The Tropic Thunder publicity stunt boycott

I saw the movie last Thursday at a half-full screening and reading about the alleged protests was kinda shocking. Before I read it I assumed it was from people who'd only seen promotional material from the film, but as you said, if they saw the entire film and missed the point (kind of like people who said "Knocked Up" was an anti-abortion film), then well that's just...stupid.

End Credit SPOILER
RE: P.S.
Having seen the film, I can't imagine at all what you're refering to. If it's the "dance," then I disagree, and if it's the chemical brothers song with lines from the film, I also disagree. Assuming it's not those two, I'm interested to see what you had beef with...

Either these protesters are flexing their muscle to feel empowered and righteous, or they're just a bunch of full on retards.

I'm glad to see these kneejerkers being held up and ridiculed in film blogs and media as they very well should be.

I saw this same article in the Times and I thought, ok, its one thing not to get a joke and then be offended and maybe want to share that offended point of view with others by initaiting a free-speech affected boycott. BUT ... they actually want to inspire Congress to pass legislation to strike down such 'hate-speed' as is presented in the movie. Now, this kind of idiocy always stikes me as hypocritical and ignorant. How can you decry hate speech with your free-voice, and then ask for legislation to remove it from the community as well. Boggles the mind!

You are absolutely right. These groups should be more offended by movies like "Forrest Gump" or I Am Sam" that romanticize their characters instead of taking mental disabilities seriously.
Your, and Roger Ebert's, comments about the film make me want to see it even more.

I feel like this is (if not a publicity stunt) illustrative of how far removed these advocacy groups are from the pulse of entertainment media.

All comedy has been getting edgier and edgier for years; it's obvious, and it was inevitable. For a time there, using a hate word was unacceptable in every way, but in the last decade or so it's become at least partially accepted to use those words (and stereotypes) "ironically." And 'retard' is a word that gets used a lot.

If these people really never noticed it before, and are now truly falling all over themselves with shock and dismay, then they haven't been paying attention to either entertainment or kids.

But I can't condemn them completely; in fact, I can identify with them to a degree. My pet peeve, the thing that upsets me, is sexism, and when I see it in a film I feel betrayed because it's something that I can't help but to take personally. And frequently it appears in supposedly light comedies or action movies, and it isn't featured in the preview so it's just a nasty surprise when I get to the theater.

As far as I can tell, making broad generalities, most people take something personally--some of the toughest guys I've known could hardly sit through all of Hard Candy, or were infuriated by Catherine Breillat's Romance. And the amount of passive sexism, racism, weightism, and ageism in film is pretty much impossible to escape.

I think these groups that are upset about Tropic Thunder should be grateful that they got to see promotional materials that make it clear that this is a film that they personally won't like so that they can avoid it and get on with enjoying life.

You are absolutely right. These groups should be more offended by movies like "Forrest Gump" or I Am Sam" that romanticize their characters instead of taking mental disabilities seriously.
Your, and Roger Ebert's, comments about the film make me want to see it even more.

I find it pretty horrendous that the same people who get upset at James Dobson and others for threatening to boycott movies they haven't seen will gladly defend Tim Shriver for his article condemning Tropic Thunder, which, he admits, he hasn't seen. Clips and excerpts taken out of context are not the same thing as a film, and he should damn well know better.

Wow! And here I thought the Catholic League was a bunch of huge assholes without sense of humor (they are).
One of the oldest jokes in Hollywood is if you want to win an Oscar make a movie about the Holocaust or play a "retard". Are these people being deliberately dense?

I haven't seen the movie, don't know if I plan to, but just watching the clip, you don't see anything offensive about saying "you went full retard"? I understand the the whole critique of Hollywood and the concept of making fun of the people that take advantage of the exploitation of the mentally disabled. But, the idea here is that they're making fun of Ben Stiller by not being subtle in his acting right? By actually acting retarded, or "going full retard." I don't know, maybe I should see it and decide for myself. Sometimes these "critiques" are maybe a little too high brow and end up being interpreted from low brow sensibilities. Especially with Ben Stiller's target market.

Jeff: He's talking about the characters. Not only is Downey's character making fun of actors, he's making fun of Academy voters who give Oscars to actors playing these kinds of roles, and the strategies actors and their agents use to try to figure out which roles are most likely to garner awards, and... Well, there are many layers, all of which make this such a funny scene. The looks on Downey's face as he insults the clueless Stiller are hilarious, I think. His argument is that Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man" and Tom Hanks in "Forrest Gump" are not retarded characters, and that Stiller's mistake in making "Simple Jack" was that he went "full retard" and Oscar voters don't go for that.

