Cinematic Uprisings
Ben Stiller, Paramount Learn That You Never Go Full Retard
Posted by Neil Miller (neil@filmschoolrejects.com) on August 5, 2008
It appears that with Tropic Thunder just over a week away from its theatrical release, not everyone is laughing at its often ridiculous premise. In fact, it appears that some groups have now started to come forward to speak out against elements of the film they feel to be insensitive and inappropriate.
And no, we are not talking about the part where actor Robert Downey Jr. portrays an actor who has his skin dyed black in order to play the role intended for an African American. We are talking about Simple Jack, the parody movie within a movie in which Ben Stiller’s character Tugg Speedman is seen as the big action star taking his goal of winning an Oscar a little too far and ultimately failing miserably. In Simple Jack, Speedman plays quite possibly the most stereotypical mentally handicapped farm aid ever seen on screen, a mixture between Sean Penn in I Am Sam and Cuba Gooding Jr. in Radio, but overemphasized to the nth degree for parody effect.
It turns out that this relatively small plot-point has caught the attention of Patricia Bauer, a veteran journalist whose personal blog is dedicated to bringing awareness to news relating to disabilities. In an article posted on August 1, Bauer commented on Tropic Thunder’s sub-story:
It’s just good clean fun, the studio might say, pointing out that the movie also pokes fun at racial stereotypes. It’s a sendup of old Hollywood films that trotted out able-bodied actors in disability drag, like Tom Hanks in “Forrest Gump,” Dustin Hoffman in “Rain Man” and Sean Penn in “I am Sam.” Stiller isn’t laughing at people with intellectual disabilities, I can imagine his publicist saying. He’s laughing at the way Hollywood portrays them.
But for the estimated 14.3 million Americans with cognitive disabilities and their families, such arguments may be problematic.
Bauer went on to make an update to her blog on August 2, reporting that disabilities rights groups had begun organizing and contacting Paramount Pictures and Dreamworks Studios to arrange dialog around what they felt to be inappropriate content. As well, Bauer chimed in with more commentary on why exactly this sort of thing was most deplorable, even compared with some of the other potentially offensive devices used in the film:
There will doubtless be statements from studio executives who say the film is an equal opportunity offender. It pokes fun at racial stereotypes, with Robert Downey Jr. dressing in blackface and citing the theme song of “The Jeffersons.” Jack Black does fart jokes. Everybody’s offended, right?
Let’s answer that with some questions. People of different races surely were involved in the making of this film, and were able to express opinions about which references were humorous and which might have gone too far. So were people with different sexual orientations.
How many people with cognitive disabilities were involved in the making of this film? Were any people with cognitive disabilities involved in focus groups for this film? How many are employed by Dreamworks, or by parent company Paramount?
At this point, her argument, which by no means is completely unreasonable, has turned from “this is offensive on a moral level” to “the studio doesn’t employ people with mental disabilities, so it’s really not okay.” Yet because the studio employs a few African Americans, no one should be as offended by the part where Robert Downey Jr. sings the theme from “The Jeffersons.” I’m sorry, but that isn’t how this works — if you are going to be offended to the point of making a big stink about it on the internet and calling for the studio to hold special screenings so that you can approve of the film’s content, then you’d better be prepared to be offended for everyone involved. You don’t get to pick and choose like that. And rationalizing it in such a manner discredits your cause.
Let’s be reasonable for a moment. We can all agree that intentionally degrading someone who cannot defend themselves solely for the purpose of a laugh is wrong. You would never walk up to someone with a mental handicap and start saying inappropriate things, nor would you want to impress upon the youth of America that intolerance is acceptable on any level.
But in defense of Tropic Thunder, there are two things at work. One is that the studio talking points are right, this film is a parody, a send-up of the often absurd lengths to which actors will go in order to further their careers. That is the foundation upon which the comedic elements of the film are built. And having seen the film, I can say without a doubt that all of the inappropriate moments are merely devices used to drive the overall tone of the film — that actors are all assholes who would overstep the bounds of stereotypes to win an award and make an extra buck.
Secondly, and probably most importantly, the film has been given an R-rating by the MPAA. That means that anyone under the age of 17 who would like to see this film must be accompanied by a parental guardian. And I believe therein lies a much bigger issue.
As one commenter on Patricia Bauer’s blog states, “Hollywood has a huge role in setting culture because of their visibility and prevalence…” I would agree to an extent, but would wholeheartedly disagree should someone say that Hollywood has the only role in setting culture. They don’t. In a case like this one, it is up to parents to decide what is appropriate for their children. If those children are too young and impressionable to understand that the film is a parody about actors, then their parents should not allow them to see it. And anyone over the age of 17 is free to choose whether or not they find the film offensive or entertaining. That is the purpose of the R-rating. If Tropic Thunder were rated PG, then we would be looking at a real problem. But in this case we are seeing a film that clearly contains potentially offensive material, no arguments there, but is very clearly not intended for the most impressionable members of society.
The question I would ask to those who are “organizing against” Tropic Thunder is this: Is it right to restrict what some people might find entertaining because it is offensive to some members of society? No, it isn’t. That would be bordering on censorship. What is right is to limit the access to those who are not able to discern for themselves what is intended to be humorous and what might just be blatantly ignorant, offensive material. Personally, I think that the R-rating attached to this film does that. If you are offended by it, don’t go see it. And if you don’t want your kids to grow up being intolerant of the mentally handicapped, don’t let them see it either — or teach them what is right and what is wrong. It seems oddly simple to me.
Then again, I am just trying to process this situation logically. Personally, I’m not offended by the elements of Tropic Thunder that others may find offensive, primarily because I can see the context in which they were meant to be funny. And as Ben Stiller said at the recent press junket for the film, he did put a lot of thought into the idea of playing Simple Jack:
Yes, for sure. Again, it was the same focus through the lens of what would an actor do to try and win an award that would be wrong-headed and playing Simple Jack was an obvious attempt at legitimacy. Obviously, out of context that could seem wrong, but I felt like within the context of the movie, we’ve seen this happen in life and we all know that any time an actor goes out and does that, which is really putting yourself out there, it’s a very tough thing to pull off.
On top of all this, it appears that Paramount Studios and Dreamworks are doing a bit of damage control in the situation, having removed the promotional site SimpleJack.com and the Simple Jack movie poster (seen above right) from the Tugg Speedman viral website.
