Tropic Thunder -- Colossal Blunder
After two decades of continued devotion, the Special Olympics is faced with an industry that's determined to test every limit...this time, they've gone too far.
I joined hundreds of protestors at the recent premiere of the film Tropic Thunder to denounce its unfortunate and humiliating portrayal of people with intellectual disabilities. Members of our coalition -- self advocates and family members of people with intellectual disabilities -- have seen the movie pre-release and have reported shock, disgust and in some cases of leaving movie theatres in tears. Their reactions have resonated with many of us who take their struggle and voice with the utmost seriousness. By all accounts, it is an unchecked assault on the humanity of people with intellectual disabilities -- an affront to dignity, hope and respect.
While I am disappointed we were not consulted in the same manner as other minority groups depicted in the film -- there are seventeen mentions of the "R-word" and only one mention of the "N-word" -- I am grateful to DreamWorks CEO, Stacey Snider, for listening to the coalition and helping to eliminate some of the film's most offensive marketing elements.
The issue goes beyond mere fiction. People with intellectual disabilities are routinely abused, neglected, insulted, institutionalized and even killed. Their parents are told to give up and that their children are worthless. Schools turn them away. Doctors refuse to treat them. Employers won't hire them. None of this is funny.
The degrading use of the word "retard" along with the broader humiliation of people with intellectual disabilities in the film goes too far. When the R-word is casually used, and when bumbling, clueless caricatures designed to mimic the behavior of people with intellectual disabilities are portrayed on screen, they have an unmistakable outcome: they mock people with intellectual disabilities. They perpetuate the worst stereotypes. They further exclude and isolate. They are downright mean-spirited.
Mockery in any form, purpose or directed at anyone, especially those least able to defend themselves, is neither funny nor acceptable. We must work together to bring it to a stop. As chairman of the Special Olympics, I am a champion for change and encourage each and every one of us to reflect on ways we can all be respectful to those who so deserve it.
People with intellectual disabilities are great athletes, productive employees, positive friends, courageous role models. Let's open our schools, doctors' offices, businesses, communities, and most importantly our hearts to the giftedness of every human being. No more exceptions. No more exclusion.
Some may think we ought to lighten up and not get worked up over this movie; after all, it's just a film. I don't believe people with intellectual disabilities are off limits as characters in film comedies. In fact, I worked with the Farrelly brothers on a film on this topic and I know edgy comedy. There is a fine line with using minority characters as central elements to a storyline without being gratuitously insulting.
My issue here is that films become part of pop culture and character lines are repeated in other settings, time and time again. It's clear to me that lines from this particular film will provide hurtful ammunition outside of the movie theatre. While I realize that the film's creators call this a parody and they never intended to hurt anyone, it doesn't mean they won't.
We've come so far over the years; we've branded an institution, empowered countless families and brought hope to a seemingly "hopeless" situation. Let's right one more wrong. Ban the R-word. Ban the movie. Take a stand. Make a difference.
Tim Shriver is the Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I just came from seeing this film and I have truly enjoyed myself. I am planning on seeing it again because it was so dense with jokes. I'm a 60 woman and I can safely say that a great many things were made fun of in this movie and that it is not for the faint of heart. or humor challenged. I have recomended it to everyone I know however because it is the funniest movie I've seen in years. Retarded people are not made fun of in this movie. The film industry is made fun of in this movie and it is stunningly accurate. I hope it does win an academy award.
Mr. Shriver, you can't possibly have seen the same film that I saw. (Did you actually see it, or are you basing your criticism on others' criticism?)
My sister is a mentally retarded adult. This film does not denigrate her or any other metally retarded people.
This film is a satire about the Hollywood film industry. It exposes, among many other things, how Hollywood treats the subject of those with, as you call it, "intellectual disabilities".
One small part of Tropic Thunder mocks how Hollywood studio execs, agents, and actors think that if they make a film like "Rainman" or "Forrest Gump" they will be praised for their insight, sincerity, and bravery, and more importantly, make lots of money and receive accolades (Oscars).
The movie shows ingnorant characters saying and doing ignorant things.
That's the point.
And guess what? The audience gets it.
