-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/ben-stiller-paramount-learn-that-you-never-go-full-retard.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Do I think it's right to make fun of people? No, but that is what a key component of comedy is, making fun of something. If it's done in a cruel way, or goes "too far" then we need to put some limits down. But how far is too far?
What people need to do is say their peice and let other deside what they want to do.
If it offends you then don't watch it, listen to it, read it etc.
It's all about choice, and the freedom to make the right one for yourself and those that your responsible for.
It's also not clear cut whether the instance is used well for the humor or if its in poor taste. Hiding behind the guise of humor is an easy shield, but when our mildly racist great-uncle comes to Thanksgiving and tells a racist joke - we don't shrug our shoulders and allow him the guise of comedy as high art. We call it what it is: misinformed and insensitive. I'm not saying the instance in Tropic Thunder is or not, because I haven't seen it, but there's at least a chance that it is.
As for giving ARC and others good publicity, that's a double edged sword, too. For different reasons obviously - any time you stick your neck out in the public eye, if your argument doesn't resonate people, you can end up looking foolish. For the most part, investors and grant-givers dislike anything that rocks the boat.
I could rant non-stop on this, but dont want to spoil the BP. Although, in terms of being equal and being fair and not wanting to offend anyone - when a male says something that angers me or gets me riled, I offer to fight them in a boxing match, much like Uwe Boll. So, in order not to exclude anyone based on any qualification and to make sure there is pure equality in every aspect of our lives, I feel I must challenge Patricia Bauer to 3 Rounds of Rage in a Cage. The gauntlet has been thrown.
If I go to the movies and see any of Simple Jack missing from the release, I will be heart broken. It's not that he is acting retarded that makes it funny, it's that he's acting about acting retarded that makes it funny. Or maybe I'm retarded. I don't even know anymore.
And as for the comment that 'You would never walk up to someone with a mental handicap and start saying inappropriate things, nor would you want to impress upon the youth of America that intolerance is acceptable on any level.' While that sounds pretty logical/reasonable, it's a far cry from the day-to-day realities that people live.
It's the realities of their lives, not yours, that is the reason for their protests.
I don't know what's worse. Having to feel as though I can't laugh at this and still be sensitive to the issues in the disabled community? Or not having the ability to laugh at this because of the issues in the disabled community. I would much rather laugh, and still work towards a cure for Cancer, Autism, MS, advancements in prosthetic, etc.
Oversensitivity is far worse in my mind than the ability to laugh at oneself or others, and still be able to sympathize and work towards cures and understanding for handicapped individuals.
In summary, give me a friggin' break!
I think Daniel Day Lewis's non fictional Christy Brown and Dustin Hoffman's semi fictional "Raymond" were portrayed with dignity and respect. So that leaves Tom Hank's and his "Forest Gump" whose disability had nothing to do with the plot line or characterization ...
or did it?
For the film "Blazing Saddles" the term "nigger" was bounced around so often that attempting to watch it on a cable channel leaves you with one third of the dialogue blanked out or substituted, it seems. However, Richard Pryor was one of the writers of the movie, and probably had a lot of creative control over whether or not the term could be used that often.
However, the term "retard" is one that people with developmental disabilities are aware of, and are offended by. Traveling with people I've helped, I've had to watch them suffer through people calling each other by that term without even caring that someone nearby might be offended by its use. People I've helped have told me stories of walking down sidewalks when suddenly a car full of teenagers drives by, slows down, and someone sticks their head out and yells, "Hey, retard!"
Every day, I hear the word in some form or another. I've heard it used by people trying to be funny on the radio ("Hey, have you ever noticed how retarded people get when they're on vacation..."), in movies that are not rated R (The most recent one I saw it in was "Definately, Maybe" on DVD, and that was PG-13 and definately not a satire of how the term is used in Hollywood), and even on television (Not just on Comedy Central, but on other comedies that would never dream of using terms such as "nigger," "chink," "Jew," or otherwise in a derogatory, put-down sense.)
In a well-crafted film made by someone (I'm looking at Mel Brooks here) who understands how to craft their work so that you do see offensive behavior but understand right from the beginning that any behavior you see on screen is not something you want to repeat in public, I might not mind the use of the term "retard" as much. Hollywood has also done a few movies that I felt better-portrayed people with developmental disabilities than have been done in years, but it still has a ways to go.
