I started off addressing each of the comments on my previous posts concerning Tropic Thunder. It started to feel a little tit for tat, so I chucked the idea.
Tropic Thunder was number one at the box office this weekend, and that's a shame. Not because of the controversy, but because it just wasn't that good of a movie. I also went to see Woody Allen's latest film, Vicky Christina Barcelona, a much better - if flawed - film. I left the theater thinking about how much work it takes to keep a marriage vibrant and full of life, about art, about travel, about the difference between love and being in love, about how easy it is to make a mess of our lives. It also inspired me to take Silvi swimming in the evening, then out for fish tacos and ice cream as the sun set. If a film can move me emotionally and also cause me to take a step - do something - once the lights come up, then I count that movie worth the price of admission.
Tropic Thunder has had that effect on a lot of people. Moving many to action. It caused me to work hard to frame my thoughts, read differing opinions, research philosophical articles that might give words to my emotions and then write about it. My view is definitely in the minority. And I'll be the first to admit that I might be wrong. Despite all the anger and differing opinions surrounding this film, I'm still glad the film was made. It was a discussion that needed to happen in the public arena.
Will this debate help make life better for people like my son? I don't know. Maybe. But I think there will be - have been - a lot of "casualties" along the way. Friendships have been strained, battle lines drawn and people have chosen one "camp" over another. "You're either with us or against us," seems to capture much of the prevailing thought.
But I have hope that good will come out of all of this. A friend emailed me and asked, "Why does our society give disabled people so much support, yet actively aborts 90% of our children (with Down syndrome)?" The world is much kinder to children like my son than at any other time in history. If they are allowed to be born. So how do I actively make it known to the world that my son has every right to exist, that without him there would be a loud silence more deafening than any protest?
I named my blog "Narrow Ridge" after a quote by one of my favorite philosophers, Martin Buber, who talks about walking the narrow ridge between certainty and uncertainty, between knowing and not knowing, between you and between me. At the heart of his philosophy is the desire for dialogue.
How do we stand up for what is right without completely tearing down others in the process? (And satire walks this fine line.) How do we "win" the argument without losing the person? How do we advocate for our kids without letting anger rule the day?
I'm just starting out on this journey with Ian. I hope you'll keep following this adventure as he and I stumble along that narrow ridge.
Showing posts with label Tropic Thunder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tropic Thunder. Show all posts
Monday, August 18, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Why I went to see Tropic Thunder - Part III
First, a word about the Perry brothers. Their in-your-face style of humor isn't for everyone. I like much of it, but they can definitely be offensive, sometimes downright jerks (if you keep reading, you'll see why I think it is justifiable for me to call them "jerks"). Which brings me to my final point: "Is it OK to laugh?"
Andrew Terjesen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rhodes College, tackles the subject of offensive humor by asking, "Why is it not OK to laugh at mean-spirited humor (like racist jokes), but it is OK to laugh at parodies of it?" He says that it's because "parodies of mean-spirited humor are at the expense of mean-spirited people."
So is it OK to make fun of mean-spirited people? I think so. If it's for their own good and the good of those around them. Making fun of people is only acceptable if the people at the butt of joke have the potential to change. That's why it isn't ethical to make fun of people with intellectual disabilities or because of the color of a person's skin. They have no way of changing who they are. But a person who makes fun of a disabled person can change, and humor is a powerful tool in helping bring about that change.
Terjesen also says, "Since parodies of mean-spirited humor target mean-spirited people we ought to laugh at the parodies. By laughing at them we are reinforcing the idea that no one should be like them."
Ben Stiller has repeated over and over that Tropic Thunder is not mean-spirited. How can we differentiate between parodies of mean-spirited behavior and those that pretend to be? To do this, we have to look at Stiller's intent as well as his past treatment of humor.
Stiller says that the Hollywood system and narcissistic actors are the butt of the joke. And if we accept that it is OK to make fun of those who can change their behaviors, and we also agree that it is good for them to change their behavior, then we should be able to agree that Stiller is justified in making prima donna actors the butt of the joke. For their own good, and the good of society.
What about Simple Jack? Is Stiller making fun of people with intellectual disabilities, or is he making fun of actors who go too far in their portrayal of those with disabilities? If he is indeed making fun of the disabled, then he is wrong. I assert that he is doing what he says he is doing and to back this up, we have to look at his past.