Ultimately, I believe that this is just another situation that will sadly get blown out of proportion. Instead of personally setting good examples for our kids, teach them right and wrong and having discussions about tolerance within our homes, Americans are always just looking for someone to blame. And Hollywood is an easy target. And by their logic, because Ben Stiller uses mental illness as a plot device in his R-rated comedy, he is the reason that kids pick on the Special Education kids in high school. I think not. I think that the parents of America should take a long look in the mirror and stop pointing at Hollywood to explain all the shortcomings of society.That said, it is my initial response to defend the entertainment value of things like this, not because I think making fun of mentally handicapped folks is funny, but because I have the ability to understand the context. And I would hope that anyone going to see Tropic Thunder next week would be able to do the same.
On the side, below you will find one of the clips in question, in which Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) and Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) discuss Tugg’s performance as Jack, and the fact that “nobody goes full retard.”
| 
| Read more articles by Neil Miller
55 Comments
August 6th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I can see her point, but then again, I think people look for things to be angry about. It seems that most “activists” look for things, however slight, and attack them in full force without taking in the context first.
Do I think it’s right to make fun of people? No, but that is what a key component of comedy is, making fun of something. If it’s done in a cruel way, or goes “too far” then we need to put some limits down. But how far is too far?
What people need to do is say their peice and let other deside what they want to do.
If it offends you then don’t watch it, listen to it, read it etc.
It’s all about choice, and the freedom to make the right one for yourself and those that your responsible for.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
It does make great publicity for organizations like that to hit Hollywood with angry messages.and they obviously arent ashamed to do it.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
You’d be surprised about the publicity aspect. Leaving the tired concept of all press being good press aside, controversy doesn’t always equate with better box office. At this point, religious groups boycotting a film is to be expected, but groups like ARC are a bit different, and the argument is a little more empathetic. It touches a lot of people on a personal level in a way a film with manufactured controversy like Golden Compass does not.
It’s also not clear cut whether the instance is used well for the humor or if its in poor taste. Hiding behind the guise of humor is an easy shield, but when our mildly racist great-uncle comes to Thanksgiving and tells a racist joke - we don’t shrug our shoulders and allow him the guise of comedy as high art. We call it what it is: misinformed and insensitive. I’m not saying the instance in Tropic Thunder is or not, because I haven’t seen it, but there’s at least a chance that it is.
As for giving ARC and others good publicity, that’s a double edged sword, too. For different reasons obviously - any time you stick your neck out in the public eye, if your argument doesn’t resonate people, you can end up looking foolish. For the most part, investors and grant-givers dislike anything that rocks the boat.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Mm. I’ve just come up with about 8 weeks of Boiling Points based on all of this. Let me give you a preview: Lighten the fuck up.
I could rant non-stop on this, but dont want to spoil the BP. Although, in terms of being equal and being fair and not wanting to offend anyone - when a male says something that angers me or gets me riled, I offer to fight them in a boxing match, much like Uwe Boll. So, in order not to exclude anyone based on any qualification and to make sure there is pure equality in every aspect of our lives, I feel I must challenge Patricia Bauer to 3 Rounds of Rage in a Cage. The gauntlet has been thrown.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Hmmm? Let’s see here. Give me a f**king break! Let’s just wipe all disabled and mentally disabled characters from future film making. Unless it can be played by a true disabled person, and will hence not be funny in any shape or form. How is it that so many people can miss the mark on something like this? My mind is boggled.
If I go to the movies and see any of Simple Jack missing from the release, I will be heart broken. It’s not that he is acting retarded that makes it funny, it’s that he’s acting about acting retarded that makes it funny. Or maybe I’m retarded. I don’t even know anymore.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Ben Stiller’s point was to poke fun at the way Hollywood portrays our family and friends? Thanks but we don’t need his help unless he would also feels so compelled to donate his movie profits to my Hamilton County ARC in Cincinnati. Apparently, funding is no laughing matter here so we could use a few laughs. Even if it’s at our kid’s expense.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Perhaps what you’re missing in the uproar against this movie is the understanding that many people with disabilities face nearly daily occurances of discrimination, including a number of whom are people who cannot defend themselves or speak for themselves. Abuse and neglect in state institutions, govermental agencies more interested in the bottom line than in providing desperatley needed services, the general public who automatically believes a kid who isn’t ‘perfect’ is a spoiled brat and the no good parents are to blame, schools who would rather expel kids than actually teach them….regardless if this movie is trying to prove a point under the context of humor/entertainment, it’s just another slap in the face to this population.
And as for the comment that ‘You would never walk up to someone with a mental handicap and start saying inappropriate things, nor would you want to impress upon the youth of America that intolerance is acceptable on any level.’ While that sounds pretty logical/reasonable, it’s a far cry from the day-to-day realities that people live.
It’s the realities of their lives, not yours, that is the reason for their protests.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
So, because I will laugh at Stiller’s comical take on actors acting like retards, I am going to be basically insensitive to the actual disabled people in the world? I’m going to not sympathize with their difficulties in life?
I don’t know what’s worse. Having to feel as though I can’t laugh at this and still be sensitive to the issues in the disabled community? Or not having the ability to laugh at this because of the issues in the disabled community. I would much rather laugh, and still work towards a cure for Cancer, Autism, MS, advancements in prosthetic, etc.
Oversensitivity is far worse in my mind than the ability to laugh at oneself or others, and still be able to sympathize and work towards cures and understanding for handicapped individuals.
In summary, give me a friggin’ break!
August 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
This really made me mad. We’re too sensitve these days. We need a nice kick in the ass. You can read my blog about it, by clicking on my name. I hope Pat Bauer doen’t pull me from the internet.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I don’t get it. DreamWorks claims that the use of “retard” is justified because it pokes fun at an industry that exploits, pities, patronizes and parodies the lives of our children with mental retardation labels?
I think Daniel Day Lewis’s non fictional Christy Brown and Dustin Hoffman’s semi fictional “Raymond” were portrayed with dignity and respect. So that leaves Tom Hank’s and his “Forest Gump” whose disability had nothing to do with the plot line or characterization …
or did it?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
As someone whose sister was born with a developmental disability and has done a lot of work with people with disabilities of all sorts, I think there’s a thin line between being able to create an effective parody and simply seeing how many people a movie can make angry and claim it’s in the name of comedy.
