In society, the individuals who are labeled, “disabled,” are often times believed to fall into two categories, The Good Cripple , someone who’s depicted as, “quiet, patient, and never complain,” and the The Supercrip , whose attitude is “amazing and inspiring;” both of which are very misleading stereotypes. An education scholar, Thomas Hehir describes a devaluation of disabilities, “that 'results in societal attitudes that uncritically assert that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell independently than use a spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled kids as opposed to other disabled kids,” and society believes disabled individuals are “so brave” for being able “overcome” these situations like the archetypes portray. The 2005 documentary, Murderball, proves these stereotypes wrong, showing that they are very much able-bodied, maybe even more so than people who can walk, and are capable of the same emotions and actions as somebody who is able.
This documentary’s thesis is shown through the life stories of men who are quadriplegic, going through their everyday lives, accomplishing daily tasks, just like anybody else. When many people think of disabled people as not being capable of being independent, this film shows quadriplegics being able to drive to the grocery store, dancing, playing cards, and also being able to engage in sex. All of which defeat the whole stereotype of a disabled individual having to rely on others, when they are actually very much capable themselves.
Another stereotype this film tears apart is the thought that disabled individuals are fragile, and have very inspiring emotions because they have overcome such tragedy. This film shows a variation of emotions coming from the men that disprove that certain stereotype. The main character, Mark Zupan is a good example of this incorrect stereotype. He wasn’t afraid to let people know that he had a very strong and opinionated attitude. He often times made crude remarks to his opponents, would joke around with his friends, but his passion was shown with anything that he did, whether it be taunting the other team, or being enthusiastic about playing quad rugby. He exhibited the same sort of emotions that he would have if he wasn’t in a wheelchair.
Although I didn’t find anything in this film to be unconvincing, there was only one part of the film that was difficult for me to watch, and that was the relationship between Joe, the Canada coach, and his son. His son was more into academics than he was sports, and Joe expressed multiple times that he wished his son was more involved in sports. He had a very “tough love” outlook on his parenting style, but to me, it almost seemed as if he was too focused on sports, and since his son was capable of playing sports, that he should naturally be interested in them too, but he wasn’t. Towards the end, it showed him opening up more to what his son enjoyed doing, but his negative disposition was still visible.
One part of the film that really struck me as interesting was when it explained how the players were each rated on a scale of ability level. I thought it was interesting that even with the label of being “disabled” there was a range in which you were considered so. I would like to see how this scale would do on all types of people, if society was held to a scale to determine who is ideal and who isn’t, would their still be negative connotations on those who we believe to be “disabled?” I think society would realize that each individual is different, and although they aren’t the same as you or me, that they are strongly capable in their own ways.
Word Count:627
No comments:
Post a Comment