You sound as if you think that if you're not there to explain it all to us, we'll walk away truly believing it's OK to make fun of the retarded.
I have supported the Arc for years (and will continue to do so), but you guys are just off base with this one.
There. As you suggested, I've taken a stand.
This is the first response I've seen from a person with a mentally challenged loved one who is NOT a spokesman for some group. Having seen the movie, I think this will be the response of most people who love somebody who is mentally challenged
Mr. Shriver... do you honestly think that the consultation of other groups is the reason that "the n-word is used once and the r-word, 17 times?"
Most of those usages are in one scene (which I found hilarious, though the NY Times didn't) which displays the cold calculation with which a Hollywood actor might approach such a role as award-bait.
As for the depiction of "Simple Jack" it is so over the top and so clearly NOT and actual mentally challenged person, but rather a bad actor playing one using little research, that it is funny and shouldn't be offensibe to an adult who gets the premise of the movie.
I'll throw in my chips. My brother has been very very autistic for almost 30 years now, going back before movies like Rainman put that condition into the popular imagination. He's had to endure all the challenges stated by Shriver in the editorial, and more.
He watched this movie. He thought it was hilarious. He understood the joke. He's not offended.
It's not nice, is it Tim? Unfortunatley there are a lot of "not nices" out there. We are dumbed down and debased on an hourly basis by the media - no matter what form that takes (movies, TV, Magazines) Why? Don't really know but it is a form of mind control. All forms, except that of young and beautiful, get mocked in one way or the other. Young kids pick up on this and start to believe it. Fat people, ugly people, old people, retarded people, you name it, they are marginalized. Women have had to deal with it by watching 40 year old men in movies with 20 year old girlfriends. Guess women past a certain age are not desirable but old men are? Women struggle to look like the waif thin models in magazines. Bald men are depressed. It goes on and on and we keep allowing it to happen. Sounds like a ploy to me. Censorship is not the answer. Changing people's hearts is. Then the media projections would disappear as no one would buy a ticket, watch the TV, or buy the magazines.
Seventeen mentions of the word, "retarded?"
Not funny at all.
I saw the movie and I loved it . Robert Downey is brilliant. If you pay attention, you can spot subtle
(but positive) messages reguarding race relations, homosexuality , addiction and recovery, etc. I'm truly puzzeled by many of the frothy, emotional and obnoxiously psuedo-intellectual postings by people who have not seen or will not "support" this movie. 'Contempt prior to investigation' is a vountarily aquired learning disability.
....sorry- ' VOLUNTARIL
Well said.
Yup. As the brother of a mentally disabled person, I laughed my ass off. READ THIS: http://www
I find 'Billo the Clown' and 'Comedian Rush Limbaugh' to be much more offensive than this funny flick. When you go to the cinema, you are usually required to 'suspend your disbelief' for an hour or so and to immerse yourself in the story. If you actually SAW the movie, you would have understood that it was humor and that the targets of all the deplorable conduct going on within the film, was Hollywood. Your protest was just another example of the humourless nature of political correctness and why it and it's followers should all be banished to 'Grumpy Island', where they can spend their time glaring and complaining about.....
Man, the people who made this movie have bent over backwards to correct the promos that offended your group. I've read several articles explaining that the movie makes fun of actors who portray mentally disabled people for their own glory - it's not making fun of mental disabilities. I wasn't even planning on seeing the movie before this relentless campaign against it started but I'm definitely going to see it now. I'm taking my stand and it's against people who want to ban movies.
If this were a film mocking the mentally retarded, I would be on board with your protests and outrage, but it is not.
Judging from your knee-jerk reaction, I think it's safe to assume that you have not seen the film. Once you see it for yourself, I suspect you may change your position. It does not mock those with disabilities. It mocks those self-centered individuals who exploit the mentally retarded for their own ends, which should be done. They deserve to be chastised and mocked.
And for the record, I do use the word retarded. It is a perfectly acceptable word. In fact, my mother works for the TDMHMR (Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental RETARDATION).
Haven't seen the movie yet, but after what I have found out about it so far, I intend to see it soon. It sounds like a very interesting movie. Most of the comedies today are farces with no more going on in them than an old three stooges movie. Ben Stiller's movies break the mold, stretch the limits, and defy what we think of as politically correct.
