Disability Arts

Cheryl Green, disability activist, artist, and co-host on my Disability.TV podcast about Glee, asked me to help spread the word about a new independent film called Becoming Bulletproof. It is a film in which disabled people participated at all levels of production, including playing most of the key acting roles. It has already won some film festival awards, and based on what I see in the trailer, it looks like a really, really good film. Click here to find out where you can see “Becoming Bulletproof."

It’s a bit of a departure for me to feel excited about a disability arts project. I’ve never been interested in disability arts. There are several reasons for this.

For one thing, I have an aversion to programs of any kind that are just for disabled people. Disability arts programs tend to look at first glance like segregated therapeutic programs that just happen to use art as their hook, rather than arts programs per se. It’s much more complicated than that, but I’m only just starting to realize it.

Also, I’m usually not fond of art that has some obvious external purpose. For instance, I don’t like highly politicized art. I am all for art that deals with political and social issues, but I prefer it to be subtle, natural, not driven into my head with a sledgehammer. When disability art isn’t explicitly therapeutic, it tends instead to attempt some very heavy ideological lifting.

Finally, I’ve always been skeptical of amateur and DIY art. I am sure there are great poets to be found at poetry readings, and I’ve seen a few performance artists who really impressed me, but I cringe at the thought of attending those kinds of events, because I guess I don’t have the patience to sit through something mediocre or ragged.

(By the way, I am painfully aware of the hypocrisy of an amateur blogger and podcaster disdaining amateur art).

This is where my internalized ableism comes in. I am ashamed to say that in the past at least, I have tended to equate “disability arts” with low-quality art … as if arts programs for disabled people necessarily produce bad art, uplifting for the artist perhaps, but not interesting to most audiences, including me. Put another way, I have assumed over the years that experiencing disability art is about doing some thing nice for the artists.

That’s why I am so excited by “Becoming Bulletproof.” Although it is integrated, with both disabled and non-disabled people involved, it does have a disability-related mission aside from art. Yet, it looks like everyone involved worked really hard to do everything really well, to entertain audiences, not just to satisfy themselves or have a meaningful experience. Whatever else the film accomplishes, it looks like it is a good, fun, well-made film … full stop. When I watch this film, it will be because I want to see it, not to support some kind of cause.

I can’t wait to see the whole movie, and I think it’s obviously long past time for me to explore disability arts with a more open mind.

----------

[Facebook] [Twitter] [Podcast] [Support]

Disability In “Mad Max: Fury Road"

After reading about it and resolving to see it for real, I am finally ready to blog about Mad Max: Fury Road, which I saw in the theater last Saturday. Instead of writing a long, comprehensive think piece about disability in the film, I want to highlight two disability-related points that moved me the most — a theme, and a moment.

Genetic Mutation and the Quest for Purity

The main villain, Immortan Joe, and his hordes of pale, spindly "War Boys" all appear to have genetic mutations, presumably the result of nuclear fallout and other unspecified environmental fouling. In a sense, they are all disabled. And apart from the typical quest for uber-patriarchial power, Joe and his clan’s motivating goal seems to be the herding and rough nurturing of “pure” bloodlines … that is, parentages that will produce “normal” children. In pursuit of this otherwise benign goal, they will resort to just about any atrocity, including the kidnapping, slavery, and forced breeding of women who appear to have “clean" DNA. In a sense, Joe and his gang are self-hating disabled people who will do anything to reach an imagined cure of perfect genetics. It’s a lot for disabled people to think about.

Discarding The Arm

As has been fully discussed elsewhere, our hero ... who is unquestionably Imperator Furiosa, (Charlize Theron) and not Mad Max ... is missing half of her left arm, and through most of the film she wears an elaborate and versatile Steampunk-looking prosthetic. There are dozens of ways that this is awesome, especially for amputees who might be watching, but really for anyone with a physical disability. However, my favorite moment about this by far comes at Furiosa’s point of utter despair, when she stalks off by herself across the sand, dropping her extra gear and clothes, shedding her prosthetic arm almost as an afterthought, then kneels and cries out in anguish and frustration.

I am not an amputee. I have never used a prosthetic. But I did wear braces on my legs when I was a child, and I wore a heavy back brace for a year when I was 10. Even when I didn’t exactly hate them, there was something therapeutic about taking them off just to be me and me alone. I interpret this scene as Furiosa stripping herself down to her essential self, without add-ons, shields, or decorations, and that includes showing her naked, uncovered, unhidden stump, or “nubbin” as one blogger called it. “Showing” it isn’t the right word, either. She’s entirely unselfconscious in that moment. She doesn’t care if anyone is looking at her, or her stump. Even though her mood is sad, even despondent, in a way it shows that at least she’s fully at home with herself.

