"Swept Up By Christmas" dvd cover, featuring characters Gwen and Reed standing together before a festive backdrop

Just in time for Hanukkah, a special guest joins Invalid Culture!

In an IC first, Erika and Jeff are joined on our December episode by Paralympic wheelchair racer and budding movie star Josh Cassidy. Together we’ll chat about working in the television/film industry as a disabled person and unpack his recent Hallmark holiday film Swept Up By Christmas. Will Josh’s character find love? Is love the friends we make along the way? Find out in this very special episode!

Listen at…

Podcast Transcript

[Intro song: sleigh bells leading into folk punk song “War on Christmas” by Ramshackle Glory. Lead singer sings “Take down the lights, I don’t do Christmas. Religion is fine, I just hate Christmas.”]

Erika:

Welcome to Invalid Culture, a podcast dedicated to excavating the strangest, most baffling and worst representations of disability in popular culture. Unlike other podcasts that review films you’ve probably heard of, Invalid Culture is all about looking into the abyss of pop culture-adjacent representations that just never quite broke through because, well, they’re awful. I’m your co-host, Erika.

Jeff:

And I am your other co-host, Jeff. And in light of the holiday season, and as proud soldiers in the war against Christmas, this month’s episode is going to be a little different. Today we are joined by a real life Paralympic athlete turned disabled actor, who starred as the wheelchair-using vet, Mike, in a recent Hallmark film, Swept Up by Christmas. That’s right, we are joined by Burgoyne’s most famous son, all-around Bruce County beefcake, Josh Cassidy. Josh, welcome, as our first ever guest ever on this show.

Josh:

(laughing) Thank you.

Jeff:

You’re it.

Josh:

It’s an honor. Number one. That’s what I strive to be.

Jeff:

Number one in my heart. So, Josh, why don’t you tell us a little bit about who are you? Why should people care about Josh Cassidy?

Josh:

Oh my gosh. I don’t know why they should.

Erika:

So, what I’ve got so far is small town, perhaps, actor, Paralympic athlete, and long-term childhood friend of Jeff Preston. And I understand there’s a little bit of a story about how you and Jeff first met, so would you care to share a little bit more about that?

Josh:

Sure, yeah. We met, probably, I must have been nine or 10 years old. My dad was in the military, so we had moved all across Canada nine times… or, eight times in the first nine years of my life. And then, he left the military. We settled in Bruce County, going to elementary school in Port Elgin. Jeff’s dad, who is a police officer, came and spoke to the school, and after the presentation was done and we go back to our classrooms, and there was a knock on the door and he was at the door, and he asked the teacher if I could come out and he could talk to me. So as a nine year old, curious, slightly scared, did I do something wrong? I’m sure entered my mind at some point.

Josh:

But Jeff’s dad is just the most chill, soft spoken guy, and was just super kind, knowing I was just new to the area, and asked if I wanted to meet his son who happened to use a wheelchair as well. And yeah, that’s how our first, I don’t know, playdate or whatever you would call it at that age… I don’t even know what we did the first time, now that I think about it. But I mean, our early childhood was a lot of mini sticks, and video games, and video games, and reading, and Star Wars, and adventures in the… What would you call it? There was a name for the woods behind the town.

Jeff:

Beiner’s Forest.

Josh:

Yeah. So anyways, lots of awesome childhood memories.

Jeff:

I think it’s important to note that you said that our early childhood consisted of those things. I also think our teenager years and our adult years, that it didn’t actually change. We never grew up.

Josh:

It happened until we both left the town. We just lost the town and each other, that was all.

Jeff:

That’s it. That’s it. But as I said, there’s always that open… The invite is always open. If you want to come over for a sleepover, we can get back out on the road and play some hockey again.

Josh:

That would be great.

Erika:

So, how did you end up from small town, Bruce… Is it Bruce County?

Josh:

Yeah. Oh, yeah.

Erika:

To the big screen, the Olympic stage.

Josh:

So, I always loved sports as a kid, and as I just mentioned, hockey was a big passion of mine, as it was Jeff’s growing up. And one of the challenges in school was being able to partake in extracurricular sports, and I always found a way to figure out how to adapt, and the schools, especially in that area, Port Elgin and Owen Sound where I grew up at that stage, there was really great teachers that, helped navigate through. But extracurricular, there was more bumps, as health and safety had a lot more restrictions and concerns about other kids getting injured if they knock into your chair or whatnot.

Josh:

So, wheelchair racing was something that was introduced to me as a possibility for track and field in high school, and around the same time as the Sydney Paralympic games. Watched our Canadian, Jeff Adams, power away to medals, and I just was super intrigued by it and thought it looked fun. And so, that’s how I got started.

Josh:

Ironically, in our hometown, I had a chance meeting with a Paralympic coach that was there on business, and he got me connected as well, and that sort of was the beginning of my journey from the small town. I mean, in the small town too, I mean, I had the local track club that was great, but so much of my training throughout most of my career was on my own. And yeah, eventually I went to Sheridan College for illustration, and continued training there, and made my first national team, and yeah, the journey continued.

Erika:

And then, so how long have you been, I guess, doing elite athletics?

Josh:

I started competing around 2000, so 21 years, and my first national team was 2005. I believe it was 2005-6. So yeah, quite a while, now.

Erika:

And how long have you been into acting?

Josh:

Well, the first television commercial stuff that I did was most as an athlete, as myself, or as a wheelchair racer. So that’s how I first got some commercial gigs, and then that progressed to just taking some casting calls for other commercials, which another one was a BMO one, and Suicide Squad, which I was an extra in. And both of those was also some kind of, a little bit of consulting on the disability aspect. And then, yeah, this Swept Up by Christmas.

Josh:

I think they saw, I think the agency saw an audition I did for another show, where I actually played someone pretty much the opposite of my character in Swept Up by Christmas. He was a pretty chip on his shoulder, angry, I think war vet as well, but much different. But anyways, had an audition, and it was really after the fact for most of these that, oh, you’re an athlete as well? And that came about. So, yeah, it’s fun.

Jeff:

Yeah. I noticed that you said you were in Suicide Squad. How did that come together, what was your role, and would the movie have been better if you were the main character, and not Jared Leto?

Josh:

First of all, how did it come about? Oh, well, my mind is on Jared Leto right now.

Jeff:

Who isn’t?

Erika:

You speak for all of us when you say…

Josh:

I was thinking like, honestly, everything I have seen him in, he is fantastic. I have the understanding that there is way more that was shot that was cut. Obviously, that doesn’t change the take on the character, which wasn’t totally his, but it would be interesting to get a full take of what it was.

Josh:

So, I mean, it was crazy. I always, obviously I’ve been into comic books. I mentioned, I went to this school at Sheridan for illustration, and that was really derived from a very early love of superheroes, comic books and drawing, ever since I was a little kid. And so, obviously superhero movies and wanting to take a shot at acting at some point, it was always something just, I thought that would be fun.

Josh:

And I guess I put it out into the universe, and I got this random call the day before flying back from Australia from a training camp, and it was someone who had recommended me, gave me my number for a production that was going on in Toronto for a Warner Brothers movie, that sounded like a superhero movie, all tightlipped, whatever. And of course, I’m a comic book fan, nerd, so I know everything that’s going on and shooting. I’m like, oh my God, I’ve heard these rumors about Suicide Squad. This has got to be what it is.

Josh:

So, I had some conversations, because they’re looking for amputees, contortionists. They wouldn’t give much info beyond that. And would I be interested in having some discussions? So, when I got back, had meetings, and went on set, and they were rehearsing it at that point. And by then, I had figured it out, and they knew that I had figured it out, but they really weren’t allowed to say either. But will Smith was training in the next room for his dead shot rolls, and went into the room where Margot Robbie does her, where the very first opening scene where she’s like in a cage, tension area, right, as Harley Quinn. So, seeing that set up go, and man, just the scale of this thing is like, these big productions, that was just eye opening for me.

Josh:

So, the character was to be, well, it was going to be what eventually to me was probably the worst part of the movie, which was the basically sort of zombified. I don’t even remember. They’re like, yeah, zombified kind of super soldiers, these sort of black things that just you could kill, chop and arm a leg off, they’d keep fighting, type of thing. For me, even though I’m in a wheelchair, it was like, we need some double A gams, people that are athletic, that could maybe do some stunt work. So for me, I played goalie, as Jeff knows, on my knees in road hockey, and so my legs can bend all over. So basically, I had to strap my legs up as if they were amputated. The intention was for the shot was like, I would have, I would be basically blown apart and then keep on fighting from the ground.

Josh:

So then, I also helped with them consulting, bringing some other athletes that I knew that were amputees, and try to help recruit a team of these soldiers that would be blown to bits, but then keep on fighting. And rehearsed for one or two big scenes, and the one scene was shot during the national championships, which I was contracted to do, so I missed that one. And then, the other scene was literally on the last day of filming, and it was an all night film shoot. It was a week before the Pan Am games in Toronto.

Josh:

And yeah, again, just the scale was just incredible. It was like, it’s this massive lot, and it just really hit home. When you watch a movie, at the end, all of the credits that scroll, and all of those people, those are all humans with faces and lives that play a huge role, each and every single one, to make this whole thing come together. And then, when you’re on such a big production, you see all these faces and all this stuff that goes in, and the organization and network. It’s incredible.

Josh:

So anyways, long story short, my scene in the end, the ones that I rehearsed for, I didn’t shoot. The ones that I did were, it’s sort of the scene, and I think it’s even in the trailer, where Will Smith’s on this car. All these like zombie super soldier, black Uzi things are coming at him. And, do you want me to tell you the story of what I shot?

Jeff:

I was just going to say, did Will Smith kill you?

Josh:

So, unfortunately, Will Smith was shooting on that same day, because they were doing all these last minute reshoots, so it was a stunt actor that did, that shot me.

Jeff:

So, you were killed by the symbolic Will Smith?

Josh:

Yes, the fake one. They recreated this street, and everything is on fire, and they recreated part of the gardener that was crashed and down on this lot. And basically, they’re all just rushing towards this car that will Smith is on to attack him. And it’s basically like a football charge, rush the quarterback scenario.

Josh:

But for me it’s like, my legs are blown off, so I’m not in that first part. I’m after he starts unleashing. And they’re like, okay, so what we’re doing here is, they’re all going to be rushing. We need you to hide under this car, okay? Now, they’re going to be rushing. I want you to look at me. We’re going to count down the steamboats. One steamboat, two steamboat. They’re going to rush, and then you crawl, but you don’t go earlier than that, because they’ll just run right through you. And they’re like all parkouring through cars and everything, right? But don’t be late, because we’re blowing up this car that you’re under, so you want to get out of there.

Josh:

So, I’m crawling, and this is like a week before the Pan American Games, and my national team would have killed me if they knew. I was nervous myself. Oh shit, what did I do? And yeah, you’re crawling over broken glass and there’s fire and explosions going on. And anyways, they sort of like, kills everyone, and I’m one of the last ones, and I go back to shoot him again, and there’s this sort of 300 scene that’s filmed from the stop where there’s just all these dead soldiers, and I go to try and pop one more in him and he shoots me.

Josh:

But anyways, so much of that film is cut. I don’t… I can point out myself if I saw it. It’s a blink of an eye. So much of that film, from what I understand, like David Ayer a has done so many grounded movies, like End of Watch and Fury. And so, the take that it went, you can tell where the studio went in and was like, ooh, I think zombie soldiers and the Enchantress character… And I don’t know whose was whose idea, but there was just a disconnect from such a grounded thing that was happening, and something else. But anyway, that’s my Suicide Squad story.

Jeff:

And probably bad if you had died under that car in real life, we should say.

Josh:

Yeah.

Jeff:

That’s good. That’s good that you weren’t late.

Josh:

The stories that these stunt actors just casually tell was just crazy, the stuff. Oh yeah, hey, check out this one. This is where I was driving this F-1 car and I had to, the car, the wheel blows, so then I have to drive into this semi-truck. And it’s like, this is a car accident where people get killed and it’s like, this is their day job. It’s nuts. Yeah.

Erika:

You’re hitting some interesting themes that have come up in past episodes.

Josh:

Oh, yeah?

Erika:

Yeah. We’ve talked a bit about stunting, or I guess, who’s this stunt work, but also consulting. So, the first movie, the very first episode that did when we were researching a bit about the film, we found out that there was actually a hired disability consultant. And then, our more recent, Mac and Me, we learned that the disabled actor who was hired for the lead role, we learned through the audio commentary that he had consulted a lot on the film. So was that, is that… I’m just curious about your experience with consulting and what that was like.

Josh:

Yeah. I think all three, it was like I was hired as an actor or a stunt, and those bigger ones that I had mentioned. But I mean, all were extremely, let us know. What do we need to do? What’s right? What’s wrong? What can we do to make things easier, help? So, they were all very receptive and took some initiative on some fronts to try and do things, and on other fronts were like, oh yeah, we totally failed here. Please tell us what to do. So the way I was approached, I really appreciated it a lot.

Josh:

And the BMO commercial, that was one as well where it was like, waitlists, and so there was some messaging there that kind of conflicted with me, that I think they were pretty appreciative of, because basically in the commercial it’s like this. You put in your wish, and so the commercial’s like, my wife wishes that I can basically not be confined to my wheelchair, right? And it wasn’t those words exactly, but it was very much that was the vibe.

Josh:

And I was like, listen, I don’t wish that I wasn’t in a wheelchair. I mean, it would be great and cool to walk and run and jump and do all these things, but this is who I am, and it’s brought me so many good things, and I’ve accepted that. So, it wouldn’t be my wish, so if it was her wish, that would be kind of weird. But it was more like, you know what I wish? I’m like, I actually wish I could fly. So, why don’t we change this messaging to just being like, I wish that I could fly, and my wife wishes to see me be able to have the freedom of flight kind of thing. So kind of, the sentiment is there, but it’s a total different angle on the whole thing, right?

Jeff:

Yeah. I’ve got to say, when I first saw you on commercial, at the start of it, from the music, and you’re up in the plane, and I was like, oh hamburgers, here we go, right? This is going to be that classic thing about oh, if only I had one wish, I wish he was cured.

Josh:

Yeah.

Jeff:

But then you get this like actual, nice inversion at the end, where it’s like, yeah, no, the wish wasn’t liberation from the chair, the wish was to do something wild. It was…

Josh:

That everyone would love to do, right? Yeah.

Jeff:

Yeah. Now, I have a theory. You’ve been in a couple BMO commercials, and so I now call it the BMO-verse.

Josh:

I’m pretty sure it’s called the BMO effect, isn’t it?

Jeff:

The BMO effect? Maybe. Yeah. That’s true. So, I’ve noticed in the BMO-verse, you have a wife in the wishes, but you are definitely out with another woman during a solar eclipse, or a lunar eclipse.

Josh:

Here is the confusion, okay?

Jeff:

Okay.

Josh:

It wasn’t me in both of them. I mean, it was me as an actor, but in the BMO-verse, right? Me with my wife was one character. It was actually Mike from Swept Up by Christmas, that’s in the background having a latte with that other woman. So, it’s really Mike that’s… I don’t know in the BMO-verse if that’s before or after he met his Swept Up by Christmas… Vanessa, was her name.

Jeff:

Vanessa, yeah.

Josh:

I’m just trying to remember her name.

Jeff:

You don’t remember the love of your life?

Josh:

Yeah.

Jeff:

Wait, are you saying you are not with Vanessa on the west coast right now?

Josh:

Listen, I don’t know where the BMO-verse version of Mike slipped into that dimension and stream, so I don’t know if it was before or after Vanessa, so I can’t comment. Mike might be a closet sleazebag, like oh yeah, another latte, with another woman, kind of thing.

Jeff:

Let’s go out with the solar eclipse.

Josh:

Yeah.

Jeff:

Lose your sight, but I’ll take care of you, baby.

Josh:

Yeah.

Erika:

So, two things here from me. One, and I don’t know if this question’s out of bounds, but…

Josh:

No.

Erika:

Are BMO and Hallmark the same thing?

Josh:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Erika:

They have overlapping universe?

Josh:

Oh, there’s a question.

Jeff:

I’ll say, nothing says Christmas like a bank. I think we can all agree on that, right?

Erika:

Now, I’m just thinking of, they have Interact commercials now where you can use your internet cards the way people used to drop coins into the charity tins. Now they have Interact commercials for that.

Jeff:

This is all coming together, guys. I feel like, I think this podcast is done. We sorted it out.

Erika:

Wait, wait, wait. We don’t know anything about the film yet. It’s time to get into Swept Up by Christmas.

Jeff:

Oh yeah, we should talk about that.

Josh:

Right, right.

Erika:

Josh, please, can you tell us, for listeners who haven’t seen the film, tell us a little bit about that film.

Jeff:

Basically, a Hallmark movie, Christmas movie. There’s a guy and a girl, and someone’s not in the Christmas spirit. Someone gets them in the Christmas spirit, and then they live happily ever after right at the end.

Josh:

Oh, was I in this one?

Jeff:

So, who are you? And who are you in all this?

Josh:

So, Swept Up by Christmas is basically, she’s an antique dealer, and the main character, lead male is a war vet who has a cleaning business. They meet on the sale of this estate, and yes, it’s about her bringing him back into the Christmas spirit. I am the main lead’s friend and business partner, named Mike, who is also a war vet. And yeah, basically they have this little business that helps war vets adjust to civilian life, and their cleaning business is their little passion thing, and then there’s a little side romance interest for Mike in the movie.

Erika:

And it’s the aforementioned Vanessa?

Josh:

Oui. C’est vrai. This is a bilingual podcast.

Jeff:

Yeah, it is. It is now. So, one thing that we love to do on this podcast is, we love to see what others have to say about the film. And so, we went out. There were not a lot of reviews, I have to say. Fans of the show, you are not doing your job. There were not a lot of reviews about this movie. But there was one really interesting thing that I learned. Actually, there were two interesting things. Thing number one, I learned there a lot of people writing reviews of every single Hallmark Christmas movie. It is like a whole community, and that is a thing that I didn’t know I needed to know, but I know it now, and I feel better.

Jeff:

But there were two reviews that really caught my eye. A lot of the reviews of this film felt that maybe the main romance was a little flat in nature. However, both on a website called Jamie’s Two Cents, and as well, a website called Lifetime Uncorked, two different reviewers said that they would have preferred if the story instead had been focused on Mike and Vanessa. An Amazon reviewer even went on to say, quote, “I gave this an extra star, four out of five stars to Hallmark, for adding the storyline featuring someone in a physically challenging role. And yes, it’s a formula movie, but I have to admit, I’m a fan of Hallmark’s Christmas movies.”

Jeff:

Now, I’m assuming that was a typo, and they meant physically challenged, but I will allow you to respond to movie guy on Amazon. Would you say your role was physically challenging?

Josh:

Oh, I don’t care.

Erika:

I mean, relative to the other work you described, that sounded like very physically challenging work.

Josh:

You know what, it was long days. The physically challenged… Suicide Squad was pretty physically challenging. And actually, the BMO was a stunt commercial as well. But you know what, it was a really great experience learning-wise for me, and lines and a whole role, and the long days and weeks that all went into that, and the process. Yeah, I mean, obviously Mike is in a wheelchair, so on the consulting side for this, they were more just really open, like what do you need on set?

Josh:

For the script itself, I had one or two kind of adjustments or amendments that I kind of put forward. I can’t remember the first one. The second one… I mean, there was definitely the one, I think it was, when he’s talking about his disability, and how it crushed his, I think it was C4 or something, right? Well, so I am partially paralyzed from L4 down, L3, L4. So I said, if this is integral to the story, I would have to change my level of ability and what I can do to represent if that’s important. If it’s not important, we change the script so that this is where I was injured, so that it’s accurate. So, I had to go through Hallmark and their writers, and their writers, and their writers, and it all got approved, and of course, move ahead, and yeah.

Jeff:

And I’ve got to say, that is something that is always, I’ve found, so strange about films, is that it’s like disability is this throwaway. Like, they don’t actually care if the definition or diagnosis is at all even close, right? They’re just like, I don’t know, C1, maybe. Oh, it looks like muscular dystrophy, I don’t know. And yet, the person is fully walking around with like a little limp.

Josh:

Oh, here’s the thing, though, here’s the thing. To be fair to them, if I’m thinking about these writers, and they’re churning these things out, it’s like, get the script written, throw something in. Let them hire someone else to do… Let’s check our disability accuracy facts here and consult someone that knows what’s going on. But yes, there isn’t always those people in place to catch these types of things, and agreed, it’s kind of thrown in at times. And I was super grateful for this role and this opportunity, and of course, there has to be something that ties in. For me, okay, that’s the reality, and like the other auditions I’ve done, somehow their physical disability is a part of their character. I mean, it’s a part of everyone’s life who has a disability.

Josh:

But at the same time, I mean, I’m not going off on some acting career crusade. I would love to do something with a lot more depth or whatever. But I’d also love to do something where it’s like, the disability part doesn’t even come up, too. Like, I would just, I’d like to take the Rock’s role in some action movie and try and do a better acting job, and bring something that’s great without actually having to delve too deeply.

Josh:

At the same time, I know all stories and drama are about going through challenges and heartbreak and an emotional component, and most people who have a disability have gone through that at some stage, so that’s a real part that people with a disability can connect with to portray that more realistically, too. So, I also appreciate that they’re seeking out more often people with disabilities, rather than trying to have an actor portray them.

Josh:

And again, on the flip side, because I’m both, I just, to bring full perspective, I don’t think there’s anything totally immoral about somebody who doesn’t have a disability playing someone with a disability completely, myself. Acting is roleplaying and diving into a character, and that might be someone of a different ability or a disability, or gender, or culture, whatever it is, however, with Hollywood and the way it is. It’s just like, okay, we’ve had enough of white mainstream playing other cultures and disabilities and whatever. It’s like, we have a huge demographic here that is not represented, and it’s time to kind of bring them into the fold. So, at least it feels like there’s that progression.

Jeff:

Yeah. I think honestly, Hallmark, I think, gets a lot of kudos for this film, and other films as well. I think Hallmark has actually kind of latched on to disability in a way I think others haven’t. But having said that, Erika and I have some questions. We have some questions for you about this film.

Josh:

I thought you were going to go on the LGBTQ, how there isn’t representation there.

