Review and news hub for movies, music and video games

3868 guests and 25 members online

As we've warned the day before, last night the premiere of Tropic Thunder in LA's Westwood district was ambushed by disability groups offended by the movie's many use of the word "retard" to describe mentally handicapped people. The protest took place across the street from the theater, with protesters holding up signs like "Ban the movie, ban the word" and wearing "Tropic Blunder" t-shirts. They were also passing out flyers urging people to boycott the movie.

"We are asking people not to go to the movie and hope to bring a consciousness to people about using derogatory words about this population," Peter Wheeler, spokesman for Special Olympics, one of 22 disability groups nationwide protesting the satire, told Herald Sun.

The premiere was largely unaffected, though. The event organizers, who called the protest "sad", protected the red carpet with walls and 10-feet high shrubs, thus hiding the picketers from TV cameras. The ticket will call was moved to the side of a parking lot and protected by a temporary wall. Security was also visibly tighter.

"If you want to pick on people, as the old playground saying goes, pick on people your own size," said Timothy Shriver, chairman of the Special Olympics. Um, reality check? They are. Maybe these peeps are too stupid to get the joke (did I cross a line there?), but Stiller and co. are picking on their own people with this movie. It's making fun of Hollywood actors, see?

"Some people have been upset about that particular joke and I understand their concern," co-writer Justin Theroux told Variety. "We're not putting mentally challenged people in our scopes. Again, the focus is on the movies. We've seen hundreds and billions of them -- some of those movies are wonderful and then there are others where you think, this is clearly someone's vanity project, and they're doing it for a very particular reason, and people should be just as offended at that. So we wanted to see that up and take a swing at that as well."

But how exactly did all of this start? How did a little joke—which, let's face it, isn't anything new whatsoever in TV and movies—suddenly become such a hot button? For the answer, we should ask Disability News journalist Patricia E. Bauer, who may have spearheaded the backlash when she reported damning reactions to the Simple Jack website on her site. Her post sparked an attention and got the viral Simple Jack website pulled. Now, she's not dumb. Bauer—who worked as a liaison on Johnny Knoxville's Special Olympics comedy The Ringer—acknowledged the fact that Stiller and his co-writers were making fun of actors, and that the movie is targeting other stereotype portrayals, as well; but none of that seem to matter. She wrote in a post on August 2nd:

People of different races surely were involved in the making of this film, and were able to express opinions about which references were humorous and which might have gone too far. So were people with different sexual orientations.

How many people with cognitive disabilities were involved in the making of this film? Were any people with cognitive disabilities involved in focus groups for this film? How many are employed by Dreamworks, or by parent company Paramount?

Let me get this straight... She's unhappy because the production may have hired black people on the crew, so the whole Robert Downey, Jr. blackface thing was not as offensive, but because they didn't employ the disabled, they're not allowed to make disability jokes? That doesn't sound like any solid reasoning at all. Yeah, I know it's more than that, but such a distinction line is hard to see, let alone drawn. And by the way, this shit is utterly hypocritical.

I can't empathize with mentally handicapped people because I am not one, as proven by the cool hats I wear in public, but I do know how it feels to be the butt of a joke, whether based on my personal behaviour or generally on account of my racial and/or cultural identity. Yeah, it stings at first, but we have to understand that it's a comedian's job to make observations in real life and distill them into potential jokes. Offensive or not, misinformed or not, they open us up to a free dialogue as to why people behave a certain way. Why must we put a limit to what is acceptable to make fun of? Can any of these people seriously tell me with a straight face that they are above laughing at someone else's expense? Have they never laughed at a "President Bush is so stoopid" joke? Or a Paris Hilton joke? Or just a joke someone makes about a clumsy co-worker? Or are they free game because they're supposed to be fully functioning human beings? Excuse me, but isn't that pandering, the idea that somehow the disabled are supposed to be inferior people, but we have to make sure we don't say it out loud?