Sadly, Jim, it's not a joke. With the insensitivity towards people with disabilities in Hollywood, it's not out of line to be worried about how people will view this film.

Considering how people with disabilities are frequently portrayed in pop culture and treated in society (I've spent my life growing up with someone with a disability and working with people with disabilities), it's frequently frustrating how Hollywood feels it's fine to have someone in a movie casually call a friend of theirs a "retard" or "doing something retarded."

With comedians on television, radio, and movies using what is viewed by many in the disability community as hate speech and even having major news sources describing the pulling of the Simple Jack movie trailer as "studio goes 'no retard,'" how are people who spend their time trying to make sure everyone gets equal treatment supposed to think?

To many people it might just be a movie making fun of people across the spectrum, but (and I'll admit this is based off other people talking about the screenings and viewings they had since I haven't seen it myself yet) based on what I've read it's a very unbalanced portrayal. On Patricia E. Bauer's website, someone who screened the movie listed the 'jokes' and who they were made towards.

I'll quote: "Number of repetitions of the word “retard” or its variations: At least 16 in the “full retard” scene alone, not counting the uses of words like “idiot,” “moron,” “moronical,” “imbecile,” “stupid,” “dumb” and “the dumbest M*****F***** that ever lived.” All are used to describe the character of Simple Jack..."

"In a conversation with his agent... ...Stiller’s Speedman talks about his plans to adopt a child. “At least you get to choose yours,” says the agent, looking sadly at a photograph of himself with a slack-faced teenaged boy who appears to have an intellectual disability. “I’m stuck with mine.”"

We know that a white actor disguised to be a black character isn't something Hollywood would casually do anymore (and the fact that there's an actual black actor in the movie who's upset by this simply reinforces this), but nowhere have I heard there being anything in the movie to show that there IS another side to the argument.

And when there's already talk of places like Cafepress getting ready to market "Never Go Full Retard" emblazoned on its merchandise, it leaves the impression there has to be something done to raise awareness, even if it's just to have parents who take their kids remind them "never repeat what they say to other people."

Those of us who are offended by the monstrous scene between Ben Stiller and Robert Downey, Jr. actually do get the point (but thanks for the patronizing explanation). The point isn't that no one meant any harm - the point is that harm was indeed done, to millions of defenseless children and their devoted parents. Now it is ok for everyone to use the phrase "Full Retard". In fact tee shirts are already available online that say, "Never go full retard". Perhaps you can give me some pithy advice as to what I should tell my darling, innocent, special needs daughter when she sees one of these tee shirts. would it be ok for me to wear a tee shirt that read "Never go full nigger"? I am sure you are not a bad person, but just because the use of the word doesn't bother you, and that you get the joke, doesn't make it any less hurtful. People need to consider the consequences of their actions, whatever their intentions may be.

One other thought I'd like to point out, having read a few other posts, is that yes, the film covers a broad spectrum, but take this into account: According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Stiller had the foresight to screen the movie with the NAACP for feedback but the studios stalled and delayed requests from disability advocacy groups to get to get a chance to view it beforehand.

The scene in Tropic Thunder reminded me of a simlar kind of discussion on Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant's show "Extras." The clip is here
(It's about 7:40 in.)

The protests also call to mind the protests of "Dogma" which were supposed to be huge, but ended up like this. I sort of have a feeling (given today's turn-out of a dozen people at a theater in California), that this will end up producing more articles about supposed boycotts and outrage than actual boycotts and outrage.

No, I get that they're talking about the characters. So, Dustin Hoffman's "Raymond" and "Forrest Gump" are not played in "full retard", but Stiller's character was. So, what's "full retard"? My assumption is that Stiller's character goes a little heavy on the "retard" angle right? Yeah, it's funny, but to say that's not at all offensive may be a stretch. I'm sure some context helps, but I do think I get the joke.

The idea that they're making fun of Hollywood's inability to handle a "truly retarded character" is an interesting way, and maybe a more correct way, to interpret the scene, but that's probably not how people will read the humor there.

No, I get that they're talking about the characters. So, Dustin Hoffman's "Raymond" and "Forrest Gump" are not played in "full retard", but Stiller's character was. So, what's "full retard"? My assumption is that Stiller's character goes a little heavy on the "retard" angle right? Yeah, it's funny, but to say that's not at all offensive may be a stretch. I'm sure some context helps, but I do think I get the joke.

The idea that they're making fun of Hollywood's inability to handle a "truly retarded character" is an interesting way, and maybe a more correct way, to interpret the scene, but that's probably not how people will read the humor there.