Stiller has been making parodies since the 1980's when he did The Ben Stiller Show. His parody of 90210 is a classic and rightly mocks those who are self-absorbed. There's Something about Mary, Meet the Parents, Reality Bites, The Heartbreak Kid, Zoolander, Night at the Museum. While much of the humor in his films is crass, I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument that they are mean-spirited. So after nearly 20 years of parody, is it fair to make the claim that Stiller has crossed the line? I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I've read many posts that say, "So what if it's a parody? Lots of people won't get it and will think it's OK to make fun of people with Down syndrome or intellectual disabilities." But Terjesen asks, "Does it mean that because some people will laugh at something for the wrong reasons that you shouldn't do it?" In other words, if something could possibly be misunderstood, does that mean it shouldn't be done? There is always going to be potential for abuse. There are going to be a lot of people reading this post who will misunderstand me. Does that mean I shouldn't write it? Of course not.
A last thought from Terjesen, "Without parody, we lose an effective way of not only making fun of the mean-spirited (and therefore of publicly disapproving of them) but also of getting them to realize their own folly (as they begin to realize what they are really laughing at)."
What about the word "retard?"
Now that we understand (if you agree with what I've said thus far) the world that Stiller has created on the screen, we have the proper context with which to correctly interpret how the word "retard" is used. "Never go full retard" is uttered by a delusional actor (Downey's character) who is referencing other "serious" actors (like Tom Hanks and Sean Penn). Who is the butt of the joke? The "retarded?" Or the actors (Hanks and Penn)? I assert that it is the latter, thus the term, in this context, is justified.
That said, I do take the film to task for one damning scene that is mean-spirited and crosses the line (based on the butt of the joke being someone who cannot change who they are.) The scene(s) both involve Matthew McConaughey. I'm sure you've read about them. McConaughey, who plays Stiller's agent, shows disappointment with having a child with apparent Down syndrome. I especially take Stiller to task for the final scene in the film, which received a huge laugh by the audience when I saw it. McConaughey is sitting on his private jet and gives an obvious look of disappointment in the direction of his son, who is sitting looking out the window quietly.
Why is this mean-spirited? Who's the butt of the joke? True, McConaughey is portrayed as a shallow, money hungry, insecure agent so the argument could be made that we are laughing at his lack of character. But it doesn't play that way and needs to be challenged.
Why have I devoted so much time and thought to this movie? I felt I had to since I am in the minority. I understand the motivations behind the boycott; please believe me that I do. How many times have I seen that frozen smile creep onto a stranger's face when they suddenly sense something is "different" about Ian. I want the world to see what a neat little guy he is, want them to know how he's changed my life for the better. I don't want him to be called "retard," but I also don't want him to be called "jerk" or any other disparaging word (unless he's being a jerk). And I can't help but feel that this boycott will alienate Ian even more. Now people may fidget even more around him or avoid him altogether for fear of offending him. People on the other side of the protests may avoid me even more because they aren't sure how not to offend me.
We need laughter. We need satire. And we need Ben Stiller.
Andrew Terjesen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rhodes College, tackles the subject of offensive humor by asking, "Why is it not OK to laugh at mean-spirited humor (like racist jokes), but it is OK to laugh at parodies of it?" He says that it's because "parodies of mean-spirited humor are at the expense of mean-spirited people."
So is it OK to make fun of mean-spirited people? I think so. If it's for their own good and the good of those around them. Making fun of people is only acceptable if the people at the butt of joke have the potential to change. That's why it isn't ethical to make fun of people with intellectual disabilities or because of the color of a person's skin. They have no way of changing who they are. But a person who makes fun of a disabled person can change, and humor is a powerful tool in helping bring about that change.
Terjesen also says, "Since parodies of mean-spirited humor target mean-spirited people we ought to laugh at the parodies. By laughing at them we are reinforcing the idea that no one should be like them."
Ben Stiller has repeated over and over that Tropic Thunder is not mean-spirited. How can we differentiate between parodies of mean-spirited behavior and those that pretend to be? To do this, we have to look at Stiller's intent as well as his past treatment of humor.
Stiller says that the Hollywood system and narcissistic actors are the butt of the joke. And if we accept that it is OK to make fun of those who can change their behaviors, and we also agree that it is good for them to change their behavior, then we should be able to agree that Stiller is justified in making prima donna actors the butt of the joke. For their own good, and the good of society.
What about Simple Jack? Is Stiller making fun of people with intellectual disabilities, or is he making fun of actors who go too far in their portrayal of those with disabilities? If he is indeed making fun of the disabled, then he is wrong. I assert that he is doing what he says he is doing and to back this up, we have to look at his past.
