Shorter Timothy Shriver
Posted on August 11th, 2008 by Brad
- A lot of people have called me humorless over the years; today, I’m out to prove them right.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
Though I think Shriver should give the makers of “Tropic Thunder” credit — at least they didn’t commit the horrible crime of having their characters eat giant sandwiches…
That’s quite a lofty hair-helmet Timmy Shriver’s sporting…
Eh, I thought this was going to be some Brent Bozo-level silliness, but the guy’s heart is in the right place. I mean,
You can’t work with the Special Olympics and be a prick, really.
I worked with the Farrelly brothers on a film on this topic. I know about edgy comedy.
Well, you can say things like this.
I agree with him, really – using “retard” as a punchline is cheap and mean – but this transition pisses me off:
“I’ve talked to people with intellectual disabilities who cry over being insulted on a bus. I’ve received too many e-mails from people who are devastated not by their child’s disability but by the terror of being laughed at, excluded and economically devastated.
It wasn’t funny when Hollywood humiliated African Americans for a generation.”
African Americans are equated with the intellectually disabled, and institutionalized racism rolls merrily along.
The chairman of the Special Olympics agrees with Shriver.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/topic-thunder-boycott-cal_n_118089.html
It’s easy to make fun of people you don’t know or see. There’s a difference between making fun of wingnuts because they choose to be dumbasses; people with intellectual disabilities (you know, retards) don’t choose to be that way.
My son has down syndrome, which technically makes him a retard. He is also a sweet affectionate boy who charms the heck out of everyone who meets him. If people were making fun of him I would not find it very funny and would most likely punch them in face. Does that make me humorless?
It’s sort of like how most wingnuts hate gay people, except the ones that they know. Like I said it’s easy to make fun of (or hate) people you don’t know or see. When confronted by these people right in front of them, most people realize how inhumane their positions are.
The point I am trying to make is retards are people too and deserve some human dignity. There is a difference between mocking people for their choices and making fun of who they are.
Best not tell him about the Retarded Policeman.
WordPress disliked my youtube link referencing the Retarded Policeman. (You’ll have to go find it on your own.) Rest assured, my comment was a serious and witty rejoinder that has never been made with such care or detail before.
“Are people with intellectual disabilities included in the mainstream of these movements? For the most part, no. Why? Because they’re different. Their joy doesn’t fit on magazine covers. Their spirituality doesn’t come in self-help television. Their kind of wealth doesn’t command political attention. (The best of the spirit never does.)”
All my sympathies to the disabled, but this is the kind of touchy-feely crap that gives leftists a bad name.
The dialogue he quoted works surprisingly well if you insert other marginalized groups. You can achieve a certain level of success if you are black or gay or poor, just don’t be too black or gay or poor. There are limits to what even “tolerant” people want to see portrayed on the movie screen or to encounter in their professional and social lives.
I haven’t seen the movie either, so I don’t know – it might be incredibly offensive. I absolutely hated I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry so maybe I shouldn’t lecture anyone on PC sensitivity.
I wonder what Timothy Shriver thought of the New Yorker cover.
Wasn’t that dialogue meant to show that the two main characters are shallow pricks?
Just about everything Ben Stiller said in Zoolander and Dodgeball revolved around “ugly people suck and deserve to have shitty lives” (especially the original Dodgeball ending, which would have made the movie worth watching if they kept it). Yet I managed not to kill myself after watching both.
The dialog quoted is just funny — it’s not picking on retarded people so much as it’s picking on the insensitivity of the actors toward the subjects they portray. The movie looks bloody hilarious, btw. Robert Downey Jr.’s 25th or so comeback from substance abuse has produced some of his best work yet!
Wasn’t that dialogue meant to show that the two main characters are shallow pricks?
Yes.
1. Hollywood movies repeatedly treat learning difficulties in a facile manner, with actors treating such roles as prime oscar fodder.
2. Hollywood movie scathingly satirizes this.
3. Man who hasn’t seen the satire takes offence at… the satire! And is silent on the ongoing tradition being satirized.
4. Man cashes cheque whilst pulling ‘indignant’ face.
OK, he works with the special olympics, so I assume his heart’s in the right place. But THINK, McFly, THINK!
Having been cranky about “retard” before I dunno what the big deal is here. These are characters in a movie who, as I understand it, are already dumb. That kind of person will say dumb things.
I stopped taking his article seriously right at the first paragraph:
The guy didn’t even see the movie, so I knew right then that he would have little or no context of scenery, setting, action or tone of voice if he just quoted right off the script. And sure enough, he quotes where the actors are poking in fun of retarded people with absolutely no context, and then complains about it.
It’s like I went up to you and said, “So a third duck walks into a bar, and the bartender says, ‘Let me guess, you’re Duey!’ The duck grumbles, ‘No, my name is Puddles… and don’t you dare ask me how my day went.'” I’m sure if you heard the context of that joke, you’d think it’s funny… otherwise, you’re probably thinking “WTF?!”.
The problem is that most people won’t see a couple of Hollywood stars making fun of retards as satire. Most people won’t think that there is anything wrong with it. And the movie has exactly one nasty reference to black people and an African-America defends black people in the film after hearing the comment. In this movie, the mentally disabled are never defended. In this movie there is a scene where someone remarks their regret at having a child with a mental disability.
Bu don’t let me wreck the fun. Let’s have a movie full of nigger jokes. Let’s show stupid niggers like Amos and Andy. Why aren’t they on TV Land, anyway. I can’t think of anything funnier than jokes about stupid niggers. And anyone who says otherwise, especially anyone who has never seen “Amos and Andy”, just doesn’t have a sense of humor. It’s not like we still have racism in America, right? No one would take it seriously. It’s just a bunch of actors having some fun, right?
I havn’t seen the movie, and wont be going to see it, it sounds pretty crap.