Unlike her enemies, who want to negate and change who they are, Furiosa doesn’t care one way or another. Her prosthetic is entirely practical, too. It proves to be endlessly useful to her, but it's obvious she put no effort at all into making it look like a “normal” arm. Plus, she is comfortable enough in her own skin that in her moment of crisis, rather than adding more stuff, more padding to hide and protect herself, instead she strips things away … including her arm … to become more herself ... as if to say, "Here I am."

As usual, I doubt George Miller or Charlize Theron thought these things through explicitly. This isn’t really a movie about genetics, prosthetics, or the social politics of disability. I don’t think it’s even meant to show audiences how capable disabled people can be. But I am pretty sure it is and does all those things anyway, and I enjoyed the hell out of it.

Plus, you know … there’s ‘splosions!

----------

[Facebook] [Twitter] [Podcast]

Furiosa

I haven’t seen a movie in the theater in years, but this evening I’ll be at my local mall cinema seeing Mad Max, Fury Road. I’m going because I read this Tumblr post about the film, (via the Disability Visibility Project), and its amputee main character, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron). We’ll see how I feel afterwards, but in movies at least, I get a get stronger positive disability vibes when disability isn’t the main topic, but rather a visible but natural-feeling aspect of complex characters. I prefer “show, don’t tell," and it sounds like Fury Road does just that, and nothing else regarding Furiosa’s missing arm.

----------

[Facebook] [Twitter] [Podcast]

Represent

I haven't always felt as strongly as some disabled bloggers and tweeters about non-disabled actors playing, and getting accolades for playing, disabled characters. I don't like it, but on balance, I am usually more interested in how disabled characters in movies and TV are developed, what’s said about disability in the script, and the messages sent by what happens in the stories.

Still, I think it's important for people to understand that those of us who aren't celebrating Eddie Redmayne’s Oscar for playing Steven Hawking aren't just sourpusses or political correctness commisars. There are substantive reasons why this is a real issue.

Supply and Demand

There are relatively few acting roles for disabled characters. There are relatively few … but a lot more than zero … actors with disabilities. It is quite rare for disabled actors to be cast as characters who aren’t specifically designated as disabled. And it is extremely rare to cast disabled actors to play disabled characters. Sort through all that, and you will see how ridiculously hard it is for disabled actors to get work. With all the odds against them, how must it feel for disabled actors to watch the few disabled roles there are consistently go to non-disabled actors? Plus, when the roles are prominent and popular, those non-disabled actors are praised even more for playing disabled … like it's a double back-flip feat of ACTING! In fact, playing disabled is a well-known shortcut to an Oscar for non-disabled actors. Even people who aren’t familiar with disability issues often snicker about it. The comedy “Tropic Thunder” forthrightly joked about it.

Accuracy

The first film about disability that really excited me was “My Left Foot”, in which non-disabled actor Daniel Day-Lewis played Christy Brown, a real-life Irish poet with Cerebral Palsy. A young non-disabled actor Hugh O'Connor played Christy as a child. Day-Lewis won the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal, winning particular praise for the supposed authenticity of his movements and vocalizations. When I saw the film, it seemed to me like it was pretty accurate. He looked and sounded much like people I knew who had CP on the more “severe” side of the scale. Granted, I didn’t really pay much attention to the finer details. And I have since been told that the portrayal may have been “played up” for emotional effect. That can be hard to define, as everyone’s disability is different, and acting always requires the “portrayal” (i.e. faking) of emotions. Still, if crucial details are wrong, and especially if actors, writers, and directors knowingly make a character’s disability look more exaggerated than it would be in real life, that’s just vile, leading to the next point ...

Are You Making Fun Of Me?

maysoonzayid: DD is a phenomonal actor but he was an unwatchable cartoon in MLF @AndrewPulrang @dominickevans #filmdis

dominickevans: @maysoonzayid @AndrewPulrang those portrayals also turn to stereotypes (i.e. autistics rocking as central characteristic)

maysoonzayid: Right I'd be horrified to see how inaccurately an AB actor would clown how CP twists my lips @AndrewPulrang @dominickevans

dominickevans: @AndrewPulrang @maysoonzayid I personally find it very hard to look past the stereotyping physically... that actors seem to do

Sunday afternoon, I had an interesting Twitter conversation about all this with a disabled actor, Maysoon Zayid, and a disabled director, Dominick Evans, who are both regular participants in the weekly #FilmDis discussions about disability on screen. Dominick is the organizer. He and Maysoon were down on “My Left Foot”, and in addition to what they felt was the portrayal’s inaccuracy, they both cited a sense that it wasn’t just wrong, but also a caricature … cartoonish and painful to watch as disabled viewers. I got what they were saying, but I’m still struggling with this. On the one hand, I think a lot of people see Day-Lewis’ Christy Brown, and maybe Redmayne’s Steven Hawking, as bravely honest depictions, not “prettied up” for more sensitive eyes and ears. That’s how I saw “My Left Foot” back in 1990. Of course that presupposes that what’s being portrayed is terrible hardship, which is only one facet of disability, for some disabled people.

