The Fearless Blogger

What do you think? Tropic Thunder PSA a bit – um – “Intellectually Disabled”?

in consume, musings, pop culture by faryl on January 28th, 200911 Comments

• Digg
• Del.icio.us
• StumbleUpon
• Technorati
• Twitter

Responses to “What do you think? Tropic Thunder PSA a bit – um – “Intellectually Disabled”?”

1. 
   Kurt January.01.2009 @ 5:59 pm

   It’s not about the context any more. Ever. It’s about choosing to be offended in order to draw attention to one’s own views or cause or issue. Mel Brooks has very rightly said that a movie like “Blazing Saddles” could never be made today.

   Until yesterday, I thought this was a uniquely American foible, but apparently, it’s spreading — In India, there has been violence over the title of the movie “Slumdog Millionaire”. “Our children are not dogs!” they chant. No, of course not. If they’d stop protesting long enough to go see the movie, they’d see that the hero triumphs BECAUSE of his having grown up an orphan on the streets of Mumbai, and the title derives from the derogatory term used by the villain. We’re not meant to think of children in poverty as “slumdogs”; we’re meant to see the triumph over adversity.

   Sorry, I’m ranting.

   If the folks who claim offense by “Tropic Thunder” thought to watch the film, they’d see that Ben Stiller’s character gets run through the wringer as a result of his choice to play “full retard”, and he comes away a changed man.

   Gaah! There I go again, assuming people care about context!

2. 
   Jon Ray January.01.2009 @ 11:09 pm

   The PSA is completely inappropriate on a DVD like Tropic Thunder. I can tell you that, if anything, having that PSA there just opens up intellectual disabilities to more immature snickering. Kids are mean. A PSA isn’t going to change that. Why insult the rest of us by assuming we can’t “distinguish what might be done for the sake of comedy versus what is considered acceptable, compassionate behavior in the real world.”

   Well, said.

   Jon Ray’s last blog post..He don’t give a F#@%

3. 
   Mary January.01.2009 @ 8:08 am

   The good news is that you got that Tropic Thunder was satire. The problem with the film’s use of the word retard was the people viewing it who didn’t. Do you know that the Simple Jack costume was in the top costumes used by kids last Halloween? Did you know that no one used the term full retard before this film. Now kids with special needs are taunted in the hallways at school with this term. The tagline to the film Simple Jack “once upon a time…there was a retard” was pretty over the top. When a film says it’s an equal opportunity offender, you need to be on level playing fields. Jewish people, gays and every one else offended can defend themselves. People with special needs can’t.
   Using the word retard is a slur and demeans people with special needs. Everyone who gets that the firm was satire says the same thing, they would never deliberately hurt someone with special needs. Yet, people with special needs are asking that you don’t use the word. In a sense, they own the word.
   I’m the mom of a child who has mild retardation. I don’t mind having the PSA about the word retard appear on the DVD. You don’t have to watch it and maybe if it helps just one person get what we’re saying then progress has been made.
   Thanks for hearing me out.

4. 
   AnneMac January.01.2009 @ 5:55 pm

   There is a distinction here that has been misapplied by the movie studios, who are really just going overboard to avoid lawsuits from anti-Defamation leagues of all ilks. First, it's truly a problem if a major character is using a term like “retard” as an insult to injure or intimidate another character, which would be closer to “modeling behavior” that kids might use in real life. Here, however, the characters are specifically presenting a parody of the kind of selfishness and ignorance that “major characters” often play, in order to call out that kind of behavior. Likewise, RDJr's portrayal of an Australian guy playing a black dude who is hypersensitive to all racial slurs is a similar way to handle this kind of thing.

   I am so sick of people missing the joke and filing lawsuits, causing inane PSA's to be placed in films by cowering lawyers. Aaaaaaugh!

   It's a parody, people!!! Come ON!

5. 
   Mary January.01.2009 @ 8:57 pm

   Anne Mac, what are you talking about? There were no threats of lawsuits filed over Tropic Thunder. Where did you get that idea? The last time I checked you couldn't sue a movie studio over using a slur. The fact is that kids are modeling Simple Jack. If that isn't mocking someone with a disability I don't know what is.
   You might know satire when you see it but unfortunately most teenagers do not.
   The population of people who bear the brunt of the mockery just don't deserve it. I'm truly sorry that you're so sick of people missing the joke. One day try to walk in the shoes of someone called a retard or simple jack and tell me more bs about satire.

6. 
   AnneMac January.01.2009 @ 2:09 am

   Actually, you CAN sue anyone in the country for anything you like. Most times you don't hear about the suits because they are settled out of court, bound up by confidentiality agreements. But even without a lawsuit, the distributors put disclaimers all over the DVDs these days, carefully stating that the commentary doesn't reflect the opinion of [distributor], etc. The purpose of those, and any other methods of mitigating the offense, is to ward off lawsuits. But that's not the point at all.