Shriver is right though. Making fun of the unfortunate and marginalised is just NOT funny. This is why wingnuts have no sense of humour. Taking down the high and mighty is usually pretty funny, but kicking people when they are down is just vicious.
Movies about the mentally disabled only manage to make them into sympathetic characters when they turn them into children, emotionally and mentally. Everybody loves the kid role, and so that is the role mentally disabled characters get pushed into.
Turning them into children makes them safe and familiar instead of scary and weird. Exactly the same thing hollywood has spent a lot of its history doing to black people. Turning them into the undignified comic sidekick.
The problem is, the reality of mental disability doesn’t make for a good hollywood film. It is too different, too confusing, too hard to portray from the disabled persons point of view. So instead we get patronising nonsense with a feel good “aww look at the tard do normal people stuff” moment.
I think the bottom line is.. Popular film is always dumbed down. People want stupid. Properly exploring a kind of stupid they are unfamiliar with needs more intelligence than the average person has. No, they have to stick with THEIR kind of stupid.
Wasn’t that dialogue meant to show that the two main characters are shallow pricks?
Let’s say that I want to show two people as being shallow pricks. So I have them talk about how black people commit most crimes in America, how our prisons are full of African-Americans, and how because of this all African-Americans are dangerous. What percentage of Americans will see the characters as racist and what percentage will nod their head in agreement? If I give no further context in the film such as having someone disagree with them and producing a more detailed explanation, would you say that the movie itself was racist?
That is the problem in this film. There is no context to understand the reality of the disabled. People are going to hear, “Never go full retard,” and are going to laugh in agreement! They are not going to laugh at the stupidity of the characters.
I wish I had my old improv teacher’s monologue on why it’s OK to make fun of retarded people. It was a funny monologue, but more importantly, it seemed, as I recall it, directly on target. Basically, the thrust of it was, people with “intellectual disabilities” (per Tim Shriver) don’t want to be treated like fragile Faberge eggs; they want to be treated — respected, disrespected, lauded, insulted, etc. — just like everyone else. It’s the same with any marginalized group — they don’t want special treatment because of their marginalizing factor; they just want to be dealt with the same as everyone else. It’s no worse (or better, of course) to make fun of someone for being intellectually disabled than for stuttering, having one leg, being fat, black, Polish, gay or female. Or a combination of any or all of the above.
Also, I second the idea that effectively calling for a boycott of a movie you haven’t seen on the basis of a snippet or two of dialogue is, um, retarded.
I find this “shorter” to be truly offensive. I don’t think I’m going to be visiting here anymore. Go ahead and make fun of politicians and political analysts. But when you start making fun of people who are simply trying to protect people who can’t protect themselves then you are a prick.
Shorter Brad: I’m a fucking asshole.
Let’s say that I want to show two people as being shallow pricks.
Have you heard of that show The Sopranos?
That is the problem in this film. There is no context to understand the reality of the disabled. People are going to hear, “Never go full retard,” and are going to laugh in agreement! They are not going to laugh at the stupidity of the characters.
You’ve seen the film then?
BTW, the context that is required is not about the “reality of the disabled,” it’s about the characters doing the speaking. If I put your proposed racist dialogue in the mouths of characters who obviously have no clue what they’re talking about, or otherwise provide context to show that they are ign’ant redneck assholes, most people will get the message.
OMG WTF, the original meaning of PC is back and it’s posting! And by that I mean “precious clowns.” And Shriver’s playing a shrewd game to get some attention and bucks for his cause both from the film company and the Federal Government. And I don’t want to hear about how all of your best friends are mentally disabled and I’m a savage for calling Shriver out because he’s wrapped in a Special Olympics flag and that’s better than Kevlar.
Right Dan Someone. The mentally disabled want you to make fun of them just like black people want you to call them niggers and Chinese people want you to call them chinks and Mexican immigrants want to be called wetbacks. Yes, Dan, that is exactly the kind of equal treatment they all dream about every day. And Dan, you’re a shithead. I know you wanted to be called that so you could avoid being marginalized too.
Reading comprehension is not high on your list of talents, is it, Tom?
It’s no worse (or better, of course) to make fun of someone for being intellectually disabled than for stuttering, having one leg, being fat, black, Polish, gay or female.
So you tell me, Tom: Do mentally disabled people want to be coddled like fragile crystal eggshells? Or do they want to be treated like, oh, I don’t know, people?
Gah, the parenthetical there — “(or better, of course)” — was supposed to be bold for ease of reference.
I second the view that this post was unnecessary. Stick to bashing wingnuts & political opinions, not bashing some guy writing somewhat touchy-feely columns bashing what he perceives to be a hurtful and insensitive movie. I just read the column, and it seemed fine to me. Mentally handicapped people receive a ton of abuse in our society, and we don’t need movies or movie stars adding to it.
Let’s say that I want to show two people as being shallow pricks. So I have them talk about how black people commit most crimes in America, how our prisons are full of African-Americans, and how because of this all African-Americans are dangerous.
A better analogy might be two “brown” actors who are not African-American talking about how black you should be when playing a black character. Or two straight actors discussing how gay to make a gay character. Maybe a lot of people won’t get the point. To appreciate the context I would have to see the movie. But reservations aside, I think that it is still a very interesting topic.
Brad, I think you’re wrong on this one. I thought the sandwich thing was funny, but this film sounds bad to me (again, working from descriptions). While most of the stuff Tom writes is “my pet societal oppression isn’t taken seriously” – bullshit, he’s right that satirical intent might not matter. Not because “average” people are stupid (nice classism there, Sockpuppet #47), but because the oppression of mentally disabled people – as examples of “non-productive” members of society – is deeply ingrained in our late capitalist culture.