Erika:

Oh, and that’s funny. It’s funny, that’s not how I would have phrased that. I wouldn’t have phrased it that way. I was just going to say, this is the most remarkably cis-heteronormative story I have seen ever in my life. And I want to say, this was also my first ever Hallmark Christmas movie.

Josh:

Same.

Erika:

Okay. Okay. And that just really stood out for me.

Josh:

I hear it all the same. I am only aware of this because I was involved in one, so then I was reading all the headlines of backlash, of there is no other kind of alternative storylines with representation. And so, anyways. I mean, we joked on set when we were reading this, like hey, I think we should actually really put a plot twist in there, and just be like, hey, Mike and his best friend, I forget what his name is already, Justin Bruening’s character, we’re actually lovers the whole time. Because we actually showed up to the party with the same sweater and the same pants. So we were like, maybe I slept over and I took something from his closet, and that’s literally our coming out of the closet together. And we just helped Hallmark take care of another area. Maybe they’re doing one this year. I don’t know. I don’t know. There’s probably 12 new ones.

Jeff:

Erika, I will say…

Erika:

This is a hard flash forward to a question I had, which is, will we get a sequel, perhaps titled Moved by Hanukkah? And then, you know, at the time, I think we were curious about maybe exploring your budding relationship on the west coast, but I really like where you’re taking this.

Jeff:

I fully agree.

Josh:

Maybe that’s the big plot twist. I go out with Vanessa to the west coast, and it’s like, no. I miss Reed. That was his name. And yeah, we really explore a lot more things out west.

Jeff:

I’ve got to say, your scenes together, I felt, were electric. I feel like there was something there. I fully do.

Josh:

It was fun.

Jeff:

So, I endorse it.

Josh:

He was, it was great to work with other people, both… I mean, Vanessa’s character, she has a big stage background, but both of the leads have been in lots of shows and movies and have a full acting career, so it was actually really great to feed off of them and their experience, and how relaxed they were, and also their approach, too. Like here, I’m looking at the script like, man, what do I do with this? And realizing that was the same for everyone. It’s like, okay, these movies are cheesy cardboard cutter, similar plotlines. People love them. That’s why they keep making them. But then it’s like, how do we try and bring something that feels real and authentic somehow to this? Anyways, it was good to experience that.

Erika:

I would just comment, you did not stand out as a lesser caliber actor. In fact, a decent part of the way through, I think I said you are by far my favorite character in this film.

Josh:

Oh, thank you. Well, thanks. Thank you.

Jeff:

I was biased. Erika was not.

Erika:

No!

Jeff:

So, that’s an authentic take.

Erika:

Yeah. So, recruiters out there, you have got some serious potential here in Josh Cassidy.

Josh:

Oh, thank you.

Jeff:

Absolutely.

Josh:

Thank you. I’d love to do something else again.

Jeff:

Now, I do have a bone to pick with you, though.

Josh:

Go for it.

Jeff:

So, throughout the film, your character seems to have this object fixation. In almost every scene, you are holding something, whether it’s a coffee cup, or a champagne glass, or a pen, or a pot. Your hands are always occupied.

Josh:

Interesting.

Jeff:

What’s the backstory on Mike’s need to have his hands occupied?

Josh:

Well, really, my hands were actually separately contracted. They are their own actors.

Jeff:

Right. It was in their rider.

Josh:

So, they have their own rules, their own contracts. Like, he’s playing the writer, he’s playing the champagne glass holder. And so, they had their own things that they had to do. One of them had to have a makeover, because the one is tattooed. So, my wonderful makeup artist did an amazing job covering it up. So, maybe that’s not equal representation. Maybe there’s something that isn’t fully exposed in its authentic nature there. But you know what? There’s a role to play. My hands were down. They signed the line, and they did their job.

Jeff:

Yeah, I was trying to think back into our past, if you often had things in your hands when we were friends.

Josh:

No. I mean…

Jeff:

I feel like you do have an average, you’re an average thing in hand person, I would say.

Erika:

Yeah, that’s it.

Josh:

I don’t think I’m over the top. It’s like, the marker, I’m drawing on the board, so I’ve got to have it. The mug, I’m taste testing, so hey, I have to be interacting. The champagne glass just got shoved to me, like hold this, you’re drinking champagne, it’s a party. But you know what, maybe it’s just that my hands were such great actors, it was like, you’re just drawn to them, like oh my god, those are their own roles happening on this film. So, you know what, I’d like to see what roles they have in the future.

Jeff:

It’s true. Yeah. You can’t question the artist, right?

Josh:

No, that’s right.

Jeff:

The artist just knows what to do.

Josh:

Yeah.

Erika:

You mentioned sampling drinks, and correct me if I’m wrong, but was this from the scene with barista Vanessa, and there was a bit of a remarkable moment there, or a memorable moment there. The conversation takes a little bit of a detour.

Josh:

Right. I know what you’re talking about.

 

[Clip begins from “Swept Up By Christmas”]

Mike:

Maybe a little travel thrown in for good measure.

Vanessa:

I haven’t had the chance for that yet, but I mean, I’d love to. I started working when I was 16.

Mike:

I joined the army young, too.

Vanessa:

But you got to travel a lot?

Mike:

Not as much as I would have liked. I was quartermaster in Afghanistan, and I went out on a supply run. An RPG overturned my transport and crushed my L4. So, travel plans were postponed. I came home to Windale, and a year later met Reed at the VA, and like so many, we needed a do-over. So, let’s get to the good stuff. Yuletide first, right?

 

[Clip ends]

Erika:

I’m sharing Jeff’s observation here, that your character comes a little bit out of left field with this disability origin story.

Josh:

Yes.

Erika:

So, can you tell us, was that intended? Was that something that you asked for, or had questions about?

Josh:

It was in the script. That was a part that was changed a bit, because I had the disability part. The other line part was changed in there, and I don’t remember what it was off the top of my head. But I had a lot of conversations with the director, Philippe, who was just awesome, and it was like, okay, this is Mike’s kind of moment. He tells his story, and it’s obviously, it feels shoved in, but it actually, if it holds weight, then it can be an emotional hook or whatever, to give him some depth into understanding who he is a bit. Okay, obviously it’s a bit forced, and all of the sudden in the background, but it’s about traveling, and okay. He also closes it with sort of, I’m getting sidetracked here.

Josh:

So, on one hand, it was sort of like, okay, he just got sidetracked going off into a story. On the other hand, that’s totally what it was, was how do we put this in here to give some weight. So, I mean, it was… you know what, I didn’t have a big problem with it. It was fun, and it was challenging, because in this one, all of the sudden, line-for-line, and then I got a monologue with this little story, and you go through all in one take. One sentence is happy, then it’s expressing good memories, then it’s like, I lost my legs, but hey, everything is okay. And it’s like this sort of way that I had to try and…

Josh:

I think what was on, there wasn’t anything left on the cutting room floor, but the take, I liked the take much better, and I remember that I finished a full take, and they said cut, and everyone who was on set kind of applauded it. So, I know I did a good job with it because it was taking on this whole thing. But yeah, I also didn’t want it to just end like, oh, nevermind that, too. I kind of wished that it could have gone on longer, but I’m like, you know what, that’s what a supporting character is, is trying to inject a little something, but it’s not really about you, too. So, I don’t know.

Jeff:

Contrary to the reviewer’s desire.

Josh:

Right. Yeah. They did do one Hallmark last year. I can’t remember her name. Maybe you know here. She was like, she won an Emmy, from Oklahoma.

Jeff:

I do. Ally.

Josh:

Yeah.

Jeff:

Yep.

Josh:

Did you see that one? Because I never saw it.

Jeff:

I have not. I wanted to come to your film as a purist, so I actually am never going to watch another hallmark movie ever again.

Erika:

Save it.

Jeff:

Not because they’re bad, but because I’m a Josh Cassidy purist. So, Hallmark, if you want my money, you need more Josh Cassidy. That’s the deal.

Josh:

I mean, exactly.

Jeff:

Yeah. The Josh-verse, in the Hallmark world. Yeah, I think that Lennard Davis talks a lot about how, as soon as disability is in the film, there’s this mandatory explanation of it. Like, that disability can’t just exist. It has to be grounded, it has to be situated, and that tends to come in these sort of origin stories. And so, obviously your character gets an origin story, but we don’t really get an origin story from Reed. Was it… The only way we know that Reed is a soldier is because he uses soldier talk at the end of sentences sometimes.

Josh:

Like, I’m supposed to be… Those feel forced to me, these little soldier talk force-ins. And I’m like, I grew up in the military. I know people in the military, and there’s some things that are naturally a part of it, and there are other things that feel kind of forced. But agreed, there is backstory with him, but you’re trying to work it out through the whole film and piece it together. Because as a supporting actor to him and his best friend, I’m trying to piece together, oh, this line. So, this means he had a past relationship, and oh, he left the military at this stage. So it’s like, after it you kind of piece together who he is, rather than just getting it, right?

Jeff:

It’s a slower burn. Yeah, it’s a much slower burn.

Josh:

But I wanted to, yeah. I mean, what was your feeling on it, though? On me…

Erika:

We had a, definitely I think we had the experience. We watched the films together. And we definitely had the experience of trying to piece together the backstory of that character, and we had a theory running for a while that there was a plot coming with him having PTSD. And because we, against the backdrop of these hyper gender roles, he was showing a little more emotionality than might have been expected.

Josh:

Yeah, yeah.

Erika:

And so, we thought maybe that’s where that was going to foreshadow. And you know, maybe that was there. Maybe, I don’t know if you can…

Josh:

I mean, I feel like it was, but at the same time, that’s probably why they fell flat too. Like, oh no, Justin’s this perfectly chiseled, good-looking guy. But I mean, that would have made it more interesting if they actually side plotted a little bit to more like PTSD, because that’s what he was trying to show and put through a little bit, obviously, from these little tics and attitude and all of that, right?

Erika:

That’s the future Hollywood film though, right? That busts out of the Hallmark universe.

Josh:

Right, yeah. That’s too far. And also why the brush off at the end of my store. Like, yeah, my back got crushed, but anyways, back to our Christmas story, you know? This is emotional. Don’t get too emotional. We got it.

Jeff:

It was a really, yeah. I felt like, I was like, whoa, things just got hyper serious for a split second, and then was like, back on with the program. And I’m like, I get it. This is supposed to be a movie about love and romance, and kind of softcore, in some ways. You have this titillating dialogue back and forth, right?

Josh:

Yeah, agreed. It is kind of, it is rushed, but you just try and do what you can with it. I got… I mean, maybe it’s also just in our position, because I did get messages from other people that were like, this part, that was so good, or that was really convincing, and whatever, whatever. So, yeah, I know that we’re probably so much more hyperaware of it, too, in our positions.

Jeff:

Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the moral of the story is, if you’re on a date and the partner brings up travel, your best bet is to follow it up with how, on the last time you were traveling, your spine was crushed after an IED attack. Love is in the air. Now, I’ve got to know, was your character always intended to be a wheelchair user?

Josh:

Yes.

Jeff:

Or did you get the role, and they were like, oh, wheelchair user?

Josh:

No, no. It was intended, yeah.

Jeff:

Cool.

Josh:

And I mean, what I appreciated about the director too was, he’s telling me about one of his friends who also uses a wheelchair, and was describing him and who he is and mindset, and all that kind of stuff. And it was one of the early discussions that we had. I’m like, how recent did Mike get paralyzed? Because that changes how I would portray the character, as well. Like, is he still working through this? Is he whatever? And he’s like, no, no, this is done with. He’s dealt with it. He’s happy. He’s good. What you kind of brought just naturally in our first talk interview before even reading the script is the type of energy and mindset that I want to give this character. So, it wasn’t too much diving crazy. It was more of accentuating certain things for myself to try to bring to it, then. But yeah, so I mean, conversations like that, I appreciated, because that changes totally a character’s perception or how they’re portrayed.

Erika:

So, I don’t know if you guys are familiar with the Fries test?

Josh:

No.

Erika:

Jeff most likely is, but for Josh, for the audience, and Jeff, correct me if I’ve got this wrong, but as I understand, the Fries test is testing essentially the quality of disability representation in media.

Jeff:

Yeah.

Erika:

So, it’s based on, I believe it’s based on a gender test.

Jeff:

Yeah, the Bechdel test.

Erika:

Bechdel test, okay, which the questions are basically like, does the work have, in the gender test, does the work have at least two women in it? Do they talk to each other? And if they talk to each other, do they talk about something other than a man?

Josh:

Right, right, right.

Erika:

Right? And so, the fries test, which I presume is named for Kenny Fries?

Jeff:

Kenny Fries, yeah.

Erika:

Asks, does the work have more than one disabled character? Do the disabled characters have their own narrative purpose, other than the profit of a non-disabled character? And is the character’s disability not eradicated by curing or killing? And this is why I would…

Jeff:

And this movie passes!!!

Erika:

It does! That’s where I was going with the PTSD trope, was that I think it’s implied enough that Reed has PTSD that we could say that we have two disabled characters, who are interacting, who have their own narrative purpose, and neither of them is cured or killed.

Josh:

Right. Wow.

Jeff:

Exactly. Absolutely. I honestly, like I said, from the very beginning, hat tip to Hallmark, I think, on this test.

Josh:

Yeah.

Jeff:

I mean, say what you will about Christmas movies, but I think this was a really progressive film, when it comes to disability representation. Not where I thought I would find it, but here we are.

Josh:

Yeah. No, it’s great. It’s great. Especially a company like that, that does so many movies and has so much pull, and is so mainstream. Like, I didn’t even realized how much it was playing in other countries until this year when it came out. So, it’s great, and I hope that, I know they’ll make another dozen or two dozen this year, so I hope they’re doing more that are continuing that trend and with other minorities, as well.

Erika:

I think you’ve already spoken to this a bit, but just to name the question and hear an answer, what do you think this film got right?

Josh:

Hmm. Okay. Well, on the production side, everyone was just fantastic. They did their best to accommodate, whether it was putting in ramps or figuring things out for accessibility, and where there wasn’t, they just constantly were like, if you need anything, let us know. If we’re doing something wrong, or you need something better or different, let us know. And then, the amendments with the script. They took my feedback. They amended that to keep accuracy. And I can’t remember what the other point was on sensitivity, so you know what, it was a great experience from that perspective.

Josh:

And then, yeah, from the film, I mean, I don’t know. People love it. It’s your typical Hallmark Christmas, light. I mean, that’s what it is. That’s what it’s supposed to be. That’s why people watch them so much. We’re in a time where there’s so much stress and so many weird, crazy, horrible things going on, and people turn this on to just have something that’s a feel-good movie. So, they obviously got that right, and had some good emotional little hooks and things that made it a cute little story. So, yeah, it was a good experience, and great to have that opportunity to be a part of.

Jeff:

Well, what would you say is something that you would hope that other productions could learn from this film? Were there any innovations in the way the you filmed it using the wheelchair, or things that you learned in the production process that you’re like, yeah, I hope that filmmakers actually carry this forward?

Josh:

You know, the same parallels to my childhood and school and gym class, with teachers that got it right, as they did with this work experience. It’s basically just people asking questions, what do you need? And being receptive and listening, and just trying to do whatever is possible to make things accessible, and just feel normal and smooth without any barriers. So, taking the initiative on the first part is appreciated, even if it’s gotten wrong. If there’s an intention and effort, that’s always appreciated. And it’s being receptive and checking in. Often, they checked in more than enough with me with things. It definitely makes you feel comfortable. You never have to really worry about anything, and that’s what’s fantastic.

Josh:

Some of the harder things are what’s in advance, a set to prove, and they haven’t quite thought of, oh, jeez, this is on the third flight of stairs, and we had to overcome something like that. But you also realize the position too, and things are going to be missed, because it’s not all about the supporting character per se either. So, when it comes up and it’s realized, what action do you take, and how do you adapt and try to amend it? So, as long as that’s the approach, I don’t think you can ever go wrong or be at really any fault.

Erika:

And maybe lastly, thinking back on some of your experiences and this move from athletics towards the big screen, do you have any advice for young disabled actors who are maybe trying to break into that industry?

Josh:

Jeez, I don’t know. I don’t really actively pursue too much. Like, I see casting calls, things come my way. I respond to them. Obviously, all these things about accessibility, I don’t think you need to go over again. Just voice if you need something. I think the general narrative for actors with disabilities is how they’re represented, and speaking up if there’s something that you feel is better changed. And otherwise, it’s just doing what you do. You don’t have to do anything different, just making sure that you’re being treated yourself with the role that you feel you should play.

Josh:

And I mean, hopefully I would just like to, like I said, see more where you know that obviously there’s going to be a lot of stories. I want to see stories more too where there’s people that go through some challenge or injury or disability with a hook, and that doesn’t just have to be a full, lifetime thing. That could be a like a sports injury. Those are stories about overcoming adversity and resiliency, but my life day to day every day isn’t constantly some of those major hurdles and challenges at this stage, either. I just want to go have fun and play a role with the character depth that’s obviously formed at its base from some experience, but there’s a lot more layers and a lot more things to be explored, where… I’m looking forward to the day where, yeah, we see some people in roles where there doesn’t actually have to be anything about their disability that needs to even be talked about, because there’s enough other depth there that’s brought to the character’s story.

Jeff:

Yeah. I think that’s so true. But unfortunately, on this podcast, you are not going to find those movies. That is not what we are in the business of, my friend.

Josh:

Yeah.

Jeff:

We’re here for the filth.

Josh:

Yeah, the filth. Yeah, I’m sorry I didn’t have too much dirt to dish. I mean, the hiccups that happened were so minor, and so I’m grateful for my experience and the people I was with. But it’s obviously things like this podcast which helps bring light to it, and which has brought like to these things, which made my experience better. And there’s still a lot more out there where I hear of other experiences that are not the same. So, great to bring awareness, for sure.

Jeff:

Yeah. Shout out to Hallmark. We’re going to carry your water. I might actually watch another Hallmark Christmas movie in your honor.

Erika:

And I’m waiting for the Hallmark Hanukkah.

Josh:

Yes.

Jeff:

I will gladly watch a Hanukkah movie. Let’s do it, Hallmark.

Josh:

Good luck with that.

Jeff:

I mean…

Erika:

Why, Hallmark? Why are you allowing Adam Sandler to own this niche?

Josh:

Yeah.

[Outro music: folky punk riff with horns and guitars from Ramshackle Glory’s “War on Christmas”]

Jeff:

And thus concludes the first half of season one of Invalid Culture. I hope you have been enjoying your time with us. We have certainly enjoyed watching and talking about some horrible films. If you like us and you want to give us a little Christmas present, why don’t you head on down, give us a little like or a comment on Apple music, or wherever it is you get your podcasts. But perhaps most importantly, a heartfelt and legitimate happy holidays, best of luck, and just a moment of peace and quiet to all of you over the winter break. We will see you all back in the new year, January, with another great episode of Invalid Culture. Take care, and we will talk to you soon.

 

 

Movie poster of "Mac and Me" featuring a star light night sky in blue with Mac and Eric's faces superimposed on the moon. The text reads "Eric's new in the neighborhood. Mac's new on the planet."

When you order ET on Wish.com…

This month on Invalid Culture we break our “no popular film” rule in order to take a journey deep into Erika’s childhood to watch Stewart Raffill’s baffling 1988 alien buddy film Mac & Me. Set in California, Mac & Me follows young Eric Cruise as he attempts to catch, befriend and eventually save a disturbing looking alien child who is addicted to Coca Cola. A movie that is almost universally hated by critics, how will Mac & Me fair when looked at through the lens of disability?

Listen Now!

 

Grading the Film

As always, this film is reviewed with scores recorded in four main categories, with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst. Like the game of golf, the lower the score the better.

How accurate is the representation?

Jeff – 1 / 5

Erika – 1 / 5

Total – 2 / 10

How difficult was it to watch the movie?

Erika – 3 / 5

Jeff – 4 / 5

Total – 7 / 10

How often were things unintentionally funny?

Erika – 3 / 5

Jeff – 3 / 5

Total – 6 / 10

How far back has it put disabled people?

Jeff – 1 / 5

Erika – 2 / 5

Total – 3 / 10

The Verdict

Mistakes Have Been Made

Podcast Transcript

Jeff [doing a voice]:

Have you ever had one of those days, out slurping cola from below the surface of Mars when, out of nowhere, NASA comes and kidnaps your entire family? No? Ever wonder what it would be like?

Join disturbing google-eyed alien Mac as he product placements his shapely little booty around California, befriending a young disabled boy with a death wish and eventually having a sick dance party at a totally real McDonalds.

Was ET a little too mainstream for you? Real cinephiles know the best alien/child friendship adventure is Stewart Raffill’s Mac & Me.

[Intro song: “Twinkle Lights” by The Sonder Bombs, featuring a punky rock riff]

Erika:

Welcome to Invalid Culture, a podcast dedicated to excavating the strangest and most baffling representations of disability in popular culture. Unlike other podcasts that review of films you’ve probably heard of, Invalid Culture is all about the abyss of pop culture adjacent media that just never quite broke through because well, they’re just awful. I’m your host, Erika and as always, I’m joined today by my co-host Jeff.

Jeff:

How you doing Erika?

Erika:

Oh, I am good. I am so ready to get going on this one.

Jeff:

Are you regretting doing this podcast yet? It’s episode three. How are you feeling?

Erika:

Oh I am more committed than ever. And I mean that in all possible interpretations of the word.

Jeff:

So this is a very special episode of Invalid Culture because this film comes to us, not just from the realms of popular culture but also from Erika’s past. Erika, what can you tell us about your childhood and the film Mac and Me?

Erika:

All right. Well, I wasn’t aware, I think until you brought up the possibility of doing an episode on Mac and Me that people knew about this film, it’s one of those films that I associate with my childhood. I mean, I remember E.T. but Mac and Me was something, it was something else. I remember the purple box. I remember the V-shaped whistle amplification that the aliens do with their hands. I remember the windmills, there are windmills. And I think I live in a, I come from a geographic area in which windmills became very PO popular in the last few years. And as I saw those windmills come up, I was reminded of my childhood and this film, this film about an alien and that’s really all I had to go with. I remembered the windmills. I remembered the alien. I did not remember that the main character used a wheelchair.

Jeff:

So you wouldn’t say that this film inceptioned you into becoming a disability studies professor.

