magical" that's truly insulting to gay people, the deaf, and people in interracial relationships.
Thank you very much, Alicia. I am always on the lookout for movies that treat disabled people like human beings, without condescension or hagiography. There aren't many of them! Usually the disabled character is there only to give the main character someone to be inspired by.
I agree, Nell. A related issue for me, is the trend in comedies, especially British comedies such as "Bridget Jones's Diary" or "Notting Hill," for the main character to have a sort of "Greek chorus" of friends who seem to exist solely for the purpose of showing how hip or cool or politically correct the hero is. Those friends are usually very flat and unreal, even when they are played by terrific actors.
In "Bridget Jones" the chorus included a gay man, in "Notting Hill," the chorus included a disabled woman. In "The Family Stone," the saintly gay deaf character existed (IMO) to prove how tolerant and wonderful his family was, and, conversely, how out-of-it and intolerant the conservative character played by Sarah Jessica Parker was. These aren't characters at all, they are just concepts of "tolerance."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.