On the other hand, especially if I had that exact kind of disability, I might have seen the same depiction as mockery … like a class clown in the hallway executing a “perfect" imitation of my odd way of walking and posture. The actors in question almost certainly weren’t trying to be mean that way, but it’s possible that at times they were trying to shock, and that’s nearly as bad. Now, I suppose a disabled actor might end up doing the same thing, but I think it’s far less likely, because they probably know better where to draw the line, when to say “no”. Also, I think there’s a less tangible issue here of trust. It’s hard enough for some of us to see “ourselves” on screen, often mocked, abused, or turned into cardboard cutouts. But if we know going in that the actor is disabled, maybe it helps us get through it, knowing that “our” portrayal is more likely to be in good hands.

Someone To Say “No"

Non-disabled writers and directors are like children when it comes to disability. They are over-awed by it, and prone to mystify or fetishize it in unhelpful, sometimes disgusting, often profoundly boring, clichéd ways. A disabled actor can be like an adult in the room. If a director pushes them to do something exaggerated, inaccurate, or stereotypical, the disabled actor can say, “Hang on a minute, let’s talk about this.” Being only vaguely aware of the power relationships in Hollywood, I’m not suggesting this would always work. Still, having someone on set with real life, personal experience of disability would at least increase the chance that a finished work would be accurate and not over-dramatized, at least in regard to the disability itself.

So no, advocating that disabled actors be hired to play disabled characters isn’t tokenism. It isn’t “political correctness gone mad”. It should be standard operating procedure. It’s good for disabled actors, it helps improve perceptions of disability, and it makes better art.

Related article:

Welcome, Eddie Redmayne: Since ‘Rain Man,’ majority of Best Actor Oscar winners played sick or disabled

Justin Moyer, Washington Post - February 23, 2015

Despite some amateur-hour terminology slip-ups, (“handicapped” and “malady” are NOT synonyms for “disability" you can pull out of your Thesaurus just to add variety), this is a pretty good illustration of just how much Oscar loves disability by non-disabled actors. It's interesting to note that Mr. Moyer chooses 1988 as the start date, when two years earlier, Marlee Matlin won the Oscar for Best Actress for "Children Of A Lesser God" … a woman with a disability playing a character with that disability.

----------

Facebook

Twitter
Disability.TV Podcast

Inspiration Porn and Sentimentality

I hope I’m feeling well enough tonight to participate in the #FilmDis Twitter discussion. This week’s topic is “Inspiration Porn”. #FilmDis is a weekly real-time discussion about disability on film, led by Dominick Evans … @dominickevans.

Inspiration Porn is definitely a thing, including in film … especially during Oscar Season … especially this Oscar season. Self-consciously uplifting stories of disabled people who overcome their horrible problems to become just as good as everyone else are unoriginal, but reliably effective. Moviegoers who want an emotional catharsis that leaves them feeling better coming out than going in almost always get their money’s worth. I dare say there are lots of disabled moviegoers who lap it up as well. We need encouragement ourselves, sometimes. But for a significant number of us, Inspiration Porn is immediately, instinctively revolting. Why? What’s wrong with us?

The usual answer is that there’s nothing wrong with us at all. “Inspiration Porn” is bad, offensive, harmful. I tend to agree. But I think there’s more to it than that … or perhaps less.

I think that a lot of what we in the disability community call “Inspiration Porn” is actually just sentimentality. I can’t stand sentimentality, and not just when it’s disability themed. I can give all sorts of sociological and literary explanations for why “Inspiration Porn” is vile, but the bottom line is I don’t like weepy movies and cheap, formulaic tears wrung out of me, especially when they are based on what I know to be false and misleading portrayals of a life I actually live. I object to it. More importantly I don’t like it.

In a way, maybe that’s enough.

The #FilmDis discussion starts at 9 PM Eastern.

----------

Facebook

Twitter
Disability.TV Podcast

“Cripface"

Why The Theory of Everything Is a Disappointing Depiction of Disability

Scott Jordan Harris, Slate.com - January 20, 2014

I look for three things in TV and film depictions of disability:

1. Authenticity about the details of the disability.
2. Fully developed disabled characters.
3. Insight into real-life disability issues.

Number 3 is optional. Authenticity and fully developed disabled characters are quite often enough for a satisfying disability depiction. Tackling disability issues is a nice extra, when done naturally and not in a “You see Timmy …” moment.