Erik: Everything you say is true, but I think it argues in favor of the satirical treatment those attitudes are given in "Tropic Thunder." Remember that only recently many of these groups that are protesting used the word "retardation" in their names and mission statements. What if these groups reclaimed the word "retard" the way gay and lesbians reclaimed "queer" -- defusing the power of the insult? When somebody says "retard" in "Tropic Thunder" it's no insult to the person being slapped with that label; the butt of the joke is the person saying it. You can't just remove the references from their context and say that represents what the movie is saying. Besides, I'm always skeptical of arguments (not that you're making one) that say: "Well, we understand, but they won't.

Also, did you see the comedy "Ringer," starring Johnny Knoxville as a guy who poses as a disabled athlete in order to win the Special Olympics? Sounds pretty offensive, doesn't it? It was made with the cooperation and oversight of the Special Olympics. The word "tard" is used.

Did I read this correctly? Did Sean Penn actually put his sanctimonious posturing on hold long enough to make a cameo in this film? I'm impressed. After reading his insufferable article in the latest Sight & Sound, in which he derides the intelligence of anyone who dares criticize Soderberg's new Che Guevara biopic, I assumed he'd permanently left the world of self-effacing mortals.

Someone should just tell these people that the right-wing "Christians" called, and they want their overreaction back.

Jim: It's a touchy subject of trying to defuse a term that's such a sore spot right now. I know that some words that used to be considered hate speech have been defused to where they've lost almost all the original cultural negativity (such as the term 'gypped' coming originally from gypsies), but others still have enough negative meaning that I'm still trying to mentally map out who is and isn't allowed to say them (it seems the 'okay to say' list consists entirely of people in that culture, nobody outside).

In my opinion, Tropic Thunder presented itself as such a large target it became easier for the agencies to focus on. It's certainly easier to pick on Tropic Thunder for tossing around the word "retarded" than the movie "Definately, Maybe" for using it.

Jim: Oh, and one more thing, I did see the movie "The Ringer". I personally enjoyed it a lot, but while the term "retard" and "tard" was used, it was also created with input from disability groups, the Special Olympics, and even the main character became a voice against the use of the term.

Having just read Roger Ebert's *** 1/2 review and watched the Comedy Central behind-the-scenes special on Ben Stiller's "Tropic Thunder" and have to say... this looks like another brilliantly un-PC laugh fest along the lines of David Gordon Green's "Pineapple Express" (which I saw in a packed midnight show). This sort of rambunctiously and cheerfully offensive material DOES have a place in society, and it appears to me that the previews are playing up the silly physical jokes and very little of the film's true content (if the behind the scenes special is to be trusted).

As far as people taking offense to liberal use of the word "retard" and derivations thereof: There will always be offensive words used to denegrate entire populations in this world, and there will always be people who find such usage acceptable and/or funny. "Gay" was a commonly used term (alongside "retarded") for things that people didn't like when I went to high school about 10 years ago, and this is still a term used often enough among the people I sit around on public buses and/or overhear walking down the street. People from the south have similar issues with terms like "redneck" (though some are proudly self-aware of their status as such). It's a shame, but it's not illegal.

The purpose of this movie appears to be making fun of Hollywood in the most extreme (and I hate the oversaturation of using that word) and broad possible way, and as such it looks oddly both over-the-top AND spot-on. If what I've heard/seen is true, it looks entertaining.

I'm sorry for the people who take offense to perceived insults to their specific demographic, and I'm sorry that they feel it's necessary to boycott a simple film entertainment in order to make their point (it is, however, their right). Whatever. I look forward to seeing what Stiller, Downey, etc. have done.

I think it's sad that they're giving them the power of offense instead of just looking the other way, ignoring it, thus giving them even more publicity.

It's sad that people can't just take a joke anymore.

To believe that this sort of boycott is likely to be a publicity stunt on the part of the studio is, I am afraid, to severely underestimate the level of stupidity (retardation?) of those who make it their business to be offended by these sorts of things. It's a never-ending cycle: people with too much time on their hands and not nearly enough intellect to work with hears that a movie uses a few words they don't like and before long people are calling for a boycott.

Besides being about as intellectually evolved as the old-school fans of X-men comics that called for a boycott of the first X-men movie when they learned that Wolverine wouldn't be wearing his signature yellow spandex, it's also intellectually dishonest. The people calling for this boycott aren't doing so because they find the ideas expressed in the movie offensive, they're simply objecting to the way in which the idea is presented. Were the idea of the "never go full retard" scene presented without the abundance of the language these people seem to find so offensive, I doubt anyone would have made a peep.