Erika:

I mean, I’m rethinking everything now. It is, it’s possible that actually my life path was altered by my childhood love for this film that I now understand is a bit of a cult classic

Jeff:

Divisive. We’ll, it’s a divisive film for sure. Lovers and haters both. The film we are going to be talking about today is of course the 1980s classic Mac and Me, if you want to know what the movie Mac and Me is about, basically watch the movie E.T. and then imagine if E.T. was placed in a microwave. And what came out was the movie Mac and Me. Mac and me essentially tells the story of a young boy moving from the rough and tumble world of Illinois to greener pastures or I guess desert pastors of California. Our main character, Eric arrives in California only to discover that an alien from another planet has arrived in this town.

Jeff:

They then become friends and go through some hi jinks. And eventually our alien friend Mac is reunited with his parents. All of course, under the watchful gaze of the government who is trying to capture this alien perhaps to send them back home. Is this text an immigration text? I would say yes, definitely it is because it ends with our alien friends being naturalized as American citizens at what is perhaps the strangest citizenship ceremony I have ever seen. Is that a pretty accurate description would you say of the film?

Erika:

Yeah. I mean, a few details here and there but we’re going to fill those in as we get going.

Jeff:

So why did we decide to do this film? I mean, obviously there’s a boy in a wheelchair but why this film?

Erika:

I mean, for me personally, it was really about revisiting my childhood and just the disbelief that this was a disability film.

Jeff:

This film also has some pop culture credentials, perhaps that goes beyond what we intended for Invalid Culture, we’re breaking the rules a little bit. You may actually recognize a scene from this film, even if you have not seen it because an actor by the name of Paul Rudd for years has been using an infamous scene from this film every time goes on Conan, let’s hear actually a quick little clip explaining what in the world is going on with Paul Rudd and Mac and Me.

Paul Rudd:

I never really imagined 20 years ago. That here we would be.

Conan:

Yeah. Well, someone obviously on the internet put together, they didn’t even do all of them but you can and see, I mean, you don’t age but you see me go from a, here’s Paul Rudd to like, just this rotting pumpkin head and you see it happen over a period of years and it’s absolutely stunning, it’s this crazy performance art that lasts forever.

Paull Rudd:

I just remember the very first time thinking it’s so artificial to come on and sell your wears and show a clip from your movie. And what if I just show a clip from another movie?

Conan:

Right, right.

Paul Rudd:

We’ve never talked about this really but I thought, what if I show a clip from this movie that I saw a long time ago, that is just really strange. And there’s one scene in particular but I was waffling because there is another movie that I was obsessed with at the time that was equally like, who was this made for? Called Baby Geniuses.

Conan:

Baby Geniuses. Does anyone know baby, oh okay-

Jeff:

So this film essentially is known for being bizarre, strange, over the top, ridiculous and has had this life that I think has been extended beyond the original release as essentially a joke for an absurd film. But as people find out, I think there’s more than perhaps meets the eye when it comes to representations of disability in this film. Perhaps disability is the only thing that’s not ridiculous in this film. So where does this film come from? Well, it was written and directed by Stewart Raffill and Steve Feke and Stewart Raffill you may recognize, he has done some movies. Things like Ice Pirates was one of his, also was a big animal tamer and Wrangler through many Hollywood films and then eventually got into the writing and then directing. As we watched this film, unlike other films on Invalid Culture, we decided to watch it with the commentary enabled. Most of the films we’ve watched don’t have commentary. This film, however, was released as a collector’s edition Blue-Ray. Yes, we watched this in 1080P as God intended. And we listened to the audio commentary and it was actually really informative.

Erika:

And everything that we learned here is verified in a thrillist.com article, so definitely know that this is legitimate information we are working with here. So the director Stewart Raffill, really begins the audio commentary by explaining that this film was created in a rush, I believe he said five weeks, five weeks in total. He talks about how they were developing the costumes for the alien while writing the script with actors already on payroll and were under direction to just get it done. Why the rush unclear. We also learned that the producer R.J. Louis had spent several years negotiating brand rights with McDonald’s. And so this film came about presumably at, the deal was passed, we went into production.

Erika:

A little more on why the deal was passed. So Louis had a history with the Ronald McDonald charity and actually wanted to create this film in order to raise funds for the charity, for the Ronald McDonald charity. And so something that you can’t help, but notice when watching the film, that there is some brand placement, product placement, like next level going on in this film, riding on the coattails of E.T. there’s some Reese’s Pieces,, here we’ve got Coke. We’ve got McDonald’s. We questioned whether maybe Porsche was involved, perhaps also the Quickie wheelchair brand, although unconfirmed on the latter couple. But really what we learned in this audio commentary right off the bat was that this film was created to raise money for the Ronald McDonald charity.

Jeff:

Yeah. And a lot of investment financially by McDonald’s to get this made. McDonald’s was actually quite involved in some ways with the production of this film. But on the other hand, as we learned on the audio commentary, McDonald’s didn’t actually seem to have a whole lot of say about what happened. And this wasn’t quite like other product placements where the brand comes in and says, “Well, we want to be represented in these ways.” With the duration of the speed at which it was produced, it sounds like they just got this money and made something because I would really wonder, I would love to know what did McDonald’s think about this film after it came out? Were they happy with their investment? I don’t exactly know but let’s talk more about the Ronald McDonald charity a little bit later because I have some theories about what might be happening but let’s instead look at some critical response because we are not the only ones who have opinions about this film. So Erika, what did some of the major critics have to say when Mac and Me was released in, I believe 1988.

Erika:

Well, let’s start with a Richard Harrington from the Washington Post who said.

Jeff [doing a voice]:

So why is it so hard to light this fiddle? Having that scene done much better by Spielberg doesn’t help of course.

Jeff:

Right. Fantastic. Fantastic. I think it was Richard Harrington as well that mentions just casually that RJ Louis, the producer of the film. It turns out that they were an account executive for an ad firm that handled McDonald’s. So RJ Louis had a past relationship as an adman for McDonald’s and Richard just wanted us to know, just throwing it out there. Now, what else did we find?

Erika:

Well, we’ve got Steven Ray from the Philadelphia Inquirer who says.

Jeff [doing a voice]:

Everything about Mac and Me not at least the fact that it is fairly well made and involving, smacks of crass calculation, the filmmakers even have the gold in the movie’s part and shock to announce a sequel.

Erika:

Yes, that’s right. This film ends with a still and a cartoon text for unknown reasons. Announcing what is it, see you soon?

Jeff:

We’ll be back.

Erika:

We’ll be back.

Jeff:

We’ll be back.

Erika:

Hey, didn’t another movie pick that up another time, that we’ll be back?

Jeff:

Yeah, I believe so. I’m still waiting for Mac and Me to be back, frankly.

Erika:

I have a pet theory that it’s coming.

Jeff:

If honestly, if any of our listeners are interested, we will start a GoFundMe and we will film Mac and Me two.

Erika:

Should we just start-

Jeff:

If you want it.

Erika:

On me.

Jeff:

If you want it, we will do it. I am fully admitted because apparently copyright doesn’t matter. Apparently you can just tell whatever stories you want, E.T. E.T. ish.

Erika:

So next we had Chris Dafoe from the Globe and Mail.

Jeff [doing a voice]:

While worse films have, no, don’t touch the heart of the general public. Mac and Me is not only crass, it’s boring and insulted to children’s intelligences.

Erika:

And I want to say, I took issue with this. Funny that we got crass again. But I just, I took issue with this a little bit because watching this film, this is actually a film that is almost entirely showcasing children. And I think children’s intelligence, specifically their autonomy. We hardly see, the adults in this film are secondary roles. This is a film that is led by children and an alien.

Jeff:

It really does seem to be more about children living as this agentic operators. And I think it really stood out to me in the commentary when they’re talking about how he realized that children want to see themselves on screen. I don’t feel like this movie is trying to trick children. I think it’s trying to be fun and funny. And I would argue that it fails miserably at doing that, 100% fails but I don’t think they’re trying to trick us. I don’t think.

Erika:

No, I don’t think so either. And I really, I think that’s a really astute observation about children wanting to see themselves represented and maybe not unrelated to the fact that we have here, our first disabled actor in a disabled role. Maybe this team, maybe a film production wasn’t their forte. It was just the medium.

Jeff:

Yeah. RJ Louis allegedly had always wanted to do a film starring a disabled actor playing themselves. And in that way, this film is perhaps actually quite progressive. I think one of my favorite critiques of this film, however, came from Juan Carlos Coto from the Miami Herald, who said, quote,

Jeff [doing a voice]:

His pace is quick and the numerous chase scenes made for good fun. For sheer thrills, Mac beats Pippy and Peewee claws down.

Erika:

Oh, sorry. Just for clarification. Do we know who or what Pippy and Peewee are?

Jeff:

This is definitely referencing Peewee, Herman and Pippi Longstocking. And I would imagine anyone listening to this who have seen either of those films is deeply concerned about the mental state of Juan Carlos Coto. I don’t know how anyone can argue that this horrifying monstrosity of an alien is better than Pippi Longstocking or Peewee Herman.

Erika:

I mean, he might be wrong. He might be, we could debate that but I do think he’s probably nailed the class, the class as that belongs in.

Jeff:

Yeah, that’s actually a good point. Maybe this actually maybe does make more sense alongside a Pippi Longstocking or a Peewee Herman. That actually might be a better place to put it. Whereas E.T. is like, oh, I was about to say high film and I apologize for that. But I mean, Spielberg is in a completely different film production category, I would argue. That maybe makes some sense but the fact that it beats it claws down, Juan Carlos Coto what did they have on you? Did they have your family?

Erika:

Does Juan Carlos Coto also work for McDonald’s?

Jeff:

Everyone works for McDonald’s. But of course, film critics are not the only ones that have important opinions. In fact, some of the best opinions about movies in my humblest of opinions can be found within the Amazon Review categories. So we have curated some of our favorite Amazon Reviews of Mac and Me. And we start with a great one. This one comes to us from Sheldon five stars titled. Okay. And the text is okay. Sheldon believes, eh it’s okay. Five stars.

Erika:

Yes, we’ll give it five stars.

Jeff:

Five stars, it’s okay.

Erika:

So, S.A. Hansen, another five star titled a little more descriptively, Look for the Good, Not a Bad, with the text, I see nearly everyone dislikes this film. Everyone either gives it one or no stars. Video movie guide 2000 gave it the Turkey. After I got it, I read the positive and negative reviews. And now I’m glad I was able to enjoy it. Yes, it is a pale clone of E.T. but that is what makes it all the more better. Nothing is better or than E.T. but this is right next to it. Perhaps there won’t be a sequel because of how poorly it did with the box office but it definitely didn’t deserve worst picture.

Jeff:

I love that they say maybe a sequel won’t happen 30 years after this was released. So this is a good one. I like this one for a lot of reasons. This is from our friend, Brian. Five stars titled Inter Galactic Good Times ellipses. The text is, quote, Mac and Me is one of Hollywood’s most overlooked pieces of classic science fiction. Fun for the whole family Mac and Me will take your heart from the introduction of the film’s protagonist and cute little extraterrestrial. Don’t jump to any conclusions. This is no E.T. knockoff. Mac has a mind of his own. After a fabulously choreographed scene at McDonald’s Mac and his handicap friend bracket Me bracket, get into some hefty trouble with the law. Excellent. Pyrotechnics and special effects, a true classic.

Erika:

Is it possible that this review was written on Amazon in 1989?

Jeff:

I think there was like, this was probably shouted out on a CB radio when the film came out and this has been captured and curated for us here. I love how it equal parts, defends the movie and then it plays up other parts and then minimizes others. So for instance, I love the implication that unlike E.T. Mac is an agentic free thinker, E.T. is apparently a conformist, a slave to the system, unlike Mac who thinks for himself.

Erika:

Okay. But Brian also claims that it’s cute and I’m not sure I can agree with that.

Jeff:

That is also an extreme, an extreme, I mean the first time I saw this film, I was old, I was an adult and I was worried about nightmares after I saw this for the first time, the alien to me is terrifying. All of them are very disturbing. I would argue.

Erika:

It is not, I would not cute. And cuddly is not the vibe I get from Mac, which I think Mac is actually said to be an abbreviation for or an acronym for mysterious alien creature.

Jeff:

I think this was a rip on Alf perhaps.

Erika:

Oh, I see it.

Jeff:

I believe, I believe. I also love the statement that quote, they get into, quote, hefty trouble with the law, which is of course an abbreviation for Eric will be shot by the police by the end of this movie, he’ll be shot and killed by a police officer.

Erika:

Depending on which country you watch the film in.

Jeff:

Correct. We’ll talk about that more in a moment.

Erika:

All right. Up next, we’ve got Jason Nickert five stars titled, Jay’s Review on a Childhood Classic. See Jay and I were coming from the same place. So Jay had to say, this movie was was my all time favorite movie when I was growing up, from the first time I watched it on the old TMN movie network. This movie is a great movie with a lot fun attached to it. It was and always will be a cult classic to me. It helped me grow up and it’s tremendous grasp of a boy who falls in love for a being greater than man and shows a compassion that is lacking our day and age. I rate this movie an easy 10 but if, since I can only go to five, I will have to settle for that.

Jeff:

There is a lot to unpack here. Is this a romance movie?

Erika:

I mean, that was not my initial read but-

Jeff:

Do Mac and Eric hook up?

Erika:

I mean, no, we definitely don’t see that happen. I did not have the sense that it happened either. I mean maybe worthy of mentioned, there is a certain, there is a caring relationship, certainly that develops between them.

Jeff:

Definitely.

Erika:

I think we see them both extend care and support towards each other.

Jeff:

If you were watching What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, would you say that he fell in love with Gilbert Grape?

Erika:

No, no. This-

Jeff:

It’s the falls in love that’s very strange to me.

Erika:

Yep. Yep. I mean, what is love?

Jeff:

I also want to know, is Mac genuinely a being greater than man?

Erika:

See, yeah. I mean, I was onboard with most of this review. But that one I’m not so sure about. Certainly portrayed as an other. An other things. Yep. Greater. I mean, yeah. I don’t know about that.

Jeff:

And so his powers are essentially, he’s able to get sucked into things. He essentially has a completely malleable body. He can fit into very small spaces.

Erika:

He doesn’t rely on water.

Jeff:

Right, he lives on Coca-Cola. I don’t know if that makes him better, I’m not sure. We also got a five star review from Kim. This one was titled, Great Movie. And it says quote, I thought it was a good movie. Did you know that the kid in the wheelchair wasn’t just acting in the wheelchair? That was actually his, he has spina bifida and he did all his own stunts, like the water scene where he falls off the cliff. Now this is a good review. I brought this quote on the show because it straight up lies to us in its justification of the film, the actor does have spina bifida. The actor was using his own wheelchair. However, he did not do almost any of the stunts, including he did not do the stunt where he falls off a cliff and into the water. That was definitely not him. And it has stated repeatedly in the commentary of the film, that they were very afraid of killing this child throughout the film. They were really worried that they were going to kill him with the stunts. And that’s why they used stunt doubles. It sounds like very heavily. So Kim, the one thing you tried to sell us on, it wasn’t true

Erika:

Last up. And this is probably my favorite and I would say the most accurate of all of the reviews. So Dylan Kelly gave us a very unforgiving one star review titled, “Truly terrible” with the slightly more generous text, “God, awful, loved every minute.” So I’m just going to say, I think that actually pretty well sums it up for me. How about you, Jeff?

Jeff:

It’s so perfect.

Erika:

So I think we, we pretty much sum up the reviews there. Shall we get into a little bit of a deeper analysis of what happened here?

[Musical Interlude: “Body Terror Song” by AJJ, singing “I’m so sorry that you have to have a body, so very sorry that you have to have a body, oh yeah” over an upbeat piano and acoustic guitar]

Erika:

All right. So let’s get started some general impressions on the film. I mean, clearly we are looking at a low budget. Well, I think if we look at the numbers, it wasn’t exactly a low.

Jeff:

It was not a low budget film. There was a lot of money, but it looks like a straight to DVD film.

Erika:

Yeah. Yeah. So we’ve got what looks like a low budget film. I think that what I want to say first and foremost is I am, I was, I remain just floored at what an excellent disability representation this is. I don’t think we started this film knowing that we were looking at an actual disabled actor. I believe that this was something that we started to pick up on as we watched. Did you know going in?

Jeff:

I fully expected that this thing was going to be a gong show. I figured that this was going to be an absolute, like just paint by color or paint by number just all the worst stuff. And as we were watching this film, I had this dark sneaking suspicion that this actually might be one of the best representations of disability that we’re going to see. It might be a completely unwatchable movie, but it actually may have gotten disability right. And that’s shocking, considered all of the other problems within this film.

Erika:

Right. And so, I mean watching this, especially after the last couple of films that we really, really, I think railed for their unfortunate acting disability. It was very immediately evident that the actor was not sort of imagining disability and acting this. What an able bodied actor might imagine Spina bifida or, I mean, very unique among this film. I don’t think that his diagnosis is ever mentioned. I don’t think except for one incident we’ll get back to. He’s really not medicalized. There’s no dwelling on his leaky body. There are no kind of awkward and inconsistent arm, hand-leg movements. It’s just a kid using a chair and that’s not even, I mean, it’s not even that. It’s just a kid who happens to be using a chair. It’s never the focus. It’s never the focal point. And that is just, that is rare.

Jeff:

Yeah. I don’t know how they got this, so right. Considering everything else, like I think it is important for us to clarify here. This film is terrible. It is a terrible film, but somehow within this pile of excrement, this is like beautiful flower of representation emerged, and that is shocking.

Erika:

Yeah. I mean, I think you throughout the hypothesis that, because the film was strewed together so quickly, maybe they just didn’t have time to overthink the disability representation.

Jeff:

I think that might be it. I feel like they didn’t even think about disability because they didn’t have time. Like we hear in the commentary that at times they were literally like right and stuff. And then like looking for, see places to film the next scene and finding these locations like the night before, and then just like go in there the next day to shoot the scene. I wonder if, when you don’t have a time to think about the story and you’re literally just shooting one scene after another, then it just, it becomes like a non-factor. They were like, “Well, we don’t have the time or the capacity to actually engage with any of this stuff, because we’re trying to film a movie in like a month and a half.” And I think a lot of the stuff in this film is reflective of that philosophy.

Jeff:

It’s like, well, we’re not going to think of like an original plot line. We don’t have time for that. So we’re just going to take parts of ET and then put it in there. We’re going to take parts of Back to the Future and we’re going to put it in there. We’re basically just going to be like, “Oh, do I, Spielberg, we’re going to take a bunch of stuff from his films. We’re going to jam it together. And we’re just going to get this thing out the door. That’s what our plan is.

Erika:

Well, and that really squares with the intent for this film to essentially raise money for a charity. It wasn’t about reinventing cinema. It was about how do we use the medium to meet our end. And I think, two things related to that, that I think sort of played out. We heard on the commentary, the directors say, “We really had to take Jade’s lead because we imagined a scene would go one way. And then we got there and Jade sort of told us it needed to go another way.” And so that we saw in another film, I think it was Miracle in Lane 2 that had an onsite wheelchair consultant.

Jeff:

Yes.

Erika:

And so, I mean the director of this film and the commentary acknowledged how much they learned about disability and just sort of the mundaneness of living with disability, through working with Jade on the film.

Jeff:

Now, I’m sorry. Can we talk about the cliff scene? I think we need to talk about it. It is the elephant in the room for those of you who have not seen the film yet, Eric has decided it is finally time to capture this alien. He’s been sort of pursuing it. There’s weird things happening in his house and he follows the alien out of his house, ends up on a cliff, which his wheelchair then runs down. He tries to put on the brakes, the brakes snap off and his wheelchair then launches off the cliff. He falls for a long time into this water below at which point, typically he is to drown. And it is at this point that Mac finally reveals himself, swims out into the water and somehow rescues this man or child, pulls him to the shore. The next time we will see Eric, he’s now in his bedroom being consulted by doctors. What stood out for you in the cliff scene? Erika?

Erika:

I mean, there’s the shock, certainly. Like, who thought to launch the wheelchair kid off a cliff? Why was that? Why? Where did that come from?

Jeff:

The stakes have never been higher.

Erika:

Right. I mean, in one sense it seemed kind of realistic because I don’t think we’ve mentioned that the family had just moved into a new home. So, a kid out exploring it’s not unrealistic. It’s not that sort of trope that we’re used to seeing where a blind character sort of feeling around for things in their own home that they most likely know where to find them. Right. It’s not that kind of thing. It’s not unrealistic that he would slip down. I don’t know what to call it. A cliff.

Jeff:

Ravine, cliff side. Yeah.

Erika:

And lose control. Did that seem realistic to you?

Jeff:

Yes and no. The way he reacted to it is what actually got me. And it’s interesting because as we found, unlike what Kim, the liar would try and tell us. Jade, the actor had nothing really to do with this. It was a stunt double that was used, which I think is also incredible because I believe it looks pretty obvious that there is not a person in this wheelchair. Allegedly, it is a person. I am not super convinced on that. But one thing that I think that doesn’t speak to the reality of manual wheelchairs, I don’t know many people that go to the brakes to try and stop themselves from moving. But the brakes, when I was in a manual wheelchair, those breaks are rickety. Like they don’t really work and it’s really more so for like, when you’re doing a transfer, when you’re sitting still, right.

Jeff:

You’re like, I’ve come to a stop and I’m going to put this on so that I don’t roll down a gradual incline. When I was in a manual wheelchair, the gut instinct was, you just grab the wheels, you just full on, grab the wheel with your hands. And at the time, if you’re going at the speed that your brake will snap off, you are well beyond the point I think of stopping the chair. And I think you would just bail out. I think you would just jump out of the chair. So I think that was a little bit obviously kind of ridiculous. And it’s interesting that in the scene that doesn’t use Eric, we see kind of a different use of the wheelchair that maybe doesn’t exactly resonate. I really am surprised that they basically tried to kill him off this early in the movie. That was like a full blown. He almost died.

Erika:

Yeah. I mean he almost died and the alien quickly came to his rescue. So I mean, that’s interesting. That’s an interesting way to cue our first real meeting with the alien. Is there something to that?

Jeff:

I wonder too, like how did the alien know that he was drowning? How does this child alien from a different planet that is ostensibly a desert in which they use straws to suck Coke out of. How was the alien like, “Oh, he’s drowning. He breathes air. I need to get down in there and pull him out.” I also want to know, after the scene is done. So once he hits the water, the actor is separated from the wheelchair. And so when he is saved, he’s like dragged to the side of the water by Mac, which again, I just want to point out as well. We do see Jade with his arms exposed, in this film. And this kid was ripped because he was like borderline Paralympian.