To me, the issue of “Cripface” ... non-disabled actors playing disabled characters ... isn’t whether it is inherently wrong or offensive, so much as whether or not it meets these criteria, resulting in good depictions of disability.

It’s probably important to note here that “good” and "satisfying" often means different things to disabled and non-disabled viewers. The typical moviegoer or TV-watcher seems to have different criteria for disability stories and disabled characters:

1. They want to feel happy when the thing is over.
2. They like feeling lots of feels … sadness, pity, admiration, inspiration.
3. They want to think they have learned about certain disabled people, but they aren’t so interested in learning about disability itself or disability-based injustice.
4. They love “stunt” acting, where an actor convincingly portrays a character that is completely unlike themselves.

I think number 4 is where the Oscar-bait thing comes in. When a non-disabled actor seems to do a good job of playing disabled, most viewers latch onto it as a clear example of raw acting ability. Since a lot of acting talent is subtle and hard for non-critics to identify, there may even be some excitement about being able to easily pinpoint when an actor has done something really difficult … like an able-bodied actor playing a well-known disabled person. Eddie Redmayne looks a lot like Stephen Hawking, so right away, there's an assumed element of "Wow!"

One reason I like this Slate review is that it does give some specific evidence that maybe Eddie Redmayne and the writers didn’t, in fact, do such a great job of portraying Stephen Hawking. I haven't seen 'The Theory Of Everything", so I can't judge for myself. What Mr. Harris describes, however, is not encouraging.

As I indicated, I think it can be done well. I still greatly admire “My Left Foot”, in which the non-disabled actor Daniel Day-Lewis played Christy Brown, an Irish poet who had Cerebral Palsy. I think one reason I still like that film is that the writers made sure to give us a pretty full picture of the man, and avoided most of the usual disability cliches, like dreaming of being “normal” and being super-sweet, that make so many disability depictions seem fake and predictable. It also introduced and fully explored some truths about disability that aren't as familiar to mainstream audiences ... such as the complex nature of disability sexuality, and the problematic ways that "do gooders" often relate to disabled people. Finally, I got stuff out of "My Left Foot", as a disabled person, that I'll bet most viewers missed. It sounds to me like there's nothing challenging or original in "The Theory Of Everything" ... nothing that will rock any disabled viewer's world.

It does seem like “My Left Foot” is the exception that proves the rule. “Cripface” is bad because it’s inherently offensive, but what’s even worse is that most of the time it produces bad art. Put another way, non-disabled actors are apt to make mistakes, and allow mistakes to be made, that disabled actors just wouldn't.

———————

Facebook

Twitter
Disability.TV Podcast

Buy It: "The Other Sister"

This film is underrated, despised, actually, by most of the pop culture enthusiasts and movie critics I respect. The reason, I think, is that it is an unusually pure example of a bad movie with very good disability depictions at its heart. Yes, once again we have non-disabled actors portraying disabled people. To be sure, Juliette Lewis and Giovanni Ribisi go overboard and seem to have their eyes fixed on intensely craved Oscars. At times, the characters’ adorableness drifts into condescension. Yet, through it all, we get a strong statement in support of freedom, integration, and the dignity of risk for people with intellectual disabilities. Plus, if you care to dig a little deeper, the film can prompt interesting discussions about disability and social class. At the very least, this should be required viewing for anyone applying for direct care and support jobs in the developmental disability field.

Buy It: Children Of A Lesser God

I’m not sure how well Children of a Lesser God stands up today, but I still associate it in my mind with that late ‘80s / early ‘90s period when I was introduced to disability issues and culture. At any rate, the film is a great introduction to Marlee Matlin, who won the Best Actress Oscar for the role in 1987.

The AV Club Looks At Intellectual Disability Portrayals

Simple Jacks (and Janes): 17 mostly awful portrayals of people with intellectual disabilities

Josh Modell, The AV Club - June 2, 2014

Here’s another welcomed, decent exploration of a disability issue by a “mainstream” publication.

The default position of most pop culture consumers seems to be that movie and TV portrayals of people with intellectual disabilities are by definition profound and heartwarming. There’s a sense that as long as intellectual disability stories aren’t obviously mean-spirited, we sort of have to love them. To quibble or critique is to come off as heartless and insulting. So, this article starts out with a lot of credit simply by acknowledging that such portrayals can actually be both well-intentioned and “awful”.