Lastly, to criticize Dreamworks for taking down the promotion for "Simple Jack," the primary reason I felt offense was the fact that it seemed this joke that was still somewhat socially "acceptable" was getting extra press, and not simply one joke on the list of many things the movie riffs on. There were no websites that I saw showing Robert Downey, Jr. in blackface organizing an NAACP rally, or even just a website for Jack Black's previous role where you'd see a group of people around a table farting.
It's bad enough that the U.S. gov't illegalizes our favorite words, that Great Britain has recently decided to disallow use of the word "elderly" (insisting on the word "senior" instead), that a lunatic (sorry all you loonies out there but I don't know what we're allowed to call you now) shrieked "fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck" loud & clear over and over again at a kiddie park and he was not charged (Freedom of Speech) but the young mothers who complained were fined -- now we can't even say aloud what we're thinking?
Holy Censorship Batman! WTF!
I think it's called "humane." You can still laugh about it, right? You can still have your little joke, right? Nobody is preventing you from saying "retard" as many times you need to hear it for a laugh.
Actually, both characters for Robert Downey and Jack Black have their own websites, KirkLazarus.com and JeffPortnoy.com, respectively. And each one is a 'fake' website that continues to lampoon their characters. RDJ's is very pretentious and celebratory of himself, which is part of the character and part of the joke. Jack Black's makes fart noises as you click through.
As for your differentiation between the acceptable use of "the n-word" and "retard," I find that somewhat perplexing. "Retard" is a word that has many meanings; its use as a derogatory term is slang. "Retard" means "To slow down" or "Delay." Having to have all comments approved retards the posting process. Drinking alcohol retards your heart rate. There is no other use of the word "nigger." It is derived from the Spanish "negro," for Black, but has no other usage than an insult.
And the fact that one black man (Pryor) approved the amount of times the word was used in no way should indicate the acceptance of others allowing the word to be used. But it was comedy and the audience and the crew realized that no harm was being meant and they were actually lampooning the racists.
Really, everyone needs to lighten up. No one is trying to hurt feelings. You bring up someone hanging out a window and screaming a pejorative. That's no different then someone yelling "asshole." That person screaming is offensive and they're using a word that is meant to be offensive in that instance. Just because of one insensitive person does not mean we can eliminate the word from our existence. "Prick" is both a small cut and slang for a penis. Should we never allow that word to be used ever again, regardless of context?
No harm is meant. You have a choice not to listen/watch. Others have the same choice and will choose to watch. 99% of the people who see a movie like this will not be insensitive to you, so don't be insensitive to them in assuming that because they laugh, they're jerkoffs and who have negative biases towards the handicapped.
Let's all have a little fun using words and images of people who are only visible in our society when their disability becomes an issue and hopefully a running gag or joke for 99% of the people viewing Tropic Thunder.
Thank you, to the 1% who have enough decency to walk out of the theater.
Thanks for the info on the other two websites.
My point about Richard Pryor was that there was at least one voice present who might address how a term in the movie might be viewed as offensive and whether it should be used. In the movie "The Ringer" starring Johnny Knoxville, the cast and crew had direct dealings with the Special Olympics and several disability rights groups present to make sure the movie could be humorous and make light of several topics without becoming offensive.
I believe Patricia Bauer's point (or, at least how I read it) was that if Dreamworks itself or the movie had people who could voice whether they viewed an ethnic joke that could be directed at them as deeply offensive, they at least had a voice in it, whether it was ignored or not. Based on the reactions that the agencies have had regarding the "retard" jokes would indicate that there was no consultation whatsoever to make sure they weren't taking that joke too far.
And while the term "retard" as a verb does indeed have a non-offensive definition, the slang term that developed from the original is viewed by a culture as, to them, just as offensive as other slang is to other groups. I'm not going to get into the history, the culture, or other details, since this isn't the forum for that, but the feelings are there.
I'm not calling for the utter banning of this one word simply because it can be used in a negative way to hurt people. You're right, if that were to happen, a lot of words that aren't simply used offensively would be pulled from the language. What I'm personally hoping is that more people would just be more aware of the fact that using the term could be taken to show that people simply don't care. After all, it's not just in this movie that the term is used, but a lot of PG-13 (and even some PG movies, sadly) use the term as an intended insult to another character.
