‘Tropic Thunder’ update
August 2nd, 2008More recent post here: Disability rights group prepares for boycott, protests
See also: Readers — What’s your opinion?
Chip Sullivan, head of publicity for DreamWorks Pictures, confirmed today that studio executives will meet next week with disability rights advocates to hear their concerns about the representation of a character with intellectual disabilities in the upcoming film “Tropic Thunder.” The exact date and time of the meeting have not yet been set.
Among the groups expected to send representatives to the meeting, he said, are the Special Olympics, The Arc of the United States, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Down Syndrome Association of Los Angeles, the National Down Syndrome Congress, the Alliance for Inclusion in the Arts, the Media Access Office of the state of California, and TASH.
Our RSS Feed
September 29th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Freedom of speech!
I honestly cannot believe there is such a big stink about this. I understand maybe you’re offended, but banning words is something that dictators do. It’s all or nothing. That’s freedom of speech.
Maybe if Patricia Bauer (and co.) had actually understood the movie before clamoring for censorship and infringement on freedom of speech, she would’ve understood that they aren’t picking on the disabled. The joke was that the Tug Speedman did a movie in which he played a mentally disabled farm hand (aka retard that word you targeted) to pull people’s heart strings and win an oscar.
The word retard isn’t derogatory. Replace it with mentally handicapped or whatever you choose, it means the same thing.
Why don’t you spend your time doing something more productive? Keep up the work getting companies to hire mentally challenged people, and work to give them a better life. But please don’t try to censor a joke that isn’t even insulting who you consider its target.
September 21st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Hi!
I would just like to join in with those who think that Tropic Thunder, Ben Stiller and co, does nothing that is disrespectful.
I understand that interest groups can see the potential in making a “matter” of something that everybody else thinks is just comedy.
There is nothing about Tropic Thunder that is remotely harmful in any case. I find more disturbing then that they blow up so much stuff when we have a rather alarming environmental condition in the world today. That is, if I want to find something to complain about.
Clearly this is your chance to make a story. And that is just as opportunistic as any other interest group and in the long run I do not think that will help.
You are trying to control the minds of others and apply only your perception of the world. And that is not cool no matter what the cause is. It is just sad.
I agree that it is a good thing to talk and discuss these things, but to close down sites…yeah, well you just lost the ethical battle right there.
Regards from Sweden
August 28th, 2008 at 2:02 am
I just saw tropic thunder and I would like to say that they don’t use the r-word in disrespect. I thought it was taken out of context. You know it is a hard r rating with lots of language, and it is not for kids. So what I’m saying is that word related to the movie because when Robert Downey Jr said, dont go full r-word, he meant it because Simple Jack was a horrible movie. Also I am also saying that people who try and take this word out of American cinema are also trying to censor the artist at his work.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:50 am
JB, I don’t even have a problem with the “N-word” being used in comedy. As I said, NOTHING is off limits. I don’t care about the historical background of the word, because that’s irrelevant to how it is used in everyday life now. Have you ever seen the scene in Rush Hour where Jackie Chan drops the N-bomb? That’s the perfect example of how it can be used in mainstream entertainment, seeing as how there were no protests or outrage about it.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:43 am
JB: According to another comment I’d read on this blog, the original script actually did include a scene where Downey’s character used the N-word. But the filmmakers ended up scrapping it because a black actor said it went too far over the line.
Ironically, I’d actually have been less offended if they’d left that line in; at least the “equal opportunity offender” claim would actually hold water then.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
The “comedy rights” posters on here have every right to say they can laugh at whatever they want. Because they can. But you are totally missing the point…
What if the line in question was “don’t go full (N-word)” instead of “don’t go full (R-word)”? You know we can’t say that, because we’ve learned how painful and hurtful and wrong it is. Sure, the racial slur carries a greater sensitivity and a longer, more violent history…but don’t tell me a disability slur has any less impact on its target. It’s hurtful either way.
Sure, laugh at what you want. Nothing wrong with low brow comedy. But this isn’t low brow – it’s below the belt, and the punch is being thrown at people who largely can’t defend themselves.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:13 am
“Since when is it ‘politically correct’ to be mindful of the feelings of others? I thought that was common decency.”