Writer Josh Modell rightly faults the apparently cynical trend among aspiring actors to take on intellectual disability roles in hopes of scoring acting awards, as if playing intellectually disabled people can’t help but reveal true acting brilliance. In fact, it tends to come off more as stunt acting … a set of formulaic tricks that display actors' knowledge of the tricks, rather than their depth of acting talent. I think that the key to portraying people with disabilities is the same as portraying anyone else … character depth and development. In a few examples, Modell also points to how frequently details are simply unrealistic, like Sean Penn’s “Sam” in “I Am Sam”, who in real life would have at least a few difficulties raising a little girl, but in the movie all of those troubles are depicted as nitpicks from mean bureaucrats. In fact, I think Modell kind of misses the boat on how often intellectual disability film plots rely on straw-man opposition that feels familiar, but is almost never as evil and unwarranted in real life.

The most interesting thing in this article, though, is that Modell seems to be engaged in a kind of dog-chasing-his-tail exercise about the difference between insulting stereotypes and realistic portrayals. An intellectually disabled character talking loud and having “specific obsessions” can certainly be overdone. On the other hand, intellectually disabled people often do both of these things, and sometimes it’s the first thing you notice about them. When it is overdone and that’s all there is to the portrayal, it is insulting. But if they are surface traits that lead to deeper understanding later on, then they aren’t necessarily offensive … unless we think those behaviors themselves are totally unacceptable, which would in itself be insulting and ableist. I think this sends Modell off the rails a bit regarding “The Other Sister”. True, most critics and discerning viewers hate this film for supposedly being over-the-top, but Juliet Lewis and Giovanni Ribisi’s scenery-chewing didn’t bother me that much precisely because their behavior and demeanor felt real to me, and not one-dimensional. Some people are, in fact, uninhibited and extroverted, and there are very real, important stakes involved here that fully justify the characters’ outsized emotions.

I wish the article explored this dilemma a bit more, though there are hints to a solution. Modell notes at least one occasion when intellectually disabled supporting characters were portrayed by intellectually disabled actors … much more effectively than the supposed star.

There are several of these movies I haven’t seen, and am very curious about now, especially “Tim” (Mel Gibson) and “Profoundly Normal” (Kirstie Alley). What I would really love to see is a followup article identifying some “good” intellectual disability portrayals. By leaving out “Forrest Gump” and “Rain Man”, does Modell mean to imply that he likes them … that they aren’t overdone or insulting? They’re not terrible, but I think a lot of his criticisms could be applied to these films, as well.

Still, quibbles aside, it’s good to see wide-audience pop culture websites take on disability issues. More of this, please!

Passing The "Tyrion Test"

Last November, I tried to come up with a disability equivalent of the Bechdel Test, the three-point checklist used to identify “good” depictions of women in movies and TV shows. Once more, a work “passes” the Bechdel Test if it:

1) Features at least two women, who

2) Talk to each other,

3) About something other than a man.

I settled on three criteria that on review months later, I still feel comfortable with. And in honor of my all-time favorite disabled character on TV, Tyrion Lannister in Game Of Thrones, I am calling my test, The Tyrion Test. A movie or TV show “passes” the Tyrion Test if:

1) At least one character with disabilities is involved in significant plot developments not centered on their disabilities,

2) Disabilities are depicted realistically, neither less nor more severe than they would be in real life, and

3) Disabled characters are givers as well as receivers … supportive of other characters, not just supported by them.

Tyrion Lannister definitely passes, as do the other disabled characters on "Game Of Thrones". Their disabilities are important aspects of their characters, but not everything they do relates to their disabilities. Their disabilities are not overblown or played for cheap drama or humor. And none of them are passive. They all give as much as they receive, act as much as be acted upon. Even Hodor, a fairly minor, one-dimensional character, seems at times to have a inner motivation and sense of duty that goes beyond mere habit or dependence. "Game Of Thrones” several times has gone even further, occasionally highlighting situations where one impaired character helps another in ways only a fellow disabled person can.

A couple of additional notes on the Tyrion Test:

- I think it is important to stick to only 3 criteria. The simplicity of the Bechdel Test is part of what makes it so compelling. That said, a good case can be made for another rule … that disabled characters should be played by disabled actors.

- The list doesn’t focus on what NOT to do, because I think that the damage done by cliches and even offensive depictions can be mitigated by adding the above three qualities. The problem in bad depictions isn’t so much any particular thing that disabled characters do, it’s when clichés and negative portrayals is all they do.

I haven’t yet tried the Tyrion Test on a wide variety of works. That really needs to be done to get a sense of whether the system really works. Maybe the readers can help me. What are your favorite, or least favorite disability movies and TV shows? Do they pass the “Tyrion Test”? Give it a try and leave a comment below!

Oscar Night Followup

I was re-watching Lupita Nyong’o, Academy Award acceptance speech, again appreciating the emotional core of her remarks ...

"It doesn’t escape me for one moment that so much joy in my life is thanks to so much pain in someone else’s.”

