August 12, 2008
Should Tropic Thunder be Boycotted for Mocking the Disabled?
The comedy Tropic Thunder has hit a spot of controversy. The film, fronted by Ben Stiller, is about a group of actors who get caught up in a real life battle while filming a Vietnam War film. The movie is packed with jokes mocking Hollywood's excesses. The joking extends to the marketing of the film. Faux trailers, movie posters and even a fake energy drink is all a part of the marketing plan. Dreamworks recently removed a site featuring one of the fake trailers. The joke trailer for the fake film Simple Jack, featured a thread of jokes about a mentally retarded man portrayed by Ben Stiller. The trailer is meant as satire. The trailer angered many families of those with intellectual disabilities. Following a number of complaints from the likes of Timothy P. Shriver, chairman of the Special Olympics, Dreamworks took the trailer down. However the film is still laced with references to "retards" and going "full retard", etc.Click for an example of one such exchange.
Back in the 1980's a similar, although with less controversy, issue occurred with the release of the comedy Sixteen Candles when a jock suggested Molly Ringwald's character was retarded because she was staring at her long interest too long. Similar cries of foul erupted. From what I've seen of the film, the use of the word "retard" and the general attitude towards the disabled is even more belligerent. Moreover, it's just not funny - then again it's a Ben Stiller movie, none of his products are funny. The issue here really isn't the use of the word "retard", it's how it's applied. It is the dismissive attitude towards the disabled. This isn't the first movie Stiller has been in that contained jokes about mental retardation. Something About Mary had a mentally challenged character named Warren. Warren's disability was used for laughs. These jokes were hilarious and inoffensive. Why were they acceptable when the jokes in Tropic Thunder are not? Attitude. Screenwriters Bob and Peter Farrelly took obvious care when writing Warren's part. They showed him not as a dim-eyed abomination but as a real person with a supporting and loving family. He wasn't the joke. The reactions of others to his disability was where the humor was found. Everything I've seen of Tropic Thunder mocks the disabled directly, even if its meant to be ironic. This is a stark difference.
Ben Stiller and company should know that satire can be a delicate thing, in particular when you're dealing with sensitive issues, but they clearly don't. They want to satiric and ironic but ended up screwing the works because of sloppiness. I understand they were intending to show how Hollywood softens mental retardation by giving the characters special abilities - he's mentally disabled but he can do math better than anyone! The problem is how the satire is delivered. Now groups defending the mentally disabled are calling for a full boycott. This weekend will bring small groups of well intentioned people holding signs and yelling in front of theaters claiming the "R-Word" (retard) is not acceptable. Others are lobbying congress to investigate if this film steps into the realm of the dreaded "hate speech". For those of you who are offended by the film, I understand your pain and concern. I've worked with the mentally challenged, and have great affection for the community. Attacks shouldn't go unanswered, but the response should be retrained and firmly directed. Street protests and appealing to congress are the wrong answers. When confronted by material you find offensive, it is best to appeal to people to avoid the products. It is likewise good for leaders to engage the media to call people out. When people ask for the government to investigate or cite "hate speech" they are going too far. It is one thing to shame someone for their speech, it is another to use the power of government to bully them into silence. Don't even get me started on using the term "The R-Word". Are you kidding me?
What is your opinion? Should the film be boycotted for its content? Is protesting offensive movies a worthwhile tactic?
Labels: Ben Stiller, miscellaneous
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 7:00 PM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
7 Comments:
"What is your opinion? Should the film be boycotted for its content? Is protesting offensive movies a worthwhile tactic?"
1) the film looks too dumb to take seriously
2) what is the difference between "people who find such movies offensive won't keep paying to see them" and a "boycott"? Is it not the attempt to portray as offensive something not enough people find obviously so? I find that boycott campaigns frequently exaggerate and inflame the judgment, rarely have enough light to justify their heat.
3) if "protest" means "speak fervently" then sure, why not? Say why you find it offensive, persuade us you're right, help us feel your point of view, and you'll influence us. But if "protest" means "indulge in futile fits of self-gratifying moralistic preening" then there can't be enough indignation and scorn heaped upon protest junkies....