Jeff:

He was doing like wheelchair races at the time. I have a hard time imagining that he didn’t have the physical capacity to swim, but anyways, we see him get pulled out of the water. The next time we see him, he’s in his bed, but his wheelchair is there who got his wheelchair from the bottom of the lake. Did Mac go back? Cause after he pushes the boy to the side of the water. He then goes back underwater, like Mac goes back down. Is he going down to get the wheelchair? And how is he like, this is a $6000 or $7,000 wheelchair. I need to go get that for this kid.

Erika:

The curious thing is that we see Eric flailing in the water in a way that suggests there is not a chair pulling him under the water, but then we see him lifted out of water on the chair. But yeah, the question remains. How did he get from the bottom of this valley? Back up to his home on the cliff?

Jeff:

Yeah. There’s fire. There’s fire people there. There are multiple fire trucks and multiple cop cars. And I feel like that is also a real over response to a kid who was at center. He was fine. There’s no indication that this child suffered any sort of injury from what he definitely should have probably died from.

Erika:

And see, this is where we see some good representation that I don’t think we can probably credit to Eric. Right. Because decisions were made around Eric. With Eric slash actor Jade. Decisions were made not to sort of portray his helplessness or his neediness by showing anyone, carrying him or dragging him or however it was that he got out of this situation that wasn’t shown. We didn’t sort of dwell on his fragility, this thing happened. And he was so fragile already that he just crumbled to pieces. Not at all. I mean, we did see the next scene. We do see him next in bed, but other than that, we don’t go. Those tropes weren’t sort of milked the way that we’ve seen them in other films.

Jeff:

Also, can we talk about their van? Because I do not understand how Eric, the character Eric. How he is put inside this Volkswagen van. I don’t understand what the heck is going on. Okay. So we see throughout the film, Eric is presented in several different configurations within this old school Volkswagen van. We see one scene in which his older brother, Michael grabs his wheelchair and carries the wheelchair and Eric out of the van. So the there’s not like a ramp or a power lift or anything.

Jeff:

There don’t appear to be like tie down straps. Sometimes he is basically between the front seats. Other times, he’s way in the back of his fan. He is like all over the place. And it feels like we hear on a commentary that there was a whole lot of drama around filming within the van. And the problem was not Eric himself. It was that they needed a bunch of puppeteers, also in the van with all the film crew and all the film equipment. And that there just wasn’t enough room. And so I think Eric was just getting sort of pushed around into different spots of the van in order to make it fit. But the van stuff was wild to me because there was just no consistency in how this boy was transported.

Erika:

Yeah. So I looked into this because I was curious. How is the wheel chair getting into the van for one? And actually it turns out that the, as in character, Eric even explains to someone else. The question comes up, “Well, how do you get in the car?” And they say, “Oh, well, I can just hop in my wheelchair and sit in the back.” So he explains that himself, their van curiously not have a ramp or a lift of any sort on it. And we never see him navigating that. That the timing, the actual year, this film was 1988. Yeah. Looking into it, it turns out it was sort of in the mid seventies, that the converted van was first sort of being explored. And I think it was 87 or 88, actually. That vans really started to be adaptive. So its very likely that they wouldn’t have actually had any concept of an adapted van. It’s possible that someone in the production might have seen one or known something about them, but it might actually be that we were just in a sort of in an era of makeshift accessibility for automobiles.

Jeff:

It’s fascinating because in some ways, again, perhaps not even intentionally, this movie made the right choice because I think often when disabled characters are brought in, there’s this weird pressure, like they’re trying to figure out like, “Well, how would someone in a wheelchair use a van?” And then, well, they didn’t have the internet really in 1988, but they would’ve like called and then like, “Well, what’s up there.” And what you end up finding is that often people with disabilities in films are using the top of the line equipment that no one else actually has access to like different drummer. They’re using a piss tube, which no one else had access to that technology nor have they ever gotten access to it. And, so it’s interesting because again, by perhaps not even intentionally, I think they probably did show the reality of usable wheelchair where they’re like, “Ah, let’s just get this Volkswagen bus thing and take out the middle seat and we’ll just sort of jam the chair in there.” Because that’s kind of what families were doing at the time.

Erika:

Mac and Me nails it once again.

Jeff:

Now, while there were lots of good things, I think in this film. There were some interesting tropes that we noticed. Things that we see a lot in disability film. One of the tropes, I don’t have a lot to say about it, but I do want to fly that right off the bat. Is that similar to Miracle in Lane 2. Within this film, Eric’s brother Michael, we go into his room at one point and discover that he has tons of sport medals. And so once again, we have this idea of the disabled child and there’s simple and being hyper performative that Michael is apparently very physically successful. I don’t believe we really see any metals in Eric’s room. It didn’t stand out anyway. He mostly had toys.

Erika:

Well, and what’s interesting about that. We learned on the commentary that Jade was actually a high performing athlete.

Jeff:

Yes.

Erika:

This was very much one of those gifts from the imagination of the writers. Not from reality.

Jeff:

It’s funny too, because sport is always in the background of this film, but never actually does become in the center within both of the boys’ bedrooms. We see this cornucopia of Chicago Sports Team references, there’s posters to the Chicago Bears. There’s posters of the Cubbies. There’s all this sort of reference to Chicago sports in the infamous dance scene in the McDonald’s. There are people in full blown football uniforms, but only like two or three of them, not a team, just like a couple of guys going to McDonald’s after the game. Why is that?

Erika:

I mean, is that just a, is it an eighties sort of stereotype of the culture at the time? I think in the dance scene, we see, there are street performers, there are the athletes, there are, I think some ballet dancers?

Jeff:

There’s ballerinas. I think it maybe, it’s like, I wonder if this was a way of signifying, like reminding us that they also are fish out of water. Like the alien, obviously Mac is a fish out of water, but so too is Eric and Michael because they’re from Chicago and they’re not from California. And that division of Illinois and Chicago and California being different places with different ideas about the world is something that comes up a couple times. Like Erica and Michael are also kind of immigrants into this California world. And so I wonder if the sports teams were just like an easy way to be like, “Don’t forget, they’re not from California.”

Erika:

I want to come back to this one actually, but let’s go first to the other trope. I think we saw, even though briefly was why Eric was not injured by his fall off the cliff. Why do we next frame see him in bed with a doctor?

Jeff:

I love it. This is such a fascinating trope to me that when characters are hurt or sick, we symbolize it by putting them in bed. I mean, this kid just fell off a cliff and into the water. Is his first instinct to be like, “I should go lay down.” Or is it more this iconic image of the doctor at the bedside, caring for the patient. It

Erika:

It called to mind for me, the Frankie Muniz character in Miracle in Lane 2. How he was always about to burst. Right. 911 was on speed dial because three clicks was too many. You had to get medical help there so quickly. There’s almost some remnant of that in the doctor, get the doctor here quick. Most kids, we do, we kind of monitor the mob on the head and see if it goes down before we call the doctor. But this is sort of maybe some glimmer of that because disability is present. Medicine is always just off scene.

Jeff:

I wonder if this explains the overreaction from EMT as well. At this idea that he wasn’t just hurt. It was a wheelchair kid that fell off a cliff, not just any kid. And so you need multiple police cars, you need fire. You’re going to have the doctor’s going to visit at home. And the doctor essentially gives him like a clean bill of health. And he just, all is he does is to prescribes him a sedative. Is that how all doctors operated in the 1980s?

Erika:

We might need to bring that back if I’m being honest.

Jeff:

Right. Just prescribed sedatives. Just opiate of the masses, maybe literal opium. I think this was a really like, it’s such a cliché. And I think it’s funny in watching this film from the 1980s and looking at where American healthcare is now. I think the idea of a general practitioner coming to your bedside, that period of healthcare in America is dead. But there was no reference to HMOs who was going to pay for this medical care. There was no reference to paying for the fix on his wheelchair or any. There was no delay, even in repairing the wheelchair. It was just like, “Well, of course we care for people when they’re sick or hurt. Because that’s what our culture believes in. That actually felt really foreign watching this again in 2021.

Erika:

Yeah. Is that a relic? Is it a fantasy?

Jeff:

That’s a good question. Maybe somewhere in the middle. I think that there was maybe this desire to believe of America as the best. This movie is very much about America, right? It’s about America being the best at sort of everything. And so I think similarly, this idea that we provide the best healthcare, that I think was really important back in the ’80s in a way that now I think America, for whatever reason, has now been like, “Well, whatever, we might have great healthcare, and maybe we don’t, but you got to pay. One way or another you’re going to pay.”

Erika:

Which ironically is also the genesis of the film, right? Was that-

Jeff:

Right. Charity.

Erika:

Funding a charity. So yeah, I was going to ask, I don’t really know the historical evolution of healthcare in America from the bedside doctor to the hospital industrial complex, but we’re certainly looking at a film that was created to fund a charity that helps families of children getting medical care.

Jeff:

Now I want to flag this because we’ll come back to it again. But, I do want to point out why did he not end up in a Ronald McDonald House after this? That seems like such a clear synergy because the intention was to fund Ronald McDonald Houses.

Erika:

The thing about this film is that it is not actually a film about disability. It’s a film about all America, right? It’s a film about another, but it’s not the disabled other, despite there being a disabled character, it’s really about the alien other. Who, I think we already read into it, some kind of a, immigration text before we heard the director call it an immigration text.

Jeff:

Yes, absolutely. That is confirmed.

Erika:

Yeah. That was just, I think an unexpected trope for a disability movie that’s maybe not really a disability movie at all.

Jeff:

I think in that vein, I’d like to unpack a little bit here. This idea of disability and the other. So as we saw in both of the previous movies, so in Miracle in Lane 2 and in Different Drummer, there’s this idea that disability is bound to, or drawn to the other. In this film, it is a disabled character who gets bound to an alien. So, did Mark choose Eric, or was Eric determined to befriend the alien because of his other status?

Erika:

It’s a really good question. Literally what we see, there’s sort of this big commotion early in the movie. It’s a car crash and the alien is present and the alien and is sort of meandering around the car crash. And what we next see is Eric at home and the alien has hitched a ride or followed them home, right. So, literally what we see is that the alien chose Eric.

Jeff:

Yeah. Not just chose the car. There were many other cars. I will say, in that car crash, there was a man who was straight up on fire during that scene. This movie, the stakes have never been higher. People were on fire, in this multi-car pile up caused by the alien. But he does, he looks in the middle, he jumps in. And I think similarly, Eric and his family do not seem to be phased really, at all. That there is now this terrifying alien wandering around and destroying their house.

Erika:

Destroying their house, being pursued by the FBI. Right? They’ve got cars, they’ve got on foot officers, they are chasing this alien down.

Jeff:

There’s a brief moment of doubt. So, at first his family is like, no there is no alien. And then they’re like, oh shoot, there is an alien. Okay, well now there’s an alien. I almost wonder if this is, this notion that difference begets difference. That because they are living this different life with a son that has a disability, they’re just suddenly kind of more accepting of difference as well. They’re like, oh we need to see the value in everyone. Even if they look different or behave different or act different. They’re more accepting of that difference. And so at no point are they like, whoa, there are other intelligent species in this world that live on different planets.

Erika:

Yeah. I think the fascinating part of this for me is that, I’m not convinced that this was an intentional part of the writing of the film. I don’t think that our friend who essentially bragged about launching the wheelchair off the cliff and the genius of that writing, I don’t think that that same person wrote this deep sort of trope around the other and the openness that living with around disability might beget. I think that this is really one of those special moments where we get a very kind of subconscious trope written into the film and where this sort of bonding between others or openness compassion to others because of an othered existence. But something else that I think I felt in this dynamic was that, because disability was being portrayed as so just mundane, it was almost, the otherness of disability was really overshadowed by the otherness of the alien.

Erika:

And almost not even, overshadowed in a sense, but also sort of humanized. I think in a lot of the films that we might consider, whether they’re our preferred offbeat representations or the mainstream representations, we see disability treated as its own. It is sort of the object that carries the film. It’s the object that is analyzed and picked apart in the film. And disability wasn’t objectified in that way here. And because Mark is clearly not human, it almost creates, it almost bolsters the humanity of the disabled character.

Jeff:

Yeah. Mark becomes the obvious other, and also the problem to be solved. Which then allows Erin to A, not be a problem. And B, to be actually in closer proximity to the other human characters, and therefore marked as a human character.

Erika:

Yeah. I don’t know if this is a stretch to observe, but noticing that Eric cares for Mark in a, almost parental, in a kind of parental custodial kind of way.

Jeff:

Motherly.

Erika:

Yeah. Right.

Jeff:

Motherly way.

Erika:

Himself, sort of leaned over at the bedside, holding up his head and feeding him the Coca-Cola that he needs to survive.

Jeff:

Yeah. I was disturbed by that scene. I was waiting for the breastfeeding to happen in that moment. He’s creative with his head, and it’s like, “Have some bitty my friend.”

Erika:

Maybe we’re really getting deep into the subconscious here.

Jeff:

Is Eric Mark’s mother. An interesting question. But I honestly do not know of many other films in which the disabled character is a provider of care. The one that pops into my mind immediately, and I hate that I’m going to say this, would be I Am Sam. There is, it’s a two-way care relationship, but he does provide care for his daughter. But Eric is definitely a provider of care, throughout this film, and also the advocate. He is literally the voice for Mark.

Erika:

Who doesn’t speak just as… If you haven’t gotten around to watching the film yet Mark does not communicate using verbal language.

Jeff:

No. And also does communicate in extremely abstract hints. So for instance, what he wants to say, my family is by the windmills, he puts a flower in a straw. And that moment, when Eric is like, oh, the windmills. That’s what he is referring to. I’m like, I would’ve never made that connection. Mark would’ve never reconnected with his family, if I was Eric.

Erika:

Is that giving Eric a bit of that sort of superhuman? Is he then, we often see that either lesser or greater than human. Is…

Jeff:

She seems to have some sort of insight, but again, I wonder if that is not the nature that Eric has a unique ability. And I don’t even necessarily think it’s an idea that Mark maybe has a telepathic ability. So he’s sort of actually putting the ideas maybe into Eric. I don’t think that’s what’s happening either. I think they were like, we got to get this in done in 90 minutes. So, we’re just going to throw the stuff out there and Eric will just figure it out, and it’ll be fine.

Erika:

It’s a movie by and for the children.

Jeff:

Also, if you are an American, you should be ashamed of your government in this film. Because, the fact that they’re not able to capture these aliens is a true indictment about the incompetence of law enforcement and not the only indictment of law enforcement within this film.

Erika:

Yeah. So, our ending scene. You’ve already kind of thrown out the spoiler that our protagonist is shot at, at least by the police. So we have the, Mark is reunited with his parents and sibling. They enter a grocery store and essentially, it all just breaks loose at that point. The police are there, presumably they’ve been called to deal with the aliens in the supermarket. How does the fire start?

Jeff:

From the shooting. Cause it’s a gas station.

Erika:

And the gas station. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, we have not only a store full of people, but we have Eric rushing in to try and help them while the police continue to shoot at the aliens, and now at Eric. We learn that in an alternate ending, not the one that we see, Eric is actually shot by police. Which is of course leading up to his being brought back to life by the aliens, how? Something that looks a bit like the seance that we practiced in, early ’90s. Did it come from, when was the craft made? Anyway, clearly another precious time capsule. But yeah, the cops are just shooting. They shoot the kids. In our American version, it’s been edited so that we don’t actually see that happen. We see sort of Eric Rush to save his friends and the explosion, and he’s sort of presumably affected by the explosion. But, the police were indeed shooting openly at the aliens and everyone else in the vicinity who happened to be at a grocery store slash gas bar.

Jeff:

My favorite part, I think about… So number one, if you have not watched The International, you could find it on YouTube. You can straight up watch the police shoot and kill a disabled child, which is a bold stance for this film to take. Hilarious. But I love, so afterwards Eric’s mother is brought to the scene, and she’s rushing and there’s a police officer. And he is like, “One of the kids was shot.” And she’s like, “Which one?” Which I think is also hilarious thing. And she’s not necessarily equally concerned based on what child has been gunned down. She’s like, well, I love my one son more than the other. And she’s like, “Which one?” And the cop is like, “I don’t know, but he uses a wheelchair.” And then there’s like, “Oh no Eric.” And she runs over and then this sort of scene happens.

Jeff:

It’s an interesting moment because, I think there’s some authenticity here. Where I think if a woman was like, “Oh, who got hurt?” And the police were like, “Well, I don’t know his name.” I don’t think they’d be like, “Oh, I don’t know. He was wearing a Patagonia jacket. Or like, “Oh, he had blonde hair.” The wheelchair is definitely going to be the defining moment. And in fact this is like the only time really, one of the rare times that he is defined by his disability. But I think it was a really authentic moment. I think that’s exactly what would happen. I fully agree. It’s like, “Oh, shoot, we killed the wheelchair one.”

Erika:

Nevermind that the mom was helicoptered in when they didn’t even know who had been shot.

Jeff:

Yeah. They knew she was related in some way. I don’t know where this helicopter got her from, I guess maybe, the seers see. So, the mom was at seers. And they have a little run through at seers, but I think that was aways earlier. So, I don’t know that they necessarily would’ve known that they were connected. But the mom meant to be there, and the child is saved. And I hate that. I wanted this movie to have the courage to kill the boy in a wheelchair.

Erika:

I just want to say, Different Drummers. We also had a death and a revival.

Jeff:

Yeah. The return. Yeah. Now that was more of a biblical revival, but the disabled kid comes back. And I think we all knew it was going to happen. I think the movie was really forecasting it.

Erika:

But I think the better question really is, and you’ve already posed this, why? Why? Why did he not end up in a Ronald McDonald House?

Jeff:

Well, that’s the thing. There are multiple times in which this child has almost died, and the film is supposedly to the benefit of, I’m assuming Ronald McDonalds House. They refer to it as the Ronald McDonald Charity, which, they do other things, but Ronald McDonald House is the main thing, as far as I understand. And yet they don’t do it. However, what we do see is that McDonald’s is the place to rock. What the heck is happening in this organized dance scene?

Erika:

Okay. Another point of great pride for the director, in the commentary. This dancing, and I thought let’s make it a musical. And so we made it a musical, what and why? I think, when we watched the movie the first time without the commentary, that was really the moment that, is this a film or is this a really drawn out commercial for McDonald’s?

Jeff:

That McDonald’s, is like exactly what a marketer wants you to think. It is like to go to a McDonald’s. The place is pumping, bopping, the jams are on, there’s a dance battle happening in the parking lot.

Erika:

So, this is another one of those, I think culturally relevant throwbacks. And maybe this is more relevant to my own childhood where I grew up, we had a McDonald’s caboose. Were those universal, or did we just happen to have one?

Jeff:

I think it was really specific. I think they did different things at most of the McDonald’s. So, like some of them had the play house type things. My McDonald’s in Port Elgin had a terrifying, torture chamber in the basement. There was a basement and it was horrifying and it smelled really bad. I went to one birthday there, and I vowed that I would never return to this dim lit, no window. What can only be described as BDSM torture chamber.

Erika:

Okay. This is fascinating. Maybe the topic for an entirely different podcast that is not our own. But in Chatham where I grew up, we had a caboose and it was the place to have your McDonald’s birthday party. So, I think yeah, maybe that was it. Maybe that was what the McDonald’s execs wanted. Was, we just, you do what you want with the film, we need to push the McDonald’s birthday party as the place to be in the late ’80s, early ’90s, for a birthday party.

Jeff:

It is the coolest place. And it’s a place where the party never ends. The population within this McDonald’s is radically diverse, diverse in age, diverse in ethnicity, diverse in preferences and interests. There are, like you said earlier, ballerinas, there’s football players, there’s old people, there’s young people, there’s basically, I think every race is represented in this McDonald. And everyone’s just intermixed. Ronald McDonald is literally there making puppets and balloons for people. The people working at the front are happy and clapping. A dance sequence breaks out. This place is so much fun. The most fun. At no point, do they ever reflect the feces covered bathrooms, or the seats that were literally designed so that you couldn’t sit in them very long, so that you got the heck out of the McDonald’s, so they could bring in the next feeder to sell their burgers to. It is… And the plants, this McDonald’s is full of lush greenery. And I definitely do not remember there being any sort of plant in a McDonald’s that I ever visited.

Erika:

I think this answers our earlier question. That was, is this a relic or a fantasy? Clearly-

Jeff:

It is 100% a fantasy.

Erika:

A fantasy,

Jeff:

A big time fantasy. And one thing that I’m kind of here for, can you imagine if there was a place where you could go to where all creeds and religions and ages are all just together, dancing and partying and celebrating all the time, and there’s a clown there who will make you things. I would go there.

Erika:

Are you not describing Disneyland?

Jeff:

Actually wouldn’t go there. I… (laugh) Disney, the mouse is furious that they didn’t get in on the Mac and Me. That’d be a great theme park there, right? Come to this, fantasy McDonald’s where the party never stops. The other thing I will say, if you want to see some child actors dancing their bloody hearts out, this is the scene for you. The intensity with which these people are dancing, it is like Toddlers and Tiaras, decades before it happens.

Erika:

And, fun fact, Jennifer Anderson is in this scene.

Jeff:

I would argue without Mark and me, Friends never happens.

Erika:

Yep.

Jeff:

So, if you’re looking for a place to go where fun is happening all the time, it is time for you to go to, the Rock ‘n’ Roll McDonald’s.

[Music Interlude: “Rock ‘n Roll McDonal’s by Wesley Willis, auto-tuned singing “Rock ‘n’ Roll McDonald’s. Rock ‘n’ Roll McDonald’s. Rock ‘n’ Roll McDonald’s” over a synth beat] 

Erika:

All right. So, as we do, we have put this film through the ringer, but, some closing thoughts. To be fair, what were some things that you thought the film did well?

Jeff:

Full bloody marks, for them, casting an actor with a disability and actually listening to them actually embodying some of that advice, but maybe there were consequences to that.

Erika:

Well, I think what you’re sort of teetering on saying, something that they did well, really worked to their disadvantage. Because they wanted this movie to raise money, right? But it did not raise money. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they did not. They did not produce a stereotypical tugging at your heartstrings, trope, and that’s where they were going to get the money. So, I think, what the film did really well, ultimately shot them in the foot.