Now, Nyong’o was referring to the fact that her role in “12 Years A Slave” (which I haven’t seen yet), was based on a real-life woman who was, in fact, a slave. If I understand her meaning, she was acknowledging the fact that her good fortune is based on the reality of a very difficult life.

While I in no way would compare the life of a slave to living with a disability … a mistake that I’m afraid a lot of people might make if the thought were suggested … it did cause me to wonder what Daniel Day-Lewis said in his acceptance speech when he won the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of the real-life man Christy Brown in “My Left Foot". So, I looked it up. Here is the video, and a transcript of his speech:

http://disabilitythinking.blogspot.com/2014/03/another-look-my-left-foot.html

1989 Academy Awards

Daniel Day-Lewis Best Actor Award Acceptance Speech

"You've just provided me with the makings of one hell of a weekend in Dublin."

"I shared Christy's life for a while with a remarkable young actor called Hugh O'Conor. But for everyone involved in the film, all our desire to make the film, all the strength that we needed, all the pleasure that we took in making the film came from Christy Brown. When he was alive he needed very little encouragement to make his voice heard. Now he needs a little more. And I'm truly grateful to you that in honoring me with this award you're encouraging Christy to carry on making his mark. Thank you very much indeed.”

It is a very gracious and succinct speech. He didn’t say anything offensive or condescending. He spoke about giving new voice to a man who when he was alive, struggled in particular to be heard and understood. That suggests D-Day "got it", that he drew good conclusions from his experience “with” Christy Brown. Day-Lewis’ speech doesn’t have quite the empowering ring that Nyong’o’s had, but I think that in a speech about a disabled person, by a non-disabled person, it’s probably best to keep it simple and not try to draw too many dubious connections.

I wonder what Tom Cruise would have said if he had won Best Actor instead, for portraying another real-life disabled person, Ron Kovic, in “Born On The Fourth Of July”?

Also, unrelated bonus for seeing other familiar faces how they looked in early 1990: Jodie Foster, Robin Williams (with a regrettable ‘stache), and Jessica Lange.

Another Look: "My Left Foot"

The 2013 Academy Awards are tonight, which reminds me of what might be the first disability-themed film I ever noticed … “My Left Foot”, starring Daniel Day-Lewis as Christy Brown, an early 20th Century Irish painter and poet who had Cerebral Palsy.

"My Left Foot" was nominated for Best Picture at the 1989 Academy Awards. The other Best Picture nominees that year were: "Driving Miss Daisy" (Winner), "Born On The Fourth Of July", "Dead Poet’s Society", "Field Of Dreams". Although opinions vary on how well these films have stood the test of time since then, in 1989 that was a pretty impressive list of nominees. All of them were both popular and critically acclaimed.

I did a blog post about “My Left Foot” last April.

Looking back again at the film, three scenes stand out, each involving Christy sticking up for his family:

1. When Christy’s father lashes out at his eldest daughter for getting pregnant, Christy explodes in rage against him, in defense of his sister. It’s the first time we really see Christy lose control, but it helps round out his personality.

2. When Christy is paid for one of his poems, he and his siblings hide the money in a tin container their mother uses to save cash, and when she find it, they all share in the joy of the surprise. The scene helps underscore Christy’s devotion to his mother, and there is meaning in the fact that he is giving materially to her.

3. When a jerk in the pub insults the memory of Christy’s father, while his family are having his wake, it’s Christy who at first seems to act as mediator, but then literally "kicks off" a classic bar fight in which his whole family takes part. 

The most memorable aspect of the film for me is Christy’s relationships with two women. He is an adult at this point, and falls in love, (or lust), with each of them, but the two women respond to him quite differently.

His Physical Therapist, Dr. Eileen Cole, treats Christy with utmost respect and admiration, at least verbally and intellectually. He is her star patient, and she is an expert at the top of her field. Yet, she is oblivious to the possibility that Christy might have sexual feelings for her. She seems to think nothing of flopping down on Christy’s bed and being extremely physically casual with him. Eileen likes and admires Christy, but we can see that it has never occurred to her that Christy might have normal sexual feelings. When he finally declares his feelings for her, unfortunately in a public place, Eileen is stunned and embarrassed. Her response is basically to try and shut him up and hide him away, like a mortified mother trying to drag her tantruming toddler out of a nice restaurant.

This is also the moment when Christy delivers by far the most memorable line of the film:

"I've had nothing but Platonic love all my life. You know what I say? Fuck Plato!"

Ironically, Mary, a temporary nurse hired to attend to Christy during a special event, realizes right away that he’s flirting with her. While she maintains a professional distance and demeanor while on duty, Mary speaks to Christy in a friendly way, and, very subtly, makes it clear that … to put it a bluntly … she’s into him. She doesn’t fawn and butter Christy up as Eileen sometimes did. She is no kind of “expert” on Cerebral Palsy. But somehow she understands from the get-go that Christy is a man like any other, and she finds him intriguing in a way that almost nobody else in the film does.