Besides, when it comes to ironic self-protest, Kevin Smith's attendance at a protest of "Dogma" in his hometown will simply never be outdone. His retelling of the story is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Eric: Great point. When I was in grade school and junior high (no "middle schools" in Seattle at that time), the worst thing you could call somebody was a "woman." As in: "What a woman!" The word "gay" was not used as I recall (and if it had been, we wouldn't have known what it meant), but I think I remember hearing "fag." Again, we didn't know it was a derogator term for "homosexual." Many of us didn't know what a homosexual was. It was just a generic insult, like "dork." It's interesting that, if you go back and look at a lot of movies of the '60s and '70s -- even counter-culture movies about peace and love and understanding -- you'll see that while it wasn't OK to be racist (against blacks -- other races were pretty much fair game), the treatment of women and gays as objects of ridicule, disgust and inferiority was widely accepted among the supposedly "hip" youngsters of the day.

If only we had banned the use of the word "woman," the world would be a better place, right?

But seriously, folks, although I do think we have to draw the line somewhere in order to avoid giving unintentional (or intentional) offense, I don't see how the use of a word, even in a movie, is automatically offensive. It depends on how the movie uses it. Should movies like "Rain Man," "Forrest Gump," "I Am Sam," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" be protested as offensive because they offer patronizing portrayals of the mentally ill or intellectually disabled? You could easily make that argument, and you're free to.

My hope is that more disabled people will speak up and explain why they don't think "Tropic Thunder" is offensive -- and, in fact, is a critique of the word "retard," among other things. It's not like disabled people are a monolithic group. There's plenty of room for discussion and disagreement. And that's a real good thing.

Greg: I meant that in a satirical way, in order to point out that the "controversy" is just giving the more publicity and the boycotters are making themselves look ridiculous. Your "Dogma" example is perfect.

I've commented a few times before, but I guess there's just one more thing I'd like to say. I honestly do understand the joke that they were trying to do in this movie. Seriously, I do. I understand that in Hollywood it's apparently the big joke that if you play someone with a disability, you're more likely to be nominated for an academy award.

The issue isn't that at all, however. Nor is it how people with disabilities are represented in movies. The issue, from what I'm reading, is the execution of the joke. I have spent years witnessing children being called "retards" for not being the smartest, people with any sort of disability being called "retarded" out of ignorance and simple spite.

When the movie "Napoleon Dynamite" came out, one of the first products I saw was a little toy marketed to kids that could be clipped to a keychain that would say his catchphrases, including "you guys are retarded." I just had a mental image of children at an elementary school with one of those playing that line towards students with Down Syndrome, Austism, or even cerebral palsy.

Imagine it had been reversed. If they had been saying "never go full nigger" to Robert Downey, Jr.'s character would we be having this conversation? Then add in further racial slurs that the character felt he "actually was" and had to remind himself to "restart" out of. Would there be pages of people saying the NAACP would be overreacting if they protested?

The term "retard" might not be directly aimed to hurt people with disabilities, but even when said in jest people know who it's referring to.

>Should movies like "Rain Man," "Forrest Gump," "I Am Sam," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" be protested as offensive because they offer patronizing portrayals of the mentally ill or intellectually disabled?

Definately not protested, but given just as much critical attention for their content as "Tropic Thunder"? Sure. Like you said, there's nothing wrong with debating perceived offensiveness. As for the boycott, sure it might raise revenues for this particular movie which seems to run counter to their intent, but they at least might be calling attention to a cause they think is being ignored.

Jim,
You say, "I'm going to leave the question open on "'I Am Sam'" because I've only seen the trailer, which was excruciating -- and, I assume, unintentionally ludicrous."

I Am Sam is every bit as ludicrous as its trailer unintentionally seemed. It belongs in a whole other category of insultingly disastrous filmmaking. Sean Penn's performance in that movie should be a text book example of what actors should avoid. Forest Gump is not guilty of these pretentions. (even if it was it had much more to offer than I Am Sam.)

Speaking of only seeing trailers, I have only seen the trailer for Tropic Thunder and I have to admit that it also seemed perhaps "unintentionally ludicrous." I thought the movie was another one of those terrible "Scary Movie" style parodies that feel the need to parody every type of genre, even though they get less funny and less funny as each new one is made. This seemed to be "War Movie." If that was the case then I would not go see it. But after reading Roger's review and your post here, I'm getting the impression that Tropic Thunder is a much better movie than the trailers made it seem. Is this a correct assessment? Is it good satire? Average Parody? Worth seeing?