Jeff:

Absolutely. I wonder if they had leaned more into the disability tropes, if they may have gotten a bit more slack. I think one thing that’s fascinating about the commentary about this film and some of the things that the directors have talked about is the, one of the director and writer, is on record basically saying that, he’s like, “We cast a disabled kid in this film. I can’t believe people hate it.” I believe he literally says that he thought America was more charitable than that. As though that by doing this, should just gloss over, or fix, or remediate the flaws of the film, which obviously is a ridiculous thing to believe. I think it really speaks to this idea that disability can be used in films to cover over other problems within the film. And so without the crutch of disability, all of the problems were laid bare and it just couldn’t survive.

Erika:

Ooh, that is, yep. That pretty much captures it. Yep. And, maybe it didn’t make the money that they wanted to make, but maybe it really had more of an impact than they could have foreseen.

Jeff:

I would argue this film should be shown in schools that want to teach directors how to do disability. And that’s a shocking thing.

Erika:

Right. Once again, this is not to be shown for how to make a film or how to be successful.

Jeff:

No.

Erika:

Or how to win awards.

Jeff:

No.

Erika:

But it is absolutely a film that should be shown to teach people how to do disability right in a movie.

Jeff:

It’s painful to admit.

Erika:

It’s painful, but it’s just so simple. I think what we see in this film is literally what everyone is asking for all the time, can you please just cast a disabled actor in a disabled role? Can you even consider casting a disabled actor in a non-disabled role? Yep, it is going to cost more because you know what? Living with disability does cost more.

Jeff:

I think that’s another thing that really resonated with me in the commentary of this film was the way that they talked about… They acknowledged outright that they had to do things differently when they were filming with this child who uses a wheelchair. They had to find a house that was accessible for the child to actually be able to get into to do the filming. But what was great about the way he talked about it was it wasn’t like a oh geez, we had all these problems and barriers and burdens.

Jeff:

It wasn’t that at all. He literally said, he was like, “That was actually the fun part, was that we had all these problem, and we had to find solutions for it.” That I think is like exactly the mindset that you have to go into. And now maybe this commentary is recorded decades after the film was done, maybe in remembering it, if you remember it is more fun than it was at the time, but I think that’s the mindset you should be you going in with. So other than the representation piece of it, was there anything that you enjoyed about the movie, Erika?

Erika:

Hmm.

Jeff:

I know that’s a tough question.

Erika:

That is a tough question. I think I did enjoy some of what we have been able to read into the immigration metaphor. There’s some interesting gender stuff around the aliens too. It’s funny to see how we imagine aliens, what do we imagine that they’re going to look like, and a very clear projection of some heteronormative stuff onto these aliens that are… They’re sexless. I think the adult and child male and female bodies, the bodies are the same. I think the only real difference we see are the males have two bumps on their head and the females have four. I won’t say it’s something I liked. I think for me it felt like a bit of a missed opportunity, certainly a product of its time, but it got me thinking, seeing these sexless bodies got me thinking if we were thinking here more about gender than about disability and immigration, I think we could see something cool here in a more sci-fi realm or in an alien movie.

Jeff:

I love the fact that these aliens are basically like a Frankenstein’s monster of sex organs that have just been cobbled together, and yet are completely desexualized. These aliens are like nipples, boobs and butts everywhere. If you look at this thing, their elbows, their joints look like boobs and mammary-ish. They’ve got these head nipples, they’ve got booties on the back of their heads. Mac, I’m not going to say that he was dummy thick, but I will say, Mac had a little bit of a booty. He had a shapely little bum in a way that I think clocks as cute, like a baby bum situation. But these aliens, if you look at them, these are sex organs that have been compiled together with these giant eyes and these weird little butthole mouths.

Erika:

I don’t know if we want to go in this direction, but I wondered, some of that you’re reading these real human body parts into these alien costumes, and maybe it’s just a coincidence, but I wondered, thinking deeper into that, is this reinforcing that idea that these are not actually other worldly, so much as they are people from another place? And just really concretizing that immigration trope that we know was actually intentional.

Jeff:

I think you’re right on.

Erika:

We did hear in the commentary that the primary focus in designing the aliens was to not rip off ET too closely.

Jeff:

Yes, I think that was the driving emphasis of this entire movie. [crosstalk 01:14:48]

Erika:

This was mirror mantra? It was on all of their mirrors, do not rip off ET too closely.

Jeff:

Close, but not too close. I think it’s time for us then to get a little trivial. What’s some trivia from this film that we discovered? So are there any repeat offenders in this film? And the only one that I… Well, okay, let me take a step back. There were a ton of people that would go on to do some amazing things, they had big careers, but there isn’t a really clear direct line to disability. I would say maybe one of he closest, one of the people involved was also involved in the film Mask, which was definitely a disability text. And the director, Stewart Raffill, also did a movie called Mannequin: On the Move. Now this is a movie about a woman who essentially is paralyzed by magic, and she becomes a mannequin. I don’t know if you would count that as a disability text, I would, she has no control of her body because of magic.

Jeff:

That’s about the extent of it. We also, as we’ve done in previous episodes, like to talk a little bit about the equipment, some equipment facts coming at you. Throughout the film, Eric, of course, is rocking a quality chair. He is in a QUICKIE manual wheelchair, but the product placement isn’t just about McDonald’s and Coke, my friends, because also in this film we see a t-shirt for QUICKIE wheelchairs, as well as, I’m pretty sure, a hat. There’s a red hat in his room. I believe it’s a QUICKIE hat. It may also be a MAGA hat. I’m not sure. I think it’s a QUICKIE hat. I don’t think they had MAGA hats back in 1988. I don’t know. I’m pretty sure Donald Trump was a Democrat still at that point. What about some production facts, Erika? Do we have any good production facts?

Erika:

Oh, we have a couple, yeah. So we had some pretty heavy hitters working in the background on this production. And one of those was the maker of the music. Do you remember the name of that person? Does it matter? You can look it up. It’s easily available online. But the individual responsible for the score for this film was also responsible for Back to the Future, which I really want to give Jeff full credit here, because when we watched this film before we knew who this music person was, Jeff said, “Is this the Back to the Future music?” So wow. Nailed it. Absolutely. You might also find continuity into Predator or The Avengers, because our music maker for this film, the score guy, do we call him?

Jeff:

Yeah, sure.

Erika:

Okay. The score guy also worked on these absolute real success films. I do have some questions. There were moments where the music had me feeling like I was actually watching ET. So I think they may have forgotten to put the memo on his mirror.

Jeff:

There was some overlap, for sure.

Erika:

Yes. Another fun one we had, our director is a known animal wrangler. So working on films, wrangling animals in a way that I wouldn’t even understand what that meant were it not for two stellar animal wrangling scenes in Mac and Me. The first of which is a scene in which a pack of dogs, wild dogs, but not wild dogs. Very much like…

Jeff:

They’re neighborhood dogs.

Erika:

Somehow, 50 or so, would you say, 25? I don’t know. There’s a whole bunch of dogs.

Jeff:

A lot.

Erika:

A lot of dogs are out chasing Mac as he… Is he soap boxing…?

Jeff:

Yeah, no, he’s in electric car. He’s in one of those electric Jeep car things.

Erika:

Yeah. So we have the dog chase scene. And then a very, very gratuitous wild horses scene at the end. We are in a desert shore, why is there a VW camper van hurling through the desert followed by a pack of horses? I don’t have an answer for you.

Jeff:

Because nothing says the free spirit of the American West like a VW van.

Erika:

Well, that explains the horses.

Jeff:

I’m so curious about what that was all about. So curious.

Erika:

Honestly, I think maybe you’re onto something there. Maybe someone says, “But wait, it’s a Volkswagen. We need some horses.” Or maybe the animal wrangler was like, “Guys, guys, can we just put some horses though?”

Jeff:

I got all these horses, let’s do something with all these horses.

Erika:

I know a guy…

Jeff:

I rode a horse!

 

Jeff:

So there’s obviously a lot of product placement in this film. If ET is all about Reese’s Pieces, this film is all about Coke and McDonald’s. McDonald’s of course having a strong partnership with Coke. There’s a temporary use of Skittles. Skittles is temporarily in the film. It just appears for the first half and then it’s like they forgot about it, and were just like, “Well, no more Skittles in this film.” Now all of this is put off. It’s explained or justified by this charity angle. The argument made by many of the people involved in this film is that all of these things were necessary evils, because it was all about the money. Let’s raise some money for a really good cause.

Jeff:

Now I am going to question this motive deeply and seriously. I think there are numerous instances throughout this film where if the object was to talk about Ronald McDonald House or the Ronald McDonald charity, why was it never addressed in any way? Why was there never any press to tell people why it was a good charity? Why they should donate to it? There was no actual appeal within the movie. Which is probably not a bad thing, it would’ve broken the movie a little bit. I agree. But I feel like this whole Ronald McDonald charity explanation doesn’t seem to really surface until after the movie bombs. The movie is a bomb and everyone’s critiquing how product placement it is, and then suddenly you have this narrative of oh well the producer always wanted to make a movie about the disabled person, and oh, he really liked the Ronald McDonald charity, which has nothing to do with him working as an advertiser for Ronald McDonald, of course.

Jeff:

The director in the commentary literally says that they were trying to see how they could push the envelope of product placement in this film. They were like, “How far can we go with placements before the audience is turned off?” And the answer is they went too far. They went way too far. It was literally described as being crass. And so I wonder if charity is being used here to sanitize the monstrous invasion of capital within this film and the ways in which they don’t try to make a movie, they tried to make a commercial, which also maybe explains why this movie that had a multimillion dollar budget was filmed in six weeks, because the story actually didn’t have anything to do with it. This is just purely a vehicle to sell McDonald’s, to sell Coke, to sell whatever other product they could place in it. And then it didn’t work, and now there’s this revisionist history.

Erika:

Well, as usual, you have done your research and you have used that research.

Jeff:

I don’t know. I’m just saying, but this is the part of the podcast where we get sued. But I do find it a little sus, it’s a little sussy.

Erika:

I don’t disagree with you. I think it’s potentially an answer to why didn’t we get a Ronald McDonald House scene? Why didn’t we get there if this is what this was about?

Jeff:

Absolutely.

Erika:

Surely someone would have known to tug at the heartstrings if you’re trying to get the cash. Telephones were well established at this point.

Jeff:

Oh yeah. Jerry Lewis was rolling in it by 1988. In fact, several years after this film, I would make my appearance as a poster child…for muscular dystrophy.

Erika:

So I guess this is why we have our rating system, because at the end of it all, sometimes it looks like a draw.

Jeff:

Yep. It’s hard to know. And that is why, like good social scientists and humanities professors, we turn to a statistical method in order to unearth the reality of a film. Tongue firmly placed in cheek. So here at Invalid Culture we have developed a scale in order to measure our movies. It is based on four primary questions. Marking our movies on a scale of one to five, five generally being the worst. The idea being the higher a movie scores, the worse the movie was. So let’s dive in. Question number one. On a scale of one to five, with five being the least accurate, how accurate does this film portray disability?

Erika:

I gave it a one. I think it was pretty accurate.

Jeff:

I gave it a one too.

Erika:

Woo.

Jeff:

It was shockingly accurate. Okay. Question number two. On scale of one to five, with five being the hardest, how hard was it for you to get through this film?

Erika:

I’m giving this one a three, because I’m going to be honest with you, it was reasonably hard.

Jeff:

I’m going to one up to you. I gave it a four. I found it actually quite difficult to get through this movie. I feel like I was bored. It was pretty difficult. I don’t know that I would’ve soldiered through this if I was a child. I think I might have bailed.

Erika:

Well, see that’s where I think the nostalgia factor made it easier to endure, because I think that this is actually much more tolerable for a child who cannot see the glaring problems with this film.

Jeff:

Okay. On a scale of one to five, with five being the maximum, how often did you laugh at things that were not intended to be funny?

Erika:

You know what? I gave it a three. I’m rethinking that three. I think it should be higher, but I’m just going to stick with my original rating and call it a three. I laughed a reasonable bit at things that were not supposed to be funny.

Jeff:

I also put this as a strong three. I think it’s a solid three for me as well. I definitely did not laugh at most of the things that I was supposed to laugh at. I definitely laughed a lot at the dance sequence, and not in a good way, I would argue. It was pretty unintentionally funny. And last but certainly not least, perhaps the most important, on a scale of one to five, with five being the most, how many steps back has this film put disabled people?

Erika:

So I gave this a two. And I just want to qualify and say that the film on its own, I only gave it a one. This is, by a landslide, the fairest, most accurate disability representation, in my view, that we have seen so far. But I’m giving it an extra point here because, I don’t know, this whole made a film for charity purposes, I feel like there’s something a little icky behind that. So that’s where my two came from

Jeff:

I struggled with this one, but I thought about it and I realized, particularly as we looked at the reviews of this film, no one addresses disability when talking about this film. The wheelchair is not a thing. And so I think it may be a film that put filmmaking back a century. However, I think disability, by and large, got out scot free on this one. I think we emerged unscathed as a people. And so for that reason, I am going to give it a one. So if we take all of our scores and we tally them together and we place them into our scale, we see that this film as not a terrible score, this film comes in at a regrets, I have a few. Which is our second best possible rating for a film.

Erika:

I honestly thought that it was going to squeeze in under this might be an under appreciated piece of art it, but having watched the film now a couple of times, I think it would feel wrong if it fit that category.

Jeff:

Yeah. I don’t think it’s art. Even if the disability representation is strong. I cringe at the idea of this film being used for anything in the world.

Erika:

Well, there it is. Filmmakers, movie buffs, bring it on. I hope that we will. It is my absolute goal. This podcast will not stop, I dare say, until we see a low enough ranking film that we can call it an under appreciated piece of art.

Jeff:

And goal number two, that we are able to finance Mac and Me 2, the sequel.

Erika:

Oh, yeah. Also that, for sure. I think as soon as we shut down here today, I am going to go start that GoFund me up and I think all we’d have to do is get Paul Rudd’s attention and this could happen.

[Music Interlude: “Wholesale Failure” by Days N Daze, singing “and the worst part is I know that this isn’t even close to how devastatingly bad everything is going to get” over a up tempo ukulele and horn-based folk rock]

Jeff:

And so ends another episode of Invalid Culture. Are you enjoying your time with us? Do you have a good time listening? Well, why don’t you tell your friends? Tell them to check it out. Maybe to go on to Apple Music or wherever it is you find your podcasts, give us a like, give us a comment, that would be greatly appreciated. But maybe even more important, do you know of an amazingly terrible disability film that you would like to hear us talk about? Go over to our website, invalidculture.com. Submit it to us. We would love to hear. So long, and we will see you on the other side.

 

DVD Cover of Different Drummers, featuring Lyle putting maximum effort into pushing David's manual wheelchair

What if ADHD was a movie?

An autobiography written and scored by Lyle Hatcher, this 2013 film was almost doomed to the bargain bin of Dollar Stores across the nation when a miracle happened: streaming services like Amazon Prime and Tubi decided they did not care what quality of film was included in their libraries. Join Jeff & Erika as they explore this bio-pic about the trials and tribulations of two young disabled boys growing up in Spokane, Washington. Oh and also it’s about using plastic tubes to pee.

Listen at…

Grading the Film

As always, this film is reviewed with scores recorded in four main categories, with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst. Like the game of golf, the lower the score the better.

How accurate is the representation?

Jeff – 3 / 5

Erika – 4 / 5

Total – 7 / 10

How difficult was it to watch the movie?

Erika – 4 / 5

Jeff – 4 / 5

Total – 8 / 10

How often were things unintentionally funny?

Erika – 5 / 5

Jeff – 5 / 5

Total – 10 / 10

How far back has it put disabled people?

Jeff – 3 / 5

Erika – 4 / 5

Total – 7 / 10

The Verdict

Jerry Lewis Seal of Approval

Podcast Transcript

Jeff: Growing up in Spokane, Washington can be tough. But you know what’s tougher? Growing up in Spokane, WA in the 1960s while also being a prophet of death. Follow the childhood hijinks of Lyle Hatcher, a young boy chronically afflicted with “the feeling”, as he forms a friendship with David Duffy. But David isn’t like the other kids. No, it’s not because he has muscular dystrophy. David is different because God tells him when people are going to die. But don’t worry. This movie isn’t really about that. It is really about the joys of childhood friendship and learning to accept difference. Follow David as they form an unbreakable bond, mourn the untimely death of their teacher, attempt to seduce one’s first girlfriend, put together a school science project, debate the usefulness of ADHD medication, attempt to teach Dave to walk (because God said so) and eventually forget all of that other stuff and instead host a fundraiser to find a cure. If you’re a person who likes countless obscure plotlines that are never fully resolved, that might make you a different drummer 

 

[Theme Music] Hip hop beat from “Hard Out Here For a Gimp” by Wheelchair Sports Camp 

 

Erika: Welcome to invalid culture a podcast dedicated to excavating the strangest, most baffling and worst representations of disability in popular culture. Unlike other podcasts that review films you’ve probably heard of Invalid Culture is all about looking into the abyss of pop culture adjacent representations that just never quite broke through because, well, they’re just awful. I’m joined today by my co-host Jeff Preston. Jeff, how are you? 

 

Jeff: Back at it. Ready for another fun day. So, I’m Jeff Preston. I am an assistant professor of disability studies. My research focuses on representations of disability in pop culture. So I am also joined here by my co-host today, Dr. Erika Katzman. How are you Dr. Katzman? 

 

Erika: Oh, I am thrilled to be back at this again. We’ve got a great conversation ahead of us. I’m losing my track of thought on how to introduce myself today. I am also an assistant professor and disability studies and my research doesn’t really focus on so much on the media side of things but I’m just generally interested in understanding how people think about disability, what kind of stories people are inclined to tell about disability. 

 

Jeff: Now, before we get started today I think it’s important that we start every episode with that mental health check in. Erika, are you regretting doing this yet? 

 

Erika: Of all the things in my life that I regret this is pretty low on the list. 

 

Jeff: Wow, that’s great. I’m going to hold that. I will replay this clip at episode 50 when you wonder why, why you allowed me to talk to you into this. 

 

Erika: And you? Are you are you feeling OK about this decision? 

 

Jeff: you, know I really do question a lot of decisions I’ve made in my life. This one’s actually pretty high, I think. I don’t know that that regret is the right word but it’s going to be very interesting to see how our brains are ruined by these films. I think just sadness and rage would be the outcome. 

 

Erika: if we ever need to rebrand “sadness and rage” might be the name. 

 

Jeff: So, today we have another just stupendous example of invalid culture. We are going to be watching a film which touches the heart, I guess? This is a horse movie that you can find on almost every streaming platform as well as vast majorities of it can be found on YouTube. We are of course talking about the film Different Drummers. So, what is Different Drummers? How does Different Drummers describe itself? Erika, take it away. 

 

Erika: From the box: based on an inspiring true story Different Drummers follows the heartwarming yet unlikely friendship of two boys growing up in Washington in the 1960s. When David, who is bound to a wheelchair and growing weaker for muscular dystrophy, accurately foretells the death of his fourth-grade teacher, a doubtful Lyle, who has an increasingly high energy level decides to test the existence of God by attempting to get David to run again. A pact is made and Lyle soon begins to twist the rules in a desperate attempt to give his friend some of his own excess energy. Along the way, the two boys come face to face with life’s most painful truths and Lyle’s question is ultimately answered in a way he never could have imagined. 

 

Jeff: I think this is a phenomenal place for us to start because if you were listening to that and have no idea what the beginning, middle, end of this film is, I think the back of this box captured the viewing experience of Different Drummers. 

 

Erika: It captures a lot more than I would have imagined. I mean, I don’t want to launch into our themes quite yet but I’m amazed to see them surfacing here. 

 

Jeff: it’s almost as though they understood what they were doing. Maybe. 

 

Erika: you know, I think that’s a good way of characterizing this particular film. Like, this is one where it actually, perhaps more than with others, feels like they might have understood what they were doing. 

 

Jeff: They certainly seemed to have some technical abilities. There was some technical things that were, like, I think it was well lit. The audio was fine. There was actually some passable CGI in this film. Like there was actually some production value. While at the same time just being ,very confusing and very all over the place throughout. I think one of my first questions to you is what question was Lyle trying to get answered? 

 

Erika: I think the questions were out there. I don’t know if they were answered. I mean, they’re claiming that the question was answered, but I mean, when we get to talking about that very blunt answer, I’m not sure which question it is meant to answer, to be honest. 

 

Jeff: My other question I had for you on this is, was their friendship unlikely? Like, because it’s a wheelchair boy in walkie? They’re two young boys, who you, know appear to be of similar ethnic background, class, same age. So, there’s a whole lot of similarities going on that would lead me to believe this is very likely friendship. 

 

Jeff: Yeah, I mean, this isn’t like a bear becoming friends with a rabbit by any means. 

 

Erika: No, it strikes me as a highly likely friendship. 

 

Jeff: [laughing] Right, completely plausible friendship. I guess that doesn’t have the same ring. 

 

Erika: This is where it is important to note, to remember that this is Lyle’s story.  

 

Jeff: Yes. 

 

Erika: So, if we’re being told that this was an unlikely friendship, is this is this Lyle telling us that it was an unlikely friendship? That it caught him off guard? 

 

Jeff: Interesting. I would say that Lyle was perhaps not the only person caught off guard in this film. I think, actually, a lot of the reviewers of this film were also caught a little off guard. Now, we have two interesting popular press reviews that we have pulled, one which is really interesting and the other which is quite harsh. So, we have officially reached our first milestone on this podcast in which we found somebody who did not like a film featuring a child with a disability. They persevered and they were like, we’re going to write bad on it. And that was, shout out to you Josh Terry, the Deseret News. Here’s what he had to say: “poor writing, acting and execution leaves Different Drummers impossible to justify. If the weak actors aren’t monotoning their standard lines of dialogue, the reasonable actors are stumbling their way through the muddled ones and myriad cheesy and distracting music passages persistently undermine the whole lot. A simple problem for Different Drummers is that it is playing out of its league. As a direct-to- video release, it would be passed over as a harmless, low budget tribute to a boy who lived with muscular dystrophy 50 years ago. But, as a major Multiplex, at nearly $10 a ticket, the film feels painfully out of place.”  

 

Erika: That’s harsh!  

 

Jeff: George Terry does not care anymore he is just going to eviscerate anyone in this film. 