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. People don’t HAVE to be nice to everyone, especially in entertainment. We aren’t all here to make each other feel good and appreciated. Some people get treated nicely, others get treated poorly. As bad as it sounds, that’s just reality. The main thing that is being overlooked here is that this is purely comedy. Humor is meant to serve as a way to remove ourselves from reality and poke fun at the oddness of certain situations. People who don’t appreciate comedy all too commonly take the the position that the “target” of the joke has been viciously attacked. This is simply not the case. Being the butt of a joke is part of society. It could be you, it could be me, or anybody else. Nobody is off limits in comedy. The word “inappropriate” does not exist. If you disagree with that statement, you are not the target audience for this kind of material and should simply leave it alone for the people who do enjoy it, whether you think it’s right or not.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I really do ‘get it’ that the movie is supposed to be jabbing at Hollywood’s portrayal of people who have cognitive disabilities, mental retardation….etc etc. I agree that some of the portrayals by Hollywood have been truly dreadful (“Radio” springs immediately to mind
But what some people don’t seem to understand that that is not the take home message that people will take home from the movie….what they will take home from the movie is the ‘clever’ one-liner..”Never go full retard, man.” That is what is going to be the new insult.
For those people who say that we are just whiners, and are worried that we are trampling on their ‘Freedom of Speech’ rights … I just want to remind them that ‘rights’ carry with them ‘responsibilities’…yes, you have the right to say anything that you want…but in a functional society, you also have the responsibility to not harm anyone while exercising your ‘right’. So … to your way of thinking, your right to use the word ‘retard’ trumps my child’s right to be treated with dignity and respect. I disagree.
Since when is it ‘politically correct’ to be mindful of the feelings of others? I thought that was common decency.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Hi Tony,
I do like that you wrote, I respect your thoughts. It made me pause to think about both sides of an issue. I also respect this site for allowing all different opinions to be expressed, many sites would not let “half a thought” get past the moderator.
Your argument is somewhat compelling. You can quote Webster’s Dictionary. You have a grasp of the Constitution and free speech and press…but not really. Unfortunately, you shot yourself in the foot with your last sentence. It assured me I was reading the thoughts of a juvenile.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. The government is not trying to curtail this cinema gem….We the people are. And I don’t believe we are a group of people who are just afraid of being offended. I suspect the line between being offended and victimized is very different.
So I hope once you are done laughing your a** off at this movie you take your new knowledge back home and share it on your relative who is autistic, which is a wonderfully vague reference. Does that mean you have seen this persons picture hanging on your fridge? Or do you really know this person? Then I hope the caregiver of that person will do a little training, just for you, on the difference between being offended and victimized.
And, I, as a parent of a child with a disability, would never wish a child with a disability on a person as a “curse” (nor would any parent in the disability community). We, (any adult really) hope that people like you never even have children.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:42 am
The problem here is that you people feel you are entitled to not be offended. Guess what… there is no law that guarantees you the right to not be offended by something! The fact is our Constitution explicitly provides the right for others to offend you with their speech or actions.
If you don’t like something, your right as an American is to ignore it and walk away. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t mean you need to ruin it for other people who disagree with you. And don’t give me a bunch of crap about how my child could be retarded, etc. Someone in my family is autistic and it does not affect my ability to step away from reality in terms of comedy and enjoy their entertaining commentary on such topics. Such guilt trips that you have brought up are produced by people who have no sense of humor. Plain and simple, you don’t get what “funny” is. Comedy should never be censored – nothing is off limits no matter how politically incorrect. The world is often a terrible place in some peoples’ eyes – if you don’t get it, just grit your teeth and move on like a normal person does. Your whining about what’s right and fair only makes you appear weak and simple-minded.
By the way, the word “retard” is actually an accurate term to use to describe a mentally handicapped person. “To delay or hold back in terms of process, development,” the dictionary states. Sounds right on to me… nothing offensive or incorrect.