Jeff: I'm just sayin' -- this target is ill-chosen. And there's already a backlash against these groups because of it, which I don't believe is the kind of attention they want to get.

Might catch "Tropic Thunder" tomorrow (it almost feels weird at this point to go watch a comedy that Judd Apatow had nothing to do with). But in the meantime, the discussion of the word "retard" brought to mind this feature Roger Ebert wrote last year, after visiting the actor Ian Michael Smith (of "Simon Birch" fame). Of particular interest:

"I prefer dwarf," Ian said. "I think Little Person is generally accepted."

Steve [his father] said: "We go to the Little People of America convention. I freely use the words 'dwarf' and 'little person,' and they are always accepting of those terms. The term 'midget' would be a term to stay away from. No matter how much I look into it, I can't figure out why they picked that one to dislike."

There was a dialogue on my web site, I said, initiated by a dwarf actor named Daniel Woodburn, who explained a lot of things. He said "midget" was coined by P.T. Barnum to describe Tom Thumb.

"Yeah," Ian said. "I read that. I think in the end it's not about where it comes from. You use the terms that are accepted because that's the way to communicate with people without having anyone get bent out of shape."

It fascinates me when words take on and maintain meanings long after most people remember where they originated from -- it's as if they take on lives on their own, and become defined by their own notoriety. But if you ask me, it's not always a bad thing to get people a little bent out of shape -- not if you know what you're doing, anyway (see: this whole "Tropic Thunder" brouhaha as a great example). I'm reminded of one of my all-time favorite quotes:

"It's impossible to do something cool without outraging someone. In fact, I usually judge how cool I'm being by how many angry people are following me with signs." --Seanbaby (link not necessarily SFW).

Kris--

Interesting point about the word "midget"--especially as it relates to the word's use in In Bruges. Again you have a character (the "hero", even) using a oft-offensive word to describe a group of people, but the film managed to avoid controversy. Perhaps because little people understood that the character wasn't intended to be a Randian hero that exists purely to set forth the moral guidelines of the writers.

Kris: Right on. I was thinking of that Ian Michael Smith piece, too -- while I was watching the movie and when I was writing about it. I think the people who made "Tropic Thunder" (co-written by Ben Stiller and Justin Theroux, the actor familiar from David Lynch films, and Etan Cohen -- not Ethan Coen) expected some heat from Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of a white actor who insists on playing a black character. That's no doubt why they released a still of Downey in makeup months ago, to get people used to the idea. Again, the actor-in-the-movie is made fun of for his presumptions of what it's like to "be black," but the movie is not endorsing the behavior of the character -- it's satirizing it.

The "Simple Jack" parody is so clearly a joke about actors taking stunt-roles to get awards that they probably didn't see this one coming. And why should they have? They even screened it for disabled rights groups. But you're right -- it doesn't hurt to stir the pot, especially when the people who are criticizing you are making themselves look so ridiculous in the bargain.

BTW, there is an Apatow connection here: Jay Baruchel is one of the stars!

My favorite example of not getting it is on my worn-out VHS copy of "Bad Lieutenant" with the original Schooly-D soundtrack. Before the film begins there is an anti-drug PSA that shows the effect of chronic drug use on the brain. I guess if they didn't have that, all the kids out there would try to be cool like Harvey. The movie itself is practically an anti-drug PSA. Not to mention that it was NC-17 so you don't really need to think of the children. But some advocacy group out there got the studio to put an anti-drug PSA on the tape.

Just like the recent hubbub about how kids were going to emulate super-stud William Hurt who smokes cigars in the new Hulk movie.

Incidentally, do you know the derivation of the word "retarded"? Some 19th century scientist looked at those with Down's Syndrome and thought they looked a little Mongolian. Then he wondered if people with learning difficulties were perhaps genetic throwbacks to "less evolved" races. Studying the field, he thought he could determine that some had "negroid" qualities too. This well-meaning chap put forward a totally false theory that learning difficulties were caused by people being "retarded" back down the evolutionary ladder to the level of an inferior, less evolved race.

So regardless of the rights or wrongs of the use in the film, I think it'll be a while before this word is "reclaimed".

D Cairns--

I'm not 100% sure I buy your origin--not to say you're lying, but as I don't know your source (and can't find one easily via google), I'm skeptical, if only because that origin doesn't actually make sense given the literal definition of the word "retarded". That is to say, "retarded" does not mean "reversed" or have any other atavistic implications, it literally means "slowed down" or "delayed." It just seems, intuitively, much more likely that it stems from the idea that the sufferer's mental development was slowed or delayed.