“My Left Foot” has aged well. It still represents a progressive and respectful look at its subject. Notably, the same can’t be said of the Oscar winner that year, “Driving Miss Daisy”, which, though well-inteded, looks today like an embarrassingly condescending take on racial “understanding”.

"My Left Foot" may be the best "disability film" ever made. At the very least, it deserves a nomination.

Documentary Trailer

I really want to see this documentary, CinemAbility.


From the trailer, it looks like a very good starting point for discussing disability depictions on film. I wonder how deep the analysis goes? Does it stop with noting the familiar villain / hero cliches, or does it tease out more complex ideas? I also wonder if they look at television, too. I really think you have to.

Hopefully, this will come to Netflix or some other streaming service soon.

" ... show me what you need in the bedroom."

I’ve been feeling under the weather the last couple of days, which is why I didn’t do any blogging yesterday. I wanted to get something up today, so here’s one of the best scenes from “Passion Fish”, a great disability-themed film from the 1990s. I was going to say “underrated”, but “forgotten” might be a better word. It was nominated for 2 Oscars in 1992, including Mary McDonnell for Best Actress. I think this was her most notable role between 1990’s “Dances With Wolves” and her role as President Roslin in the remade “Battlestar Galactica” TV series. But who remembers it, apart from film critics and disabled people?



For what it’s worth, it seems like “Passion Fish" passes both the Bechdel Test, and my proposed Disability Bechdel Test.

Test The Disability Bechdel Test

Last Friday I tried to come up with a workable version of the “Bechdel Test” for disability on film and TV. I think I’ve got it now.

To recap, the Bechdel Test is a way to assess the portrayal of women in movies, television, or literature. A work “passes” the Bechdel Test if it:

1) Features at least two women, who
2) Talk to each other,
3) About something other than a man.

So, here’s my proposed Disability Bechdel Test. A work passes if:

1) Characters with disabilities are involved in significant plot developments not centered on their disabilities.
2) Disabilities are depicted realistically, neither less, nor more severe than they would be in real life.
3) Disabled characters are givers as well as receivers … supportive of other characters, not just supported by them.

I couldn’t come up with a test as elegant and unified as the original, but I think these three measures cover a lot of ground. They address important aspects of character, plot, and writing, not a laundry list of pet peeves. They aren’t about either “positive” or “negative" portrayals, they encourage realistic, three-dimensional depictions that allow us to get to “know” people with disabilities, not just react to them. I also think that TV shows and movies that do “pass” this test tend to be the better works overall.

Try this test on your favorite, or not so favorite, disability-themed TV shows and movies. What passes the test and what doesn’t? Next Friday, I’ll test two films, “Forrest Gump” and “My Left Foot”, and two TV shows, “Parenthood” and “Ironside” (both versions!).

Podcast Partner Wanted!

(Tap, tap, tap) Are we on? Is this on? Can you hear me?

I am looking for someone to partner with me in a podcast about disability on television and in the movies.

I hope to find someone with a disability, who is also as steeped in great television, film and pop culture as I am. Someone with broadcast or podcast experience would be great, but not essential. What is essential is a passion for watching, thinking about, discussing, and even dissecting how disability is depicted and used in popular culture … for good and for ill.

We'll do more than just catalog all the cliches and offensive language. We can do that, too, but what I really want to do is explore the question of what makes a "good" TV show or movie, and what makes a "bad" one. Can disabled characters make us laugh without being insulting? Do positive disabled characters always have to be "inspirational?" Do actors and actresses still dive into disabled characters hoping to win an easy Oscar? Do disability stories in popular culture help defuse stereotypes, or support them?

I plan on using Skype to record my partner's portion of weekly reviews and discussions, beginning with two of this season's new TV shows, the new "Ironside" and "The Michael J. Fox Show". If all goes well and we get into a nice rhythm, we might add discussions of the disabled characters in "Game Of Thrones", which could bring us some crossover listeners, and would in any case be really fun. Where we go from there is our choice … into the great disability-themed movies, older disability-themed TV shows, examinations of memorable disabled characters, etc.

I can't offer any pay. This would be entirely a volunteer gig. But I'll pay for all the startup costs … including any accessories you might need to buy on your end. All I ask is that you supply your own computer and Internet connection.

Are you interested? Are you wondering who the heck would listen? Are you interested whether anyone listens or not? If you're seriously considering joining me in this project, send me an email with answers to the following questions:

============

Your name where you live … (I don't need your postal address right now, just your city, state, and / or country)

A brief description of your disability. If you don't have a disability, explain your background and interest in disability issues.