I've had someone say to me that it's no good to make fun of the disabled because it's not fair, since they can't defend themselves. Bullshit. Where do we get off saying so? It's no different than overblown white guilt. You ever see a white person go ballistic over some racial thing that didn't even offend the targeted minority? Yeah, that. Some people are just needlessly overprotective, when in truth, there are a large number of disabled people willing and able to laugh at themselves and accept their conditions. Banning words, not to mention a silly movie, is not progressive. It's insecure, kneejerk paranoia. There are more hurtful things in the world than having yourself associated with a negative stereotype.

It's all a matter of perspective. Some things hit closer to home to some of us more than others. It's natural. To try and stop others' right to laugh and demand the world to succumb to our own personal comfort level is... Well, it's stupid. That's not how society functions. That's not how comedy functions. And not to get too patriotic, but that's why we have freedom of speech here. Because anything and everything has the potential to offend. Sorry, but humor comes in all forms.

But you know something? The real funny thing about all this?

Free publicity.

That is all.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (19)

August 13, 2008, Lex Walker said:

	Amen
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, Saul Berenbaum said:

Way to go, Ar. On the same topic, I saw the movie just now, and it kicked my a*s. Anyone who would be offended by that scene in particular simply did not see the movie. There's no way they would keep up the protest if they actually watched a damn clip of the scene and thought about it for 2 seconds. It's just like the Albino picketers when my theater was showing The DaVinci Code. Albinos can't be villains, after all - only regular whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Africans, but not Albinos. Never mind the fact that the Albino "Villain" was perhaps the most human and understandable character in the film, as well as one of the least villainous. If people f**king stopped and thought about the dumb s**t they were doing before getting their knickers in a twist, they'd realize they weren't being the butt of their own joke anymore.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, Yesvonne said:

I was at the premiere, standing near that pole in the picture, you know, waiting to see the stars when these protesters full of bs start with their s**t protesting, and we asked a lot of them if they've seen the movie: they all said NO. Those a*s holes ruined the whole premiere for all the poor fans who burned outside hoping to catch a glimpse of the stars. However, they still didn't get them to removed any of the retard words. HAH!

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, Lucy Rogers said:

Really? equating the villification of people who can't defend themselves is exactly the same as villifying those who can? Who are you people? Have you no soul? The mentally disabled are our most fragile segment of our society and have yet to have the luxury of equal rights, yet we should feel that they are equally acceptable targets? Yeah, let's pick on those who cannot defend themselves. That's always the best joke, because the only backlash can come from the fanatical people who care about and for them. I hope you all sleep well tonight defending those who pick on the weak. It's beautiful and inspires my faith in humanity. Yes, that is sarcasm. Funny, isn't it.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, Tyler Barlass said:

	Damn. You're not very good at coming off sarcastically.
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, Anne Diehl said:

Quite obvious that this article was written by someone totally ignorant of the disabled community. Yes, the disabled have a sense of humour but whereas other minorities are able to rationalize insults levelled at them, it is extremely hard for a lot of mentally challenged to do so. My daughter is a counsellor at a summer camp for the disabled and spent an hour one day trying to help and stop a young mentally challenged girl crying because she had been called a "retard". The other point which seems to have been overlooked here is that a movie like this is going to attract a lot of young folk who will think that the terms "full tard" and "half tard" are hilarious and I guarantee that these will become some of the new "in phrases" at schools and colleges. And guess what?......these "hilarious" phrases are going to be bandied about and will be said around mentally challenged students who, in many cases, are going to be extremely hurt by it. Is that what our society really wants? For us to stoop so low that we do not care if we hurt and offend those incapable of defending themselves? Come on America - you're better than that...