Regardless, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities was the American Association on Mental Retardation until 2006 (and changed it less out of PC-ness and more out of inclusiveness), and the term "mental retardation" is still a widely used term for the general condition of having significantly below-average cognitive abilities.

I'm aware that as times change new ideas of what's acceptable take over ("black" becoming more acceptable than "colored" in the 60s and 70s, for instance, or "handicapped" taking the place of "crippled"). After all, we don't use the terms "cretin", "idiot", or "imbecile" to refer to intellectually disabled people anymore, largely because those words (like "retarded") have been co-opted as insults. But I think we should cut people a little slack if they happen to be behind on this week's version of "what's PC". Yes, it's a good thing to avoid offending people, but it's also unnecessary to get bent out of shape when people happen to use an outdated word with no offense intended.

Has anyone considered the possibility those protesting DO understand the satire but simply don't like the idea of Tropic Thunder skewering films they deem to be "positive"?

I would imagine some of those sloppy wet kisses to the disabled Hollywood produces must have an impact on the funding these organizations get and here's this film attacking that...

Sean: I did wonder if they would have felt the same way about "The Ringer" if the Special Olympics hadn't consulted from the start and then bestowed its blessing. I'd love it if you're right.

In response to a couple other questions, above:

1) No, "Tropic Thunder" is not a "Scary Movie"-type parody of war movies. I like Roger's comparison to "Hearts of Darkness." It's about the people who are trying to make an epic war movie. There are references to Vietnam war films like "The Deer Hunter," "Platoon" and "Apocalypse, Now," but that's not the focus of the satire.

2) Yes, the mistake I was referring to is the dance. It worked earlier in the film, but the second time it just reinforced my problem with that particular actor -- which is that he has to overdo everything he does. I was impressed with him up until that point, when I felt his own narcissism eclipsed his character's.

Lon: I apologize for not finding your comment until just now. It went into the spam filter and I just discovered it. "Tropic Thunder" is an R-rated movie, not for kids, but t-shirts (not endorsed by the makers of the film) are something else. The comment makes sense in the context of the movie where it mocks the characters for their callousness, but not on a t-shirt.

On a t-shirt, it's out of context and kind of misses the point, and it's the fault of the person wearing the shirt, not the movie.

But you know, my sister gets that kind of humor. She reads a book a week and, in spite of her learning disability, is smarter than most people I know just because she's not as intellectually lazy as most people. It's actually incredibly offensive to assume that people with learning disabilities won't understand irony.

Oh, I remembered a bit more about that old-timey science theory which explains where the concept of "retardation" comes from. You raise a very valid point when you say that the word means "held back in progress".

Remember that it used to be believed that the foetus went through all the stages of evolution in its development from single cell to full-grown baby. The idea of the amphibian stage is actually the premise for the giant frog movie The Maze, directed by William Cameron menzies in 3D. Well, this scientist thought that people with learning difficulties had been retarded in their development to full caucasian status.

Appalling, I know, but he meant well. He was sincerely trying to understand. He failed. Too many people nowadays who cheerfully use the word are not trying to understand anything.

Jim, I'm assuming the "big mistake" you're talking about is to credit the actors playing the agent and the studio head (although if I'm wrong I'd love to know what I missed). I didn't see it as a big deal; their roles were both much bigger than I thought they'd be, certainly enough to be billed as actual supporting stars. But does crediting them ruin the whole appeal of cameos? Nah. Still hilarious.

Sean: Interesting notion about these people "understanding the satire" and merely taking offense at the treatment of films they deem to be positively portraying their particular community.

The thing of it is that these kinds of protests happen AUTHENTICALLY so often, that I find it hard to believe that this is a mere publicity stunt, and their indignation appears genuine. That's all the more bothersome to me as a "Hollywood-lefty-liberal-Communist-let's all hug and kiss each other" type (as Stephen Colbert has classified it - :) )...

We live in a world, unfortunately, where those who feel they are holier than thou are CONSTANTLY feeling compelled to display such feelings publicly by denouncing at the top of their lungs what you would advocate at the top of yours. Such is the nature of a democracy, where free speech protects public outrage and peaceful displays of those emotions. What people like that forget is that it also protects the right to produce such "offensive, outrageous" entertainments for a hypothetical audience to love or reject as they see fit in the first place. Shout down your opponent and the loudest argument wins (never mind merit, or opinion, or anything w/ relevance). It's those who protest such things as "Tropic Thunder" who are consistently making their loud arguments against, and the only means of protest to their protest is to show up anyway, see what it's about, let the film make its money back, and then monitor the public's reaction: outcry, anger, entertainment?