Stiller has been making parodies since the 1980's when he did The Ben Stiller Show. His parody of 90210 is a classic and rightly mocks those who are self-absorbed. There's Something about Mary, Meet the Parents, Reality Bites, The Heartbreak Kid, Zoolander, Night at the Museum. While much of the humor in his films is crass, I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument that they are mean-spirited. So after nearly 20 years of parody, is it fair to make the claim that Stiller has crossed the line? I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I've read many posts that say, "So what if it's a parody? Lots of people won't get it and will think it's OK to make fun of people with Down syndrome or intellectual disabilities." But Terjesen asks, "Does it mean that because some people will laugh at something for the wrong reasons that you shouldn't do it?" In other words, if something could possibly be misunderstood, does that mean it shouldn't be done? There is always going to be potential for abuse. There are going to be a lot of people reading this post who will misunderstand me. Does that mean I shouldn't write it? Of course not.
A last thought from Terjesen, "Without parody, we lose an effective way of not only making fun of the mean-spirited (and therefore of publicly disapproving of them) but also of getting them to realize their own folly (as they begin to realize what they are really laughing at)."
What about the word "retard?"
Now that we understand (if you agree with what I've said thus far) the world that Stiller has created on the screen, we have the proper context with which to correctly interpret how the word "retard" is used. "Never go full retard" is uttered by a delusional actor (Downey's character) who is referencing other "serious" actors (like Tom Hanks and Sean Penn). Who is the butt of the joke? The "retarded?" Or the actors (Hanks and Penn)? I assert that it is the latter, thus the term, in this context, is justified.
That said, I do take the film to task for one damning scene that is mean-spirited and crosses the line (based on the butt of the joke being someone who cannot change who they are.) The scene(s) both involve Matthew McConaughey. I'm sure you've read about them. McConaughey, who plays Stiller's agent, shows disappointment with having a child with apparent Down syndrome. I especially take Stiller to task for the final scene in the film, which received a huge laugh by the audience when I saw it. McConaughey is sitting on his private jet and gives an obvious look of disappointment in the direction of his son, who is sitting looking out the window quietly.
Why is this mean-spirited? Who's the butt of the joke? True, McConaughey is portrayed as a shallow, money hungry, insecure agent so the argument could be made that we are laughing at his lack of character. But it doesn't play that way and needs to be challenged.
Why have I devoted so much time and thought to this movie? I felt I had to since I am in the minority. I understand the motivations behind the boycott; please believe me that I do. How many times have I seen that frozen smile creep onto a stranger's face when they suddenly sense something is "different" about Ian. I want the world to see what a neat little guy he is, want them to know how he's changed my life for the better. I don't want him to be called "retard," but I also don't want him to be called "jerk" or any other disparaging word (unless he's being a jerk). And I can't help but feel that this boycott will alienate Ian even more. Now people may fidget even more around him or avoid him altogether for fear of offending him. People on the other side of the protests may avoid me even more because they aren't sure how not to offend me.
We need laughter. We need satire. And we need Ben Stiller.
Tropic Thunder thoughts
Why I went to see Tropic Thunder - Part II
I was all set to write a long post about not giving power to certain words, about letting people with Down syndrome speak for themselves, about how I believe the boycott is further alienating people with intellectual disabilities from others, about how the use of over-the-top parodies can reveal hidden truths. But then the Perry brothers stole my, err, thunder.
While I don't agree with their mostly playful call to "boycott the boycotters," I do agree with their assertions thatwords only have the power we give them what Ben Stiller intended has been misrepresented. (I edited this because I think that words possess a power beyond what we give them, which I hope to expand on another day.)
I wanted to make up a shirt for Ian to wear on the Buddy Walk that said, "Does this shirt make me look retarded?" but Annie threatened to boycott me. Besides, I'll wait until Ian is old enough to make his own statements.
Next, "Is it OK to laugh at that?"
While I don't agree with their mostly playful call to "boycott the boycotters," I do agree with their assertions that
I wanted to make up a shirt for Ian to wear on the Buddy Walk that said, "Does this shirt make me look retarded?" but Annie threatened to boycott me. Besides, I'll wait until Ian is old enough to make his own statements.
Next, "Is it OK to laugh at that?"
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Why I went to see Tropic Thunder - Part I
(It didn't start out this way, but this is turning into a three-part post. So if you find yourself getting upset with something I've said, I hope you will indulge me until the end. If you're still upset, well, we'll take it from there I suppose.)