Bottom line, you do not have the right or power to take away my right to see and enjoy content you deem offensive. Just because you take the moral high road doesn’t mean you need to “fix” those that don’t follow. You cannot force me or the movie studio to share your opinions. You can cry about it all you want, but nobody has to listen or act on it. Either way, the movie has been made and sent out to most theaters at this point so its too late to change it. I will be there opening day, laughing my a** off at the brilliant comedic satire of Ben Stiller. And you will be sitting at home angry that once again you have failed to make the “difference in the world” that you so desperately desire because nobody cares what you think.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
The movie has nothing to do with making fun of people with disabilities. Yet people like you hoot and holler because there is a portrayal you don’t like so it must be wrong. God forbid we don’t like something we just ignore it and move on in life. Don’t go see the movie, period. Nooo, lets make a lot of noise and do nothing but draw attention to the movie. Our society is ridiculously thin skinned. Do you not watch Sopranos, Goodfellas, Godfather, etc. because how it portrays Italians? Do you skip an Eddie Murphy movie because he dresses up in a fat suit? Bottom line, just because you don’t like something out there, doesn’t mean the rest of society might not. It’s a comedy people, get over yourselves, our children with disabilities will press on and be fine in life.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:30 am
The comment made by Jason is just the type of ignorant talk this movie will continue to promote, and for the record our children are not handicapped. It is you who missed out in the gene pool of humanity.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:39 am
My heart goes out to the disabled and their families. I have two adopted children, and while I’m concerned about how they will be treated as they grow older, I’m certain that that will be nothing compared to the cruel taunts and insensitive comments suffered by the disabled and their families. To witness the cruelty of which both children and adults are capable can often be horrific, and I don’t want to belittle that pain for a moment. I DO, however, feel compelled to address some of the comments above and point out a couple of things that offend ME. Read my entire comment before you lose your minds, please.
You are still missing the point of the joke. When the makers of Tropic Thunder push THAT FAR beyond the point of good taste, they can only be calling out the movie industry itself and the self-absorbed actors that take these rolls only in the hope of winning an Oscar. Rosie O’Donnell was not trying to bring attention to any of the issues of the disabled; she was trying to advance her career by taking a type of role that has historically “paid off.” Surely her one-dimensional, overly simplistic portrayal of a mentally disabled woman offended you more than a movie you haven’t seen yet.
That kind of manipulation seems far more plausible than believing that the filmmakers deliberately included this content to garner extra attention. The world is a cruel, and at times a seemingly senseless place, but the reality is that the studios need to make money–they’re not going to risk a dollar on offensive content for the sake of free press. That’s just business.
The dialogue between Downey and Stiller about going “full retard” is proof, and what’s more, it’s completely accurate. The uproar of disability rights groups is proof of THAT. From a plot perspective, the only thing that remains to be seen is the moral lesson Stiller’s character takes away from “what he’s learned by all of this.” And for that, you’ll have to wait and see the movie.
Anyone who says, “I’m not going to see this movie because it’s offensive”: How do you know? You haven’t seen it. (Intelligent responses to this only, please). Chances are you don’t watch South Park either, because you hear about the topics and immediately decide to boycott. Sadly, you never realize that they’re often sympathetic to your cause: Cartman pretending to be disabled so he can join the Special Olympics, for example. Disabled Rights groups expressed complete disgust, not realizing that, among other things, the portrayal of the disabled characters was quite touching and intelligent, Cartman LOSES every event (and that’s just what he deserves), and the real lesson behind the episode had nothing to do with the disabled, it had to do with doping and athletes who use steroids.
For those who would choose to “protest and educate”–How can you do that without having all the facts and a clear understanding of the artist’s intent? My suggestion is to lobby for a screening of the film (so you don’t have to give those awful, awful people your money), and then take it from there. If the content is truly without artistic merit, go for it! But the knee-jerk reaction of the educated and un-educated alike fills me with the same disgust you seem to feel for anyone who finds anything like this funny.
My plan is to see the movie and then make up my mind. If I find it offensive (or even just not funny), I’m going to demand my money back, just like Stan Marsh did after he saw Passion of the Christ.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Imagine, if you will, that Tom Cruise’s beautiful new wife and daughter are in a car accident tomorrow leaving one or both with brain damage. Now imagine that we all call them full retard for laughs. Isn’t it funny? I can be shocking too!
Realize that any one of us can join the ranks of those with disabilities at any time. I sincerely doubt that Cruise would still find the humor in “don’t go full retard.”
I don’t care if it is an R-rated comedy or intentionally designed to be over the top or an attempt to satirize actors in Hollywood. Those who will continue to use “retard” in their everyday speech will continue to strike at our hearts and the hearts of our loved ones. We are still in the dark ages.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I love Ben Stiller and Jack Black. I have watched and enjoyed many of their movies. I will not be watching this one.