For the film “Blazing Saddles” the term “nigger” was bounced around so often that attempting to watch it on a cable channel leaves you with one third of the dialogue blanked out or substituted, it seems. However, Richard Pryor was one of the writers of the movie, and probably had a lot of creative control over whether or not the term could be used that often.
However, the term “retard” is one that people with developmental disabilities are aware of, and are offended by. Traveling with people I’ve helped, I’ve had to watch them suffer through people calling each other by that term without even caring that someone nearby might be offended by its use. People I’ve helped have told me stories of walking down sidewalks when suddenly a car full of teenagers drives by, slows down, and someone sticks their head out and yells, “Hey, retard!”
Every day, I hear the word in some form or another. I’ve heard it used by people trying to be funny on the radio (”Hey, have you ever noticed how retarded people get when they’re on vacation…”), in movies that are not rated R (The most recent one I saw it in was “Definately, Maybe” on DVD, and that was PG-13 and definately not a satire of how the term is used in Hollywood), and even on television (Not just on Comedy Central, but on other comedies that would never dream of using terms such as “nigger,” “chink,” “Jew,” or otherwise in a derogatory, put-down sense.)
In a well-crafted film made by someone (I’m looking at Mel Brooks here) who understands how to craft their work so that you do see offensive behavior but understand right from the beginning that any behavior you see on screen is not something you want to repeat in public, I might not mind the use of the term “retard” as much. Hollywood has also done a few movies that I felt better-portrayed people with developmental disabilities than have been done in years, but it still has a ways to go.
Lastly, to criticize Dreamworks for taking down the promotion for “Simple Jack,” the primary reason I felt offense was the fact that it seemed this joke that was still somewhat socially “acceptable” was getting extra press, and not simply one joke on the list of many things the movie riffs on. There were no websites that I saw showing Robert Downey, Jr. in blackface organizing an NAACP rally, or even just a website for Jack Black’s previous role where you’d see a group of people around a table farting.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Stealing a phrase from our own great Kevin Carr, WTF???
It’s bad enough that the U.S. gov’t illegalizes our favorite words, that Great Britain has recently decided to disallow use of the word “elderly” (insisting on the word “senior” instead), that a lunatic (sorry all you loonies out there but I don’t know what we’re allowed to call you now) shrieked “fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck” loud & clear over and over again at a kiddie park and he was not charged (Freedom of Speech) but the young mothers who complained were fined — now we can’t even say aloud what we’re thinking?
Holy Censorship Batman! WTF!
August 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I don’t think it’s called “censorship” if DreamWorks decides to pull something off the internet for “retooling” because the movie grossly misrepresents and offends a population of people unable to defend themselves about how they are portrayed.
I think it’s called “humane.” You can still laugh about it, right? You can still have your little joke, right? Nobody is preventing you from saying “retard” as many times you need to hear it for a laugh.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
@Erik
Actually, both characters for Robert Downey and Jack Black have their own websites, KirkLazarus.com and JeffPortnoy.com, respectively. And each one is a ‘fake’ website that continues to lampoon their characters. RDJ’s is very pretentious and celebratory of himself, which is part of the character and part of the joke. Jack Black’s makes fart noises as you click through.
As for your differentiation between the acceptable use of “the n-word” and “retard,” I find that somewhat perplexing. “Retard” is a word that has many meanings; its use as a derogatory term is slang. “Retard” means “To slow down” or “Delay.” Having to have all comments approved retards the posting process. Drinking alcohol retards your heart rate. There is no other use of the word “nigger.” It is derived from the Spanish “negro,” for Black, but has no other usage than an insult.
And the fact that one black man (Pryor) approved the amount of times the word was used in no way should indicate the acceptance of others allowing the word to be used. But it was comedy and the audience and the crew realized that no harm was being meant and they were actually lampooning the racists.
Really, everyone needs to lighten up. No one is trying to hurt feelings. You bring up someone hanging out a window and screaming a pejorative. That’s no different then someone yelling “asshole.” That person screaming is offensive and they’re using a word that is meant to be offensive in that instance. Just because of one insensitive person does not mean we can eliminate the word from our existence. “Prick” is both a small cut and slang for a penis. Should we never allow that word to be used ever again, regardless of context?
No harm is meant. You have a choice not to listen/watch. Others have the same choice and will choose to watch. 99% of the people who see a movie like this will not be insensitive to you, so don’t be insensitive to them in assuming that because they laugh, they’re jerkoffs and who have negative biases towards the handicapped.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
No. No harm is ever intended, is it? It’s all in good fun.
Let’s all have a little fun using words and images of people who are only visible in our society when their disability becomes an issue and hopefully a running gag or joke for 99% of the people viewing Tropic Thunder.
Thank you, to the 1% who have enough decency to walk out of the theater.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
@Robert
Thanks for the info on the other two websites.
My point about Richard Pryor was that there was at least one voice present who might address how a term in the movie might be viewed as offensive and whether it should be used. In the movie “The Ringer” starring Johnny Knoxville, the cast and crew had direct dealings with the Special Olympics and several disability rights groups present to make sure the movie could be humorous and make light of several topics without becoming offensive.
I believe Patricia Bauer’s point (or, at least how I read it) was that if Dreamworks itself or the movie had people who could voice whether they viewed an ethnic joke that could be directed at them as deeply offensive, they at least had a voice in it, whether it was ignored or not. Based on the reactions that the agencies have had regarding the “retard” jokes would indicate that there was no consultation whatsoever to make sure they weren’t taking that joke too far.
And while the term “retard” as a verb does indeed have a non-offensive definition, the slang term that developed from the original is viewed by a culture as, to them, just as offensive as other slang is to other groups. I’m not going to get into the history, the culture, or other details, since this isn’t the forum for that, but the feelings are there.
I’m not calling for the utter banning of this one word simply because it can be used in a negative way to hurt people. You’re right, if that were to happen, a lot of words that aren’t simply used offensively would be pulled from the language. What I’m personally hoping is that more people would just be more aware of the fact that using the term could be taken to show that people simply don’t care. After all, it’s not just in this movie that the term is used, but a lot of PG-13 (and even some PG movies, sadly) use the term as an intended insult to another character.