Because we live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, those of us who want to see the film and choose to either be offended or not will do so. Because of this very same reason, they have the right to spew self-righteous indignation and outrage over a silly, goofy COMEDY. This land is your land, this land is my land...

"White boys always get the Oscar. It's a known fact. Did I ever get a nomination? No! You know why? Cause I hadn't played any of them slave roles, and get my ass whipped. That's how you get the nomination. A black dude who plays a slave that gets his ass whipped gets the nomination, a white guy who plays an idiot gets the Oscar. That's what I need, I need to play a retarded slave, then I'll get the Oscar."

- Bowfinger (1999)

The cure for ignorance and prejudice is information. People can educate themselves about autism by listening to the free Midnight In Chicago audio podcasts at www.mic.mypodcast.com. By understanding what autism is and how it works, they will be less likely to call people with autism and other differences "retards" and be more likely to respect them.

"Sydney Pollack's "Tootsie" was blatant misogynist propaganda"

Well, you know it was.

"South Park" did a version of "The Ringer" but I don't remember any protests. "The Office" had a character say "You don't call someone a retard if they're retarded; you call them a retard if they are acting retarded." Again, no boycotts, no protests.

And as for Cafe Press... I can open my own store and make my own T-shirts, so I very much doubt the "Full Retard" shirts have anything to do with anyone associated with the film.

Each of you that posted against groups against this movie...I hope you never have a mentally challenge child .Remember one out of every five children are born with autism.One does not have to be born mentally challenged to become that.How about the child that is hit buy a car and will never be pass an three year old, or the child that was in an car accident, the young motor cycles...I could go on and on. I have an daughter born Down Syndrome, once someone ask her what she wanted to be ,her answer ,"Happy",then asked what she didn't want to be ,her answer "I never want to be normal ,because normal means beings mean ,saying mean things.....you have proven her right.

>"Gay" was a commonly used term (alongside "retarded") for things that people didn't like when I went to high school about 10 years ago

Surprise! "Gay" is dropped casually in this video as "a thing a kid doesn't like". The context? A "Tropic Thunder" interview!:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=179236&title=ben-stiller

Trish, I'm sorry but I have to speak up. I'm really, truly sorry about your daughter and I sincerely hope she is happy. I know I will never understand what you, your family, and your daughter must live with, and I understand that. You are probably a stronger person than I, I fully admit. However, there is one thing you have to understand, because I don't want you to harbor unnecessary rancor: Tropic Thunder in no way or form makes fun of your daughter or her disability. The film makes fun of a very specific, entirely Hollywood ignorance that is cynical, exploitative, and offensive. Instead of depicting the hardship and adversity that the mentally handicapped live with, as well as the courageous perseverance that they exude, Hollywood produces exploitative garbage (like I Am Sam) or ludicrous fantasy (such as Forest Gump), or, worse yet, a movie playing the disabled for laughs in the guise of educating us (The Ringer). When thought about like that, Tropic Thunder seems the least offensive to me because it exploits the mentally disabled in no way, merely laughing at the entertainment industry that seems to think it's ok to be dishonest in order to make us feel good, or win an Oscar. Tropic Thunder is merely blunt and honest, using language that is probably uttered behind the scenes by many Hollywood types, and must therefore be shown as the reprehensible outrage that it is, in the easily swallowed form of a very broad comedy.

I'm not out to censor the use of mental handicaps in movies. As I am reading this blog, movies like "Rain Main," "Forrest Gump," and "Being There," deal with characters with mental disabilities, but they are played as human beings. To my knowledge, "Tropic Thunder" is just being mean to those with mental handicaps and that is a sin. Having a learning disability, I should know. Too many vulnerable, innocent people get made fun of every day by mean, ignorant people who take their typical lives for granted. That just shouldn't be.

Jill--

Your knowledge is limited. You probably shouldn't draw conclusions until you see the film. I have, and it doesn't actually make fun of mentally disabled people at all.

I completely agree that the ending credits sequence was a big mistake by the filmmakers, or perhaps an over-estimation of the comedy value of seeing that particular performer doing that particular thing. I actually found it a little disturbing and I cant quite place my finger on why. I would have to say I think, structurally speaking that Tropic Thunder marks a big step forward in directing for Ben Stiller. He side-steps alot of unnecessary set-up with trailers, not just the jewels in the beginning of the movie but the trailer for the actual film, and then throws us into the good stuff. A similar kind of exuberance that can be found in Day for Night, not on the same level of course but just that feeling of the dance has already started and here we are catching up and going along with everything. Its the kind of breezy filmmaking I like to see in my comedies since it shows a confidence in the performers and does away with a lot of unnecessary plot machinations...even though there was some in the film at least it didn't bog itself down in the beginning.

