The Oscars and Disability

ABOUT US | SUBSCRIBE | LINKS | E-MAIL EDITOR | HOME

Ragged
Edge
EXTRA!

Disability and this year's Oscars
by Art Blaser

Awards ceremony's Kodak Theatre is not accessible, says the Western Law Center.

Russell Crowe as John Nash'

Mar.24, 2002 -- "A Beautiful Mind" has won the Academy Award for Best Picture. We've had lots of movies this year with disabled characters. Does Hollywood "get it" about disability, or not? I'm inclined to think Hollywood gets it a bit better than it used to. But the fact is, the movie medium simply doesn't handle complexity -- and in the case of disability, that can sometimes lead to problems.

Movies romanticize disability, and viewers watching them turn off all critical faculties. I think most viewers of Forrest Gump did this; so did viewers of Shine. Moviemakers intended this. It no doubt happens with a few Beautiful Mind viewers, but I don't think it was intended. It happened some with I Am Sam, but I don't think nearly as much as some critics forecast.

Sometimes directors try to create a "disabled person" with all of the heroic qualities they'd like to see in a real one -- viewers do this too, of course.. Next to people like David Helfgott in Shine and Forrest Gump, real disabled people are a disappointment; naturally people think they aren't trying hard enough.
A Beautiful Mind is still truer to life than Shine. Shine, although great entertainment, was truly simple.

So at the present time I seem to be thinking rationally again in the style that is characteristic of scientists. However this is not entirely a matter of joy as if someone returned from physical disability to good physical health. One aspect of this is that rationality of thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of his relation to the cosmos. For example, a non-Zoroastrian could think of Zarathustra as simply a madman who led millions of naive followers to adopt a cult of ritual fire worship. But without his "madness" Zarathustra would necessarily have been only another of the millions or billions of human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten.
--John Nash, from his autobiography.

Sylvia Nasar, who wrote the book on which the movie A Beautiful Mind is based, didn't really intend to offer an account of how society deals with schizophrenia, and we'll need to look elsewhere for it. Maybe someone can develop a book that seriously treats all of the issues -- and I hope someone will develop a movie that will play at art theatres that will fill in a lot of the detail missing from the movie. She does fill us in with at least some basics: that schizophrenia hasn't been a total party for John Nash; that it has brought with it some times that were not fun; that it was an integral part of him so that removing it or "treating" it always ran the risk of getting rid of the "real John Nash" in the process.

Movies, though, being simple by nature, present stereotypes: For moviegoers who aren't really familiar with schizophrenia, everybody with schizophrenia is then John Nash. Better that than Jim Carrey, I guess.

I enjoyed I Am Sam, too. But lots of critics hated it. I Am Sam asked them to take a great reach and their comments indicate that they were unwilling to take it. And critics will influence how the public perceives a movie

Some called it a "manipulative tearjerker." Roger Ebert blasted it. "Every device of the movie's art is designed to convince us Lucy must stay with Sam," he wrote, "but common sense makes it impossible to go the distance with the premise. You can't have heroes and villains when the wrong side is making the best sense".

Critics do influence how the public perceives a movie When I saw it a woman several rows behind me laughed every time Sam opened his mouth. I'm sure she'd react the same way to me. Reactions like hers are a common occurrence. An L.A. Times piece on people walking out of movies chose to use "I Am Sam" as their example.

But then, a lot of people said that it's the best movie they've ever seen -- Oprah said that. Still others are disappointed that everything isn't perfect.

Both I Am Sam and A Beautiful Mind are better-than-average movie fare. In a story like I Am Sam, as in a nonfiction case study like A Beautiful Mind, writers can make films or books mean just what they want them to mean. So can critics.

Entertainment gives us lots of things not to like, but where disabled people are concerned there's lots more to like than there used to be. It is nice when portrayals are glowing and favorable, but even better when they are realistic, and perceived that way by critics and audiences.

In popular entertainment, "disabled people" often means non-disabled people playing disabled people. Yet without the marquee value of non-disabled Sean Penn in a starring role, "I Am Sam" would not have attracted as wide an audience. Sam's friends were played by real disabled people, though. Their appearance was a valuable counter to the practice whereby non-disabled people exclusively will be cast in roles as disabled characters. Actors like Sean Penn would not claim that they know how a disabled person is supposed to behave, and that the input from someone who was disabled was priceless.

The arguments over I Am Sam may be more fascinating than the movie. Disabled people are consigned in popular perception to asexuality; but casting us as parents may even cause a greater discomfort. Katherine Onstad, of Toronto's National Post, wrote, "The sad truth of I Am Sam is that a severely retarded man is not capable of raising a child alone. Some of Sam's friends are played by actual actors with disabilities, grown men forced to spew sitcom punch lines, high-five each other and carry red balloons like toddlers; we're expected to see this band of nutty misfits as a suitable support system for a child."

Other commentators noted with sympathy the protections that the legal and political system provide; noting that disabled parents have been protected through the courts.

But none noted that A Beautiful Mind was about a parent with a disability, too: John Nash.

Movies encourage viewers to think simplistically, and my expectation would be that many viewers who would readily grant Sam full custody would deny any custodial rights to John Nash, largely because of his disability. Still, this is somewhat of an advance, because decades ago the custodial rights of neither would be considered. This might be a warranted conclusion in Nash's case too; but entertainment that makes us think should also preclude a rush to judgment.

Art Blaser is Professor of Political Science at Chapman University in Orange, California.

Back to home page


ABOUT US | SUBSCRIBE | LINKS | E-MAIL EDITOR | HOME

This Website produced by Cliffwood Organic Works