Background on the controversy, for anyone not following it:
http://misscripchick.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/313/
http://misscripchick.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/more-than-just-words-tropic-thunder-boycott/
My personal feelings are a bit complicated and conflicted. On the one hand, the people responsible for the movie are, as I understand it, making the claim that what they're actually spoofing are:
- The genre of inspirational "person with a developmental disability who saves his community/big brother/coach/pals from cynicism and meanness", from Rain Man to Radio
- Actors who take any role, no matter how silly or "politically incorrect," in their search for a part, an award, or both.
Since I have not actually seen Tropic Thunder, I don't know if this is just a cover, a promise that "we don't find the word 'retard' funny" with fingers crossed behind everyone's back. But this is, I think, the bad part of a boycott: that as long as I don't see it, I'll never know whether it strikes me as a joke on bad actors that is clear from context, a joke on bad actors that reads as a joke on developmentally disabled people, or an obvious joke on developmentally disabled people that this explanation obviously doesn't explain away.
So I'm in a quandary. I want to see it, to see for myself how obvious the satire is or isn't and who is really its butt. But given the firestorm -- and the offense I myself took at the "don't go full retard" snippet quoted in CripChick's link above -- I don't want to give my money to the people who made this until I know more about what it looks like and what it's really supposed to be saying/doing.
I also wonder about boycotts. I get protest, I get not giving money. But I also think that the fiercely ableist people who want to believe "retards are funny, ha ha hee" may see this and be even more inspired to see, and defend, this movie. People who confuse freedom of speech with freedom from criticism may also jump all over this, and all over us, for "stifling creativity" or whatever have you. So I do wonder: is boycott the best solution? I don't know. (And I'm honestly something of a free speech absolutist myself, as appalling as I find this and as aware as I am that a boycott by citizens is not censorship.)
I do also have a few unconflicted feelings I have about the whole brouhaha, and they dovetail almost precisely with this post over at Normal is Overrated:
It wasn’t the oft-quoted dialogue about mental retardation that bothered me; sure, it’s offensive, but part of the whole point of the movie is that the characters are painfully insensitive. (I mean, come on, Downey’s character performs in blackface.
You can’t say the characters are pinnacles of understanding.) The
portrayal of “Simple Jack” in the film-within-a-film is a bit more
unsettling, yet even that wouldn’t offend me if it were framed in a
suitably satirical context pointing out just how chock full of
stereotypes it was.
No, what’s nagging at me goes further than mere dialogue and character portrayals; it’s a matter of unfortunate implications.
Now, to be fair, it could very well be that this is dealt with in a
more balanced manner in the movie as a whole, so I’m withholding any
final judgment for the time being; even still, the choices of what
scenes were chosen for the trailers alone demonstrate a… rather
unsettling bias.
In this corner… we have Robert Downey’s character playing a black character, in blackface, totally to stereotypes. And in just the trailers, he’s called on how offensive this is, by actual black actors within the movie,
who are none too pleased with said portrayal. This happens in at least
two separate scenes, one shown in the general-audience trailer, one
shown in the restricted trailer.
And in this corner… we have Ben Stiller’s character playing
the intellectually impaired “Simple Jack.” But unlike Downey’s
character, the only criticism he gets, other than a brief mention of
bad box-office returns, is from Downey’s character for overplaying the
character. Not because such an over-the-top performance could be
offensive, but merely because it was something audiences couldn’t
connect with.
And, at least as far as the trailer goes, that’s it.
There’s no further discussion of ableism, other than that short bit about how audiences won’t go for a character unless he’s Not Too Disabled. The characters’ own disability stereotypes aren’t touched on at all— which is a shame, because that’s something that could have led to some brilliantly satirical dialogue.
There’s no discussion of how certain terms are a shock to the
disability community, in a huge contrast to that “you people” scene
involving Downey’s character that’s even in the all-ages trailer.
There’s no discussion of the fact that an ill-acted, overly
stereotyped portrayal of a character with a disability can be an
embarrassment no matter how “mildly” disabled the character may be.
(Unless, of course, that’s also a point of that one dialogue, in which
case the filmmakers fail at writing satirical dialogue.)
In fact, even the criticism of non-disabled actors portraying
characters with disabilities goes over like a lead balloon, assuming
that was even part of the filmmakers’ intent. The point made
in the trailer, at least, seems to merely be one of “…but not too
disabled.”
And this is what I find most offensive here. It’s the fact that these points are explicitly touched on regarding race, yet issues of disability are shrugged off with a few lines here and there.
Again, I've not seen it, but assuming that this is an accurate representation of what it includes and doesn't (and I have no reason to assume differently), this does worry me. Blackface we -- rightly -- understand to be offensive. We know playing with that is playing with fire, and so we have to engage with what it means to perform in it.
(Note that I don't mean to imply here that I think the blackface is appropriate because other characters mentioned that it might not be. I'm simply talking about the difference this other blogger reports.)
But cripface is something else, something that is funny (or maybe, depending on how clear the satire is, is inspirational and awesomely cool), and so the thing to be concerned about there is overdoing it, is making the character so alien he isn't cute any more.
The fact that these two things could be dealt with so differently indicates to me that, no matter what they actually intended or who they meant to spoof, they don't understand what they're playing with here.