   The point is that the fictional Simple Jack in the movie-within-a-movie turned out to be a beloved character, and the actor was able to save the day by portraying him for the benefit of the captors, saving his friends. Modeling Simple Jack isn't modeling a person with a disability: it's modeling a self-absorbed, shallow, empty-headed actor who has developed an outrageous character.

   It's like if Tom Hanks got stuck on the Castaway island, and the only movie they had was Forrest Gump, so he survived by portraying Forrest Gump for the the island natives so they wouldn't cook him in the pot that night.

   I get your point that this particular group is defenseless, so when knuckledraggers on the street choose to be abusive to people with real intellectual disabilities, they can't fight back. But where do we draw the line? Do we outlaw all parody and satire because some group is going to take it personally and be offended?

   There will always be ignorant, mean-spirited people who might take it wrong and act out their baser natures.

   Do you really think anyone actually DESERVES mockery… like there is an acceptable blame factor? No, I just know that some people will continue to attack and abuse fat people like Buddy Love in Eddie Murphy's Nutty Professor, and others will be more sensitive like Shallow Hal. People think that's perfectly fine because they blame fat people for their condition, and therefore believe any amount of mockery and abuse is deserved.

   I got a clue for you. NO mockery or abuse is deserved.

   But modeling characters from movies in Halloween costumes is not mockery. It's a celebration. So, smack around the mean kids who are being vicious, and let the kids who are just adoring the character have their fun. We need thicker skin. And we don't need to be getting offended on behalf of others.

7. 
   faryl February.02.2009 @ 6:18 am

   The Mel Brooks comment really puts it in perspective.

   I support people's rights to voice their opinion. If people are so offended by a movie they feel compelled to boycott it to make their statement, I respect that too.

   On the other hand, it's hard for me to respect the people who boycott a movie before it's premiered, based solely on information they've been fed by someone else. To me, that's nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction and deserves as much consideration as I'd give a pack of sheep.

8. 
   faryl February.02.2009 @ 6:58 am

   Hi Mary! I appreciate you taking time to read and respond to my blog post.

   I appreciate that people with special needs may not be able to stand up for themselves the same way as other groups. That said, I don't think that means other groups are any less deserving of equal sensitivity.

   I personally don't think the onus lies with the studios to place a PSA to mitigate the potential behavior of insensitive audience members who aren't able to understand a movies tone or intentions.

   Yes, children certainly can be cruel. And they probably wouldn't pick up on the fact that (as described by one of the writers) “the scenes were not meant to derive humor from mental disability itself, but to satirize emotionally exploitative depictions of mental disability in movies such as Forrest Gump (1994), I Am Sam (2001), Radio (2003), and Rain Man (1988), and the actors who take these roles.”

   But since Tropic Thunder was released as rated R and with an unrated Director's cut version on DVD, I wouldn't expect that children would be seeing the movie. If they are, then I think the focus should shift to those parents who are letting their children see the movie. I wouldn't expect the studios to be held responsible for the reaction/behaviors of a population that shouldn't be seeing the movie to begin with.

   Again – I certainly welcome your comments and am interested in hearing other people's perspectives. And I do appreciate you sharing your comments. I *am* curious if you've seen the movie yourself?

   Also, I don't mean to discredit what you've posted, but this is the first I've heard about the popularity of the Simple Jack costume this past year. I'd hoped to be able to read up on it to better familiarize myself with your perspective, but couldn't find anything online. If you'd be so kind to share those links, I'd love the opportunity to read them! :-)

   Thanks again!

9. 
   faryl February.02.2009 @ 7:09 am

   “Kids are mean. A PSA isn't going to change that”.

   Totally. Even if the PSA *would* have an impact on children's behavior, it seems like the DVD would be a useless place to include it – since the version I saw was the un-rated director's cut. Clearly the studio didn't intend for it to be viewed by kids, right? :-)

10. 
    faryl February.02.2009 @ 7:18 am

    “I got a clue for you. NO mockery or abuse is deserved.” – EXACTLY.

    Putting a PSA at the end of a movie that was “not meant to derive humor from mental disability itself, but to satirize emotionally exploitative depictions of mental disability in movies such as Forrest Gump (1994), I Am Sam (2001), Radio (2003), and Rain Man (1988), and the actors who take these roles” seems a bit redundant.

    If the filmmakers are concerned we might have missed the intended tone, then why not include something reminding us that racism is wrong as well? Surely if we as an audience think Ben Stiller's character is one to be emulated, we need to be reminded that blackface is not exactly a nice thing to do either.

11. 
    Colin February.02.2009 @ 12:46 pm

    What do I think? NEVER go full retard.

    jk. no offense.

    Colin’s last blog post..Relocating to Bogotá, Colombia

New for Twitter Users!
Safely sign in with your Twitter account instead of filling out the information below - just click the button!

Name (required)

Mail (will not be displayed) (required)

Website