Since behaving in a politically correct fashion hasn't worked too well for us in the last 8 years, maybe we should give free speech a chance. It is people's right to protest what they see as an politically incorrect, and it is Stiller's right to do what he thinks of as artistically correct.
The court of public opinion will decide this issue. If nothing else, the movie and the protests will bring attention to issues that we need to discuss - what does it mean to excercise free speech, when is free speech unreasonable and illegal speech, and when is the notion of what is politically correct and what is not politically correct besides the point?
Timothy Shriver is right, folks. People can't see it because we don't tend to operate, as a society, with a primary value of dignity for all. Many people think that free speech means being allowed to verbally denigrate or humiliate others. Many think that "humor" necessarily means making fun of or degrading other people. These are all versions of rankism, which is abuse of the power that comes with rank. Rankism has hugely detrimental effects on individuals, organizations, and society as a whole. If we want a healthier society, we need to disallow rankism in all its forms (e.g., racism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, bullying, harassment
The movie studio misused the power that comes with its position, status, and capacity to affect the world; it used its influence to denigrate and humiliate people of low social rank. We can take a principled stand and not support this type of human degradation by boycotting the movie. Yes, free speech is a right, but it carries with it responsibility--to honor the dignity of all. I agree with Shriver: It's time to stand up and say that dignity is not optional.
Nice rant, but you're missing the point. Mentally challenged people are NOT being mocked in this film. It is the self-absorbed, pompous actors that are being portrayed that are being mocked.
thank you
You wrote a book. Good for you. I don't think this is the place to be promoting it; however, this film does exactly what you're trying to do. It attempts to expose this denigrating behavior for what it is through - wait for it - MOCKERY. It portrays those who would exploit the disadvantaged buffoons.
You're all so blinded by your own righteous indignation that you're completely missing the point.
Even though the real target of the denegration in this film are the Hollywood actors who mistakenly believe the watered-down boot camp required to make them look credible for war movies was a life-changing experience that Ben Stiller ran into on a regular basis during the '80s when Vietnam movies were all the rage?
Scott Adams' personal theory on comedy is that every joke must have two of the following six qualities: cute, clever, bizzare, recognizable, naughty, and mean. And human society has always been hierarchical, with even the low ranks mocking the high ones.
I agree with Mr. Shriver's objections to this film and will choose not to see/support the film, However, I also understand the concerns this raises about free speech -- how to define a slur?? Perhaps a positive outcome of this discussion could be the organization of a (traveling) film festival to accompany the Special Olympics, which would feature movies/doc
You are protesting without even having a clue about what you are protesting. Maybe, if you read more about the film, you will realize it is the self-absorbed, pompous actors being portrayed that are being mocked, not the mentally disabled.
I just saw it and it is very funny AND it made me think. Great music; solid social commentary. Also, Tom Cruise, Jack Black, Robert Downey, Jr. and Ben Stiller work great together.
Aside from the obvious "missing the point of the movie" issue... we mock everyone at any given time - - that is part of being the collective whole. Don't ask for equal footing if you don't want the whole thing.
If you want to rise in uproar over picking on the weakest - - go work in child or animal abuse situations
It is completely beyond me how a person of the party of those who defend freedom and liberty can find the nerve to call for a ban of certain words. It would be great if these people could provide me with a list of words that are off limits. Additionally, I will require a list of words that are semi-offensive and could be considered off limits if taken out of context. That would be great.
Anyone who calls for a ban of words needs to take a refresher course on the guidelines of the Constitution. Maybe you just enjoy pooping on the document and it's ideas. I myself prefer to uphold and defend.
"Ban the movie."
Not in my country, buddy. I wouldn't seek to censor a movie any more than I'd like the freaky-folks pulling Judy Blume's menstrual paean from the school library.
Maybe it's not a fair comparison, but the end-result is the same. Where was this outcry over "The Ringer," which was terrifically more detrimental to mentally retarded folks?
I'm with you, though...t
I'd be more upset by the hamfisted depiction of MR folks, ala "I am Sam" or "Forrest Gump" than the confectionery piffle that is a Stiller film.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