This movie simply presented a big enough target for the groups involved to be able to target it and make the issue known.
I don't assume that people are going to see this movie and immediately walk out and start calling people "retards." But I do fear that there are enough movies out there that don't do anything to dissuade those who already feel it's okay to use it however they want.
By the same token, I don't want anyone to tell me what I can or cannot write in a movie script. I don't want to be hampered by wondering if what I just put on paper will hurt someone's feelings. Harsh? Perhaps, but it's honest.
If I write "A black man in a Burberry raincoat swaggers down 10th Avenue. You know he's looking for trouble. It's dark, but you can still see the bulge of his holster." -- Don't tell me that I have to change black to African American. It'd totally destroy the rhythm.
That's all I'm saying. No offense intended.
It'd be great if the media and the lobbyists and the watchdogs stopped telling us what to say and how and just let us talk instead.
However, the term a lot of people I know prefer to be called is just "a person with disabilities" since it puts the person first and the disability second.
I am very offended by this. I understand that it may be funny but for us it is another time we are insulted and mistreated. Whoever pays to see this film is supportive of a racist nation and it really needs to stop now. I really have no more patience for this blatant ignorance and i cannot believe we are actually discussing whether this is ok or not. It is wrong to get a laugh from others weaknesses.
It's a sensitivity issue about how people are being used or portrayed because of their disability instead of who they are as a person.
Maggie, you write a person who is mentally retarded into your script, you better damn make sure you know what you're writing about because I'll be all over your ass like a Jewish mother!!!
There. I had to get it out.
Forcing someone to "be sensitive" themselves is censorship. Its like the Comics Code Authority. We had 20 years of goofy comics that betrayed the original characters because people started pressuring the Comic Publishers to "be more responsible." De facto censorship.
And I hope you can see the irony (hypocrisy?) of your statement. First, you claim to not want to censor someone, but then you threaten a writer (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press) about the content of her script? Secondly, you then either refer to yourself or compare yourself to a "Jewish mother," somehow implying that a Jewish mother is rabid in some sort, or more aggressive than a regular mother. That could be insulting to both Jewish women and regular women - is a Jewish woman that aggressive? Are they all? Is that a generalization? Are non-Jewish mothers not aggressive? Don't they care enough?
I'm not attempting to pick on you or be confrontational or anything along those lines, but do you see the irony here? You're upset with others over their misrepresentation or generalization, but you yourself, in this instance, are quite probably misrepresenting and generalizing all Jewish mothers. If you yourself are a Jewish mother, does that make it ok? I would say No, you're still generalizing an entire class of people.
Do you see why we should lighten up and let bygones be bygones? To each their own? Respectfully disagree? Take personal responsibility, let others make their own choices? Were do we draw the line? Surely you didn't mean anything malicious by your comment, but if someone, anyone, can take it maliciously, doesn't that make it wrong? Or should I just lighten up and choose to let it slide because I know you're not intending harm and you're most likely a very nice person, despite that comment?
I also know that saying, "lighten up" is a pretty handy mantra to repeat when you're not the person being offended.
The film makers made a choice with this film. Now the audience chooses to accept it and watch the film for its merits or to reject it and not pay to see the movie. Everyone has their own tastes and limits that we should all attempt to recognize, whether we agree or not, though I stress I do not support pressuring one view over another. Thanks for the spirited conversation and the calm attitudes prevailing.
Best wishes.
"When a black person tells me they are offended by being called a ‘nigger’ and a cognitively impaired person tells me they are offended by being called a ‘retard,’ I don’t ask questions. In either case.
I also know that saying, “lighten up†is a pretty handy mantra to repeat when you’re not the person being offended."
It is not commonly known, but people with disabilities were the first to be targeted in Nazi Germany. Now that prenatal testing is recommended for all pregnant women in our country, eugenics and selective births are becoming commonplace. You may not see the harm in this, but if you or someone you love are in a car accident today and sustain a brain injury, you will not have a choice but to live in a society where "all men are created equal"...well, sometimes.
And don't jump to claim that I'm saying that if you get a great laugh out of calling someone a retard, you are a Nazi. It is just that this is dehumanization.