Films work, of course, on several levels. To take an example, Starship Troopers is a satire on fascism an militarism, but at the same time it also promotes those things (by associating them with uplifting music etc.). This way, the film “sells” both to the “bomb the enemy!” crowd and those that pride themselves on their superior understanding (ie, liberals).
I suspect that Tropic thunder may similarly work on different levels, aiming to satisfy both people who see nothing wrong with making fun of mentally disabled people and those who “get” that it’s satirical.
Wow, all kinds of misinterpretations on all sides. I agree that Shriver probably should have at least seen the movie and observed the context of the dialogue before passing judgment, but at the same time it is easy to understand where his anger comes from: Being a chairman for the Special Olympics allows him a better view than most of the rank crudeness people show towards the mentally retarded. “Retard” jokes are easy, and judging from Stiller’s recent films “easy humor” is all he’s shooting for, even if it is supposedly meant to illustrate how shallow the “actors” are.
However, Vin Scully’s comment that Shriver is equating black Americans with the mentally retarded is just wrong; Shriver is equating the treatment of the two. Big difference. It is the same faulty arguing when someone claims black Americans are being equated with gays and lesbians when it comes to civil rights: The treatment is the same, and usually for similar reasons (bigotry, prejudice, fear of the icky, etc.), but it is not the same as saying the two groups are alike. Weak arguments like this do no favors for the progressive movement.
Otherwise, keep fighting the good fight…
No Dan Shithead. The mentally disabled want to be treated with respect. You know, like all people should be. Or do you think a movie that makes all black people out to be stupid criminals and refers to them as niggers is not racist?
The mentally disabled want you to make fun of them just like black people want you to call them niggers and Chinese people want you to call them chinks and Mexican immigrants want to be called wetbacks.
Yep, and straw men love to be used as kindling. As soon as I see one person making the argument that it is fine to mock disabled people for being disabled, I will be fucking thrilled to disagree.
Sigh.
No, Tom, nor do I think apples are oranges.
Hmm, doing some more reading, I think maybe the WaPo column was a bit overwrought and the movie doesn’t sound too terrible. Here’s one link:
http://www.indy.com/posts/10616
In any event, I read SadlyNo to see humorous takedowns of ignorant wingnuts bloviating about political topics. This post, ripping on a well-intentioned piece of advocacy on the behalf of mentally-disabled individuals, seems out of place.
I actually found a clip of it, and I found it funny. Not because of the dialogue though.
In the film, “the black guy” is played by a white actor in blackface, who plays the perfect stereotype. It really highlights how hollywoods treatment of black people hasn’t changed all that much. The other black character in the film is a complete stereotype too.
The focus of the film is really taking the piss out of hollywood, and the MANY stereotypes it puts forwards. The racial aspect seems to be just as strong as the retard aspect. I am surprised nobody has really picked up on the racial aspect so strongly.
I think the scope of the film regarding mental disabilities, is fairly limited. It isn’t really there to address anything other than the kind of treatment hollywood gives to the mentally disabled.
The nastiest message of the film really is “you idiots won’t watch a film which contains a realistic portrayal of black people or the disabled”
It isn’t sophisticated satire, just exaggerating every hollywood stereotype out there for the sake of a bit of cheap humour. It really is too much to ask for a film like that to include any intelligent examination of those stereotypes. All it sets out to do is exaggerate them to the point at which they cannot be ignored. There is nothing subtle about the film.
An American movie aimed at the general public is stupid and insensitive? Stop the presses!
Note that I pass no judgment on this movie, as I, like Mr. Shriver, haven’t seen it.
If Jeff Godlstein were here, he’d set us all straight. And how!
As I said earlier, black people are defended in the film. The Robert Downey, Jr. character is ripped for his attitude towards blacks. But no one in the film speaks to defend the mentally disabled. The “Simple Jack” character is a major part of the film (more than 30 minutes of the film shows the movie within the movie). Dreamworks even had a “Simple Jack” website that had no context whatsoever and was only removed when the threat of protests against the film was raised. A character in the film with a disabled child specifically says that they wish they had a choice in not having him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0942385/videogallery
There are some clips here for anybody interested. They show the mood of the movie quite clearly. It seems very much presented as a comedy.
Or do you think a movie that makes all black people out to be stupid criminals and refers to them as niggers is not racist?
What the fuck are you talking about? You have gone full-scale apoplectic in the space of 20 minutes. You’ve gone from a tangential basis in reality (“This presents a satirical view that most people won’t get, therefore we should eliminate the satire”) to some fantasy-outrage-land (“This film shows actual people with actual developmental disabilities saying stupid things and falling down”), and you have done so a) over a movie that you have not seen; b) over a movie that you have now insisted you will not seen; c) without any indication that you have more information on the movie than has been presented in Tim Shriver’s column; and d) on a blog you threatened to never visit again, and then came back three times to get in a pissing match with Dan Someone.
Dude, calm down. This movie, like most movies, will come and go, and have very little real world impact. Whoever your family member, friend or loved one is – you have a lot of energy to spend on his or her behalf, but this isn’t the best way to do it.
Looks like you have really sunk the goose on this one.
Can’o’worms!
A character in the film with a disabled child specifically says that they wish they had a choice in not having him.
Well you know, there are such choices made daily around the world. I support that ability to choose. Don’t you?
and you have done so a) over a movie that you have not seen; b) over a movie that you have now insisted you will not seen[sic]; c) without any indication that you have more information on the movie than has been presented in Tim Shriver’s column; and d) on a blog you threatened to never visit again, and then came back three times to get in a pissing match with Dan Someone.
I don’t recall ever saying that I have not seen the film or that I will never see the film. All I can tell you is that those who were given the opportunity to see an advanced screening of the film had to sign a waiver.
A character in the film with a disabled child specifically says that they wish they had a choice in not having him.