I'm growing a little tired of the hypersenstive posters who think that identifying themselves as someone who "has a mentally challenged relative or friend" gives them some special qualification to decide what the rest of us should be exposed to in popular culture. I once had a sight impaired dog. Do you see me picketing outside of housewares stores that sell "ventian blinds"? Hell no. That's because I'm not a hypersenstive jerkoff who thinks that my own personal mores give me the right to put on my thought police badge and pester people who are *gasp* smart enough to get the world's most obvious joke.
Get over yourselves and leave the rest of us alone so we can enjoy a damn movie once in a while, will you?

I realize I'm several days late with this comment...but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it to date.

Timothy Shriver, the CEO of the Special Olympics, is not stupid. He understands the context of the movie completely - he knows the movie mocks the Hollywood Establishment's treatment of the intellectually challenged. But he also knows that only big, bold proclamations get press coverage, and he's found his wagon in "Tropic Thunder."

Will people attack him for being a dense enemy of expression? Absolutely. Will they rally behind the movie? Sure. Will they bring out the snark as they dismiss him for missing the point? Absolutely. He's willing to take that hit.

Why? Because he sees "Tropic Thunder" as a tremendous opportunity to enhance the stigma of the word "retard." He knows that many, many people see no harm in tossing it off as a casual insult, and he wants this to stop. The more muck he stirs, the more people will have to deal with the word as a true pejorative, not just a friendly put-down.

It's opportunistic and sneaky, which is a shame - the Special Olympics, most would argue, is an absolutely worthwhile entity, and it doesn't deserve to be a pawn in his socio-political game. But you can't deny the impact of his action. By being the bad guy, most people won't be able to look at the word "retard" again.

Impact Shmimpact! Some douche like Shriver seeking publicity won't stop me from saying that word. If anything, this incident (along with 95% of the things in film that ultra-sensitive, censorship-promoting PC morons protest) reminds me how much I LOOOOOATHE political correctness.

And FTR, I have Asperger's Syndrome (a form of autism), so I know what it's like to live with a disability. Maybe not as crippling as other forms of autism, but, trust me, it IS a serious disability. Doesn't hurt my sense of humor in anyway, though.

Anyone who doesn't understand that that scene is a blatant (quite obvious) attack on Hollywood and Oscar standards gets no sympathy or consideration from me. Makes no difference if they have mentally handicapped kids or not. Obvious is obvious.

The movie isn't supposed to be non-offensive or pc. It's an R-rated comedy. If you are offended by it, the joke's on you. The "full-retard" scene is not making fun of retarded people, as explained in post after post. However, I don't think the filmmakers were particularily worried if the word "retard" offended people. So those of you who say, "I get the joke, but it's still offensive," STILL don't get it. Who cares if it's offensive? The movie is kind of supposed to be offensive. If you want non-offensive watch Teletubbies or something -- oops, wait, that offends homophobes because of the purple one with the purse! If you don't want to be offended, then stop watching movies, tv, reading, surfing the web, etc. You're bound to find something that offends you. To be offended by a comedy is, what's that word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, retarded.

As Jim and another poster mentioned, words go in and out of style -- as both politically correct terms and as insults. I remember "gay" and "retarded" both used when I was growing up. Gay didn't mean "homosexual" and retarded didn't mean "mentally disabled". They were just words. "Man, I have math homework tonight, that's retarded." "That's real gay that she gave you detention tonight."

Lon: Can your developmentally disabled daughter read? Then she's not a "full retard" and has nothing to be offended about. If she can't read, then don't read her the "full retard" shirts and she'll never know. Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought that mentally challenged people (or whatever is proper to call them) are happier than the rest of us because they can't or don't let things get to them. And I really don't have anything against them. It's the stupid people who don't actually have a disability that I don't like. I think that, in general, people go out of their way to be nice to mentally handicapped people, and wouldn't intentionally, to their face, make fun of them or be mean to them.

Jill: Hey, the right-wing Christians and the righteous pc people are both represented by you. Way to go!

LilDavey: Agreed.

Jim: The dance at the end was the worst part of the movie. That was taking things too far. Should we protest it?

Ben Stiller has a track record of doing anything for a laugh