It is wonderful that you don't want your creative freedoms hampered in any way, but there is a context for the anger of those who are offended by what they have learned of this movie.
I'm not a PC person and generally not offended easily. However, having a 19 month-old daughter with Down syndrome leaves me on the fence regarding the Simple Jack plot line. It's not even the plot-line itself, it's the dialog about "going retard". The fact is, the term "retard" is as offensive as "nigger". Period.
I think we all understand the the movie is making a point of the absurdity amongst actors in Hollywood. However, it wasn't done in a particularly clever way. The mark of true comedic talent and cleverness is to offend people without them realizing they are being offended. THAT is what makes something really funny. This plot device is something from the mind of an ignorant grade-schooler and is pretty lame regardless of how offensive it is.
We all know that movies rating don't mean squat. The theaters will be filled with under-17 kids watching this movie. There is little to no enforcement of ratings. I went to plenty of R-rated movies myself before I turned 17. To suggest that no one under 17 will see this without a parent and that kids aren't going to see this movie won't be making Simple Jack and "going retard" jokes at school is intellectually dishonest. Clearly, you don't remember being a kid.
In this country, we have the right to offend and to be offended, then continue on with life. People are making their voices heard and the studio will do what they think they need to do.
(Can't remember whose line that originally was.)
My point is why is comedians, writers, and people who take liberty at creating characterizations of our children focus on their disability like it's so damn funny? That's not who they are. They are not their disability.
If Ben truly wanted to convey this point through comedy, why is he relying on "retard as a gag" for laughs?
About the sensitivity as censorship. I hope we don't ever have to force people to be sensitive to other people's disibilities. I don't want people to be sensitive to disability. That was never the point.
2) I don't think that a Ben Stiller movie should be considered anything but "commentary" or "satire" (please note the quotes). It's one thing to be a genuinely talented parodist like Mel Brooks. Then you can claim lofty goals like slamming Hollywood for exploiting the disabled to make a quick buck, but when you're the guy who made "Meet the Fockers" I'm thinking you should probably apologize and shut the hell up (but don't change the movie, just don't pretend like you're making "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest").
3) Of all the things activists get upset about, I'm thinking one of a thousand dumb-ass movies to come out of Hollywood this year is NOT one of them. Want to bitch about an something related to intellectual disability? How about Bush? We don't let blind people drive cars, do we? How about getting this guy in the White House some help instead of being cruel and telling him he'd make a great leader?
But seriously, there are plenty of other, more worthy things to get upset about than insults to people who got the short end of the stick in life. If being made to feel like less than you are is the worst thing going on in your life, then you're doing pretty well in my mind.
Hell, my people don't have an advocacy group--there's no Scottish/Irish/British-American Advocacy Group (SIBAAG) that can represent my interests in the media. Talk about unfair!!
"In context" the retard gag is okay as long you're making fun of the perpetratos who are making fun of the people with the mental retardation label?
You say Stiller and friends should admit that they're wrong. But they're not wrong in attempting to entertain. Are the scenes in poor taste? Perhaps. Are they even funny? Maybe not. But are they wrong? No.
Bottom line, I'm just happy to see such a long and healthy comment thread that doesn't involve those Twilighter retards.
You've got the right to free speech. If you want to make a movie that has nothing but racial slurs in it, it's your right to do so. However, with that right to make free speech means you also have to be prepared for the repercussions, because other people have the right to say that what you said upset them.
Freedom to say something doesn't mean you get to dodge all consequences of saying it. Just ask Jesse Jackson who made the mistake of saying "Hymietown" when running for President.
People frequently forget that censorship means you simply aren't, by law, allowed to say or write something. People coming to protest you saying something isn't censorship. People asking you to take something you wrote out of whatever medium it's going to become isn't censorship. A business telling you to take something out of a book or movie that they get the final say on? Yes, they're censoring it right there, but that's because it's THEIR product in the long run and they have an image to be concerned with.
Remember, a movie doesn't HAVE to submit to the MPAA for rating. And if a movie is submitted and learns it's going to be rated NC-17, it doesn't HAVE to edit itself in order to get a lower/better rating. However, people will frequently think in terms of how to reach the greatest audience and make the most profit. The studio just has to decide what they want to do, who they want to risk offending, and where the compromise is. And complaining about something being censored and claiming it's against American values doesn't really reflect the situation.