Well you know, there are such choices made daily around the world. I support that ability to choose. Don’t you?
So you support eugenics? Do you support people who choose not to have a female child? And if a gay gene is discovered will you be supporting parents who choose to abort them?
So Tom, have you actually seen the entire film?
I apologize, I got your outrage confused with Tim Shriver’s outrage.
So, did you see the film? Have you signed a waiver? Does your outrage stem from more information presented in the Tim Shriver column in the Washington Post?
If you did see the film, and signed the waiver, doesn’t the disclosure that a character in the film expresses the desire not to have had a developmentally disabled child violate that waiver?
Now, if it is true that the racism shown in the film is challenged by the characters, and discussed.. But the discrimination against the disabled is barely discussed, then that simply reflects the reality of hollywood.
The reaction to hollywoods racism is as much part of hollywood as the racism itself. It is something which has been addressed. So the film shows both parts. The racism and the outrage.
On the other hand, the patronising treatment of the disabled has gone largely unnoticed. The film reflects this reality.
So in a way, the film encourages us to take notice of the issue, and start making a fuss. The biggest, obvious subtext of the film is “you people watching are the ones enabling all this, and encouraging this lowest common denominator crap”
Whilst at the same time, the film is chock full of lowest common denominator crap. Most people will simply be watching it for the obvious comedy, proving the point.
The film should also contain the daily recommended dose of riboflavin and remind us to bring a sweater, it might get chilly.
I wish I had my old improv teacher’s monologue on why it’s OK to make fun of retarded people. It was a funny monologue, but more importantly, it seemed, as I recall it, directly on target. Basically, the thrust of it was, people with “intellectual disabilities” (per Tim Shriver) don’t want to be treated like fragile Faberge eggs; they want to be treated — respected, disrespected, lauded, insulted, etc. — just like everyone else. It’s the same with any marginalized group — they don’t want special treatment because of their marginalizing factor; they just want to be dealt with the same as everyone else. It’s no worse (or better, of course) to make fun of someone for being intellectually disabled than for stuttering, having one leg, being fat, black, Polish, gay or female. Or a combination of any or all of the above.
Do you say this because you’ve been told this by the mentally handicapped people in your lives, or because it just assuages any guilt you might otherwise have to suffer through when you mock someone for being retarded? By the way, I think that making fun of someone for being Polish, female, fat or whatever is pretty damn mean.
Well, here’s the perspective from someone with a relatively close relative who is MR, one of my uncles on my mother’s side: we tease him, a lot. We tease him about getting old, about wanting to hitch everything in the world to a giant truck and drive it away, for his Richard Nixon five o’clock shadow or for doing silly things. Y’know, normal things. In return, he gives his brother-in-law (my father) no end of crap, and a great time is had by all, usually. What we NEVER do is make fun of him for being retarded, call him an idiot or stupid, laugh at him for being unable to read or treat him like a child (well, most of us manage the last one, there are one or two members of the family who don’t get it – ARGH). He is definitely handicapped intellectually. Everyone is aware of this, including him. But whatever, that’s not his fault. It would be beyond low to make fun of him FOR his disability. That’s not being treated like a normal person, that’s basically calling someone a freak.
As far as I’m concerned, your old improv teacher can go jump off a bridge. He or she apparently has either little personal contact with the mentally handicapped, or little care for those he or she does have contact with. Why is it that otherwise perfectly nice liberal people who wouldn’t otherwise speak for what some group of people want or need will have no problem with putting words into the mouths of people like my uncle? Gimme a fucking break.
And by the way, being mentally handicapped is fundamentally different from most of the other distinctions that we draw between people. After all, retardation, autism, and the entire spectrum of mental disabilities that people are born with or develop just plain suck. They rob a person of a lot of the things that make being human so great. Fortunately, in many cases (like my uncle), most of those good things are left untouched, but it would be better for everyone if my uncle had a normal intellect. Mental disability is considerably more foreign and challenging than invented differences like race, because we lose a lot of our ability to understand that person’s inner world or even to communicate effectively. I can only hope that we will someday manage to find the causes of these handicaps (the unknown ones) and prevent them.
And while I’m on this rant, fuck those people who talk about what a good experience it is to live or work with the mentally handicapped and how it’s helped them to grow as a person. Fuck that shit, I have no patience for that kind of ego-tripping bullshit. In my family, at least for most of us, we take care of my uncle because we love him and want him to have the best possible happiness and quality of life. And we get a lot of joy from him. He’s a good guy. But fuck retardation.
Oh, no comment on the movie or Shriver. Just the bullshit from Dan’s improv teacher.
So you support eugenics? Do you support people who choose not to have a female child? And if a gay gene is discovered will you be supporting parents who choose to abort them?
I support research into identifying and curing developmental disabilities so that people can make the choice not to have a disabled child, but to have a healthy child fully capable of societal integration. And please note that you are now implying that women and homosexuals are disabled by definition…that’s not going to be a popular position.
So you support eugenics?
If that’s what you want to call testing for Down’s Syndrome and the decisions thereafter, then of course. If I am to support a woman’s right to choose on a “just because” basis I can also accept that there might be other reasons.
Abortions based on sex testing or future “gay gene” testing I don’t much care for, but if I am to accept that a woman has a right to choose then that’s her business.
A fictional character in a comedy motion picture says something stupid…DO YOU AGREE RETARDED CHILDREN SHOULD BE KILLED?? YES OR NO!!
Why won’t you answer this well-reasoned and relevant question?
I support research into identifying and curing developmental disabilities so that people can make the choice not to have a disabled child, but to have a healthy child fully capable of societal integration. And please note that you are now implying that women and homosexuals are disabled by definition…that’s not going to be a popular position.
This is very well said. You’ve articulated perfectly the objections I have to Tom’s “eugenics” statement.