This movie simply presented a big enough target for the groups involved to be able to target it and make the issue known.
I don’t assume that people are going to see this movie and immediately walk out and start calling people “retards.” But I do fear that there are enough movies out there that don’t do anything to dissuade those who already feel it’s okay to use it however they want.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
This is a good discussion. My personal creed is that I can say “retard” when teasing a normal person (whatever “normal” is), but I’d never never never do it to a mentally disabled person. That’s the truth.
By the same token, I don’t want anyone to tell me what I can or cannot write in a movie script. I don’t want to be hampered by wondering if what I just put on paper will hurt someone’s feelings. Harsh? Perhaps, but it’s honest.
If I write “A black man in a Burberry raincoat swaggers down 10th Avenue. You know he’s looking for trouble. It’s dark, but you can still see the bulge of his holster.” — Don’t tell me that I have to change black to African American. It’d totally destroy the rhythm.
That’s all I’m saying. No offense intended.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
And as a side note, when do you stop saying “African American?” I don’t call myself Half-Italian Half-German American. I don’t mind being called American. Or White. Or White American, I guess. Considering many blacks have been living in America for many, many generations, don’t they deserve to be able to drop the “African” part if they want?
It’d be great if the media and the lobbyists and the watchdogs stopped telling us what to say and how and just let us talk instead.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Well, I think it was a senator from New Jersey who described himself as a Gay-American. “Retarded” is in a gray area since there isn’t much middle ground between a term that’s viewed as offensive and the PCized term “Developmentally Disabled.”
However, the term a lot of people I know prefer to be called is just “a person with disabilities” since it puts the person first and the disability second.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
As a cognitievely impaired person,
I am very offended by this. I understand that it may be funny but for us it is another time we are insulted and mistreated. Whoever pays to see this film is supportive of a racist nation and it really needs to stop now. I really have no more patience for this blatant ignorance and i cannot believe we are actually discussing whether this is ok or not. It is wrong to get a laugh from others weaknesses.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
No one is talking censorship here. I think we’re talking sensitivity.
It’s a sensitivity issue about how people are being used or portrayed because of their disability instead of who they are as a person.
Maggie, you write a person who is mentally retarded into your script, you better damn make sure you know what you’re writing about because I’ll be all over your ass like a Jewish mother!!!
There. I had to get it out.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:10 am
@Elisabeth’s Mom
Forcing someone to “be sensitive” themselves is censorship. Its like the Comics Code Authority. We had 20 years of goofy comics that betrayed the original characters because people started pressuring the Comic Publishers to “be more responsible.” De facto censorship.
And I hope you can see the irony (hypocrisy?) of your statement. First, you claim to not want to censor someone, but then you threaten a writer (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press) about the content of her script? Secondly, you then either refer to yourself or compare yourself to a “Jewish mother,” somehow implying that a Jewish mother is rabid in some sort, or more aggressive than a regular mother. That could be insulting to both Jewish women and regular women - is a Jewish woman that aggressive? Are they all? Is that a generalization? Are non-Jewish mothers not aggressive? Don’t they care enough?
I’m not attempting to pick on you or be confrontational or anything along those lines, but do you see the irony here? You’re upset with others over their misrepresentation or generalization, but you yourself, in this instance, are quite probably misrepresenting and generalizing all Jewish mothers. If you yourself are a Jewish mother, does that make it ok? I would say No, you’re still generalizing an entire class of people.
Do you see why we should lighten up and let bygones be bygones? To each their own? Respectfully disagree? Take personal responsibility, let others make their own choices? Were do we draw the line? Surely you didn’t mean anything malicious by your comment, but if someone, anyone, can take it maliciously, doesn’t that make it wrong? Or should I just lighten up and choose to let it slide because I know you’re not intending harm and you’re most likely a very nice person, despite that comment?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:41 am
I’ll probably go into this in more detail when Neil takes a nap on Sunday and I write the Editor’s Blog before he can stop me, but the only thing I know for certain at this point is that the offended usually get to set the terms of what’s offensive. When a black person tells me they are offended by being called a ‘nigger’ and a cognitively impaired person tells me they are offended by being called a ‘retard,’ I don’t ask questions. In either case.
I also know that saying, “lighten up” is a pretty handy mantra to repeat when you’re not the person being offended.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:23 am
I’d also just like to apologize if I’ve upset anyone. It wasn’t my intention. I don’t think that any handicap affecting anyone is funny. I’m certain the film makers meant no harm, I spoke with Robert Downey Jr and Ben Stiller, neither is out to hurt anyone (other than perhaps the egos of Hollywood). I prefer to err on the side of freedom of expression, both when I agree and disagree with it. I understand completely the other side of this, and any argument of this kind. I also think that if something is not acceptable to you, the best way to send the message is simply by not giving them your money (in a capitalistic society).
The film makers made a choice with this film. Now the audience chooses to accept it and watch the film for its merits or to reject it and not pay to see the movie. Everyone has their own tastes and limits that we should all attempt to recognize, whether we agree or not, though I stress I do not support pressuring one view over another. Thanks for the spirited conversation and the calm attitudes prevailing.
Best wishes.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Thank you, Cole Abaius:
“When a black person tells me they are offended by being called a ‘nigger’ and a cognitively impaired person tells me they are offended by being called a ‘retard,’ I don’t ask questions. In either case.
I also know that saying, “lighten up” is a pretty handy mantra to repeat when you’re not the person being offended.”
It is not commonly known, but people with disabilities were the first to be targeted in Nazi Germany. Now that prenatal testing is recommended for all pregnant women in our country, eugenics and selective births are becoming commonplace. You may not see the harm in this, but if you or someone you love are in a car accident today and sustain a brain injury, you will not have a choice but to live in a society where “all men are created equal”…well, sometimes.
And don’t jump to claim that I’m saying that if you get a great laugh out of calling someone a retard, you are a Nazi. It is just that this is dehumanization.
It is wonderful that you don’t want your creative freedoms hampered in any way, but there is a context for the anger of those who are offended by what they have learned of this movie.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Neil, you are so wrong. First of all the movie is not parodying “mental illness”, it’s parodying intellectual disabilities. They have nothing to do with each other. The fact that you cannot even distinguish that calls into question your ability to form a proper argument against those who are offended.