Also keep in mind that you're free to believe what you want without persecution. Is it really freedom of speech and freedom of assembly if every time you attempt to do whatever it is you believe/enjoy, someone confronts you about your activity?
As the saying goes, "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." I'm all for people not going to see a movie, but attempting to stop others from seeing that movie for whatever reason is not something I agree with.
So I think he owes a few kids out there an apology.
"You would never walk up to someone with a mental handicap and start saying inappropriate things, nor would you want to impress upon the youth of America that intolerance is acceptable on any level."
You're kidding right? How out of touch with reality are you? When was the last time you were on a elementary or middle school playground? My 7 year old deals with this on a daily basis. On day one of kindergarten a 6 year old yelled at my son and told him he had no business being at school because he was so stupid he couldn't even read. His mother was mortified. It wasn't in any of the teachings she was promoting in her home. And please tell me you don't truly believe that teenagers can't get into rated R movies without parents consent. Tell me you really don't think the audience target isn't young impressionable middle school and high school kids. And then tell me you really don't think that when this movie is released on DVD that elementary school aged children will NEVER see it.
Someone had a good point on another site. You wouldn't use the "N" word in this manner so why is it o.k. to use the "R" word. Are the mentally challenged somehow less deserving of our respect? Plain and simple, it offends no matter what context it is used. Shame on you all for trying to justify it.
Promote the movie, make more movies like it but don't stand there on your soap box and try to convince me or anyone else that the use of the word in this particular movie won't have a negative impact on the disabled community. Walk in my 7 year old's shoes for one day and then argue your stance again.
Well, we have a clear definition of where your fist and my nose might end, but when it comes to the spoken or written word, it becomes much harder to clarify where one's right to speech intrudes on someone else's rights. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater even though you have the right to free speech, because of the harm it can cause others. A person can be held accountable for libel and slander, regardless of the first amendment.
And while nobody will get trampled and injured from someone yelling "retard!" in a crowd, there is still emotional damage to take into account. But nobody's going to tell you to stop thinking anything you're thinking or stop writing certain things in a private blog or journal which you WOULD get jailed for in other countries.
And yes, I belive it IS freedom of speech if you say something and someone else has the freedom to express a differing opinion or a dislike of what you said. They can't STOP you from saying it, of course, but someone's right to tell them to "chill out" is just as protected as their right to express the displeasure in the first place.
Remember, the right for people who want to assemble to protest a movie because they find something offensive is guaranteed under the exact same amendment as the right for that movie to have whatever offends people in it in the first place. It's for this reason that the KKK was allowed to march in the town of Jasper after several white men dragged a black man to death behind a truck. If I could've, I would've marched in a protest against them, but I have to respect their right to assemble.
And in the end, it really does just come down to the production company to decide if they want to put out the movie and to the theater to decide if they want to show it, both of which come down to how to appeal to both the broadest audience and bring in the most money.
The same people who are pro-life, are really only pro-life if the life resembles them. That's what really kills me.
My husband screened the film last week. He came home heart-sick. While DreamWorks can say that they are an equal opportunity offender what he saw was very different. The movie is not an equal opportunity offender: The only other people who are made fun of are white, self-absorbed, Hollywood actors; hardly a class of people in need of protection.
I'm guessing that maybe if Ben's Stiller's daughter has an intellectual disability he never would have made this film. No one can tell me any different.
If Ben Stiller has a grudge against actors like Rosie O'Donnell who protrayed a person with a mental retardation label, then this is something he needed to address in a different format and certainly without using the characterization.
We all know that underaged kids will get into this movie or parents will take them to see this and they have no idea that part of this is movie about people with developmental disabilities, not a positive reflection. Then they will go to school and make fun of this population of kids because they think that it funny. Most parents would not think to talk to their kids about this. If they did and they taught their kids respect then my child would not come home and tell me she was called a "retard" again. Unfortunally it takes groups like are ARC and all the other advocates out there to be their voice. If you had a child or a sibling with developmental disabilities you would feel the pain this causes and know how this effects more then just the person with the developemental disabilities. It hurts the parents, the siblings and any other person that has been touched by their lives.
fertile blockbuster era with the 'black-face' humor, not unlike "Blazing Saddles"
This movie is most assuredly not a 'vision' of anyone person, and when it IS edited for TV, what is substituted will likely be worse, trying to 'reconcile' the material for 'all' to enjoy.
