Retarded movie boycott

re: Retarded movie boycott

treadmarkz — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:53:40 GMT

Damn this is well written and well argued. I understand the whole issue a lot more clearly now actually (the whole thing about the movie making fun of actors who play mentally challenged people, not making fun of mentally challenged people. I get it. And I agree even more now that the entire boycott-Tropic Thunder thing is a bunch of people just gushing with politically correct goodness.

re: Retarded movie boycott

mary — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:36:29 GMT

I think it's key to be able to agree to disagree. Unless you've walked in the shoes of a special needs family you just might not get what all the fuss is about. Simple Jack is not the face of people with disabilities. He was made to look like a total dult, bad hair cut, buck teeth, chasing butterflies with a sledge hammer. Come on, yes it's a satire about actors making fun of actors. Yes, it has an R rating. The truth is that many of the teens who see it (yes, they go to R rated films without having to show id) won't get the satire. Children who see it in their homes when it comes out on dvd also won't get the satire. What they will see is people given license to laugh at people who are different. That to me is so troubling because these are people who are vulnerable to abuse and not able to stand up for themselves.

re: Retarded movie boycott

Karla Akins — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:18:21 GMT

Correct link above:

re: Retarded movie boycott

Karla Akins — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:12:22 GMT

If you don't understand this issue and why there is such a furor, then you probably have never experienced the pain this kind of teasing causes. I have children with developmental delays who have been picked on and society thinks it's funny. It's not. It's an ugly word. I write about this on my blog which I have linked to. Just click on my name.

re: Retarded movie boycott

srog — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:28:47 GMT

A lot of the content that was previously up concerning his role as a disabled person has been taken down from the web, but some still remains. Was this a large enough gesture on the studio's part?

re: Retarded movie boycott

Leila — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:36:37 GMT

I have a child with autism and have been aware of the boycott for some time. But I'm on the fence on this one. I agree that the point of the movie is to make fun of actors. However people should be more careful when portraying mentally disabled people and the way they throw the word "retard" around. In a world where it's not cool to make fun of people because of their race or sexuality, it's still "okay" to be hurtful towards people who can't help acting the way they do because they were born with a different neurology. So, even though the boycott movement may be a tad excessive, it is an important discussion to have in our society.

re: Retarded movie boycott

Roper — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:11:33 GMT

This sort of reminds me of the controversy over the Obama New Yorker cover. In satirizing ignorant stereotypes and fears, the New Yorker ended up contributing to them (or at least being accused of doing so.) So, in satirizing the inappropriateness and condescension of sappy Hollywood movies about "retards" and the motives of actors who play them, Stiller and Co. are being accused of contributing to the stereotypes and ignorance.

Personally, I'm not offended by this kind of humor, but I admit that I might feel differently if I had a mentally challenged child or relative or was an advocate for people with disabilities.