I’m not a PC person and generally not offended easily. However, having a 19 month-old daughter with Down syndrome leaves me on the fence regarding the Simple Jack plot line. It’s not even the plot-line itself, it’s the dialog about “going retard”. The fact is, the term “retard” is as offensive as “nigger”. Period.
I think we all understand the the movie is making a point of the absurdity amongst actors in Hollywood. However, it wasn’t done in a particularly clever way. The mark of true comedic talent and cleverness is to offend people without them realizing they are being offended. THAT is what makes something really funny. This plot device is something from the mind of an ignorant grade-schooler and is pretty lame regardless of how offensive it is.
We all know that movies rating don’t mean squat. The theaters will be filled with under-17 kids watching this movie. There is little to no enforcement of ratings. I went to plenty of R-rated movies myself before I turned 17. To suggest that no one under 17 will see this without a parent and that kids aren’t going to see this movie won’t be making Simple Jack and “going retard” jokes at school is intellectually dishonest. Clearly, you don’t remember being a kid.
In this country, we have the right to offend and to be offended, then continue on with life. People are making their voices heard and the studio will do what they think they need to do.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I lightened up. Overnight, I turned blonde.
(Can’t remember whose line that originally was.)
August 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Robert, my point was that if anyone resorts to using a lazy ass stereotypes as a punchline, they better damn know what they’re writing about. Ben Stiller is funny. I love Jack Black, Fart jokes and all. Both he & Ben are a fricken genius when it comes to their craft.
My point is why is comedians, writers, and people who take liberty at creating characterizations of our children focus on their disability like it’s so damn funny? That’s not who they are. They are not their disability.
If Ben truly wanted to convey this point through comedy, why is he relying on “retard as a gag” for laughs?
About the sensitivity as censorship. I hope we don’t ever have to force people to be sensitive to other people’s disibilities. I don’t want people to be sensitive to disability. That was never the point.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
1) I don’t think it’s right to force a filmmaker or studio to change the contents of their film to suit the needs of ANY group. Freedom of speech is just that. If it hurts your feelings, sorry, but that’s the way life is sometimes. It’s hard for all of us in some way or another (and easier for some, whether disabled or not).
2) I don’t think that a Ben Stiller movie should be considered anything but “commentary” or “satire” (please note the quotes). It’s one thing to be a genuinely talented parodist like Mel Brooks. Then you can claim lofty goals like slamming Hollywood for exploiting the disabled to make a quick buck, but when you’re the guy who made “Meet the Fockers” I’m thinking you should probably apologize and shut the hell up (but don’t change the movie, just don’t pretend like you’re making “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”).
3) Of all the things activists get upset about, I’m thinking one of a thousand dumb-ass movies to come out of Hollywood this year is NOT one of them. Want to bitch about an something related to intellectual disability? How about Bush? We don’t let blind people drive cars, do we? How about getting this guy in the White House some help instead of being cruel and telling him he’d make a great leader?
But seriously, there are plenty of other, more worthy things to get upset about than insults to people who got the short end of the stick in life. If being made to feel like less than you are is the worst thing going on in your life, then you’re doing pretty well in my mind.
Hell, my people don’t have an advocacy group–there’s no Scottish/Irish/British-American Advocacy Group (SIBAAG) that can represent my interests in the media. Talk about unfair!!
August 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Heaven forbid we ask a film makeror writer or actor to be honast about the movie he or she is making whether it’s a comedy or tragedy. To be honast about the characterization of people and events. To be honest with themselves by admitting when they are wrong and not hide behind “freedom to be a jerk.”
August 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
What’’s insulting is DreamWorks “taking it out of context ” comment which means what?
“In context” the retard gag is okay as long you’re making fun of the perpetratos who are making fun of the people with the mental retardation label?
August 7th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
@ Elisbeth’s Mom, I understand being offended, voicing your opinion about being offended, and not supporting the offending film/book/store/website/etc. What I don’t understand is demanding (or expecting) that the offender apologize and/or alter their creation to avoid any possible insult to you. The list of things that people take offense at these days is endless, and if every writer or filmmaker took pains to avoid them all we’d have nothing but blank books and empty cinemas.
You say Stiller and friends should admit that they’re wrong. But they’re not wrong in attempting to entertain. Are the scenes in poor taste? Perhaps. Are they even funny? Maybe not. But are they wrong? No.
Bottom line, I’m just happy to see such a long and healthy comment thread that doesn’t involve those Twilighter retards.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I hope I’ve made it clear in my posts that I’m not fond of the term at all, but there is one basic thing that America has to keep in mind.
You’ve got the right to free speech. If you want to make a movie that has nothing but racial slurs in it, it’s your right to do so. However, with that right to make free speech means you also have to be prepared for the repercussions, because other people have the right to say that what you said upset them.
Freedom to say something doesn’t mean you get to dodge all consequences of saying it. Just ask Jesse Jackson who made the mistake of saying “Hymietown” when running for President.
People frequently forget that censorship means you simply aren’t, by law, allowed to say or write something. People coming to protest you saying something isn’t censorship. People asking you to take something you wrote out of whatever medium it’s going to become isn’t censorship. A business telling you to take something out of a book or movie that they get the final say on? Yes, they’re censoring it right there, but that’s because it’s THEIR product in the long run and they have an image to be concerned with.
Remember, a movie doesn’t HAVE to submit to the MPAA for rating. And if a movie is submitted and learns it’s going to be rated NC-17, it doesn’t HAVE to edit itself in order to get a lower/better rating. However, people will frequently think in terms of how to reach the greatest audience and make the most profit. The studio just has to decide what they want to do, who they want to risk offending, and where the compromise is. And complaining about something being censored and claiming it’s against American values doesn’t really reflect the situation.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
@Erik
Also keep in mind that you’re free to believe what you want without persecution. Is it really freedom of speech and freedom of assembly if every time you attempt to do whatever it is you believe/enjoy, someone confronts you about your activity?
As the saying goes, “Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” I’m all for people not going to see a movie, but attempting to stop others from seeing that movie for whatever reason is not something I agree with.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
When Stiller or anyone steps into that arena of disability labeling where the outcome reflects negatively on our family and friends, he immediately becomes part of the culture that has never allowed our children to be the children they have the right to be. Instead, they remain objects to be pitied, parodied, and worse yet, patronized.