Lastly, Jerry Stiller is a genius, but Ben Stiller is not THAT great, neither is the audience, so what do you expect from a viewers mostly comprised of a generation of Family Guy & South Park followers?
There is no "bottom of the barrel" in the digital age, and the bottom line is still king.
besides--Nobody wants to use all that vietnam-era set dressing for serious films anymore, so they get it cheap for a comedy, then they'll sell it off on eBay--
there is your likely 'premise'. "Oh we'll need a story...."
a hollywood formula: irresponsible=money
...it cost nothing to Paramount to post or pull down websites, relatively speaking.
Look at my name "Ronald Moore". As soon as I tell people my name some people catch on right away, Ronald, your name is Ronald Moore, really? Then their faces usually turn red and they snicker, or hold it in until snot comes out of their noses. Think I don't know what they're thinking?
I was teased by other kids all through my life. Even the in the adult world, people changed Ron Moore around and made it Moore Ron - MORON! Hardy, har har!
Once a girl figured this moron stuff out right after we finished having sex in bed! I held it in and didn't say anything, and on the next romp I got even. I entered her through her back door. "OUCH, not there!" "SORRY!" (now, who's the MORON?) Come to think of it she was like a retard too. Maybe she was?
I used to get pissed off but after the years went by, I laughed at that MOORE-RON stuff myself! It IS pretty funny.
We had a kid in our neighborhood his name was Edward Hitzkowski - we knick-named him "Eddie Hit" which sounds a lot like "Idiot" if you say Eddie Hitt real fast (try it). So we called him IDIOT to get him mad. Was this guy a real idiot? He certainly was!!
LAUGHING! Its good for us!
There is no way around it, people DO and have always laughed at stupid people; the idiots, morons, mentals and yes, the RETARDS! Especially the retards - they are the most hilarious of all.
I mean, if you've ever been around a real retard you have to admit, they do and say some of the funniest shit - I nearly died laughing a few times because of one of them in my life when I was a little kid.
There was this retarded guy named "Alvin" who was around when I was about twelve, (he was in his thirties) and me and my friends would tell him stuff about the adults on the block who we didn't like.
We knew exactly what retarded Alvin would do with the information he was spoon-fed by us.
On warm summer nights, he would sit there in his beach chair rocking away like, like, well - like a retard.
When certain people passed him on the street, he blurted out the stuff that we told him> He had a real annoying voice, but very funny, like he was talking through his nose. A really retarded sounding voice. There's to other way to put it.
I can remember him saying things like;
"Hey Lilly, you're such a fat pig your husband can't fit in bed with you! He's jerking off in the closet right now!" "Mr Ralphie sucks my cock when nobody's looking - right Mr Ralphie?"
We taught him a song to the melody of Jingle Bells entitled, "Sniff my Farts". We had a ball!
It was sad when Alvin and his parents died in a house fire in 1955. All of our fun went up in smoke!
His mother and father smoked and he would be fascinated by the matches and lighters. The Fire Marshall reported he burnt his house down after dropping a Zippo lighter on some newspapers in the basement in the middle of the night.
Poor Alvin was very funny. We loved him for it! It's the funniest stuff ever and I'm still laughing, 65 years later! Ha ha!
Go out and have a fun evening tonight at the movies you old farts, and even you REAL mindless retards, who laugh at your own feet with your snotty nose dripping on them while beating off to Hanna Montanna - go see the movie, it looks so funny!
People in the disability community as at the beginning of the fight for respectful speech and many of the postings here clearly demonstrate the degree of work ahead.
