Parker’s Perspective: “Derek”, Tolerance, and Depictions Of Developmental Disability in Media To hear some pundits tell it, political correctness (or PC) threatens our very democracy and poisons honest discourse. Yet, it would be farcical to deny that the PC movement is without any successes. It was not so long ago that people casually spread hateful, venomous pejoratives in their routine conversations. From the early 20th century forward, activists and academics pioneered reform geared toward anti-discrimination and inclusivity. In response, the movement’s detractors derided the effort as being principally concerned with words over action; they contended the political left was policing speech at too great a cost. While acknowledging the inclusive movement’s successes, I also believe the line between avoiding offense and restricting freedoms of thought, art, and expression is quite thin. I began thinking about this topic after finishing the first series of “Derek” written by, directed by, and starring British comedian Ricky Gervais. The titular Derek works at an assisted living facility along with his friends. Derek most likely suffers from an unidentified intellectual disability – at one point a particularly mean-spirited councilman questions if he has been tested for autism – yet, the character is portrayed as the series hero. Derek may be quirky and a tad obsessive with his interests, but he is also personable, kind, optimistic, and caring. Over the seven-episode run of the first season on Netflix, I fell in love with “Derek” and its eponymous protagonist. Imagine then my surprise when I searched for reviews of the show and found tremendous vitriol for Gervais’ portrayal of Derek. Many critics and viewers alike contended the character of Derek was offensive and inappropriate. Had I overlooked some cruelty within the show’s writing? Within what parameters should able minded and bodied actors portray disabled characters? Is it really unacceptable for actors of one race, religion, orientation, gender, or mental/physical capability to ever portray a character of another under all circumstances? First, I tried to rethink through the story of “Derek” more critically. As I revisited certain plot points and elements of Gervais’ acting, I also dug deeper into people’s criticisms of the series. Within the sea of disapproval, I found many critics based their disgust with “Derek” on Gervais’ previous work as both a stand-up comedian and a producer. After all, Gervais is known in England and abroad as a shocking, irreverent performer. Could such a man possibly direct and portray a person with an intellectual disability in a non-offensive way? The person of Derek is more than sympathetic; he is quite likeable. The series does not focus on his disadvantages (whatever they may, the program neither defines them nor seems interested making them the focal point), but rather celebrates Derek’s kind nature and zeal for life. My conclusion is Gervais indeed meant to portray Derek in an endearing light with no intention to offend. With that in mind, I decided to tackle another one of the detractors’ complaints: that the context of a comedy was not an appropriate venue for an intellectually impaired character. They seemed to imply there is something inherently offensive about merging the disabled and comedy. Obviously, comedians like Zach Anner and Josh Blue, both whom have cerebral palsy, can be extremely funny. Lauren Potter, an actress with Down Syndrome, plays the character of Becky on “Glee” to great critical acclaim and delivers many of the show’s better jokes. It is apparent that disabled people can be funny and tell jokes, but should never become the recipients of cruel jokes at their expense. Thus, the issue did not seem to be so much the combination of disabled people with the comedic genre, but rather an issue of the able minded portraying the intellectually challenged in a comedy show. As I read further, many felt the problem went deeper and the only solution to avoid offense was for able bodied and minded to forgo portraying the people with disabilities entirely. Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Leonardo DiCaprio in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, and John Hurt in The Elephant Man all portrayed disabled characters to great aplomb. As of recent, the portrayal of disabled characters by non-disabled actors has become somewhat controversial. Critic Scott Jordan Harris, writing for Roger Ebert, wrote the following about the phenomenon in general, Consider Glee, a TV show unmistakably self-satisfied with its inclusiveness. Its makers would never have considered having Rachel, the female lead, played by a man in drag. They would not have considered having Mercedes, the most prominent black character, played by a white actress in blackface. But when they cast Artie, the main disabled character, they chose an able-bodied actor and had him sit in a wheelchair and ape the appearance of a disabled person. These comparisons with blackface and drag may seem inflammatory or outlandish but those of us who make them … do not do so lightly or in order to bring cheap attention to our cause. We do it because the analogy is exact. To argue that it isnt is to argue that disabled people are less equal than others. Harris is not alone, with many other critics and commentators made the comparison between able-bodied actors portraying people with disabilities to blackface. Many in the comments sections of “Derek” reviews made similar allusions. Were they right? Was even the mere attempt at such a portrayal by non-disabled actors offensive in and of itself? In my quest to determine for myself the answer to that question, I tried to ascertain what exactly about one member of one group portraying a member of another was inherently offensive. Since the example came up so frequently, I decided to begin with blackface. In researching that topic, I saw the crude depictions of black Americans as buffoons with highly exaggerated mannerisms in minstrel shows that I was expecting, but I also found something else. Al Jolson introduced the music of American blacks to a wider audience at a time when Broadway was segregated. Indeed, Jolson and his musical performances delivered in blackface received great acclaim from African Americans of his generation as his music provided a form of limited agency to a group with none. Black face paint applied to white skin does not instantly convey racism (though some may contend otherwise). I concluded context decides what is offensive rather than any blanket prohibition or rule. An old adage states “imitation is the most sincere form of flattery” and I think it very well can be. The reality is that the performances of Hurt, Hoffman, and DiCaprio introduced entire audiences disability issues and helped change attitudes about people with disabilities. While the titular lead of “Derek” may not be the finest depiction of intellectual disability ever conceived, the intent was clearly not malicious. Indeed, Gervais’ attempt appears to have been motivated by a sweet admiration rather than hate. While we doubtlessly want to offer acting opportunities to people with disabilities, I must also conclude that careful and sensitive portrayals of the disabled by others are no more offensive on their own that those done by disabled actors. In the wake of controversies following Gervais’ role on “Derek”, Stephen Colbert’s satirically racist tweet, and Katy Perry’s “white-face” incident when she dressed as a geisha for the AMAs, we need to collectively reassess what constitutes the genuinely offensive. Before rushing to condemnation and hashtag activism, we would all be better served considering context. Feel free to share your thoughts ye readers that survived to the end.
Posted on: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:18:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015