3 Messages
•
94 Points
Ignorant and Offensive Language Used in Describing an Entire Community of People in Synopsis of Film
I was viewing the IMDB page for the movie 23 Blast. It's a film about a high school football player, who loses his vision and must make a decision about whether or not to continue playing football. The description of the film reads, "...he must decide whether to live a safe handicapped life or bravely return to the life he once knew and the sport he still loves." This statement is both ignorant and offensive.
First, it's saying that people w/ disabilities have a choice whether they return to the life they were previously living, and this is simply not true. Not all disabilities are the same neither in nature nor magnitude. Second, it's stating that returning to a live previously lived is brave, when in actuality, it may be impossible or dangerous, if it severely risks total disability. Third, it assumes that those who simply live their lives w/ their disability aren't brave, and they're somehow safe in their lives. This is completely untrue, and much is dependent upon on the severity of the disability. Being unable to do something doesn't mean someone isn't brave in their endeavors. Finally, the term "handicapped" is considered offensive in the disability community. It's an old term that shouldn't be used anymore. The proper terminology is "disabled."
The disability community is an oft-forgotten and dismissed one. The resources available to members of this community, while better than it once was, is still severely lacking. Many have food and housing insecurities, b/c they live places, where there's widespread discrimination, and they're not hired for jobs they're completely capable of performing. And, depending on what country members of this community live in, things can be exponentially worse.
I'm asking that this description of the entirety of the disability community be reconsidered and a more thoughtful synopsis be utilized. Thank you.
Sandy
302 Messages
•
4.5K Points
2 months ago
Well! I not a admin but I have myself asberger syndrome and I work whit peopel whit many diffrent disabilitys and I think you are make a very big jump and assumption around a pilot line. So even if the languages are not great so is it no very offensive.
(edited)
0
jmg999
3 Messages
•
94 Points
2 months ago
I'm not making any assumptions about anyone. I think that you're relying on your own anecdotal evidence to make a jump about the entire disability community. Just b/c you may not find this offensive doesn't mean that others wouldn't. I stated the reasons why the language was both ignorant and offensive. Regardless of what the movie was about, it could've been described in a much better way.
(edited)
1
jeorj_euler
9.4K Messages
•
204.1K Points
2 months ago
Well, if nobody can think of a solution, then the problem will remain. For the time being, I'm unable to arrive at a solution, apart from pointing out that contributors are free to submit edits they believe to be better ways to phrase the situation depicted within the story.
3
jmg999
3 Messages
•
94 Points
2 months ago
I made a few suggestions in my opening post. I suggested removing "handicapped" in favor of "disabled" and removing the phrase "safe handicapped life" altogether. I didn't realize that anyone could edit a synopsis, as I didn't see that as an option on the webpage. If you let me know how to do so, I'd be happy to change it myself.
The entire synopsis read as, "When a high-school football star is suddenly stricken with irreversible total blindness, he must decide whether to live a safe handicapped life or bravely return to the life he once knew and the sport he still loves."
It could be rewritten as, "When a high-school football star is suddenly stricken with irreversible, total blindness, he must decide whether to accept his new reality, or make an attempt to return to the game he still loves."
3
Bethanny
Employee
•
2.1K Messages
•
23K Points
2 months ago
Hi @jmg999-
From my understanding a correction submission has not been done? If this is the case please submit a correction request. If you already did, can I please have the 18-digit submission reference?
Thanks!
0
Peter_pbn
Champion
•
12.1K Messages
•
305.9K Points
2 months ago
It seems to be an official synopsis from when the film was released. It may or may not have been submitted by a representative of the film.
I'm not sure it is saying that in general.
0
eboy
2.2K Messages
•
66.7K Points
2 months ago
Often it’s possible to replace a word or two (as suggested now, if I understood it correctly), but still ”keep” the original tone of the outline/synopsis. No need to create a huge drama about everything. Not all people want to offend and some words/expressions can become outdated rather quickly.
Basically, just go to the original outline/synopsis, choose ”Correct” and then just replace the word (or make some other adjustments - just still remember to respect the original text if you can). Then explain why and let IMDb do their thing.
(edited)
0
scgary66
126 Messages
•
1.7K Points
2 months ago
Having not seen the film, my point of view is that it's entirely possible that the synopsis accurately reflects the content of the movie; if that's how the character's choice is presented, I'm not sure we should be "cleaning up" the attitudes depicted. As for the specific terminology, I also think it's appropriate to use whatever terms the character might self-apply; if he describes himself as being handicapped, then I'm reluctant to say we should be fixing that somehow.
1
silvio_mitsubishi
77 Messages
•
1.3K Points
2 months ago
I agree to a certain extent, but even the term ‘disabled’ is considered outdated by many in UK (‘handicapped’ seems to live on in the US, and IMDb leans heavily towards the US user).
The term ‘people with disabilities’ emphasises the person first, where ‘disabled person’ prioritises the disability.
Many IMDb reviews contain language or terminology that is specific to one particular market, or is outdated everywhere. I have just reported a review that focused on a female actor’s breasts over any cinematic qualities of the work.
I also frequently correct comments that claim a film contains ‘the s-word’ (for example). Unless a character actually says “the s-word” or “s***”, this does not belong in the parents’ guide. It us not even offensive. If they say “shit”, on the other hand, that is something to flag up so parents can make a responsible choice about their children’s viewing.
Mireover, to claim that “the Lord’s name” (particularly in conjunction with “is taken in vain”) is offensive is a Christian complaint. Many people would have no idea who “the Lord” is, and to claim it is taken in vain is not listing content but judging usage - IMDb guidelines are clear - say what’s in the script, don’t impose judgment on whether others should be offended.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to hijack your thread but you made a valid point close to my own heart, and it triggered other pet hates.
0