How is it that, in the year 2008, the human race still thinks people with cognitive disabilities are fair game for humor? Or any person with a disability of any kind?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:56 am
While I greatly respect Rud and Ann Turnbull as leaders in the field of parent education and disabilities, I am not sure that the “fight” needs to be taken to the studio executives. Tom is correct, they are not going to shelve or change any words in this movie to placate the disability community.
This movie should be seen as an opportunity to let mainstream America know how offensive this word, “retard” really is. It is only offensive as the activists make it out to be, i.e., it is just a word; the attitude behind it is more important.
I suggest that on opening night, folks organize a few parents and others to set up a table outside of the movie houses to educate movie goers on People First language and have meaningful conversations with those folks before they watch the movie. This way, you are able to address the attitudes behind the word, retarded.
I am a professor at California State University, Northridge and welcome the opportunity to organize a group or groups of individuals willing to protest and educate outside movie houses opening night. If you live in the LA area and would like to join me, please email me at ivor.weiner@csun.edu.
If we stoop to the level of these movie executives, we lose. Plus, they gain from the media attention brought on by the disability advocates.
Let’s do this right — a good old grassroots level attack.
With Peace and Light,
Ivor
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
With $90 million on the line, the studios will pretend to listen but this movie is going to be released as is.
All that is going to happen is that the studio is going to get an idea of the arguments that they will have to get their PR department to respond to. We can only hope that this movie bombs.
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
The absolute worst thing about what these producers are doing is that aware as they were that people with disabilities, their family and friends, would be upset and angry about the producers’ pathetic attempt to make money, the producers have deliberately used that hurt.
They plan on using the negative reaction to generate what they will call a debate, but many of us know to be a ploy to increase publicity and improve box office receipts.
This movie will hit my son, a big fan of amerikan comedy, hard. He is working his way through a ‘mainstream’ educational program, meeting every challenge that ‘normals’ unconsciously, and occasionally deliberately, throw at him.
A few months back when he appeared to be struggling more than usual, I sat him down for a talk. Getting to the bottom of what was troubling him was difficult, harder than ever because his current take on living in society has him deciding that his best chance of survival in the world outside our home is to appear to be the least ‘needy’ person in any given situation.
After much discussion and deliberation he told me that a group of boys at his school, a group he had considered the be his friends up until that point, had taken to calling him ‘the retard’.
To make matters worse, whenever he tried a comeback they would exploit his deliberate albeit slow way of expressing himself to ‘prove their point’ to the rest of the class (especially the girls).
He forbade me from confronting these ignorant little pieces of humanity, lest that make matters worse.
Fortunately he has earned the respect of a great many of his teachers who like me, are amazed at his application, so they began a discussion about words and their ability to wound, with my son’s class. One of the words discussed was “retard,” a word which has a lot more power to hurt than other, more accurate ways of describing of cognitive impairment.
The ignorant young fools were aware enough to take the message from those discussions and although he no longer trusts the boys with his friendship my son has found the incredibly hard grind that high school is for him, is no longer made even worse by their taunts.
In one fell stroke this movie, which will be popular amongst adolescent males, make no doubt about that, will make my son’s life more difficult once more. Why? Just so some already rich Hollywood types can make themselves even richer.
What a nice society that rewards the perpetrators of the emotional destruction of people who are already battling.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Having given this matter a bit cooler and more collected thought, and remembering that the law is a form of behavior modification, I suggest the following:
Assume the extent of the appeal of the movie is approximately 50% because of its mockery of people with intellectual disability (we can make adjust the assumption to fit the case, but half is a workable number), then let the studio, producers, actors, and publicists — each of them — donate 50% of their gross (pre-expense write off and tax) earnings to the associations that properly protest.
Greed motivated these people; let them pay. They understand money. It’s a fair recompense for their errant behavior and motives.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The studio, producers, directors, actors, and publicists are incapable of being ashamed of themselves, as they should be. There are sensitive ways to portray intellectual disability. And then there is their approach.
As a professor at The University of Kansas (26,000-plus students), I never — repeat: never — hear students using the “r” word. The Hollywood grown-ups should take a lesson from our students and then be taken to the woodshed.
The first person with a paddle would not be my son, who has intellectual disability; he is too forgiving. But I’d be eagerly in line. The thugs who put out this movie create a just cause for this “aversive intervention.”