So I think he owes a few kids out there an apology.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I’m not here to argue freedom of speech or censorship but as the parent of a mentally challenged child, I am here to say that my child deals with intolerance everyday. Intolerance starts somewhere. Bad parenting, vicious web sites, YouTube, movies, TV, blame it on what you want. It occurs everyday and everywhere. All we are saying is why would a legitimate and well respected company (Paramount Pictures) promote more of it through a site (simplejack.com) that’s targeted audience is the youth of today.
“You would never walk up to someone with a mental handicap and start saying inappropriate things, nor would you want to impress upon the youth of America that intolerance is acceptable on any level.”
You’re kidding right? How out of touch with reality are you? When was the last time you were on a elementary or middle school playground? My 7 year old deals with this on a daily basis. On day one of kindergarten a 6 year old yelled at my son and told him he had no business being at school because he was so stupid he couldn’t even read. His mother was mortified. It wasn’t in any of the teachings she was promoting in her home. And please tell me you don’t truly believe that teenagers can’t get into rated R movies without parents consent. Tell me you really don’t think the audience target isn’t young impressionable middle school and high school kids. And then tell me you really don’t think that when this movie is released on DVD that elementary school aged children will NEVER see it.
Someone had a good point on another site. You wouldn’t use the “N” word in this manner so why is it o.k. to use the “R” word. Are the mentally challenged somehow less deserving of our respect? Plain and simple, it offends no matter what context it is used. Shame on you all for trying to justify it.
Promote the movie, make more movies like it but don’t stand there on your soap box and try to convince me or anyone else that the use of the word in this particular movie won’t have a negative impact on the disabled community. Walk in my 7 year old’s shoes for one day and then argue your stance again.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
@Robert
Well, we have a clear definition of where your fist and my nose might end, but when it comes to the spoken or written word, it becomes much harder to clarify where one’s right to speech intrudes on someone else’s rights. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater even though you have the right to free speech, because of the harm it can cause others. A person can be held accountable for libel and slander, regardless of the first amendment.
And while nobody will get trampled and injured from someone yelling “retard!” in a crowd, there is still emotional damage to take into account. But nobody’s going to tell you to stop thinking anything you’re thinking or stop writing certain things in a private blog or journal which you WOULD get jailed for in other countries.
And yes, I belive it IS freedom of speech if you say something and someone else has the freedom to express a differing opinion or a dislike of what you said. They can’t STOP you from saying it, of course, but someone’s right to tell them to “chill out” is just as protected as their right to express the displeasure in the first place.
Remember, the right for people who want to assemble to protest a movie because they find something offensive is guaranteed under the exact same amendment as the right for that movie to have whatever offends people in it in the first place. It’s for this reason that the KKK was allowed to march in the town of Jasper after several white men dragged a black man to death behind a truck. If I could’ve, I would’ve marched in a protest against them, but I have to respect their right to assemble.
And in the end, it really does just come down to the production company to decide if they want to put out the movie and to the theater to decide if they want to show it, both of which come down to how to appeal to both the broadest audience and bring in the most money.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:36 am
My daughter has Down syndrome. I never was offended by the word “retarded” before and I actually used it on occasion. Now I feel like a total jerk for that. No one that is advocating for people with mental disabilities, including myself, over this movie are arguing that they don’t have a right to use the word. What we fear, deep in our souls, is that this movie is going to make it “ok” for more people to use this word as slang and in an inapropriate way. When you call a “normal” person “retarded”, it is just as offensive as calling a mentally handicapped person “retarded”. The issue is that the word is being used to make fun of, or categorize someone as stupid. That is what is wrong with the word when used in such context and how it is used in the movie. THAT is what the issue is. Not freedom of speech, not the word retard in and of itself, the fact that big name actors are making it ok. And lets not kid ourselves, kids under 18 will see the movie and don’t know the difference between a parody and true making fun. they will walk out of that theater and think it is ok to use that word the way it was used in the movie. That sets back the efforts of people like me, who advocate for acceptance for our children, back years. No one is asking you not to laugh at the parody, but just understand that it is hurtful to those of us who know and love someone who is being used for that humor. We are allowed to be upset, we are allowed to be offended. Just like you are allowed to laugh. Most of you who think it is funny, have no idea what it is like to be in our shoes, so please don’t act like you do. You could never understand unless it happens to you.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Rob Hunter…you are part of the problem. Here you are on a thread that is explaining to you why the word “retarded” or “retard” are offensive to us and hurt our children, but you use it. You are so classy.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
The same people who say the word retard is funny in the movie but they wouldn’t think of hurting someone with disabilities are the same people who will run out to get a “never go full retard” tee-shirt. Give me a break. What this movie has done is give people (and not just teenagers) another opportunity to hurt people with special needs. Just picture a person with Down Syndrome siting on a bench waiting for a bus. A group of teens drive by and now instead of just screaming out “retard”, they’ll have a few more choice words like “Simple Jack” or “full-retard.” So, what the big deal? The big deal is that unless you have walked in our shoes, you have no idea what it’s like. I’m not trying to protect my daughter from the cruelty she might face in the world. I’m just trying to give her the dignity she deserves.
The same people who are pro-life, are really only pro-life if the life resembles them. That’s what really kills me.
My husband screened the film last week. He came home heart-sick. While DreamWorks can say that they are an equal opportunity offender what he saw was very different. The movie is not an equal opportunity offender: The only other people who are made fun of are white, self-absorbed, Hollywood actors; hardly a class of people in need of protection.
I’m guessing that maybe if Ben’s Stiller’s daughter has an intellectual disability he never would have made this film. No one can tell me any different.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I too used to think nothing of the word “retard” until my pregnancy ended in a nightmare and my daughter was severely oxygen deprived at birth. She is severely impaired coginitively and phycially. There is NOTHING funny about the word retard. I find it so completely offensive now and am so embarrassed I ever used it. Unless you have a child or sibling or parent with a disability like that, no you DON’T GET IT, even though you think you do. May you never know how bad the word retard is on the most personal level possible.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
The medical diagnosis I received from the head of neurology on behalf of my daughter was “severely mentally retarded” so I use the word to help describe her medical condition to medical professionals but her “retardedness” is not who she is.