I take protest to mean the latter. The image of people standing outside a multiplex harassing patrons irritates me greatly.
A boycott is different from simply not seeing them because its more organized than people just staying home. When a social group states they're conducting a boycott of a product and the producers/supporters of a product, they're engaged in what can be the most effective act they can take. The best thing they can do is a "buycott" where said group purchases intentionally items that support their viewpoint. The buycott is a tall order however since its easier to get people to not do something than to actually go out of their way and do a task.
The best way to handle these kind of situations is for the group to make their case in the media, call for a boycott if they'd like and then hold firm. Protests and calls for legislation are where groups tend to go too far.
I don't go see movies that offend me. Sometimes I rant against them on my blog. I leave it at that. I've never participated in a boycott in my life.
I get the impression from the material I've seen that this movie really lampoons Hollywood and how seriously actors take themselves. Even in the clip you posted I thought that the butts of the joke were the characters played by Stiller and Downey. They were "funny" because they were full of themselves and idiotic. I don't think the "full retard" dialogue mocks people with disabilities. I think it's designed to ostensibly expose the vacuum in Hollywood's "soul." Now, it might be very muddled and unsuccessful in it's attempt to send up Hollywood, but I think the writers had their hearts in the right place. Of course, if I'm right, then these characters will get their just desserts at the end of the movie, rather than being played for heroes. And the film-makers probably didn't have the guts to follow through to that kind of conclusion.
I agree with you about Stiller, though. I can't remember the last time he actually did a worthwile movie. I guess it does go all the way back to "There's Something About Mary."
Very good points all.
How the characters are concluded is critical because it is there the audience learns whether or not acting like they do has positive or negative consequences. You're right Darrell, they probably won't have the nerve to follow through.
Ben Stiller has a track record of doing anything for a laugh (i'm thinking Heartbreak Kid, yuck)
The mock trailer wasn't a satire of mentally disabled people, it was a satire of all the films out there that are acclaimed for portraying a mentally disabled person as a human being - something that should be done anyway. While films like Forrest Gump and I Am Sam are obviously good movies, nobody can deny that most of their respect is because they deal with mental disability, rather than for great directing, acting, etc (though I admit, those movies had them anyway).
It's supposed to satirize all those people out there who say "Aww, isn't that nice, that movie is about 'retard' who does great things. How lovely."
Just like 'Satan's Alley' doesn't mock homosexuals or religion, but all the movies that try to be profound and different by mixing two obviously conflicting ideals.
That kind of humor has been respected in entertainment for centuries. Only people who really want to find it offensive will succeed in doing so.
If people have a problem, they can just not watch it.
I also find it a shame when people make fun of directors. People underestimate how much time and effort goes into planning a movie. Each second can take days, or even weeks of preparation. And to then write and act in something that makes millions at the box office and attracts billions of views. It's a huge risk to do something like that. Anyone can make a movie, but for it to actually go to cinema takes a lot of talent. There's a lot of competition out there..
Its a risk because it is the wrong thing to do and Stiller didn't know if our culture had been coarsened enough to accept it. I understand the difficulties of making a movie. Unless you're dealing with complex stunts of fx if it takes you days to get some good seconds you probably don't know what you're doing. Half of the director's job is planning. He's a manager and an artist. You're incorrect in your assumption that it takes a lot of talent to get your film in the cinemas - it takes connections, that's all. Most of the people making films these days are not the cream of the crop, they're the connected folks. Are they capable? Sure. Are the best people for the job? Probably not. Competition doesn't matter when the decks are stacked based on nepotism.
This all isn't a matter of "if people have a problem they can just not watch it." We all live in this culture and reap the results. If we allow material like this to unanswered it does have consequences. I understand that you're most likely the result of an education system that has trained you to be dismissive of standards but the acceptable of the immoral has been a part of human civilization for a reason. If we continue to allow the weakest among us to be harmed it will only lead to disaster. Go read history, see how fascist movements begin. I get their point about films with the mentally disabled. That part of their film is for the most part dead on. After seeing the film I wrote the "full retard" exchange was good satire. The Simple Jack business itself as well as the handling of the agent's son were untenable and were mocking the disabled.
Post a Comment
<< Home