I'm sure this is the fifteenth thing you've read today about the TROPIC THUNDER scandal, vis a vis "Once upon a time, there was a retard..." but if you haven't, it involves mentally handicapped groups rising to protest the film within a film "Simple Jack," which boasts the tag line, "Once upon a time... there was a retard..." A simple google will lead you to more poorly spelled criticisms than you're likely to find this side of a Britney bashing... here's some choice (but correctly spelled) outrage from a certain Steve Gorelick just to catch ya up:
Because what this whole shameful episode makes clear is that this entire promotional campaign - the posters, the web sites, the trailers, everything - made it through the entire DreamWorks production and promotion process without anyone, not one person , ever stopping to ask themselves: Sure we can say anything we want. Sure we can use the word “retard.” But do we want to? Should we? Is it right? Is it kind? Who would we hurt?
The idea behind the whole "retard" aspect of the film is, apparently (I'm also presuming having also not seen it) to satirize Hollywood's cheap Capra-esque sentimentalizing of the mentally handicapped (FOREST GUMP, I AM SAM, RAIN MAN, THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY--which also starred Stiller--anything with Jerry Lewis or Jim Carey, (pictured) etc.) I can understand, of course, being riled up over the "R" word, if you've been bullied and so forth in a society that doesn't understand you...etc. But despite a mental handicap, one should be able to see that this not as an issue of "is it kind?" but of satire. It's not Simple Jack who is being dunked here, it's those sanctimonious wheatgrassers in Tinseltown. All this backlash hooplah does is prove their low opinion of the movie-going public right--that they are too dumb to get sophisticated satire, that humor belongs in the bathroom and the mentally challenged belong on altars and podiums where we can worship their benevolent simplicity... and win Oscars! 
Not to be overly patronizing, but this sort of thing is supposed to create an ironic self-reflexivity! Such intertextually self-reflexive chocolate boxing is meant to champion the thing it allegedly attacks... it's even meant to help diffuse stereotyping by calling attention to it. In that sense "Once there was a retard," works to illuminate and diffuse "subtextual" prejudice, such as the kind found in FOREST GUMP, wherein being mentally challenged is regarded as a gift, as the only way one can, perhaps, respect and grasp American's governmental policies. The straight-forward unironic way GUMP was appreciated by so many Americans was a bad bad sign... but luckily the SIMPSONS and SOUTH PARK have in the years since been slowly educating us all in the finer points of satire, most of us.... TIMMY! 
To ask "is it kind?" is to ask whether artists have a right to be intelligent and subtle or must hammer every point home in didactic literal terms. Think of "Springtime for Hitler" in THE PRODUCERS... is Mel Brooks the recipient of protests because he glorifies Nazism? No, and you know why? Because it's old hat. Like Mel Brooks, Ben Stiller comes from a line of "Borscht Belt"-comedians, Jewish comedy tends towards the self-lacerating, and to make a sweeping generalization, oppressed peoples know that if you ban jokes about oppression you are halfway to becoming an oppressor yourself, so acidic--even hurtful--satire should not only be permissible but ESSENTIAL for a free society. If the Simple Jack stuff seems too extreme and vulgar, just remember that jaded mass consumer tastes have forced comedians to continually push the envelope of the socially acceptable... by now that envelope has exploded into a pulpy splatter. But we must protect and defend that splatter. Otherwise.... well, if a Forrest Gump in the White House is what these people want then... oh wait. 
Moving on... I believe this whole Simple Jack scandal is being played up in the studio-backed media to smokescreen any possible African American extremist backlash (due to Robert Downey Jr's post-modern black face gambit in the same film). I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Those lovable little bastards in Hollywood know no shame. I for one however can't wait to see Tony Stark get all Superfly on yo ass when TOPIC THUNDER comes out... on DVD!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Once there was a protest against a satire about a film within a film...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Yes, it is the 15th thing, but it's also the sharpest. :)
Another aspect of this righteous anger that really gets my goat, so to speak, is the kind of rhetoric being spouted by Tim Shriver of the Special Olympics, who in a CNN commentary piece urges audiences to boycott the film. There is no synopsis of the film in his commentary. Not even, strangely, the context in which the dreaded "R" word is uttered, a discussion of which could have potentially strengthened his argument. It only makes mention of the word's existence, which apparently is enough. But by asking people to all-out avoid the film because of the hurt feelings of a chosen few, these individuals are refusing audiences the right to formulate their own opinions. Granted, you can't have an opinion without paying to see the film, and thereby in a way "supporting" it...but there's always rentals (or piracy, not that I would know anything about that).
Honestly, I don't need anyone from the Special Olympics committee (or any other) to do my thinking for me. Wouldn't a far more socially responsible way of reacting be to, oh gee, I don't know, maybe watch the film, think for yourself, and if you're still hung up about it blog the issue into oblivion?
Daniel Defoe's satire was often so subtle that critics and readers alike accused him of espousing the very socio-political movements he meant to mischievously undermine (and in retrospect, it certainly looks that way...time is not kind to most topical satire). Problem is, these days you need not be subtle, the aura of the language is damning enough.
PS -- totally agree on the "smokescreen" and that was the first thing that came to mind...this is a complete Macguffin.
Damn right and thanks JJ. Imagine the far reaching positive effects that could be had if these special olympics rabble rousers decided to boycott, say, Wal*Mart or the War in Iraq? There'd be no stopping them, but no one wants to attack a faceless corporate entity... that little Ben Stiller though, he's very attackable, despite his new manly biceps. Also the media machine loves to pump up the volume on its own white noise, as opposed to tackling issues that might frighten or alienate the ADD-afflicted by being too complex... and also, it doesn't generate name brand recognition... TROPIC THUNDAAAAHHH! The "pay as you hate" comedy sensation!
