website tracking
Search The Big Picture
« Movie Review - 'The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2' | Main | QT Casting News: Eli Roth for 'Bastards,' Britney for 'Faster Pussycat'? »
Wednesday
06Aug2008

'Tropic Thunder' Spoof 'Simple Jack' Just Got Very Complicated

simplejack.jpgI don't have a whole lot of use for comedy that makes fun of the mentally disabled. I certainly don't consider it inspired or daring in any way. In fact, I kind of think of it as a very easy target that requires no great skill to hit. I don't use the word "retard" or say "That's so retarded," although I imply that same meaning using other words.

Am I some moralist? No, not really. I just don't find it funny. Ben Stiller, apparently, thinks it's fair game, and that's his business. In Tropic Thunder, his character, Tugg Speedman, is Hollywood's biggest action star, but when he wants to be taken seriously, he gets the title role in Simple Jack. Robert Downey Jr. plays award-winner Kirk Lazarus and tells Speedman the reason the character in Simple Jack didn't work was because you never go "full retard."

As an industry joke, that's very funny and probably even more accurate. But The New York Times is reporting that the American Association of People with Disabilities has organized a meeting between DreamWorks and over a dozen disabilities groups to discuss the portrayal of the mentally challenged in the film. “We want to be really plain about what our issues are with the movie,” says Anne Sommers, policy counsel for AAPD.

Publicly, Dreamworks says that the laugh is not at the expense of the character or mental retardation, but rather the motion picture community. That's exactly the way I feel. Here's one of the offending clips, incidentally. See what you think:

Behind the scenes, Dreamworks is not standing its ground, according to Cinema Blend, which reports that a website dedicated to Simple Jack has been taken offline and that references to the character on the Tropic Thunder website have also been removed. Of the Simple Jack site, DreamWorks mouthpiece Chip Sullivan said, ""We heard their concerns, and we understand that taken out of context, the site appeared to be insensitive to people with disabilities."

If you read the Cinema Blend piece by Josh Tyler, you'll see that he's very angry about this development, charging that AAPD and the other groups are trying to "ruin" and/or "destroy" Tropic Thunder. Funny that the guy who claims the AAPD has no sense of humor also really needs to lighten up. Also, if anyone would "ruin" the movie a week before it's released, it's DreamWorks. They'd be the ones to make edits and cave under pressure.

Groups like AAPD do exactly what they're supposed to do, namely, look out for the interests and depictions of the people it represents in the media. And, for the record, the Times makes no mention of them demanding changes to the film. Indeed, it says just the opposite: "Ms. Sommers said the groups, which include the National Down Syndrome Congress and the Special Olympics, had not yet formulated specific requests for DreamWorks."

Even though I'm not a fan of humor that goes after the mentally challenged, I'm on the filmmakers' side here. From what I've seen, in this grand Hollywood spoof, they're satirizing a concept within the motion picture community, and you've heard it before: If you want to win an Oscar, play someone with a mental or physical deficiency. So if DreamWorks does alter the film, shame on them. Not so much for editing it, but editing it when the pressure's on. Why not cut those things before you start production if they're so objectionable?

I doubt they'll actually cut up the film, but stranger things have happened. It's more likely that DreamWorks will argue that the audience that pays to see the film can make up their own minds, which is exactly the way the system should operate, and the studio will agree to remove Simple Jack from the marketing, which will reach tons of more people, anyway.

On another note, I'd like to refer back to Cinema Blend's article for a moment and Josh Tyler's complete misunderstanding of free speech. If a company decides, for any reason, to make an edit to a film, that is not a violation of the First Amendment. It wouldn't be censorship so much as cowardice in this instance, but let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Reader Comments (1)

Anyone else catch this Ben Stiller gem on youtube?

Heat Vision and Jack

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterLost Wilson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>