I can share this – from a press release:
A small number of disability advocates was able to screen the film on Friday, August 8. Their assessment of the film was that it was far worse than anything they could have anticipated. According to David Tolleson, the Executive Director of the National Down Syndrome Congress who attended the screening, “it provides real ammunition for cruelty” especially for the film’s target audience of adolescent males. “Not only is the Simple Jack character highly central to the film’s plot, it is portrayed in the most demeaning way,” according to Tolleson.
In perhaps the single most offensive scene in the film, Matthew McConaughey, who plays a Hollywood agent, speaks to the film’s main character who wants to adopt a child. “Well, at least you still have a choice. I’m stuck with mine,” states McConaughey while pointing to a photograph of his teenage son who appears to have an intellectual disability.
I support research into identifying and curing developmental disabilities…
By “curing” I assume you mean aborting. So yes, I support a woman’s right to choose but I do not think eugenic abortions are ever a good thing. Just as I support your right to write any stupid thing you want even though I may disagree with what you write.
…but to have a healthy child fully capable of societal integration.
And children with developmental disabilities aren’t healthy and can’t be integrated into society? So what is the exact IQ where that line is crossed? But thank you for demonstrating exactly the attitude in this country that makes movies like this particularly offensive.
I like to think of myself as a good, decent kind of primate (it’s my delusion & I’ll entertain it if I want to), & every damn time I’ve been humiliated in my adult life, I, um, sort of found the event, well … downright bloody hilarious, actually, albeit much more so in retrospect. This may be because I happen to be cursed with an increasingly rare brain condition known as “terminal lucidity” – wherein I’m unable to believe myself any less full of beans than anyone else for prolonged periods, & only rarely able to escape awareness of that unpleasant fact – & it appears to be incurable.
We put one hell of a lot of stock in our alleged dignity – which helps sell a lot of diet-pills, flush-toilets & make-up. It also seems to be an excellent nursery for the most deadly hubris, nativism & jingoist madness we can collectively muster. Duelling was a matter of dignity, & so too are blood-feuds & wars. I’d venture to say we ALL need to get the hell down off of our pedestals a little more often. To suggest we smash them entirely is tantamount to booking yourself a ticket on the Thorazine Express.
Oooo-kay.
Silly me – & all this time I thought I was ENJOYING this website! It must’ve all been like that entire season of “DALLAS” that turned out to be just a wacky meat-dream or some such.
Oh drat – looks like you guys’ll have to switch to a recipe/horoscope/fashion-tips format now, all the more so since this horrible terrible awful nasty post managed to piss off so many nice people … & after all the trouble me & your mother went to trying to bring you up right! I’m very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very VERY disappointed in you, young man. Don’t make me pull this car over now, you HEAR?!
Grolby: Perhaps you don’t know that many autistic people consider the condition to give them great benefits as well as handicaps? Many are strongly against attempts to “cure” it because it would alter their entire personality.
You can’t lump all kinds of mental disability together, any more than you can lump the mentally disabled in with any other disadvantaged group. Each condition is unique, and whilst some carry nothing but disadvantages, some are much more complex.
Don’t get me wrong, being autistic can really suck. Sometimes the suckitude is inherent, sometimes it is due to other peoples reaction to the differences on display. But since many “functioning” autistic types find benefits and personal identity in the condition, it cannot be put into the “unfortunate problem” category, or the “irrelevant difference” category either. It can fit both, under different circumstances.
You see the problem? Even as you rail against those who would put words in your uncles mouth, you do the exact same thing to a whole other category of disabled people. I would suggest this is due to the massive communication gap between all kinds of mentally disabled people, and the rest of the world. Race, sexuality and gender do not have many real barriers to communication when both sides are willing to communicate. The cognitive difference between how men and women think and communicate is nothing compared to the gap between the autistic and the non-autistic.
Social integration of the disabled is mostly a social issue. But it is a more complex one than simply getting everyone to stop hating them for being outsiders. Until society as a whole manages to get over the purely socially constructed differences, then addressing the more complex differences is going to be very hard.
By “curing” I assume you mean aborting.
Abortion is okay, Mr. Republican.
And children with developmental disabilities aren’t healthy and can’t be integrated into society?
What kind of integration do you mean? Jeezis, in some cases obviously not, in some cases pretty much.
Clearly, Paramount takes waivers very seriously and doesn’t want anyone discussing what happens in this film without facing legal action. (Please note the requirement in the Kansas City Star announcement that you remain in Paramount custody for three weeks after viewing the screening).
What a dodge. If you are unwilling to face the wrath of the studio that would come about by saying, anonymously, on an Internet comment thread, that you have seen the movie – in order to lend credence to your otherwise unnecessarily antagonistic comments. If this is trolling – well then bravo, sir, bravo.
If it’s in earnest, I refer you to above.
The Sheriff is a Ni-
I just wanted to post a “Yay teh Sammich iz Back!” comment. But then I read down a little and ran into Tom and the rest of the precious little concern trolls having their little freak-out, and I got depressed. Kee-rist. Are we really going back to that bullshit? ‘Cause it’s really tiresome and it doesn’t accomplish a goddam thing. It just makes the person wagging their finger feel better, because they get to act all superior and lecture everyone else on what an insensitive beast they are, and how “words hurt” and “stereotypes have real-world impact,” and the next thing you know, we’re all sentenced to the South Park sensitivity re-training concentration camp, having to applaud as Mr. Slave gets Lemmiwinks jammed up his ass.
Shorter Tom: I’m trapped in a world of magical thinking, where if we just don’t say the Bad Things, then the Bad Things don’t exist. Rainbows, fluffy bunnies and unicorns for everyone! Wheee!
I worked with the Farrelly brothers on a film on this topic.