The problem, of course, is that society is nowhere near being able to use the word "retard" as "sophisticated satire". The movie is engaging in the same unaware behavior that hipsters with "ironic" racist t-shirts do. They imagine themselves as somehow above racism and, without any inkling of the kind of real racism that happens in the world, attempt to make fun of it and clutch their pearls in shock when the target of their "ironic" racism calls them on it.
All I see here in your article is a lot of self-congratulation over how much better you are because you get the "sophisticated satire" of a movie... a movie you haven't even seen. Meanwhile all those ridiculous rednecks and media whores are just too stupid to understand what is blindingly obvious to you.
Well, that's not all I see, there is also a bit of "poor Ben Stiller, forced into bad comedic decisions by YOU, the idiotic public", and it's carried nicely into the comments.
Thanks, Stacia. You're right. If I had pearls I would be clutching them!
And yes, hipsters are smarter than redneck media whores... but PC thugs trump all. Anyway, I can't stand Ben Stiller so why am I even getting involved.
Erich, you say:
"Not to be overly patronizing, but this sort of thing is supposed to create an ironic self-reflexivity! Such intertextually self-reflexive chocolate boxing is meant to champion the thing it allegedly attacks... To ask "is it kind?" is to ask whether artists have a right to be intelligent and subtle or must hammer every point home in didactic literal terms.
Oy, Erich: I find it strange -- and yes, a wee bit condescending -- that you wouldn't consider the possibility that sometimes, asking "is it kind?" can be asked by someone who does completely get and understand and even appreciate the subtext, the interetextuality, the satire.
If asking "is it kind?" meant what you said it did, I for one would solemnly swear to never be kind again.
I revel in the joy of self-aware, ironic self-reflexivity. I lap it up in the work of others.
And not only do artists "have a right to be intelligent and subtle" and resist hammering "every point home in didactic literal terms," they have an obligation to do so.
Sometimes, though, in the midst of all this exhilirating and revealing satire, asking "is it kind?" can mean just that.
It can mean: With full awareness of the artistic benefits and insights to be gained from razor-sharp satire, is this a time when a simple question of kindness might trump that exhiliration; when a person might ask:
I know that my satire is wise and that it actually might make a point that supports the needs and interests of those who might be hurt. Should I, though, hold fire this time given that the insight might not be worth the hurt to people who, by bthe very nature of their disability, ofetn do not get irony?
You posit a binary world in your statement in which -- and I dont think you meant it -- there are the didactic, kind people and the intelligent and subtle people.
Kindness and irony can co-exist. And sometimes -- admittedly rarely -- even the most ironic and self-aware of critics might choose to simply hold fire in the knowledge that real hurt will be the result.
Not often. Rarely. Almost never. And only in a fully humanistic spirit and not as a moral entrepreneur who demands kindness as a strategic tool to be more visible in the social problems marketplace.
For me, this was one of those times.
Thanks,
Steve Gorelick
How many of you who commented here are actually mentally or physically disabled? All your opinions seem to be from the viewpoint of healthy people. If you don't experience what it means to be disabled yourself, your opinion is wrong, whatever side you choose.
Don't write Forrest Gump wasn't a good film to at least raise awareness, or that Tim Shriver shouldn't bash the film without having seen it (because he doesn't want to throw out money for something that might be actually mocking his situation).
It is up to disabled people to decide if this satire is against themselves or others. But any way, I don't think it will help the audience to understand their situation, as proven here.
I think we're gonna have to just agree to disagree here with all the anons and what-not, but to the last individual who dared not speak his/her name, you lost me the moment you said: "If you don't experience what it means to be disabled yourself, your opinion is wrong, whatever side you choose."
I get what you're saying -- it's like the very palpable argument that only African Americans can truly "know" the pain of slavery's legacy in the US. But I think most people know what it's like to be mocked or subjugated or exploited, even if they aren't the member of some infamously subaltern sub-culture. I actually think in some cases members of those groups tend to take offense too quickly because the experience is so "close" to them -- they can't look at it objectively. And we all do, indeed, need to be sensitive to that.
Now that I've actually seen the film, however, all the hubbub around the use of the word retard -- and btw, the term "mentally retarded" is still perfectly acceptable for individuals who exhibit symptoms of mental retardation as opposed to cerebral palsy or autism or etc -- just seems silly. The film's targets are folks like Tom Hanks who have built careers portraying the less fortunate (HIV+, "simple" folk) -- not the mentally challenged. But Tim Shriver wouldn't know that, because he made a judgment before the facts were in: which in my humble opinion is a cardinal sin. It's like writing a thesis on a book you've only heard about and haven't read for yourself.
I've already spent way too much time responding to this, but one last note. My mother has worked in special education for almost three decades now and is, within her circle, a very well-respected educator in that regard. I've been around the disabled almost my entire life. My cousin and aunt are both mentally retarded (to use their neurologists' term, not mine) due to a slew of environmental and genetic factors. I can't say I know quite what it's like to see the world from their eyes, but I'd like to think I can recognize when they're being exploited, at the very least.
My mother loved "Tropic Thunder". I thought it was basically trash and very unfunny, but not at all offensive. I actually think Stiller's "Simple Jack" character was a bit off the mark for several reasons...but, again, his target was not the mentally challenged, and any criticism needs to approach the film on its own terms, at the very least.
Post a Comment