 

Erika: Like, I guess this is the point at which it becomes very clear that I am no film critic. I did not think it was that bad. I truly did not notice poor acting, muddled delivery. Did you? 

 

Jeff: I think this is what happens when you and I don’t have it direct financial claim against this film. As people who have paid for prime video and are using it for a myriad of other wonderful films, I think Josh Terry here is just feeling really burned for that $10 they had to spend. Also, why is the Deseret News not paying for their reviewers to watch these films? 

Erika: I think he was on about the music. I did, the music was something. 

 
Jeff: The music felt like the early days of YouTube when people were first getting copyright striked and then you had all of these like, royalty free or copyleft music that were just like, just adjacent to good that YouTube users started piling on, where you’re like, right, this is a classic generic rock song that’s completely nondescript and just like a little off.  

 

Erika: So, musically that’s where it was, but lyrically it was very much tailored. Like, do we know? The soundtrack must have been custom to this film. 

 

Jeff: I have absolutely no doubt that Lyle and Don wrote the music for this film. I have no doubt and if I’m wrong I don’t want to know because in my world they were in the studio cutting these things up. This is all you need, it’s not every emotion you could want to feel through song. It’s got it all. Now, Josh Terry’s wasn’t the only review we were able to find. We also found this very interesting review by Tim or Tom Krogh? How do we say that last name do you think?  

 

Erika: Keogh?  

 

Jeff: Sure. TK, as he is known by his friends, presumably. From the Seattle Times, he had this to say: “There’s a sense of unstructured play about Different Drummers. A kind of ambling from one whimsical activity to the next without much traditionally story telling”. TK then goes on to give this film a three out of four. 75 %. 

 

Erika: So, he was not bothered, he’s really more remarking on the unstructured play then critiquing it. 

 

Jeff: Yes, it was an observation. It’s like, ‘so I watched born on the 4th of July and there was a man in a wheelchair in it. Three out of four stars.’ 

 

Erika: Now, this was actually something that you had remarked on yourself watching the film, was it not? 

 

Jeff: yeah, 100%. I felt like the first time I watched this film — and yes, that is a confirmation that I have watched this film more than once — the first time I watched it I remember feeling like all the movie did was introduced new plotlines and I don’t really remember in the first viewing many of those plotlines being resolved. Now, on a second sober viewing I’ve discovered that, much like the Canadian Senate, you can understand things better when given time to evaluate things. And, in fact, there was some resolution. But, by my count, there are approximately 7 plotlines that informed this film. So, you know, the movie starts out with this plot line around Lyle having a crush on a girl at school and he want to dance with her and then we get our first extremely long musical interlude. Things then change up and move on to, I think, our second plot, which is a science project to disprove or prove – I think probably prove is what they were thinking, to prove God’s existence, using science to prove God. And then there’s sort of this like subplot, I think, under there, around David is going to teach – sorry, Lyle is going to teach David how to run. And then we wonder the bug collection. They decide they want to collect all of the bugs. That then shifts very quickly into raising money to cure muscular dystrophy, which I guess is maybe a continuation of the teaching to run subplot, but I don’t think it is, because that of course culminates in this, like, variety show fundraiser, which is kind of its own thing. We then, about halfway through the movie, maybe a little more than halfway through the movie, we get this very serious plot around ADHD and medication and this huge debate as to whether or not Lyle should be medicated. Lyle then get threatened by a bully in a school bus and there’s this like, ominous “you’re gonna get what’s coming to you, Lyle.” He doesn’t. It’s never addressed. And then we have the final act, which I think is about this question around death and dying. People die, and will people die or won’t they, dying and death is everywhere, we can escape it. By my count that’s about 7 plotlines. How many of those seven would you say were resolved? 

 

Erika: [laughing]. OK I’m pretty sure we forgot about, the romantic things dropped, that was never carried. The bug collection came and went. 

 

Jeff: that’s true, they did find — they sort of resolved it in that it got eaten by a mouse? 

 

Erika: [laughing] the bully dropped off, that didn’t happen. So, I think we mostly ended up focusing on this, I mean the ADHD medication and medicate versus segregate situation, kind of, that was pretty forefront. Did we prove God’s existence? 

 

Jeff: I’m gonna argue yes, because of the final scene when he runs with David.  

 

Erika: And I guess money was raised. 

 

Jeff: Yeah, the fundraiser happened. OK, so they’re batting like 80%. 

 

Erika: Yeah, you know, I’m kind of with Tom here. TK? I think it may have broken some rules of traditional storytelling but I don’t think it was unsuccessful in doing so. 

 

Jeff: yeah, I think you’re right. It was untidy, but I think there was like, a story was told. I feel like we were given a slice of life of these two boys. Like, a year of their time together.  

 

Erika: yeah. I have a hard time following multi plots and multi characters. I’ve never been able to make it through Snatch. I’ve tried several times. I didn’t have any trouble following what was going on here. 

 

Jeff: Yeah, no. I think it was it wasn’t bad. There were also a surprisingly number of actors in this. Yeah, usually like the key to those low budget films is there’s like four people involved. There were entire classrooms of people involved in this film. 

 

Erika: Oh yeah, I had the sense that we were genuinely in a school.  

 

Jeff: There was a presence, there was a reality to it. Even if all of the characters seemed to have this like, retrospective sheen about them, right? Like, the cop is just like, a little too like, 1950s police officer at the café, you know, sitting on the barstool. Like, it was a little too American Gothic in some character development. 

 

Erika: Yeah and like the janitor, similarly, he’s a little overdone. He’s great, but a little overdone. 

 

Jeff: He’s a stud and I’m in love with him and I would 100% marry man if it was Mr Merrick. Yeah, both of those characters seemed to have an underlying, this may have been a porno shoot that was happening at the same time. 

 

Erika: 100%. 

 

Jeff: And they were just like, alright, so we will take the clean bits for Different Drummers and then the hardcore bits we’ll put over for our janitor porn and our cop porn. There was a bit of a porny vibe to both these characters. 

 

Erika: The cop especially, he was having a hard time getting out of character when he dropped back into the kids movie. 

 

Jeff: yeah, 100%. He looked like he was a moment away from putting someone under arrest for being too sexy. Now, if you are a film connoisseur you will know that the real reviews are not to be found in the newspapers but rather they are found in the Amazon review section.  

 

Erika: And do we ever have some goodies today. 

 

Jeff: We have curated some phenomenal examples. There were a lot of phenomenal reviews for this film. Erika, why don’t you start us off. 

 

Erika: I will happily start us off. So, Robin S, one of many five out of five stars. A review titled “a very meaningful story”: bought this for my 89.5 year old dad. He loved it and really enjoyed the two boys. This is not one of the ‘happily ever after’ stories that I normally try to pick out for him, but he still gave it a thumbs up. 

 

Jeff: Robin’s got a lot of detail. A natural storyteller. 

 

Erika: A keen eye for detail.  

 

Jeff: Her father is not 90 years old. 

 

Erika: 89.5. 

 

Jeff: I’m glad that he liked the two boys. That’s good. I also like the idea that Robin is like, trapping her father at home and just feeding him these happily ever after stories as some sort of like, mental health treatment maybe or like just trying to keep him optimistic about the world and this one kind of like, snuck in. 

 

Erika: I’m just also very curious that like, this was bought? 

 

Jeff: [Laughing] right? 

 

Erika: When and where was this purchased? 
 
Jeff: That is actually a great question. Presumably off Amazon, I suppose. I suppose she purchased this from Amazon, which then also begs the question: how did Robin S find this film?  

 

Erika: Oh, well naturally while looking for happily ever after stories. 

 

Jeff: right. 

 

Erika: If there’s a wheelchair on the cover you know it’s a happy ending. 

 

Jeff: it’s going to uplift you. You’re gonna feel uplifted. 

 

Erika: so, this is what actually, this is what I love about this review is that Robin deems this is not one of those happily ever after stories. I mean, ah, OK. I guess we do end with death. 

 

Jeff: but arguably it is a sanitized death. Like it is positioned as like, a freedom that is bestowed upon this child. He is liberated from his impairment. 

 

Erika: Yeah, again that’s why this one caught me, because, and maybe this is a strange thing to admit but when I read this review I forgot that he died. And I thought — because the death was not the sort of the pinnacle moment of this film. 

 

Jeff: It was definitely the moment when I almost peed myself in this film, I will say. It is the most brazen movie ending I think I’ve ever seen. It takes a real tone shift in that last 10 minutes. 

 

Erika: So much so that Robin’s dad still gave it a thumbs up. 

 

Jeff: Yeah, he liked it. He was there for the ride. 

 

Erika: Despite the death of one of those two boys, he really enjoyed it. 

 

Jeff: This is markedly different than the review by Joshua Matthew Manibo Samarita, who, also five out of five stars, however, “quite disappointed” was the title of this review. “I will give this movie a five star but I’m kind of disappointed. It feels like expectation versus reality. My expectation is there though it is not enough. I thought this movie make me cry but it was not. I still recommend this movie. It quite nice. 

 

Erika: [laughing] 

 

Jeff: [laughing] Joshua, you are a beautiful human. A beautiful soul. You wanted to cry, you didn’t get it, but you’re still going to pump the tires. 

 

Erika: interesting, right? Robin and Joshua both had significant expectations of this film going in. 

 

Jeff: High expectations. 

 

Erika: Robin, I guess so like, Robin was expecting happily ever after. Josh was expecting to cry. 

 

Jeff: He wanted to feel terrible. 

 

Erika: but I can only assume, oh, I was assuming it was like, I’m gonna have a good cry but then I’m still gonna get my happily ever after. Like, I think maybe Joshua was just misidentifying what happened here. Joshua was actually quite disappointed because it was not quite the happily ever after that they were after.  

 

Jeff: That’s an interesting read. “I thought this movie made me cry, but it was not.” I think that might be the new slogan of this of this podcast. “I thought this movie made me cry, but it was not.” That’s my feeling about all of the movies we watch for this so far. 

 

Erika: [laughing]. For something completely different, Melissa Lindsay, another five out of five, title of the review: “donation”. Review content, and I quote: “a donation for rainy day bingo basket.” 

 

Jeff: [laughing]. Perfect. 

 

Erika: May I posit this is where Robin S bought the video. 

 

Jeff: or received. 

 

Erika: [laughing]. 

 

Jeff: she received this one day playing bingo. 

 

Erika: Is a rainy day bingo basket a thing? Like, is she saying that there’s the lottery, like you just pick up those discount DVDs at Walmart and chuck em in the rainy day bingo basket and then when it’s a rainy day you just draw one out and give her a go? 

 

Jeff: I think so. So my suspicion on this, this is my hot take, I could be totally wrong. Melissa Lindsay, contact us if we’re wrong on this, if I’m mischaracterizing you. I suspect that Melissa Lindsay is an educator. I think that she may be a teacher, whether that be public school or possibly a Sunday school situation and I’m guessing that what she’s doing is she’s buying cheap things, like little trinkets and prizes and then when the kids can’t go out ’cause it’s raining they play bingo and she gives or they can choose something out of the basket. That’s my theory, that’s my fan theory of Melissa Lindsay. 

 

Erika: I like it, I like it a lot.  

 

Jeff: if you were a child and you received this DVD for winning bingo, would that drive you to violence? 

 

Erika: I don’t know if I would get this film as a child. I don’t think this is a kids film. 

 

Jeff: no. I don’t know that this is an anyone film. Can we just put that on the table right off the bat? The question of who this is for, I think this is for Lyle Hatcher. That is who this is for. 

 

Erika: oh, 100 %. 

 

Jeff: This is an audience of 1. I think I would probably turn this DVD into a weapon and try to stab someone if this was the prize I won. As a child, I would not understand why there were no real drummers in this film until the absolute end. So, a more nuanced analysis comes to us from Frances, four to five stars, titled “well acted, layered message, very worth seeing.” And that title is actually her review, the review also reads “well acted, layered message, very worth seeing.” Would you say the message was layered in this film, Erika? 

 

Erika: I mean, if you think about all those plotlines like lasagna layers, there was a lot going on/ 

 

Jeff: that is true, it was very tiered. I think tiered is maybe what she means. The other one that I thoroughly enjoyed was by user “caddy”. 5/5 stars, the review reads, in all caps: CHILDREN’S MINISTRY. CHILDREN ENJOYED THE DVD. 

 

Erika: [clears throat]. We did just a salad but this is not a children’s movie, right? 

 

Jeff: I believe so. I would love to know whether or not the children actually said that. I would really wonder. I also like that, I respect the fact that she felt the needed to explain where she screened it. 

 

Erika: I mean, there is a fair bit of God. 

 

Jeff: yeah, God adjacent.  

 

Erika: mhm. 

 

Jeff: Yeah, I like the fact that this movie does not really lock down its religious, like it is sort of monotheist religion but, you know, it’s not really pushing any particular brand of religion provided it’s like a monotheist. So you know, any of those sort of old testament could fit under this rubric. And I think, Erika, you my other favorite. 

 

Erika: ooh, if we have time for one more, please may I? 

 

Jeff: I think so, ’cause it’s so good. 

 

Erika: PewDiePie, untitled but three out of five stars: “it was OK. I didn’t like the ending.” Yeah. 

 

Jeff: It was OK, I didn’t like the ending. 

 

Erika: There’s a chance that I’m PewDiePie.  

 

Jeff: This is actually the exact same review I left on Titanic. 

 

Erika: [laughing]. 

 

Jeff: it was OK. I didn’t like the ending. 

 

Erika: I actually, you know, this captures my feelings about this film. 

 

Jeff: do you think that that Lyle and Don have read these reviews and are like, if we had just made a better ending this would have blown up. 

 

Erika: see, I think where they erred is like, I think they essentially have two endings. 

 

Jeff: why did they not end it at the end of the telethon celebration? 

 

Erika: had he run through the woods yet at that point? Because… 

 

Jeff: no. 

 

Erika: yeah. 

 

Jeff: [laughing] and they needed to kill him off in order for that scene to happen, I suppose. 

 

Erika: I just feel like maybe they could have, instead of killing him, just had him run through the woods, as a like, euphemistic or more ambiguous… 

 

Jeff: Right, like maybe they did cure muscular dystrophy in this universe. 

 

Erika: exactly. Like, we didn’t need to know for sure whether he died to enjoy him running through the woods. 

 

Jeff: I would argue that whether or not David died in real life he was going to die in this film. 

 

Erika: ooh. 

 

Jeff: it was destined to happen. Cause death lurks around every corner. So, we’ve heard what the experts have to say, let’s hear what the dunces have to say. Erika, where are you on this? 

 

Erika: Like I said, I’m with PewDiePie. I didn’t like the ending, but it was OK. 

 

Jeff: I’m going way off the board on this one, I’m giving this sucker 4.5 out of five stars. 

 

Erika: woah! 

 

Jeff: I think this movie was almost perfect in that it gave me everything I wanted. Which was, a horrible film that was just baffing in most of the time and I’m not even joking, I literally almost peed myself at the end of the film. It was very close. Very close. I almost burst with fluids because I was laughing so hard. 

 

Erika: can I just say, I hope that while bursting with fluids you had your piss tube too handy. 

 

Jeff: [laughing] 

 

[musical interlude] Rock n’ roll piano progression from “Dead Letter and the Infinite Yes” by Wintersleep 

 

Erika: this is the point at which we start to get into the nitty gritty and talk a little bit more about what happened here. What worked, what didn’t. But, where we always like to get started is unpacking a bit how this film, which was certainly a film about disability, how was disability portrayed in this film? 

 

Jeff: a question it’s a little bit hard to answer in some ways. This film shows, unlike a lot of the other films, I think it approached the story of disability not from the like, the really hard biomedical perspective, there were no doctors really in this film, there wasn’t like, long descriptions of biological results of impairment. They really did try to like capture this through the lens of two children trying to understand each other in some ways, with two main characters that do have very different disabilities. So, I would say that with muscular dystrophy there’s this constant story about how David, who has muscular dystrophy, presumably Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy, is degenerating. He’s gotten weaker, there’s all these other comments about how he’s not able to do things, how he remembers how he used to be able to walk and run, now he can’t. One of my favorite scenes is when Lyle and David are comparing their thighs in the pool and their legs in general. It was this bizarrely corporeal moment which is also, though, like, I could see young boys doing this. Like, it was essentially a phallic measuring moment in which we find out that David has enormous legs and feet and Lyle does not. We’ll let the Freudians unpacked that however they wish to. But disability is really, I would say, marked add as being a lack. The individual is lacking in quite a few ways even if they are, David is marked as being quite smart. He’s supposed to be a bit of a brainiac. 

 

Erika: And then in contrast we have Lyle. I had not heard of this diagnosis before, minimal brain dysfunction. I was puzzled to piece together that this was an ADHD. So, we learn that Lyle is at times overtaken by “the feeling”. 

 

Jeff: “the feeling”. 

 

Erika: This ominous, possession almost, that, it causes him to run. This is a little foggy for me too. The feeling I think suggests something more emotional, needing it needing to run it off suggest something more emotional, and so the ADHD label that we come to realize it is was it, just felt like a slight mismatch. But, having said that, our research reveals that this film is essentially Lyle’s story. This is Lyle telling his own story, his take on himself and his relationship with David and so understanding that this is Lyle’s self narrative, I mean, I’m inclined to accept it for whatever discrepancies there are, whatever I’m perhaps missing, I think it is Lyle’s expression of himself and his experiences, so I’m open to it and I, yeah. I’m kind of here for that. 

 

Jeff: yeah the way that, and maybe it’s just the actor, the way he delivers the first line when he’s like “the feeling”. When I first watched this, I thought this is going to be like a psychosis. 

 

Clip from the film:  

 

Lyle: see, I got this thing, my brother calls it “the feeling”. It’s kind of a problem. 

David: OK. Well, I was wondering about it. I mean what’s it like?  

Lyle: You know those little drummers, the kind you gotta wind up? 

David: yeah. 

Lyle: you know when you wind them up and wind them up and wind them up and they go like this [rapid footsteps]. 

David: are you kidding me? That’s what running is like? 

Lyle: running? I thought we were talking about the feeling.  

 

Jeff: And I guess that what he’s sort of talking about is like the energy, this like electric kind of feeling, I guess, is where it’s coming from. But despite having the feeling, there was this weird, interesting dynamic with his family and feelings [emphasized “s”]. What was that all about? 

 

Erika: yeah, what was that all about? It did not feel organic to the film, it felt kind of forced that it was being written into dialogue that emotions are not allowed. And it was, interestingly, it was coming from this mother. So there’s a scene where the boys are playing and they get shot? 

 

Jeff: Yeah, Lyle gets—there’s a gang bang drive pellet gunning. 

 

Erika: [laughing] yes. 

 

Jeff: Where did these kids grow up? 

 

Erika: right? Another scene that just came out of left field. 

 

Jeff: He ran through private property and then when he was running through the private property there were these, I’m going to say, antifa, probably, warriors, on the private property squatting, who had two rifles, who then proceeded to pellet and bludgeon Lyle to the ground from cutting through this private property. 

 

Erika: and so, as Lyle is back at home and his mom is, I think, tweezing the pellets out of his leg, she reminds him that he’s not cry. 

 

Jeff: no crying. 

 

Erika: there are no emotions allowed in this family. 

 

Jeff: yeah. Lyle has just experienced an attempted assassination and his mother tells him no crying. 

 

Erika: This is interesting, ’cause this almost, I feel like with Lyle’s ADHD, like, there’s this portrayal of him as almost too much. You know, if David is lack, Lyle is excess. He’s just oozing with energy. He’s running, he’s climbing, he’s loud. You know, he’s just kind of bouncy and so this, the no emotions narrative is almost like a reaffirmation that he is excessive and needs to reign it in. 

 

Jeff: And I feel like that’s where I struggle with that definition that they are an unlikely friend grouping, because I feel like this is a really common thing in film right where they’re like, this is like the opposites attract, the odd couple. We’ve seen this story so often, right, where it’s like, one of them is super energetic and running around and very physical all the time and high energy and the other is quiet and slow and more thoughtful and he’s sort of like the brain and Lyle is like, the action. This is like that movie The Mighty (which might be another film we should probably watch for this). 

 

Erika: hmm. 

 

Jeff: there like, this is actually a really common trope in stories about disability, where they are like, well if one of you is lacking something then we need to give the other one like, this excessiveness. And then we put you together and together you almost form like, one person. It’s like you have enough when you’re put together. 

 

Erika: yeah, I mean. it’s kind of a natural recipe for chemistry, like for harmony, some kind of balance. 

 

Jeff: right, yeah. Like there’s kind of this yin/yang thing going on.  

 

Erika: What can, what can these opposites offer each other. 

 

Jeff: right and there is like completely this transactional kind of narrative around his relationship too, right? That Lyle has the physicality, David has the thought, the ideas. He’s the ideas man. 

 

Erika: does it play out such that David kind of brings Lyle up academically? Because they’re working through the science fair and they’re doing all of these cool science things and then on the flipside Lyle and all of his energy is sort of like working on David’s physicality, like getting him more active. 

 
Jeff: I think absolutely that’s what’s going on here. That they are balancing each other out. Lyle has a purpose through David and it’s the first time that he ever really like commits to anything as we’ve been told in the film. 

 

Erika: I guess this is kind of reflecting the overall fact that this is Lyle’s story, but we see this play out in a few ways in the film. So Lyle takes on this sort of mixed quest to, I guess, maybe it’s not that mixed. Lyle’s quest is essentially to cure David. 

 

Jeff: Yeah. 

 

Erika: He wants to make him walk and he wants to raise money for him. 

 

Jeff: To get him to run again. 

 

Erika: yeah, by curing. I think, I’m pretty sure he specifically says in the movie that he wants to raise money for researchers. 

 

Jeff: yep, this is a bit of like a, this like a nature versus, or a science versus religion, I think, in some ways, right? And it is once they lean into science that David is smited. They have a fundraiser to get a cure and David is killed almost immediately after.  

 

Erika: really God wins this science-religion … what is the word? 

 

Jeff: Debate? 

 

Erika: Duel? 

 

Jeff: [laughing]. Schism? 

 

Erika: ooh. You made it all fancy [laughing].  

 

Jeff: maybe? I don’t know. Now, religion was a big part of this film and its tied directly, I think, to disability. Specifically, through these very strange inserted moments of Lyle’s mother and often Lyle himself watching televangelists Jack Lalane and specifically the phrase, “the great physician above”. 