Ah yes, There’s Something About Mary was a sensitive, noble and soul-stirring homage to the dignity of the mentally disabled (and people with cum-stained hair), but this movie is obviously “an affront to dignity, hope and respect.”
Do you support people who choose not to have a female child? And if a gay gene is discovered will you be supporting parents who choose to abort them?
Yes and yes. Why on earth would you want to force someone who is that prejudiced against women and gay people to raise female or gay children? I say that as a gay male who had horribly homophobic parents (whom I no longer speak with).
I think this may be the first case of full-on concern priaprism I’ve ever witnessed.
grolby, I specifically said it’s no worse or better to make fun of one group than another.
But rereading my original comment on the subject, I think I may have misfired on both the memory and presentation of the monologue in question. I don’t think he was talking specifically about making fun because of the disability, but rather the idea that disabled people are off limits from any sort of ridicule because of their disability. The whole walking-on-eggs thing. Does that clear things up at all?
Meanwhile, and I know this is cruel, mean-spirited and evil.
I wondered why the title to this wasn’t “Let’s Get Retarded!”
Also, I have to disagree with a statement D.N. said at the beginning.
Pricks are everywhere. Nowhere is safe.
Basically, the thrust of it was, people with “intellectual disabilities” (per Tim Shriver) don’t want to be treated like fragile Faberge eggs; they want to be treated — respected, disrespected, lauded, insulted, etc. — just like everyone else.
Well, here’s the perspective from someone with a relatively close relative who is MR, one of my uncles on my mother’s side: we tease him, a lot. We tease him about getting old, about wanting to hitch everything in the world to a giant truck and drive it away, for his Richard Nixon five o’clock shadow or for doing silly things. Y’know, normal things. In return, he gives his brother-in-law (my father) no end of crap, and a great time is had by all, usually
Grolby, I think your relationship with your uncle is a good example of (how I understood) the improv teacher’s advice: treat people who are MR just like you treat anybody else, you know, like regular people.
FWIW, I also read that that last sentence as “making fun of them FOR the disability is exactly the same (i.e., no worse, no better) as making fun of people for being fat, Polish, female, whatever”: if you think the latter is mean and inappropriate, so is the former. On the flip, if you can somehow manage to make jokes about someone who happens to be a member of {insert disadvantaged group} without being a bigoted asshole, you should be equally able to tease someone with an intellectual disability without being a bigoted asshole. And, in theory, a good time should be had by all.
I don’t think Shriver helps his case much by citing that utterly hilarious exchange between Stiller and Downey as evidence. “Full retard” is funnier than anything in the previews.
Not as funny as “concern priapism,” natch.
Thanks Dorothy. I think you said what I meant to say. Do you hire out for translations?
Tom, I also think you’re failing to make a distinction. I don’t support eugenics because I don’t support the state or any agency pressuring people to make decisions that are the decision makers’ to make privately; non-involved actors need to stay out of decisions like that. I do, however, support abortion on demand under any circumstances.
Raising a child with a disability is hard work (ask my mother), and I don’t think anyone should be forced into doing it if they don’t want to, just the same as I don’t think anyone should be forced into raising any child they don’t want to raise for any reason, or continue any pregnancy they don’t want to continue for any reason. I would like to see cultural education aimed at ending things like femicide, in order to persuade people to change their minds about why they think it’s necessary, but people have been trying to control the sex of their children for basically as long as they’ve been trying to control when and how they have children (which predates recorded history), so I don’t think selective abortion (or other forms of sex-selection) is ever going to go away completely.
For what it’s worth, I’m physically handicapped, and if I hear one more person gushing on about how enriching knowing a handicapped person is (because apparently we’re all exemplars on how to deal with the completely unnecessary crap society throws at us, except when we’re not) and how different and magic-snowflake sparklepony spayshul we are, I’m going to puke on their shoes. We’re not fucking meditation balls, people. If you need your life enriched, you’ve got a navel; go gaze at it. (Of course, I’m one of these Bitter Cripples™, so my opinions, culturally speaking, do not count, since I refuse to be One Of the Good Ones™ and sit down, shut up, and be grateful, dammit, grateful.)
Interrobang, I feel enriched just knowing you. Though you forgot to mention the rainbows that usually go along with you people’s sparkleponies.
Hey! Let’s take the sparklepony, grind it up into sausage, cure it, and then put it in Teh Sammich.
That hushed-tone, forward-leaning with direct eye contact, kid-glove condescension makes me want to fire up a Husqvarna chainsaw and go Leatherface.
Interrobang: you wouldn’t happen to be a guy named Doug, would you? Used to post back on alt.society.generation-x back when Usenet still had viable non-binary groups?
I dunno… it’s usually best to understand a little bit of the wider history of what a minority group is protesting, ’cause it’s awfully easy to say “hey, I don’t see what’s so big a deal about this one film, and they sure seem like they’re being hyper-P.C.” etc., etc. Is there a long history of similar “retard” style jokes in the movies, without either much counter-balancing mentally disabled characters in mainstream films (or else tired stereotypes)? ’cause you sometimes see the “straw that broke the camels back” effect (particularly if those kinds of jokes or stereotypes crop up in a film by or starring someone who’s perceived to be smarter than the lowest grade comedians), where minority groups begin to say “enough.”
