Movie review: Stevie
I rented the 2002 documentary Stevie (by the director of the acclaimed Hoop Dreams) based on the review by Flea over at One Good Thing. It's a heartbreaking, riveting trainwreck of a story that's not at all about disability, though disability is subtly present throughout the film in various ways. Here's one aspect that Flea picked out (but go, read the whole thing here):
I can't remember ever seeing a movie character as full of grace and class as Kim [actually named Trisha]. She was a total Grace Kelly, so full of poise and self-confidence, willing and able to speak her mind and vehemently disagree, but with such graciousness one could not be offended by what she presented as truth.
What really got me the most was Kim's masterful use of subtext during this entire scene. I played this scene endlessly on the dvd player, because it's not often you're in the presence of such a pro. Because here's the thing about Kim: she is very, very disabled. Can't walk, doesn't have good control of her hands and arms, speech slurred to the point of being unintelligible. All her dialogue was subtitled, or we'd have missed it. It's entirely possible Stevie missed most of it. What she didn't say was that whatever fate struck Kim that cost her the use of her body, that was a miniscule impediment to her marriage plans next to the damage done at the hands of her stepfather. Her disability wasn't even worth mentioning next to that. What she only implied was that even if she looked like Giselle, it wouldn't matter, because her ability to be intimate with a man was destroyed.
I've never seen anything put into perspective that clearly.
Stevie's life and relationships -- and the relationships of those close to him -- are intricately explored by the camera that follows them around. His girlfriend and the woman Flea describes both have disabilities, though the girlfriend's is less impairing. Rather than narrate anything about either woman's impairments, the documentary joins them in their lives and lets action and subtext provide the details. It's rare that real disabled people (women, at that!) are present on film without the content of the scene being all about their tragic disabled lives.
There is plenty of tragedy to go around though. Stevie's childhood was filled with abuse, abandonment and neglect. Even whatever special measures were taken to reach him in school left an indelible mark, which is eloquently, if violently, expressed in his vulnerability to ableist playground insults as an adult. Of his sister, the twentysomething Stevie says:
We have our differences. I was gonna knock her in the head out beside the garage because she called me "retarded." I was gonna knock her in the head with a claw hammer. You just -- some things you just don't say. And that's one of them things -- I just don't like that word.
The documentary isn't about Stevie's education or IQ -- he's obviously an intelligent, sensitive and deeply troubled man. But when most media, most films and entertaiment (Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, for example) still use "retarded" as a humorous insult without any apparent recognition of the history of oppression behind the epithet, it's noteworthy that this moment of Stevie's made it into the film. Such quiet representations of disability in the documentary make it unusual and worth a look, but the story as a whole is also haunting and powerful.



3 comments:
The question I'm always left with when I read about "retarded" being used as a pejorative is this: Can anything be done about it? Can we do anything about it? Do we think it's as bad as "nigger"? Could we make a list of "bad words" and if so, what all would be on that list? And again: what could we do about things once we had such a list?
Realizing that I can't speak for either black folks or the people historically oppressed by "retarded," I would say that, yes, it is as bad as "nigger." The historical oppression of the groups differ, but as for the words, they both hurt, other and demean. Anyone called either of these names is meant to be stained by association whether they are of the group or not. Isn't that enough?
While it's obvious to me that using "retarded" perjoratively is inexcusably bigoted -- and I'm amazed the general public doesn't "get" this -- I'm unclear what the preferred nonperjorative term should be. And I don't feel like it's my place to determine that. I can state with authority what my opinions are about the terms "disabled," "handicapped," "gimp," "crip," "cripple," "handicapable," etc., but I don't know whether "intellectually delayed," or "developmentally disabled" are preferred. I'm admittedly ignorant about the rationales for the various choices.
And I don't think people can really be expected to abandon one term (nonperjorative) without knowing what to use instead. And so long as the perjorative and nonperjorative in common use are virutally the same, how can you discourage one without changing the other? I'm left with questions, not answers, too.
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Is the word "retarded" offensive in and of itself or is it offensive because some people use it as a put down?
I believe historically people with less than "normal" IQ's were categorized as "idiots, morons, or imbeciles," as shocking as those terms are by today's standards. Now, "retarded" is the insensitive term that needs to be changed. If society adopts "developmentally disabled" as the new, correct term, how long will it be before that term is thrown around as an insult and becomes just as loaded a word as "retarded"?
I don't believe that it is the word itself that matters as much as the fact that it is considered an insult to be like someone who has a developmental disability.
Post a Comment