 

Move clip: 

 

Lyle: I don’t want you to get discouraged or anything to get your way. At first you’ll think it’s things impossible, but believe me,  if you just asked a good position above for guidance and to give you the willpower to do the right thing then I don’t care what you do next. 

David: wait a minute, what did you just say? 

Lyle: uhh. 

David: what did you say right then, about the good physician above? 

Lyle: oh, oh. What I said was, if you just ask the good physician above for guidance and to give it the will power to do the right thing that I don’t care… 

David: wait a second. Wait just a dog gone second. Jack Lalane  said that on TV this morning. This whole thing is Jack Lalane. 

 

Jeff: the physician then becomes this apt metaphor for a higher power that has the power of life and death in their hands and like, although it’s a little clunky, it’s not and perhaps the best execution of it but there are several moments where Lyle seems to be asking for David to give himself over to a higher power. He literally uses that kind of phrasing but it’s not quite as like, obvious as it would be I think in other religious films where there’s this very like, you must give yourself to God in order to get the, whatever, and that might be because this film seems to play into another common trope, which is the connection between disabled children and God himself. That’s right, David is in commune with God. He speaks to God, God tells him things, he actually prophesizes things in the movie. He prophesizes the death of their teacher. So David is talking to not already, but Lyle is going to become this like, spiritual leader to train him how to walk again. Tied always right with the question of God though is this question of death and dying, which I think is another big trope that comes up a lot with disability. That proximity to death. Like, we’re primed like right off the bat — David is going to die. Now, there is a bit of a playfulness ’cause it appears as though he’s going to die in a wheelchair accident at the very beginning of the film, is how it’s sort of primed. Oh, I should mention there’s a flash forward in this film. If you want if you weren’t sure about how many balls are in the air, the movie begins with a, ‘here’s something you’re going to see in about an hour and a half later’. Maybe an hour later, when they’re going to run down the down the road on the wheelchair and nearly die. But death is sort of constantly surrounding him, but it’s also kind of also surrounding Lyle as well. We got all this sort of talk about Lyle having these sort of episodes that are perpetually putting people at risk and particularly this belief that Lyle is going to be the death of David. That Lyle’s excess is just going to eviscerate the fragile body of David. 

 

Erika: so, yeah, there’s an interesting play with Lyle being all about this excess, being so big and so much for people to handle but he’s also lacking. For reasons unknown it is mentioned that he’s colorblind very briefly, he’s bad at school, of course, because you know he’s having trouble sitting still and focusing, staying engaged and we also see that he’s kind of unsuccessful with love. Interesting that he has some romantic exchanges at all because we definitely notice that David doesn’t have any of those. 

 

Jeff: none. 

 

Erika: but a couple of times we see Lyle flirting with a young woman or professing his strong feelings for one of his classmates but he’s not successful in love ultimately and so we do see him we do see him portrayed as lacking in a couple of different ways. 

 

Jeff: He seems to be positioned as really disliked within the school. Lyle does not appear to have friends until he meets up with David, which I think it means that it’s time for us to talk about perhaps what went wrong in this film. Some of the oddities, the strange things that we noticed, the questions that are left unanswered and the first question that I have for you Erika professionally, as an occupational therapist: these two characters meet in the bathroom. They are sent to the bathroom together which, maybe that was a thing in the 60s I don’t know, and it is here we are introduced to the way that David uses the toilet. Now I myself, as a man with a physical disability, have never thought of or been instructed to use a PVC pipe to pee down and into a toilet. And, to mount this urine tube like a rocket launcher on the side of my wheelchair for ready access to my piss tube whenever I need it. My question to you Erika, as an OT, how many piss tubes have you prescribed in your professional career? 

 

Erika: to date, um, yeah none. 

 

Jeff: [laughing] 

 

Erika: That’s not a thing. I mean I have seen piss in tubes, but never a PVC pipe with a chest strap attached is something that I could only describe as a poster holder? Yeah, that’s not a thing. 

 

Jeff: yeah. The piss rocket immediately got my attention. 

 

Erika: oh, Jeff. I will not forget the day that you texted me, long before we had even discussed the podcast. 

 

Jeff: the first time I saw this movie in the midst of the movie I immediately picked up my phone and texted Erika and asked her if, in her experience, she has ever seen someone using a piss rocket. A shoulder mounted piss rocket. I have gone in and looked and I could not find any examples of this in the world. Like, portable urinals,  the jug urinal things, existed well before this movie and well before the 1960s. I am baffled by this. 

 

Erika: oh, it’s entirely impractical. Just like everything about it. If you’re gonna take a pipe like why would it be straight, right? 

 

Jeff: Right. 

 

Erika: Why wouldn’t it be curved? 

 

Jeff: Right! 

 

Erika: it’s like an arm length tube.  

 

Jeff: it’s like 6 feet! 

 

Erika: how are you gonna wash it? How are you going to keep it, this is just, nothing about this makes any practical sense.  

 

Jeff: You would have to be very far from the toilet, extremely far. I actually would argue this may only work in a urinal ’cause I don’t know if you would have the right gravity. I don’t know that the wheelchair sitter would be high enough for the urine to run down the tube and into the toilet.  

 

Erika: without it being dipped right into the toilet water. 

 

Jeff: right, yes and whether or not your seat is actually higher. Like, I’m not always higher than the toilet. They have those really tall toilets right, for transfers, where I think you’d be like peeing across like a plane. You wouldn’t get the gravity flow down and in fact it might actually roll back on you this piss tube would also smell just terrible. 

 

Erika: oh yeah. 

 

Jeff: and it’s right beside his head the entire movie. 

 

Erika: yeah, I mean this thing is, it’s just ridiculous in so many ways. I have maybe 2 theories about the piss tube. One is like, it must have existed in real life.  

 

Jeff: how could it not? There’s no way someone would make this up. 

 

Erika: so that’s running theory one, is that this was real and who knows why. Maybe in their, I mean, weren’t they in Washington? 

 

Jeff: Spokane, WA yeah. 

 

Erika: yeah, so it’s not like they were in like a small isolated place where maybe they didn’t have the same access to medical equipment like a urinal. The only other theory is that for some reason, and again, calling on our psychoanalysts, they just really wanted a very visible reminder of David’s urine. 

Jeff: I wonder if this was about the gag. Like that this was like, they added this in because they thought it would be funny. When they first me, Lyle would have like a moment, would have a “condition”,  where he would grab the pipe, start swinging it around, and then use it like a trumpet. 

 

Erika: which happened. 

 

Jeff: which happens, 100% that is what happens and that’s how they like, bond. They bond over Lyle essentially putting his mouth on David’s penis. Or at least putting it somewhere David’s penis has been. And it’s played as this is sort of like, ha ha ha that’s so gross. And I think it’s like a boys will be gross thing maybe? I don’t know. Or maybe this is, as you said, about the fluids and about how Lyle is — their friendship is locked in because Lyle doesn’t run away at the contamination of the urine. 

 

Erika: yeah, his reaction is mild for having just realized that he just put his mouth on someone’s urine stick.  

 

Jeff: He is like that was inconvenient. 

 

Erika: [laughing] 

 

Jeff: I probably shouldn’t have done that. Will I do it again? Maybe. I think it’s also germane to the conversation that there are several real photos of David on the Internet in some documentaries and none of those photos include a shoulder mounted piss rocket. 

 

Erika: [laughing] 

 

Jeff: I don’t know if they just take it off for photos maybe, or this is completely made up which leads to a big question: does Lyle understand how David uses the bathroom? Or was this an assumption that Lyle has made over the years.  

 

Erika: I wonder if David had some other kind of device that he actually hung on his chair that Lyle just always fantastically presumed was a piss tube. 

 

Jeff: This wasn’t the only thing though that was a little weird about disability in the film. 

 

Erika: this was the weirdest though and this one I think like, this one was weird in a way that the others were not. This one was uniquely weird, weird and unique to this film. The other like, doing disability weirdly things were more like stereotypes. 

 

Jeff: Oh yeah. 

 

Erika: obviously while David needs someone to go to the bathroom with him. There was a good ol head pat at least once in the film. 

 

Jeff: there was that, and I think the other thing that was very common about this film was David’s asexuality. David is really the only character that doesn’t seem to have any sort of interest or active engagement in the world of sexual relations. Lyle has like a weird little obsession, David teases him about that obsession, David is friends with the girls. He has no problem talking to them, but shows no interest otherwise in any of the women. We even meet David’s brother’s girlfriend. We meet everyone else’s interested, but David is not sexual. He has no interest in the opposite sex aside from friendship. I think it’s bound up in like, physical disability therefore not sexually active. 

 

Erika: do you think there’s any connection with like, his closeness with God and his presumed imminent death? Do those layer in there? 

 

Jeff: mm. like a piety thing perhaps. That’s an interesting take. 

 

Erika: so carrying on with the aspects of the film that we are not celebrating, shall we say? There was definitely that disability as requiring treatment or cure, so we had this pursuit to cure muscular dystrophy. Interesting, well I guess we were– so we have these two disabilities kind of running side by side in the film, we’ve got the muscular dystrophy and ADHD. And clearly like, a lot of emphasis on curing MD. I wouldn’t say that it’s curing ADHD that we’re after but there’s this whole conversation about medication, medicating Lyle in order to contain him. 

 

Jeff: yeah, I would say that is this interesting politics around the desire to cure David. There seems to be a desire for Lyle, Lyle is being let down and it’s more about the structural challenges that he faces. The school just isn’t set up right for him, presumably. 

 

Erika: I want to come back to this when we talk about what went right in the film, because I do think that there were some — this is kind of a strength of the film, is the fact that we have, you know, given that this is Lyle’s perspective, everything around ADHD is first person perspective, but I think that the flip side of that was that, and this is part of where the film goes a bit wrong, is that Lyle’s telling David story, making it all about this cure and overcoming. 

 

Jeff: This is a part that I think is really difficult when it comes to media studies and representations of disability, because in this unique instance we have a character with a terminal disability. At this time, children with Duchenne’s probably weren’t making it much past age 13, 14. They would have been dying quite young. That age expectancy is obviously a lot higher now, closer to 30 years old now, but it is still a terminal disease and so on the one hand it’s, there’s this desire to eradicate the disability but on the other hand Lyle is trying to save his friend. The death is the biggest issue, but at the same time that’s not how the film positions it. Because the real positioning is David needs to run again. David needs the freedom from the chair. Not so much that David’s going to die from this. And he does die from it eventually, but that is sort of seen as like, maybe part of God’s plan? And so really it was the walking that needed to be cured. And I think that’s what really separates this film, you know. If it’s a movie about somebody with a terminal disease and they’re trying to survive I think that’s a completely rational, understandable, and that makes a lot of sense to me. But the weird focus on the running here, that it’s not just about saving his life, it really is about giving him a corporeal experience that he has lost and that’s thought to be somehow meaningful. That has like, a value that is urgently necessary for him.  

 

Erika: Well, OK. So I just I want to jump back to Jack. His stick was physical wellness as salvation and like, we see this repeatedly on mom’s television, so this is obviously something that was like, Lyle grew up hearing — that sitting is going to kill you. You need to get physically active. 

 

Jeff: Right. 

 

Erika: so I don’t know, maybe it’s a little bit of a time capsule. 

 

Jeff: that’s fascinating. 

 

Erika: yeah. And that’s not the only, I think we could speculate, TV influence that has shaped the plotlines of this film because we know for a while that Lyle wants to raise money and then we learn that there’s going to be talent show at school and I think, as we were first presented to it I thought like, oh OK we’re just setting up one more thing that David, for whatever reason, isn’t going to be able to participate in. But then we realize that Lyle has decided that specifically he’s going to walk on his hands for, what is it, like 100 yards or something? To raise money. And then all of a sudden as it starts to come together, we suddenly have essentially a telethon on our hands. 

 

Jeff: right! That is another one of my favorite parts of this movie. 

 

Erika: oh, hands down. 

 

Jeff: Is that this is a movie set in the 1960s and as our beloved listeners know, I’m sure, the Jerry Lewis telethon on starts in 1964. So this is happening right, essentially, at the start of the telethon. This film ends with essentially a variety show in which the children get up and do a bunch of talents and then culminates with a fundraiser. I think this is a telethon. 

 

Erika: oh, I think you missed the detail where firefighters are standing by, waiting collect donations. 

 

Jeff: Right, absolutely. And of course, firefighters are, most firefighter charities are giving money to muscular dystrophy, that’s their disability of choice. I believe that actually wasn’t a thing yet in 1960. But correct me if I’m wrong. 

 

Erika: more forecasting. 

 

Jeff: yeah, I think this is that revisionist history that’s happening with Lyle, where he’s reflecting back on things and I’m wondering how much of this story is like, this is how it happened, you know, hand to God gospel truth versus this is the way in which after a lifetime Lyle is now reflecting back on his life and he’s seeing the ways in which pop culture aligns weirdly with his experiences, or he’s kind of bent and mutated the happenings could fit within this narrative. And maybe that was because of film — I find it odd that they would have a talent show and science fair at the exact same time in the gym, that seems, I don’t think I’ve never seen that personally. Maybe that’s common? I don’t know. And so it’s like, they had this whole narrative of the science project, that’s how they really are — that’s the bug story and possibly the proving god’s existence story, and they were like, well, but we also need to have him do this like, feat. This physical feat for his friend. This show of strength for his friend who’s so weak. So, I think there’s also that dichotomy happening here too, that they like, needed it to happen. And so, I’m wondering if it’s like, he’s thinking back and he’s like, Oh yeah, the Jerry Lewis has these, you know, these sort of musical acts and carnival acts and then it’s all brought together under this, to raise money, essentially for MD. 

 

Erika: now, chronologically, so David is going to have an accident that’s going to ultimately culminate in his death. Had that happened yet? Like, was David sick already at the point of this show happening? 

 

Jeff: I believe the implication here is they have the fundraiser and then immediately afterwards David drowns. 

 

Erika: okay, speaking of revisionist, though. That scene was so much like the scene in The Sandlot. Like, I’m pretty sure it was based on that scene. 

 

Jeff: yeah, absolutely. Part of the reason why I think that laughed so hard is because it is so out of nowhere. Like, they have this great triumph and you’re assuming that this is like the denouement. Your assuming that this is going to be, like, they’re going to wrap this thing up. You know, they have a happy life or you know, maybe there’ll be a black screen and it’ll be like, David died a year later or whatever. I assumed this was going to end after the charity fundraiser. It’s a bit success, they raise all this money. He proves that evil principle wrong. But no, they’re like, David has to die and we’re going to watch it. And we now get this additional, I think it’s about 15 minutes, in which David drowns. We watch him drown and then he dies moments later from complications resulting. That’s true, according to David’s mother. David did in fact have a drowning in his family pool and it wasn’t long after that he passed away. Now, where that happens in terms of the actual timeline of events – unclear. But, according to the movie, it appears to be fundraiser, dead six months later. 

 

Erika: This is definitely a weird point of transition into talking about what went right. But, I think that what you just described, a potentially rapid descent from being pretty healthy to death, like it can happen. That captures something that can be very real. Obviously, the historical inaccuracies or, you know, the fantasies that are kind of interwoven with the retelling. You know, it’s a natural part of retelling a story but if I could kick-off our “what went right” or “what did this movie do well”. I want to come back to that point that this is Lyle’s story and I think I felt watching the movie that the whole theme around ADHD was actually treated quite well. We end up, it’s not intended to be the focal point of the story I don’t think.  

 

Jeff: mhmm. 

 

Erika: maybe it is. I mean, if you think about the fact that this is, you know, it’s called different drummers. It’s sort of implying that we have, I think, those who marched to the beat of their own drum are oddities, they’re different people, and you know, it’s not different drummer. It’s not a story about David. 

 

Jeff: yes. 

 

Erika: it’s a story about these two different drummers, these two oddballs that for whatever, they’re odd in their own ways but they’ve united. It’s a story about friendship, but the telling and again this goes back to that review that was pretty generous with the film despite remarking that it was kind of all over the place. Like I almost feel like there was also in the narrative structure sort of a portrayal of Lyle’s somewhat scattered, bouncy mind. So we, you know, I think that’s a reality of life for someone who has struggled holding attention. That there are a lot of stories that are all very pressing and they all need to be told and they might not fit neatly together but that’s how my brain works. So, that’s the story you’re getting. Really a sharp contrast, because I saw a lot of those sort of typical narratives about David that were sort of this other perspective on disability, which I think is just always a trap that you’re going to fall into when you have the person without lived experience telling the story, but the flip side of that, and something really unique about this film then, was Lyle telling his own story and this sort of nuanced conversation that came up around whether to medicate or segregate, and sort of the politics around medicating Lyle for this condition or for the symptoms that were really less bothering him and more bothering other people. 

 

Jeff: absolutely. I don’t think we’ve ever been more aligned on something. I love the fact that this film, the portrayal of ADHD is predominantly not comic in nature. Lyle is presented as kind of a funny and goofy little guy but he’s not your typical like, bouncing off the walls like wild person by any means. I think as you said, I think this storyline actually represents that in a really interesting way. In a way that has way more nuance than your typical understandings of ADHD and I honestly loved the actual complexity that was given to this medication story, right, about whether or not to medicate Lyle, and the pros and cons, the financial impact, the pressure from the school. I feel like that story line probably rings very true to a lot of people with ADHD, whether or not it was in the 1960s or in the 2010s. 

 

Erika: That was a solid strength for me. 

 

Jeff: I liked the fact that the principle eventually becomes the only real villain in this film. I think that Lyle is extremely gentle and really uplifting towards his teachers and obviously the janitor especially. He sees in all of these people friends of his and in is parents he sees friends and allies is supporters. In David’s family he finds friends and allies and supporters. At the end of the day it is only the principle who is a monster and hates Lyle more than anything. Even the police seem to love this little guy. And I actually thought it was interesting how it’s like, you can see the like creative process and Lyle as he’s presumably writing this being like, alright but I did, I kinda like my teacher in grade four and the janitor was kind of nice but I need someone mean. Well, I didn’t like the principle. The principle was the worst. So, we’ll make her the villain. But I want to know, so at the end of the film Lyle proceeds with his plan, which the principle has been against the entire time. The principle then goes into the bathroom and cries. What did that scene mean? 

 

Erika: it was baffling scene for all involved. If you remember, I think she was in conversation with the cop? 

 

Jeff: she was. 

 

Erika: and the cop is baffled, everyone is baffled. Nobody really understands. Although, you know, the fact that you brought it up, I kinda suspect that you have to take on this. 

 

Jeff: I don’t. I am still baffled to this time, after several watches, I do not understand why the principle goes to the bathroom and bawls. 

 

Erika: I don’t know, maybe the irony of it is that she seems to be having a bit of a breakdown. She’s doing that kind of like, sobbing, laughing, crying, and she’s hiding and so, I don’t know, maybe there’s something around like, she’s trying to medicate this child for not being able to contain his excesses and now she’s hiding out in the bathroom so that nobody else can witness her excesses. 

 

Jeff: mm. maybe it’s a moment of allyship. 

 

Erika: self-realization, or not self-realization, but like introspection. 

 

Jeff: Right, she realizes that she’s a bad person maybe. How did you feel about the near death experience? 

 

Erika: honestly, I loved it. I think characterizing it as a near death experience makes me sound kind of sadistic for saying that, but let me see, how to explain why I loved it. I loved it because it was so normal. There was no there was no stereotype, there was nothing. It was so organic. It’s a scene in which these two mischievous boys decide like, hey man, you wheel. This is a big hill. 

 

Jeff: Let’s rip. 

 

Erika: let’s run up this hill and fly down together. Yeahhh. Right? So this is the whole like, Lyle’s going to kill David. 

 

Jeff: [laughing] right, yes. 

 

Erika: but like it’s not even, you know? They’re fully in it together. It was totally that like, yeah. Let’s do this. And like, so much joy, totally normalizing the chair, like, hop on bud, riding on the chair and they’re flying down and it’s like oh God what’s going to happen? Is this when he’s going to die? What’s going to happen? There’s a lot of emotion, but the beauty of this scene to me is just all of that. It’s so, it just feels so normal. I don’t know, maybe you can speak to whether this is real because like, did you do this as a kid? 

 

Jeff: Absolutely when I was kid. Both my manual and electric wheelchair there was so much play. What I found interesting about this scene, and I think because in some ways this scene is a microcosm of all of the technical things that are wrong with this film, when you think about this room like a film production analysis, whatever. So, this film is set up as the climax at the very start of the film. This is not the climate of the film. This is like the midway point of the film. So I don’t know why it teases it at the very beginning and then we arrive at it, it happens and yeah. It’s a part of the plot but it’s certainly not the climax. You assume it would be. It’s not. And as it’s happening, as a viewer, you’re sitting there and you’re like I have no idea where this is going to go. Are they gonna wipe out die? Maybe. Are they gonna get run down by a car and die? Maybe. Are they going to arrive at the bottom and nothing bad will happen? Maybe. 

 

Erika: [laughing] 

 

Jeff: all of these things could have happened at the end of that scene and it fundamentally would not have changed the film. There is a sort of like subplot that as a result of it maybe Lyle and David shouldn’t be friends anymore, but you could have just taken that entire subplot out essentially and the movie is still pretty much the same. It doesn’t really necessarily change the film. So I’m like, you are forecasting a scene that doesn’t actually have a ton to do with the film even if it does give a good representation of their relationship, and then the scene happens and some things happen and it moves the plot forward I suppose, but it’s still kind of a strange scene that’s just like, shoehorned in. I also am very impressed that the two actors got as far down the hill as they did in this clearly rickety wheelchair. 

 

Erika: Oh yeah, that was the other possibility that didn’t mention was that like a wheel was gonna pop up off— 

 

Jeff: yeah the thing just, they like full send down the hill and the chair just literally rips itself apart and that, not even as a scripted part of the film, that just happened. 

 

Erika: [laughing] 

 

Jeff: a really sketchy metal wheelchair are they using. But I think you’re right. I think the fact that the wheelchair becomes a part of their play is actually pretty representative and I would not doubt for a moment that this happened and that both David and Lyle were equal conspirators in the plan to go down the hill. 

 

Erika: And just, when do you see that? Like you don’t. That’s never, I feel like, that’s the joy, that’s the cool stuff and nobody ever tells that story.  

 

Jeff: So of course we’ve talked about David’s death, but David’s death is not actually the end of the movie. It keeps going after this for just a very stereotypical and unintentionally hilarious ending. Erika, take us through the end of this film. 