offensiveness. However, having been a brother of a developmentally disabled person
and heavily involved in Special Olympics my entire life (I am currently on the board of
directors for our state), I think it is worthy of note that Special Olympics is not just "an
advocacy group looking for something to be angry about" or simply "in it for the
publicity," as a couple of people have been characterizing it as. In my 25 years with the
organization, I never recall any instance where they have put up any sort of hullaballoo
about a movie. I personally boycotted Johnny Knoxville's "The Ringer" because I found
the premise offensive, while Special Olympics actually promoted the movie because it
shined a very possitive light on disabled persons. That being said, if for at least 25 years
this organization has stood by and done nothing, I have a feeling the uproar here is
because the conduct in the movie is trully deplorable, rather then Special Olympics being
simply reactionary. From what I have read, Dreamworks was looking to not only make
jokes, which are fine (I thought it worked and was hilarious without being offensive in
'There's Something About Mary'), but to actively market and capitalize on offending
mentally disabled people. Yes, Dreamworks may have also had Robert Downey Junior
playing a black man in black face, but they did not try to sell products and gain plublicity
by selling T-Shirts with a catch phrase directed specifically toward African Americans. I
think what upsets me most about Dreamworks, and which is indicative of our culture at
large, is that Dreamworks didn't even think twice about this kind of marketing but never
would have dreamed of one directed at another group, even though those groups, unlike
the one at issue here, would be able to defend themselves. I think that is what makes all
the difference - it is not what you say, it is how and why you say it that makes it
offensive.
The "R" word = the "N" word. This movie was made with input from every corner to be sure it WAS politically correct EXCEPT people with intellectual disabilities.
So you think it's funny to make fun of people with disabilities? I sure hope you don't ever have a child with an intellectual disability...then you won't have to hear your child come home and when you ask why he's not playing with the other kids hear him say because they said retards can't play. That's how it starts. Then by the time they get to high school, it's out and out physical and verbal abuse and not just by the kids. I know older students verbally and physically abused by adults as well.
When you marginalized people, it's the same as a stamp of approval on viewing them as subhuman and not worthy of respect.
The "R" word needs to GO.
every day, like it or not, and Tropic Thunder is a step backwards. I'm not typically a
reactionary person and I do believe that society in general has become obsessed with their
personal agendas. But, this is different. As many have said, take a walk in our shoes, the
view is much different.
Our family moved 5 blocks to another house in a different school this year because my
daughter was being verbally abused by teachers and aids, adults who can see R-rated
movies all by themselves. We were made aware of specific instances by compassionate,
brave students who informed us what the adults were doing.
I can't believe in this day and age that this film could make it to the theaters through an
organization that you would expect to be socially responsible, not to mention the number
of well-educated adults writing and producing. Bottom line, Ben Stiller has won Nick
awards so the youth will be influenced no matter the filter.
I am amazed and disheartened by the paranoids who fear the loss of the word "retarded"
from their language. Buy a thesaurus and find some other derogatory term if you really
must. The classic "give an inch..." argument has no bearing here. We're not trying to outlaw
semi-automatic weapons for hunting squirrels, that's another blog. Just a demeaning,
discriminating, marginalizing word. Come on people. We can evolve past this. What is
wrong with people saying "I'm sorry that offends you, I'll try not to use that word again" It
really is not giving up much.
Okay, so I come from the era before zero-tolerance policies when a little fisticuffs at school ended with forced handshake and a chuckle of "kids will be kids", but the principal is the same. Coddling children, whether they have disabilities are not, does them no favors. Eventually, they'll have to live in the real world, where the assholes fuck you seven different ways to Sunday while being perfectly polite about it. If they can't stand up for themselves they'll be crushed, it is as simple as that.
I certainly sympathize with all the parents posting here. If someone hurt my kids I'd go into divine retribution mode. But, what you're not getting and seem to be willfully ignorant of is that this film is not hurting your kids.
Passing an egregious inability identify the malicious assholes and to differentiate them from people who happen to use a particular word in conversation does no service to your kids. Neither does passing on a uninquisitive naive superficiality that accepts media clips at face value without actually doing any research.
At least watch the movie before making rash judgments.
Im in my senior year of high school and i hear that word in all of my 6 classes and lunch some teachers say something about it, tell you not to use it in their classroom and then i also have had teachers and subs that will use it which is stupid because as a teacher you think they would have more respect then that.
And it is just a matter of respect, there is no respect for anyone anymore its sad what our world has truned into and it upsets me that my brother and cousin who both have down syndrome will never be accepted in society, they have taught me the most valuable thing in life and that is to care and treat others as you would want to be treated and I know for sure that everyone wants to be treated with respect.
Most of you who say its no big deal really just have no clue and should truly spend some one-on-one time with someone disabled and then you will see that they are no different they like the movies, they like sports, ect.. they really are no different and i hope someday people will learn that.