For instance, I see this happen a lot in online discussions of gay and lesbian representation in films, where one proudly self-proclaimed “anti-P.C.” side will be like “why are people making such noise over this one film?” while another side is contextualizing it in a long history of crappy and demeaning portrayals without much real counter-balance. An example is the recent X-Files movie (spoilers ahead, but it’s a lame film by most measures anyway). There were complaints because the film-makers decided to make the villains a gay couple (“married in Massachusetts,” we’re told) who brutally kidnap young women and (I am so not kidding here) cut off the women’s body parts and sew it on to the body of one of the gay men who is presented as a grotesquely white, diseased, Nosferatu-like body, whose origin is linked to a pedophiliac priest, and who eventually plans to have his head sewn on a woman’s body to take over and “become” her body (again, not kidding). There are no other gay or lesbian characters in the movie and the two gay men are only seen in shadowy, violent situations, without any real dialogue given to either one of them (it was also noted that previously in the entire nine year history of the X-Files t.v. show there had been essentially only one gay character in one episode, presented in a jokey way). Now, reading that (absurd) scenario from the X-Files film, you may at least begin to get a wee inkling of why some gay folk might take issue with how the film-makers chose to represent “teh gheys.”
There’s a long, involved history of pretty awful gay and lesbian representation in mainstream films as villains, suicides, or jokes, probably most famously detailed in Vito Russo’s long study “The Celluloid Closet” (later made into a well-received documentary). It’s understandable why members of this minority might be uneasy or upset with films that mindlessly continue along with or return to bad-old formulas that helped set up a tangible, strong mindset of bias and misconceptions in the public eye, so that people weren’t just getting frequent anti-gay stereotypes and slanders from the pulpit but even if they just went to the movies on any regular basis. But folks (particularly younger film-goers) who don’t have any knowledge of that context, tend to rush to a kneejerk “hey, it’s just one movie, and you guys are being way too P.C.” argument, particularly when they have a strong attachment to the stars or the broader subject matter of the film in question, even when confronted with the most blatant examples, such as a film made in 2008 where the bad guys are a gay couple linked with 1) grotesque disease; 2) pedophilia; 3) wanting to be a woman; 4) violent, shadowy, “other”-ness without any counter-balancing images. The message boards still tended to follow the trend of die-hard fans throwing “too P.C.” at anyone who challenged these images, or else “it’s only one movie.” Thing is, though, it’s not just one movie, there’s a whole long, problematic history.
So I guess I’d like to know a little bit more about where those protesting the “retard” jokes in “Tropic Thunder” are coming from. Sure, it’s very easy for me to jump to a kneejerk “damn, they sure sound like they’re being overly sensitive” anti-P.C. argument. But sometimes there’s a lot more to it than that, or even that it’s just about this one movie. The protests may even come from these groups expecting something a little more intelligent from the people involved with this film, but still ending up with the same damn, tired, stupid thing they’ve heard a million times before. And if it’s part of a long-term trend, they may even have a real reason to be ticked off.
This guy is talking from the same point of view that means you can never tell someone that their actions were wrong, misinformed, poorly thought out, not thought out at all, etc.
Because, you know, that ideas can’t be lame – that’s insulting people who can’t walk well; and smart people can’t act stupid or dumb – that’s insulting people who can’t speak well. Because it’s the same thing as calling a white guy by some racial epithet that doesn’t match.
Augh.
Also note how he quotes by not using the characters’ names, but the actors?
Okay, I’ve been reading up on this movie a bit to get a slightly better idea of what it’s actually about. So far, all we’ve been offered is Shriver’s short bit of out-of-context dialogue.
It seems to be an all-around parody of the movie business and actors in particular. The exchange between Stiller and Downey is a particularly biting jab at the industry’s cynical treatment of mentally and physically disabled people–specifically, that they’re regarded as little more than “Oscar fodder” as somebody else put it.
And it’s true. Who ends up winning the Oscars more often than not? Actors portraying the mentally/physically disabled, that’s who. And it’s usually nothing more than a cynical, patronizing charade. Play a retard, win an Oscar, that’s what it’s all about. Those who want to be outraged need to direct their outrage at the proper source.
Tom, I also think you’re failing to make a distinction. I don’t support eugenics because I don’t support the state or any agency pressuring people to make decisions that are the decision makers’ to make privately; non-involved actors need to stay out of decisions like that. I do, however, support abortion on demand under any circumstances.
I also support abortion on demand. But when I read that people think that abortion is a “cure” for disabilities then I read that as people with disabilities don’t have lives worth living.
I would like to see cultural education aimed at ending things like femicide, in order to persuade people to change their minds about why they think it’s necessary
Which is exactly my point.
It seems to be an all-around parody of the movie business and actors in particular. The exchange between Stiller and Downey is a particularly biting jab at the industry’s cynical treatment of mentally and physically disabled people–specifically, that they’re regarded as little more than “Oscar fodder” as somebody else put it.
Funny thing but in an interview in Entertainment Weekly, Stiller and Downey both said that they tuned down the “black” thing because they decided it would be too offensive. So instead they concentrated on the “retard” thing.
Stiller and Downey both said that they tuned down the “black” thing because they decided it would be too offensive. So instead they concentrated on the “retard” thing.
Really? They both said that they decided to pick on “retards” because they weren’t allowed to pick on black people? Or did they say that they toned down their treatment of race and you inferred the rest?
So instead they concentrated on the “retard” thing.
My picture thus far is that we have a work of fiction in which shallow-by-design characters say stupid things referring to the Hollywood trend of actors finding glory by playing loveable disabled folks.
This seems less offensive the more you play out the thread.
Also: http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html
This interview?
“Robert, what went through your mind when you first got hit with the idea of playing a character in blackface?
DOWNEY: I felt like, I want to work with Ben and Jack, but my way into the movie is I’ve got to be tarred and feathered for three months and maybe have my reputation destroyed. That was my fear. And then we started doing makeup tests, and it was like Mr. Potato Face: ‘Can we take that wig off and put these teeth in? Now put this on. Now put that on.’ But by the time we were finally in rehearsals, I knew I had it.
BLACK: I thought he looked like Lando Calrissian.”
Really bad misstep, Brad. You’re better than this.