If Ben Stiller has a grudge against actors like Rosie O’Donnell who protrayed a person with a mental retardation label, then this is something he needed to address in a different format and certainly without using the characterization.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I am very disappointed about this movie and how it is depicting those with intellectual disabilities. My daughter is 14 and is mildly cognitively impaired otherwise known as mentally retarded. Now, with that said she is high enough functioning to realize that she is different from the other kids in her school but does not always understand why or how. This movie is not going to help in anyway.
We all know that underaged kids will get into this movie or parents will take them to see this and they have no idea that part of this is movie about people with developmental disabilities, not a positive reflection. Then they will go to school and make fun of this population of kids because they think that it funny. Most parents would not think to talk to their kids about this. If they did and they taught their kids respect then my child would not come home and tell me she was called a “retard” again. Unfortunally it takes groups like are ARC and all the other advocates out there to be their voice. If you had a child or a sibling with developmental disabilities you would feel the pain this causes and know how this effects more then just the person with the developemental disabilities. It hurts the parents, the siblings and any other person that has been touched by their lives.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I agree totally with “Mom to Ashley”. The people I work with are some of the most wonderful people in the world. The advocates MUST speak out for those who can’t, which in this case, is the people with disabilities - who are blatantly and painfully made fun of in this movie. Did anyone see “The Ringer”? That was a comedy, but portrayed in a way that it could be accepted by most everyone and helped people to see disabilities in a new light.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Mix a Howard Stern demographic with a film that while rated R, will inevitably be sold to TV, and a TV13 version likely is already cut. The mention of “Blazing Saddles” is apt, it was one of MANY blockbuster movies that came out during a similar period in history, the lousy early 1970’s. This movie, without viewing it, is most assuredly not ‘crafted’ by Stiller or Black, but a weak attempt to recapture the very people & period it mocks. Perhaps it tries to sway the public back to the
fertile blockbuster era with the ‘black-face’ humor, not unlike “Blazing Saddles”
This movie is most assuredly not a ‘vision’ of anyone person, and when it IS edited for TV, what is substituted will likely be worse, trying to ‘reconcile’ the material for ‘all’ to enjoy.
Lastly, Jerry Stiller is a genius, but Ben Stiller is not THAT great, neither is the audience, so what do you expect from a viewers mostly comprised of a generation of Family Guy & South Park followers?
There is no “bottom of the barrel” in the digital age, and the bottom line is still king.
besides–Nobody wants to use all that vietnam-era set dressing for serious films anymore, so they get it cheap for a comedy, then they’ll sell it off on eBay–
there is your likely ‘premise’. “Oh we’ll need a story….”
a hollywood formula: irresponsible=money
…it cost nothing to Paramount to post or pull down websites, relatively speaking.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Listen people, get with it and stop whining! Its a movie, its entertainment - if you don’t like it, don’t go see it.
Look at my name “Ronald Moore”. As soon as I tell people my name some people catch on right away, Ronald, your name is Ronald Moore, really? Then their faces usually turn red and they snicker, or hold it in until snot comes out of their noses. Think I don’t know what they’re thinking?
I was teased by other kids all through my life. Even the in the adult world, people changed Ron Moore around and made it Moore Ron - MORON! Hardy, har har!
Once a girl figured this moron stuff out right after we finished having sex in bed! I held it in and didn’t say anything, and on the next romp I got even. I entered her through her back door. “OUCH, not there!” “SORRY!” (now, who’s the MORON?) Come to think of it she was like a retard too. Maybe she was?
I used to get pissed off but after the years went by, I laughed at that MOORE-RON stuff myself! It IS pretty funny.
We had a kid in our neighborhood his name was Edward Hitzkowski - we knick-named him “Eddie Hit” which sounds a lot like “Idiot” if you say Eddie Hitt real fast (try it). So we called him IDIOT to get him mad. Was this guy a real idiot? He certainly was!!
LAUGHING! Its good for us!
There is no way around it, people DO and have always laughed at stupid people; the idiots, morons, mentals and yes, the RETARDS! Especially the retards - they are the most hilarious of all.
I mean, if you’ve ever been around a real retard you have to admit, they do and say some of the funniest shit - I nearly died laughing a few times because of one of them in my life when I was a little kid.
There was this retarded guy named “Alvin” who was around when I was about twelve, (he was in his thirties) and me and my friends would tell him stuff about the adults on the block who we didn’t like.
We knew exactly what retarded Alvin would do with the information he was spoon-fed by us.
On warm summer nights, he would sit there in his beach chair rocking away like, like, well - like a retard.
When certain people passed him on the street, he blurted out the stuff that we told him> He had a real annoying voice, but very funny, like he was talking through his nose. A really retarded sounding voice. There’s to other way to put it.
I can remember him saying things like;
“Hey Lilly, you’re such a fat pig your husband can’t fit in bed with you! He’s jerking off in the closet right now!” “Mr Ralphie sucks my cock when nobody’s looking - right Mr Ralphie?”
We taught him a song to the melody of Jingle Bells entitled, “Sniff my Farts”. We had a ball!
It was sad when Alvin and his parents died in a house fire in 1955. All of our fun went up in smoke!
His mother and father smoked and he would be fascinated by the matches and lighters. The Fire Marshall reported he burnt his house down after dropping a Zippo lighter on some newspapers in the basement in the middle of the night.
Poor Alvin was very funny. We loved him for it! It’s the funniest stuff ever and I’m still laughing, 65 years later! Ha ha!
Go out and have a fun evening tonight at the movies you old farts, and even you REAL mindless retards, who laugh at your own feet with your snotty nose dripping on them while beating off to Hanna Montanna - go see the movie, it looks so funny!
August 14th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I find it sadly amusing that this site has a disclaimer that states in part “No hate speech” Hate speech is exactly what they defended in their initial posting regarding Tropic Thunder. The definition of Hate Speech is “when a majority group freely makes jokes about a minority group including negative stereotypes and negative images, not just language. It is commonly seen as harmless by the majority, but sets the stage for more severe outlets for prejudice, harm and abuse”.