What kind of computer equipment, software, and Internet service you have.

Describe any experience you have, if any, in radio, podcasting, and / or sound editing and production.

Your 5 favorite TV shows of all time.

Your 5 favorite films of all time.

============

You can answer all this in an email, or, how about recording your answers and sending them to me as a sound file? That way, I'd get an idea of how you sound!

Send me an email with your answer … or your questions … at:

apulrang@icloud.com

I look forward to hearing from you!

Question For Disability Nerds ...

Earlier this summer I posted some thoughts about starting a podcast about disability in movies and television. I haven't gotten very far yet with that idea, except that my list of potential topics has grown exponentially. I keep thinking about films and shows I'd forgotten, and finding out about ones I've never seen.

The idea still seems sound, and as far as I know there's no consistent, ongoing content looking at disability in popular culture from both a disability-aware standpoint and … this would be the key for me … from a TV and movie-friendly perspective. In other words, I'm not interested in a highly politicized or harshly judgmental treatment of the subject. I don't mind criticizing bad depictions, but I love TV and movies, so I don't assume their depictions of disability will all be bad. I also don't think "bad" is a simple concept here. It depends on the context, the intent, and the effect, all in equal parts. Plus entertainment value.

So, would you visit a website and / or listen to a podcast about how disability is depicted in movies and on TV shows? Vote in the poll in the right hand column.

Keyword Search

I really think that my much discussed (by me), and perpetually in development website is going to focus a lot on disability in popular culture … TV, movies, books and comics, music, radio and podcasts, etc. On a moment's notice, I can generally brainstorm maybe 30 - 40 shows, films, and characters with a disability disability connection, but I figured it might be interesting to do some keyword searches on the Internet Movie Database, to see how many references turned up for some of the main disability-related terms:

disability - 670

handicap - 194

deaf - 213

blind - 248

I've got some catching up to do.

Judging Disability Onscreen

Superfest Disability Film Festival Presents "The Dissies"

Paul K. Longmore Institute on Disability at San Francisco State University

Why The Dissies?

Catherine Kudlik, Disability Remix Blog - July 9, 2013

This sounds like a blast, and I haven't visited San Francisco for years … Maybe after I finish this post I'll just check Expedia.com, just in case there are cheap fares to be had.

How do I judge disability movies and TV shows? I've been thinking about this, and here are the criteria I think I use:

Politics - Does it support or undermine an agreed-upon set of social or political goals for disability rights and social equality?

Offensiveness - Does it trigger a gut-level, involuntary feeling of personal offense and disgust in us as people with disabilities?

Realism - Do the disabled characters look, sound, and behave like people with disabilities do in real life?

Fresh or Cliché - Do characters and plots feel unique, personal, and three-dimensional, or cliché, generic, and flat?

Human or Objectified - Are we brought closer to disabled characters or distanced from them? Are they people, with feelings, motivations, and free will, or just objects to which things are done?

I listed these criteria from least important to most important, though I do use all of them. To this list, I would add another two other principles that aren't specific to disability portrayals only

The first is "Show, don't tell." That means morals and lessons shouldn't be stated like an essay, but demonstrated by what happens in the story. I don't want to hear people make speeches in the middle of conversations. If they have to explain something to me, in the audience, they should do it as naturally as possible to other characters on the screen. I'm willing to sacrifice a lot to "Show, don't tell." I'd rather miss "the moral of the story" entirely than sit through a stilted, clunky, "Afterschool Special" of a story.

The second general principle is to take into consideration "What's the film / TV show trying to do?" In practice that means a negative or even horrific depiction of disability might be "good", if the character feels real, or if the scenes serve a "good" purpose. We might weep and feel emotionally devastated by a movie that shows a disabled character dying from abuse or neglect, but if the character is three-dimensional and human, and if the story teaches us something about a real and important issue, then we might consider it a "good" portrayal. The flip side of this example might be if we never get to know the disabled character much, and his or her death functions mainly as the trigger for someone else's emotional breakdown or revenge-fuled rampage.

Steven Soderbergh I Am Not

I've started working on a montage of disability-related video clips to put on the front page of the eventual "Disability Thinking" website. So far I have collected 46 clips of various lengths that I'll need to edit down to something like 5 minutes. Most of the clips are from TV shows and movies, with a few TED Talks and Paralympics clips thrown in. I'm not sure what I want the montage to say; I'm trusting that after sorting out the best bits, some kind of theme will occur to me. I'm just a little bit worried that after hours of work, the little movie will turn out trite or syrupy, instead of fresh and a bit funny.

With disability images ... both still and moving ... the line between awesome and ugh is very, very thin.