When I was a child, I had a terrible stutter. I was so embarrassed by it that I rarely spoke in class. Needless to say, I was the object of some ridicule: because of my reticence they assumed I was stupid, and the Massachusetts public school system designated me a Class A Moron.
The stutter got so bad I was taken out of my grade and put in a special class held in the boiler room. My only other classmate was named “Gilly”. He had fallen through the ice as a child and was technically dead for 57 minutes. They taught us to sweep sawdust so we’d find work at a mill.
the Massachusetts public school system designated me a Class A Moron.
I was in the stupid science class in grade 10, a result of having done nothing in grade 9.
We got Mickey Mouse comics.
I still don’t get why people with no sense of humor come here to read and comment.
I still don’t get why people with no sense of humor come here to read and comment.
I’m afraid it’s the age-old thing: pushing someone else’s hot buttons is fine (K-Lo is an unfulfilled spinster, so-and-so is a lonely virgin, such-and-such is mentally unbalanced due to improper potty training, etc.). But let it be your personal hot buttons, and suddenly it ain’t so funny anymore.
Personally, there have been any number of occasions when somebody on these threads wrote something where I could have, if I were so motivated, gone nuclear on their asses, complete with righteous sob-stories designed to highlight their horrible insensitivity. But fuck that. I come here to laugh.
They rob a person of a lot of the things that make being human so great.
If “they” means the behavior and actions of people around them, I’d agree.
I have a cousin who is mentally handicapped. Oxygen deprived at birth.
He was always the strange “other” when I was a child. Indecipherable behavior and scary siezures. But he was never an object of ridicule. As I child, however, I never knew quite what to do. I didn’t know how to react to him or know if I was really communicating to him at all. Then I watched his siblings. No big deal to them.
Fortunately, he had a mother who fought very hard to force the state to acknowlege them as deserving members of the educational system. One of his sisters went on to manage group homes for mentally disabled kids, quite successfully I should add.
When you see all the movies that have exploited these people for “ahhhh look…how cute!” (“Rain Man”, “Flowers for Algernon”, “Forrest Gump”, “Radio”, “My Other Sister”, “I Am Sam”, “Being There”), I can only think how conveniently wrong they’ve show it.
So there’s that.
That last anonymous was me (3;07…not that it matters). My point is that this movie is targeting a stereotype that studios have exploited. I won’t defend the movie (haven’t seen it), but this stereotype is something studios have made bundles off of.
How come nobody has come here from the Actor-American community to protest the Hollywood treatment of actors, the constant stereotyping, in “satires” like this, of actors as shallow, brainless, clueless and self-important jackasses who wait tables or have other menial jobs to support themselves while they wait for their “big break”?
Oh wait, that one’s for real.
Here’s what fascinates me about concern trolling: We’re somehow now talking about eugenics and abortion.
What the fuck, people?
As far as I can tell, one of us has seen the movie, so the only question that we can all talk about is, “Does Tim Shriver make a good case that Tropic Thunder is offensive?”
And I have to agree with Brad that he does not. He cites two quotes, one of which is ambiguous, and one of which seems to be making exactly the same point that he is.
Maybe Tropic Thunder is incredibly fucking offensive to the mentally disabled. Maybe in context those quotes are terrible; it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
But right now Tim’s column makes him sound like those guys who accused the Dead Kennedys of hating poor people.
Wow…when the subject of people with intellectual disabilities comes up here, most of you folks seem as ignorant and insensitive as the right wing rednecks you expose and skewer so expertly. Sadly, this indicates to those of us working in support of people with disabilities that we have a long way yet to go when seemingly well educated , sophisticated folks such as frequent this site still don’t understand that it is not funny to pick on the most vulnerable and defenseless citizens among us! What i wish for Dan Someone and his ilk is for he and/or a cherished loved one to be brutally humiliated so that they finally gain some insight into what is “funny”, and what is not!
I also fantasize about people being brutally humiliated, Johnny. It’s totally normal.
But Herr Doctorb, i actually am compelled to act, on a regular basis, to confront (okay, though not to brutally humiliate) the gawkers, the muttering, pointing, gaping dipshits who are so eager to feel superior to someone else…that’s why my nose has been broken x5…some call this “the last civil rights movement”—though we know all civil rights are always under attack…
Sounds like some … well, let’s say maladaptive behavior.
But let it be your personal hot buttons, and suddenly it ain’t so funny anymore.
Yeah, then out come the Zhdanovian hacks.
Just because we have better, more reasonable things to get our feely-feelies all butthurt about doesn’t mean that anyone — especially an artist — should be censored or practice self-censorship in response.
>>doesn’t mean that anyone — especially an artist — should be censored or practice self-censorship in response.
Well, yeah, but that would be true even if the movie was actually making fun of the handicapped, which it clearly isn’t. (No, I haven’t seen it, but I feel pretty comfortable making this claim since it’s based on the examples given by the guy claiming that the movie makes fun of the handicapped)
It’s one thing to get all worked up just because it’s YOUR ox being gored; it’s another thing to not understand that the butt of the joke is ox-gorers.
Is it OK to pick on people with reading comprehension problems? Am I clear for that?
It’s just fine Dan, until the Dylsexic Agenvers get wind of it.
My god this is a stupid controversy.
They are not making fun of disabled people. They are satirizing Hollywood.
The studio made a mistake in removing Simple Jack from that context.
If Tom is so upset about the portrayal of the mentally disabled in films, you’d think he’d welcome a movie that savagely mocks Hollywood’s manipulative and cynical use of such characters. But apparently not.
I just went to the IMDB page for “There’s Something About Mary” and found that the guy who played “Warren” is W. Earl Brown, who also played “Dan Dority” in “Deadwood”.
I didn’t see that one at all.
I’ve got nothing on the above noted controversy, though.
Carry on.
Shorter T Shriver: “People who slam handicapped mockers hurt the handicapped.”