People in the disability community as at the beginning of the fight for respectful speech and many of the postings here clearly demonstrate the degree of work ahead.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I have not seen the movie, so I can’t say i personally know bout the level of
offensiveness. However, having been a brother of a developmentally disabled person
and heavily involved in Special Olympics my entire life (I am currently on the board of
directors for our state), I think it is worthy of note that Special Olympics is not just “an
advocacy group looking for something to be angry about” or simply “in it for the
publicity,” as a couple of people have been characterizing it as. In my 25 years with the
organization, I never recall any instance where they have put up any sort of hullaballoo
about a movie. I personally boycotted Johnny Knoxville’s “The Ringer” because I found
the premise offensive, while Special Olympics actually promoted the movie because it
shined a very possitive light on disabled persons. That being said, if for at least 25 years
this organization has stood by and done nothing, I have a feeling the uproar here is
because the conduct in the movie is trully deplorable, rather then Special Olympics being
simply reactionary. From what I have read, Dreamworks was looking to not only make
jokes, which are fine (I thought it worked and was hilarious without being offensive in
‘There’s Something About Mary’), but to actively market and capitalize on offending
mentally disabled people. Yes, Dreamworks may have also had Robert Downey Junior
playing a black man in black face, but they did not try to sell products and gain plublicity
by selling T-Shirts with a catch phrase directed specifically toward African Americans. I
think what upsets me most about Dreamworks, and which is indicative of our culture at
large, is that Dreamworks didn’t even think twice about this kind of marketing but never
would have dreamed of one directed at another group, even though those groups, unlike
the one at issue here, would be able to defend themselves. I think that is what makes all
the difference - it is not what you say, it is how and why you say it that makes it
offensive.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Plain and simple: YOU people need to get with it. This is NOT about political correctness, it’s NOT about whining. It’s about the day to day marginalization and discrimination of millions of people in this country who don’t deserve it!
The “R” word = the “N” word. This movie was made with input from every corner to be sure it WAS politically correct EXCEPT people with intellectual disabilities.
So you think it’s funny to make fun of people with disabilities? I sure hope you don’t ever have a child with an intellectual disability…then you won’t have to hear your child come home and when you ask why he’s not playing with the other kids hear him say because they said retards can’t play. That’s how it starts. Then by the time they get to high school, it’s out and out physical and verbal abuse and not just by the kids. I know older students verbally and physically abused by adults as well.
When you marginalized people, it’s the same as a stamp of approval on viewing them as subhuman and not worthy of respect.
The “R” word needs to GO.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:45 am
I am the father of a 7 year old beautiful girl with Down syndrome. I advocate for my child
every day, like it or not, and Tropic Thunder is a step backwards. I’m not typically a
reactionary person and I do believe that society in general has become obsessed with their
personal agendas. But, this is different. As many have said, take a walk in our shoes, the
view is much different.
Our family moved 5 blocks to another house in a different school this year because my
daughter was being verbally abused by teachers and aids, adults who can see R-rated
movies all by themselves. We were made aware of specific instances by compassionate,
brave students who informed us what the adults were doing.
I can’t believe in this day and age that this film could make it to the theaters through an
organization that you would expect to be socially responsible, not to mention the number
of well-educated adults writing and producing. Bottom line, Ben Stiller has won Nick
awards so the youth will be influenced no matter the filter.
I am amazed and disheartened by the paranoids who fear the loss of the word “retarded”
from their language. Buy a thesaurus and find some other derogatory term if you really
must. The classic “give an inch…” argument has no bearing here. We’re not trying to outlaw
semi-automatic weapons for hunting squirrels, that’s another blog. Just a demeaning,
discriminating, marginalizing word. Come on people. We can evolve past this. What is
wrong with people saying “I’m sorry that offends you, I’ll try not to use that word again” It
really is not giving up much.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The word “retarded” is a clinical term and should only be used as such. I read that someone might use the word when describing a “normal” person but would never use it to describe a disabled person. Wow. Don’t you realize by using the word at all, you are degrading disabled people? No, I’m sure you don’t. Try having to raise a child with a disability and prevent her from having to hear folks call her a “retard.” Not so nice, because when it’s said, it’s said with venom. Anyone who thinks it’s OK to use this word 50-60 time in a movie is really insensitive and uncaring.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:11 am
A wise person once said, “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me”. So, if some kid on the playground call you a retard, hit them with a big fucking stick. That’s sound advice.
Okay, so I come from the era before zero-tolerance policies when a little fisticuffs at school ended with forced handshake and a chuckle of “kids will be kids”, but the principal is the same. Coddling children, whether they have disabilities are not, does them no favors. Eventually, they’ll have to live in the real world, where the assholes fuck you seven different ways to Sunday while being perfectly polite about it. If they can’t stand up for themselves they’ll be crushed, it is as simple as that.
I certainly sympathize with all the parents posting here. If someone hurt my kids I’d go into divine retribution mode. But, what you’re not getting and seem to be willfully ignorant of is that this film is not hurting your kids.
Passing an egregious inability identify the malicious assholes and to differentiate them from people who happen to use a particular word in conversation does no service to your kids. Neither does passing on a uninquisitive naive superficiality that accepts media clips at face value without actually doing any research.
At least watch the movie before making rash judgments.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
first i have to say that Ronald Moore Jr. you are a moron, a true jerk who doesn’t know what hes talking about, im 17 and im alot more mature then you are. & it makes me sick that you used that poor man for you and your friends entertainment you are a jerk.
Im in my senior year of high school and i hear that word in all of my 6 classes and lunch some teachers say something about it, tell you not to use it in their classroom and then i also have had teachers and subs that will use it which is stupid because as a teacher you think they would have more respect then that.
And it is just a matter of respect, there is no respect for anyone anymore its sad what our world has truned into and it upsets me that my brother and cousin who both have down syndrome will never be accepted in society, they have taught me the most valuable thing in life and that is to care and treat others as you would want to be treated and I know for sure that everyone wants to be treated with respect.
Most of you who say its no big deal really just have no clue and should truly spend some one-on-one time with someone disabled and then you will see that they are no different they like the movies, they like sports, ect.. they really are no different and i hope someday people will learn that.
August 25th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I also forgot to mention that the ” ” above compareing it to Rain Man isnt a good comparison because Rain Man is based on the life of a Man
September 1st, 2008 at 2:36 am
or… you can snag a full retard shirt at fullretard.com