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, Lex Walker said:

Vilification? Really? Were we vilifying the mentally handicapped/disabled/underprivileged/ not-quite-up-to-par/defunct? Were casting them as evil or demonic? Were we even defaming, slandering or abusing their character? No. We defended a satirical film's right to parody equally. This is the aspect I'm not quite sure how anyone can justify criticizing. The film ridicules everyone and everything that ever takes itself too seriously. Actors, directors, blacks, whites, intellectuals and the mentally handicapped. The inability of one of these groups does not automatically put them in a "no-fly zone" for comedy. Because obviously even if they can't do it themselves, they have fanatical PC watchdogs doing it for them. So you know what? Kill taboo. It's an obstacle getting in the way of intellectual development.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, Jason Craig said:

It's funny, we get desenstized in certain areas with nudity or swear words but on the other hand, god forbid we call someone a janitor...no, they're a debris removal technician. He's a JANITOR!!!! No one is vertically challenged..they're short!! And the list goes on.... Definitions of retard on the Web: * cause to move more slowly or operate at a slower rate; "This drug will retard your heart rate" * be delayed * check: slow the growth or development of; "The brain damage will retard the child's language development" * idiot: a person of subnormal intelligence * decelerate: lose velocity; move more slowly; "The car decelerated"

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, Lex Walker said:

	You went Webster on their a*s
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 14, 2008, _JC_GUEST_NAME said:

Sure, you know...why not pick on survivors of 9/11 or their families? Or kids in the cancer ward? Maybe people with ALS, like Ben Stiller's friend? Hey, in your words...equal parody, right? Where the hell do we draw the line? Many handicapped people fight tooth and nail with devastating conditions just to LIVE. They don't need to fight for acceptance from society as well. This movie just portrays them as stupid-and interestingly enough, the word doesn't even mean that. Even in Mr. Webster in the comments, retarded doesn't mean stupid.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 14, 2008, Arya Ponto said:

	Sure, you know...why not pick on survivors of 9/11 or their families? Or kids in the cancer ward? Maybe people with ALS, like Ben Stiller's friend? Hey, in your words...equal parody, right? Exactly. Tragedies always provide great basis for comedies.
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 14, 2008, Arya Ponto said:

Also, I'm completely baffled as to where people are getting the impression that the movie in any way pick on or portray the disabled as stupid, since none of that happen in the film. I mean, if the usage of a certain word offends you, it's within your right to be offended, but when people start making up things about the movie without having seen it, then that's ignorant. Especially when the "questionable material" plays such a small part in the overall film. Tropic Thunder has a really stupid actor character stereotypically portraying a disabled in a movie-within-a-movie, which the story acknowledges as being utterly offensive and horrendous. The controversial "full retard" quote is uttered by another actor who is obviously crazy and has no problem putting on blackface. This film fights against these Hollywood stereotyping, and yet it's being lynched for it? That's like condemning Mississippi Burning for showing the KKK hanging a black man and using the word "nigger." How does that make any sense?

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 14, 2008, steve said:

	Downey goes full nigger in the film with shoe polish on his face and then he say's, You never go full retard. But he went full nigger.
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 14, 2008, Julian Moorer said:

	Full nigger? is that where we are? Its a movie people. Move on...
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 14, 2008, Jason Craig said:

	Downey goes full nigger in the film with shoe polish on his face and then he say's, You never go full retard. But he went full nigger. Careful with the comments. This one is VERY borderline.
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 14, 2008, Lex Walker said:

	no, that one crossed the border. There was no pretense for it.
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 16, 2008, Katie said:

	N----r is VERY borderline. As the mother of a young woman with cognitive disabilities, I find R------D equally "borderline".
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 16, 2008, Bill from Salinas said:

	Yup. Still a bunch of f--king retards.
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

August 17, 2008, kimberly said:

retard, noun : b. a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard. Obviously you never saw the damned scene or you wouldn't have stood up so proud to make yourself look like a complete and total idiot. (idiot, noun: an utterly foolish or senseless person. —Synonyms 1. fool, half-wit; imbecile; dolt, dunce, numskull.) No one attacked anyone in the scene. The scene isn't even about retards. And I don't CARE what the politically correct term is. This is STILL AMERICA and I still have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Nobody was picking on anyone. Nobody was making fun of anyone for being retarded. Had you bothered to watch the movie you are talking smack about, you would know this. Instead you want to run around acting like some sanctimonious, righteous maven, crowing to everyone about how mean they are...when the reality is, you just wanted something to b***h about. It's people like YOU that are the problem with society today.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

Name

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Add Comment Preview