I went to see Tropic Thunder last night. The theater was packed, the majority of the audience young guys, probably in their twenties, many with dates. There were also groups of girls sprinkled here and there. I saw a few "older" people, like, in their forties (we're so old), but not many. It was approaching 9pm, after all.
I've been following the call for a national boycott on most of the blogs that I frequent, as well as many of the excellent links provided by Patricia Bauer's website. I watched the interviews with Ben Stiller on Good Morning America and on Nightline, as well as watched the various reports on CNN concerning the protests. The editor of the online magazine that I just started contributing to also called for a boycott, as did all the other contributors. I read how the Special Olympics, ARC and many Down syndrome organizations support the boycott, and have even launched a new campaign to help bring an end to the use of the "R" word, as it's often called.
I've also read literally dozens of well-written, thoughtful, provocative and heartfelt posts on blogs that I subscribe to via Google Reader, many of them angry, others hurt, most just wanting to support their children, as I do.
But after seeing Tropic Thunder, I still cannot support the boycott. Nor can I sign a petition calling for a ban of the "R" word.
First, my thoughts on the film. I did laugh. It is funny. Robert Downey Jr. is amazing to watch, Ben Stiller's "straight man" comedic timing is spot on and Tom Cruise, well, his performance will haunt me for quite some time as he conjures up one of the funniest characters I've seen on the screen in a long time. Aside from his performance on Oprah, of course. But the film wasn't that funny. Not side-splitting funny like I've read in some reviews. Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind, or was wondering how I was going to pay for Ian's hearing aids or maybe it was just after 9pm and past my bedtime.
And the satire? I'm sorta-kinda in the biz; I've worked with many local prima donna actors and producers. Shot some behind the scene footage on some low budget films. So I got all the film industry references, and they were mostly funny, but more "Yeah, I know someone like that" kind of funny. I got the references to big budget films, to sequels, to high-maintenance actors, etc. But the use of irony and parody were, well, a bit weak. The Family Guy is much better satire; it's tighter, smarter, more self-aware and sheds more light on hidden truths, which is what comedy and satire aspires to do. At least good comedy. The film's saving grace were the performances, the high budget feel and just enough laughs to keep you wanting more.
I give the film three out of five Rambo knives.
(Next: Simple Jack and "retards")
I went to see Tropic Thunder last night. The theater was packed, the majority of the audience young guys, probably in their twenties, many with dates. There were also groups of girls sprinkled here and there. I saw a few "older" people, like, in their forties (we're so old), but not many. It was approaching 9pm, after all.
I've been following the call for a national boycott on most of the blogs that I frequent, as well as many of the excellent links provided by Patricia Bauer's website. I watched the interviews with Ben Stiller on Good Morning America and on Nightline, as well as watched the various reports on CNN concerning the protests. The editor of the online magazine that I just started contributing to also called for a boycott, as did all the other contributors. I read how the Special Olympics, ARC and many Down syndrome organizations support the boycott, and have even launched a new campaign to help bring an end to the use of the "R" word, as it's often called.
I've also read literally dozens of well-written, thoughtful, provocative and heartfelt posts on blogs that I subscribe to via Google Reader, many of them angry, others hurt, most just wanting to support their children, as I do.
But after seeing Tropic Thunder, I still cannot support the boycott. Nor can I sign a petition calling for a ban of the "R" word.
First, my thoughts on the film. I did laugh. It is funny. Robert Downey Jr. is amazing to watch, Ben Stiller's "straight man" comedic timing is spot on and Tom Cruise, well, his performance will haunt me for quite some time as he conjures up one of the funniest characters I've seen on the screen in a long time. Aside from his performance on Oprah, of course. But the film wasn't that funny. Not side-splitting funny like I've read in some reviews. Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind, or was wondering how I was going to pay for Ian's hearing aids or maybe it was just after 9pm and past my bedtime.
And the satire? I'm sorta-kinda in the biz; I've worked with many local prima donna actors and producers. Shot some behind the scene footage on some low budget films. So I got all the film industry references, and they were mostly funny, but more "Yeah, I know someone like that" kind of funny. I got the references to big budget films, to sequels, to high-maintenance actors, etc. But the use of irony and parody were, well, a bit weak. The Family Guy is much better satire; it's tighter, smarter, more self-aware and sheds more light on hidden truths, which is what comedy and satire aspires to do. At least good comedy. The film's saving grace were the performances, the high budget feel and just enough laughs to keep you wanting more.
I give the film three out of five Rambo knives.
(Next: Simple Jack and "retards")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