 

Erika: ugh, the cringe factor is so big.  

 

Jeff: [laughing] 

 

Erika: So, the movie was supposed to end after the romp down the hill. It didn’t. Then the character died, briefly, came back to life and then he died again. So, after David dies for the second time, Lyle finds out and as Lyle is prone to, he’s overcome with “the feeling”— 

 

Jeff: The feeling. 

 

Erika: and he takes off running. And he runs through the woods, he heads back to, you know,  the places that he and David have spent time together and who should appear next to him but David. Running, in death achieving the goal that Lyle had for David’s life. 

 

Jeff: and then a freeze frame. 

 

Erika: so that you will always remember etched in your consciousness, David running. 

 

Jeff: these films seem to desire, the character must escape the chair by the end. By some way, by anyway. And maybe that way is death, but we see the exact same thing at the end of Theory of Everything, where it’s like, you could not end the story of Stephen Hawking without walking, and he wasn’t dead yet, so instead they have to like, construct this scene where Eddie Redmayne gets up out of the wheelchair and picks up a pen for an attractive woman. Freudian! It’s similar in this film, it’s like there’s this desire, like David has to run. I thought it was going to end when Lyle puts David on his back and then sort of piggybacks him and runs around. I thought, OK so they’ve wrapped that story line up — but no, they had to have this post – no, not post partum. What is that, postmortem? 

 

Erika: [laughing] post mortem. 

 

Jeff: they have to have this post mortem, although maybe actually postpartum might describe much of this film because it was a sadness after it was born. There’s this desire, this post mortem that has to happen, where he has to be seen running and he has to overcome. He has to get out of the wheelchair. It’s the payoff that we have been promised by this film and this is where I say this is a film clearly trying to sort of end on an inspirational note. It’s like they thought, well, it’s too big of a bummer to end with David dying, so we’ll end with maybe they did get to run, once, in the sun, in the forest where they used to play. 

 

[Music interlude] Summery groove with deep bass notes from “Passionfruit” by Drake 

 

Erika: alrighty, so. We have gone through the critical reception of this masterpiece. We’ve run through our hot takes, but this isn’t just a fictional story. This is very much one that is maybe not even inspired by reality, this is a true story. This is based on real life. So, we have some good possible facts, some hot trivia to uncover. I think we need to start by asking the obvious question here, Jeff, which is: why does David wear your wardrobe? Were you involved in the creation of this film? 

 

Jeff: [laughing] so, I think that they may have broken into my house because David wears definitely more than one cardigan that I’m 90% sure I own, and several other great little combos of pants and sweaters. David does not seem to have my shoe taste. He is not a sneakerhead. I don’t know if that means that David was very fashion forward or if I dress like a 1960s child.  

 

Erika: [laughing] 

 

Jeff: It’s unclear. 

 

Erika: Maybe this is a both/and. Has anyone ever mistaking you for David? 

 

Jeff: for David? That is not happened yet. In fact, if that becomes a thing, I would actually be thrilled. If people were like, oh aren’t you that guy from Different Drummers? It would be a phenomenal turn events in my life. 

 

Erika: I think you just need to start promoting the film a little harder. So we’ve talked about chairs before. Is this, the chair in this film, is this one that you have also had at some point in your life? 

 

Jeff: This was a frustration for me. I have been trying to track down what this wheelchair is, who made it, what type of wheelchair it is. It appears to have a relatively generic frame, however there are some oddities, particularly around the footrests that I have been trying to track it down. I do not know what type of wheelchair this is. I am not able to identify it. If one of our lovely listeners knows what kind of wheelchair this is, please let us know because we’re going to keeping track of all of the brands that get shout outs in these films, whether it be through usage or possibly direct product placement. 

 

Erika: I read that the actor who played Lyle was, there was a good amount of effort that went into casting Lyle. They really shot for a kid that looked like him, and not just look like him but was like him. Recruited from a Christian school, 7th grader, just like Lyle in a lot of ways. And he said not only did he himself, I don’t know if he described himself as having ADHD, but definitely as a hyper and everywhere kind of all over the place kid, but also had mentioned that he had a disabled sister who used a wheelchair, which I think is fascinating because another one of those opportunities in the film to probably approximate reality in the representation a little bit better. Like, I think the more people that have lived experience on the set involved in the film you’re probably going to get a better outcome, a more accurate outcome. 

 

Jeff: yeah, and that actually might speak to why their relationship felt kind of authentic in some ways, because this was, this this actor Bradon, was able to kind of tap into things that himself — he probably has also ridden down a hill on his sisters wheelchair at some point. 

 

Erika: [laughing] 

 

Jeff: I think that’s really fascinating. They actually do look kind of similar ,photos of young Lyle comparatively is fascinating, but there does seem to be this interesting connection with disability kind of throughout the film, which is something that we didn’t really expect when we started this project.  

 

Erika: mhm 

 

Jeff: We presumed it was going to be a lot of nondisabled people talking about the disabled and that’s not the case for this film. 

 

Erika: yeah I mean, I think when you’re looking at, when you’re looking at when you know that the end of the film is this kid who can’t walk regains the ability to walk you have pretty low expectations for the rest of the film. 

 

Jeff: right, yeah. The bar is already quite low. 

 

Erika: And although it doesn’t say that on the box, it’s very, very early in the film pretty clear that that is where this is going. 

 

Jeff: Oh yeah, yeah. Like, David is going to die or walk and bless these creators we got both. 

 

Erika: [laughing] do you have any hot trivia to bring to this? 

 

Jeff: I have a few things. So there’s two things that I have been really thinking about. So num, ber one, there is a lot of content about this film that has been made, presumably by Lyle Hatcher and Don Keran, the other cowriter and director. They have a YouTube channel, they made documentaries about this film. They have all sorts of content. They have like, on the DVD there is all this like, teaching tools and other materials. They really wrapped this movie up into a real package and as a result we actually get some really interesting stories about where this film came from. So, it is confirmed by David’s real mom in one of the documentaries that David did in fact have a “series of prophecies” that were shared to him by God. David apparently predicted the birth of a daughter, a family friend I believe was they didn’t know was pregnant. He predicted that she was not only pregnant but had a daughter, that happened. And he did in fact predict the death of his teacher. What is not shared in the film exactly, it’s kind of hinted at, the teacher was apparently chronically ill. So I don’t know if this is exactly a prophecy so much as kind of an inevitable conclusion. But I think this notion of David as prophet I think explains this film in some ways, because I would argue that Different Drummers, as much as it is about telling Lyle’s story, what I think this movie is really about is about canonizing David. I wonder if this is about trying to get David like, a sainthood status, to show these miracles that David produced. And there is this amazing quote from Lyle Hatcher, the real Lyle Hatcher, in one of documentaries where he’s talking about why he made it and, let’s roll that clip: 

 

The real Lyle: over the last 40 years I kept going back to the places that David and I, where we had our adventures, our friendship. All the fun places and the fun things we did together. The open fields, the hills the river, the school. There was something that constantly kept pushing me back in that direction. Every single time I would go back I would remember something different, something unique and maybe something that gave me comfort, and to some degree strength. Something that I was missing that I left behind. The memories of David and I have been haunting me. I need to know why. Why would something like this stay with me for 45 years? 

 

Jeff: Lyle is haunted by David’s presence. Quite literally haunted by it. It stuck with him. And he goes on to tell the story about how he went on a hike, up a mountain, and a thunderstorm happened, and he took that as a sign that “David and our friendship should be a movie.” He then proceeds to work for 8 and a half years to write, fund, produce and eventually film this movie with the help of a local film studio guy named Don Karan. It went from like, a five-page script into a full-fledged feature film which was put out in theatres and people went and saw it. It made just under $20,000 I believe in box office, which I also believe is well below the budget of this film. I think they spent a ton of money on this movie and I don’t believe they made it back. But, that might be wrong and if I’m wrong, good for you. That’s great. But I think that the way that Lyle talks about the film really reveals that this isn’t just about his own personal narrative, which we both actually thought would have been better perhaps, as being the focus of this, but really I think this is about the light the mystical religious relationship between disabled people and God, higher power, whatever it might be. This idea that it, just as in Miracle in Lane 2, God doesn’t make mistakes. That David’s disability provides him this deeper connection to a higher power, which I think we’re going to hear a lot in many of these films. 

 

Erika: This is fascinating. It really, it is fascinating that that this is a story that gets told and retold, that people feel so profoundly touched by their brushes with disability. 

 

Jeff: that it literally haunted him and he had to tell this story, he had to — maybe this is an act of remembrance, maybe it’s an act of revealing a life that is otherwise not talked about or not shared, not honored, perhaps. But I think I’m with you. I think these are actually stories that are continually honored, continually shared, to the point that it’s the only story that we start to hear is about this disabled people who are troubled, they have a hard life, but that this connection with God, which maybe makes it worth it or implies that there’s a rational reason for it to happen, that sanitizes it in some ways, and then allows them to be, to stand as these sort of religious objects. So Lyle then is able to show his compassion through his ability to care for David, to support David, and to love David. 

 

Erika: I think we are making a very natural slide out of trivia and into final thoughts here. 

 

Jeff: so, Erika, final thoughts on Different Drummers 

 

Erika: My final thoughts on Different Drummers are that I am once again surprised. I came in pretty ready to tear this apart and for all of its problematic tropes and representations, I am pleasantly surprised to find through deeper analysis some merit. I once again hesitate to give this film too much praise, but you know, we’re not really here to judge the film itself. We’re really here to talk about how did it treat disability, and I think it treated disability in some decently realistic ways and it, through the stories that it told, it has certainly made for some thought provoking conversation. 

 

Jeff: when I think about Different Drummers and I think about this broader project of Invalid Culture, I’m struck by this question about whether or not it is possible to both make a good movie and a progressive movie at the same time. Because it appears as though like, objectively Different Drummers is a bad movie. It is poorly made, it is it is all over the place, I think all of the critiques of this film are completely accurate from like a film perspective. I do not recommend this film to anybody. And so then, we have to ask ourselves, is the general audience, is the truth of disability an aesthetic that actually lends itself to movies that we perceive as powerful, evocative, interesting, artistic or good? Can we actually make a good movie on both sides of that equation. A technically good and also disability good? I wanna say yes, I want to believe that that’s possible, but I wonder how many of these movies that make good points are getting bogged down by the ways that they don’t reflect what is presumed to be examples of good disability art. So this movie doesn’t break through because it’s not Rain Man and people are left looking at it as a bingo bargain, bargain bin purchase, as opposed to some sort of legitimate artistic interrogation of childhood with various disabilities. But at the same time, it’s a bad movie. 

 

Erika: well, and I think, like, we are definitely being generous with it but I think one of the traps that we see here and that we’re likely to see time and again is that these are “other” narratives. These are not people telling their own story, these are people telling someone else’s story and so I think that we are always, they sort of, these films lack the technical success to bring these stereotypical tropes which people love. Our Amazon reviews confirm. 

 

Jeff: absolutely. 

 

Erika: they lack the technical quality to bring these lovable, mainstream lovable stories to success, but they lack the storytelling power of a narrative that’s grounded in lived experience. And again, that’s that was that was what made this film for me, was that it had that aspect. So, I think we carry on in our quest to find some first-person narratives that are like, people who set out to tell their own story. 

 

Jeff: my hot take for tonight’s episode, our closing thought, we’re not gonna see any self representation on this podcast because I don’t think that those films will reach our high low bar for trashy, trashy content.  

 

[Outro music] Hip hop beat from “Hard Out Here For a Gimp” by Wheelchair Sports Camp 

 

Jeff: And so concludes another episode of Invalid Culture. Did you enjoy the episode? Have a good time? Why don’t you tell a friend about it. Tell em right now. Send a message, email them or message them on tik tok wherever it is you’re socializing. Tell them to check out this podcast. Do you have a film that you think it would be great for us to cover? Do you want to torture us with a terrible movie you once watched? Awesome. Go onto our website invalidculture.com and send us your worst films. Who knows, maybe you will get to hear an episode in which we cover it. So thank you again for tuning in and until next time, take care and we’ll talk to you soon. 

 

DVD cover of the Disney Channel's "Miracle in Lane 2" with the caption "Justin tried for a trophy. What he won was extraordinary"

What if Malcom in the Middle was disabled?

Released just before Frank Muniz would become a household name, Miracle In Lane 2 is the “true” docu-dramedy following the life of Justin Yoder, a young boy with a physical disability who just wants to win something gosh darnit!

When this episode was recorded, this film could be watched on Disney+. But we at Invalid Culture are purists and, of course, watched it using Jeff’s personal DVD copy.

Listen now…

Grading the Film

As always, this film is reviewed with scores recorded in four main categories, with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst. Like the game of golf, the lower the score the better.

How accurate is the representation?

Jeff – 4 / 5

Erika – 3 / 5

Total – 7 / 10

How difficult was it to watch the movie?

Erika – 3 / 5

Jeff – 2 / 5

Total – 5 / 10

How often were things unintentionally funny?

Erika – 3 / 5

Jeff – 4 / 5

Total – 7 / 10

How far back has it put disabled people?

Jeff – 3 / 5

Erika – 4 / 5

Total – 7 / 10

The Verdict

Crimes have been committed…

Podcast Transcript

[Theme Music] Hip hop beat from “Hard Out Here For a Gimp” by Wheelchair Sports Camp
Erika:
Welcome to Invalid Culture, a podcast dedicated to excavating the strangest, most baffling, and worst representations of disability in popular culture. Unlike other podcasts that review films you’ve probably heard of, invalid culture is all about looking into the abyss of pop culture adjacent representations that never quite broke through because, well, they’re just awful. I’m joined today by my co-host, Jeffrey Preston. Jeff, why don’t you tell us about yourself?
Jeff:
I am a professor of disability studies and my background is in media. I teach media studies, I love movies and television, and I first got interested in media and disability because as a person with a physical disability, I always found it strange how the things that we see on television and in film were just not representative to my lived experience. And I wanted to understand why that was. I also have a love for terrible movies. The worse they are, the more I enjoy them. I don’t care about the Oscars, I’m here for the Razzies. But I’m not the only one here at Invalid Culture, I’m also joined by my co-host, Erika Katzman. Erika, why don’t you introduce yourself?
Erika:
Well I am also teaching in disability studies. I have a PhD in health and rehab science. I have a background in cultural anthropology, so that’s sort of where I come to this table. I’m really interested in the stories that we tell, the things that drive us, the cultural narratives that find their way into these cinematic representations. And I can’t say that I share your passion for terrible film, but I’m thrilled to be along on this ride with you. So that’s sort of where I come to this table.
Jeff:
And it is going to be a ride. So what is Invalid Culture? Well, we decided that it would be interesting to do a podcast, not about those classic films that we all hear about and read about in scholarship, we’re not here to talk about Rain Man or What’s Eating Gilbert Grape or whatever Eddie Redmayne is trying to win an Oscar with this year. But rather, we decided it would be more interesting for us to look at maybe not just the B-list films, but the C-list films. Because it turns out, there are a ton of bizarre, strange, often confusing films about disability that are not the type of thing that you’re going to probably see in theater, but is 100% the thing that you’re going to see on your streaming platforms like Netflix and Prime Video and Disney Plus, Tubi.
Jeff:
So Erika, why did you agree to do this with me?
Erika:
Why? Why would I agree to do this with you? I mean, I am interested in … I don’t know if it’s unfair to call this the underbelly of popular culture. I’m interested in knowing what are the … I’m familiar with the Oscar winners, I know those stories. But I’m curious to learn more about and maybe pick apart a little bit, some of the lesser-known tales that I wonder if these are going to really be lesser known tales, or if these are going to be tales that we know kind of well in different boxes.
Jeff:
So Invalid Culture is going to be about looking at the culture that is just that, invalid, things that probably should not be consumed. But don’t worry, weary traveler listening to this podcast, Erika and I will watch it for you and we will filter through the fun and the joy. If you’d like to play along with us, I’d recommend watching the movie before you listen to the podcast, but maybe not. Maybe you prefer to be spoiled, hear what the movie is all about, check it out after. But most importantly, we want to hear from you. Do you know an absolutely absurd film about disability? Have you seen something that left you questioning existence, reality, the very nature of humankind? Please send it to us, send it in. We want to know the filth that you’ve had to endure. Punish us for doing this to you.
Jeff:
So it is our first episode of Invalid Culture, and we have chosen, I would say, a great place for us to start. Erika, what was your … Did you have any relationship with this film before you watched it?
Erika:
No, I had never heard of this film. I mean, I knew who Frankie Muniz is from Malcolm In the Middle, of course. I was shocked to hear that when you spoke to people of a slightly younger generation about this film that it seems to be quite well known. I knew nothing about this film.
Jeff:
Yeah, I was also in the dark until, actually it was young people, kept referring to it in my class about disability of pop culture, my university class. And I will share I have special connection, I think, to this film, because right in the early 2000s, I suddenly had people telling me that they thought I looked like Frankie Muniz. And that’s a weird thing, because I do not look like Frankie Muniz at all. I mean, we’re both men I suppose, boys. We both have brown hair, I suppose. And I never understood it. And it wasn’t until years later that I saw this film and was like, “Oh dear lord. It’s because Frankie Muniz was in a wheelchair in a film.” And that’s what people are clocking. I’m reminding them of Miracle on Lane Two on some deep unconscious level.
Erika:
That is something.
Jeff:
It is weird. So let’s just put the record out there, I don’t look like Frank Muniz, I don’t think. Even if I do low-key maybe have the same manual wheelchair as he does in this film. I’m fairly confident that I have his exact same wheelchair. Different color, because I’m not basic, but the same wheelchair, I think.
Jeff:
So what are we even talking about? Well our friends that are listening, we are of course talking about Disney TV, not film, not even really Disney Plus, it didn’t exist at this point. We are talking, of course, about the made for TV movie, Miracle in Lane Two.
Erika:
From the Vox, “Sensational Frankie Muniz from TV’s Malcolm in the Middle, stars as Justin Yoder in Miracle in Lane Two, inspired by the true story of a mischievous and courageous 12-year-old who refused to let a physical challenge defeat him. His unrelenting desire to win a trophy leads to Justin’s discovery that it’s perseverance that makes a winner as he prepares for a national soap box championship race. Fresh, funny, all of action and heart, Miracle in Lane Two combines courage, challenges, and thrills for the ride of a lifetime.”
Jeff:
The ride of a lifetime. The bar is set very high.
Erika:
It is, but you know, I mean reading this over, it doesn’t even really ring, it doesn’t even ring with the film.
Jeff:
No, anyone who’s watched this film might be wondering, they’re like, “Well, I mean, Frankie Muniz is in it, there is a soap box race.” But a lot of the rest of it seems really disconnected. Did you find it fresh, Erika?
Erika:
[crosstalk 00:08:14] committing the pun?
Jeff:
Ah, interesting. That’s clever. Did you find it full of action?
Erika:
I mean, I’m not big on action so I can’t really say, but I think most of the action was contained within a short, five or so minute window, near the very end of the film.
Jeff:
Yeah, I’m wondering what they’re definition of action is here. I mean, Frankie Muniz didn’t kill anyone in this film that we’re aware of, implied, there may have been some implied massacres.
Erika:
Oh yeah, I think I would agree with that.
Jeff:
Maybe, I don’t know.
Erika:
I mean, if we’re talking attempts, I think there was an attempt at funny too.
Jeff:
Okay, yeah, I’ll give them funny. I laughed at it, probably not the way they wanted. Would you say that it combined courage and challenges?
Erika:
I mean, in the matter of speaking, there was a lot of … Was there a lot of courage? I don’t know. I think challenges were a real theme in the film.
Jeff:
Oh yes.
Erika:
And coming from unexpected angles. If we take a close look at the film, Frankie, excuse me, Justin wasn’t the only one facing challenges.
Jeff:
Which is actually something I kind of liked about the movie, I’m going to say. I liked the fact that everybody was broken in this film. Literally everyone. Maybe the reporters, they were maybe not broken, but of course lamestream media, so you know, they’re probably broken too. But I found it interesting just, “Would not let his physical challenge defeat him.” Did you feel like that was really part of the film?
Erika:
It wasn’t. I mean, I think it was the narrative. The narrative was intended to be he wasn’t going to let this physical disability ruin his life. But ultimately, I think what we see play out in the film are that there are real limitations that he faces.
Jeff:
Yeah, he does face challenges, I suppose, that are tangentially connected. As well as he almost dies a few times, that’s a recurring…theme which I guess…It’s funny, but I think watching the film, I don’t know that I really saw the disability as being the thing he was really fighting in some ways. It seems like he was fighting a lot of attitudes and physical barriers and trying to understand his where he fits in the family.
Jeff:
We are doing a review of this film, but we are just two random people from Canada. So we don’t know anything. So we thought it would be important for us to go to the legitimate sources of film review, and as you can probably imagine, the reviews were, in the press, not great for this film, not well-loved. I think one of my favorite comments comes to us from David Kronke, not sure, sorry David, DK, as his friends call him. Anyway, he wrote on the LA Daily News this brilliant quote.
Jeff [doing a strange accent]:
“It could also be important for some children to see someone they respect so much playing a handicapped character. They might feel a little sympathy for the disabled, and understand that there are fewer differences between them than there might appear.”
Jeff:
What we noticed in a lot of the reviews for the film is this real desire to situate the value of the film, not in its ability to stand as a part, but rather as its functional purpose in normalizing disability to non-disabled people, but also a little bit about what to do about disability.
Erika:
Just for anyone who might not know, something that really hit me about this quote is that, as you mentioned, DK themself, are not non-disabled, we presume, and so is Frankie Muniz. And this is something that I think really gives some shape to the film itself. Frankie Muniz, as far as we know, is not physically disabled. And I think we presume, having seen the film, that the writers and directors also, perhaps, don’t have a lot of lived real-world experience with physical disability, and we really see that in the film. So it’s interesting that this review is sort of setting this up as a story that’s maybe going to teach people, educate people, warm people up to this perhaps unfamiliar idea and experience of physical disability.
Jeff:
Yeah. It’s almost like they couldn’t just be like, “This movie is bad.” They were like, “Well, we should reward them for trying.”
Erika:
But this professional review really resonates with those Amazon reviews. This is a recurring theme, that this is an educational film.
Jeff:
Erika, what was your favorite one that you read?
Erika:
I think I’ll have to go with Gertrude Black’s five star review, Soap Box Derby, which reads, “I purchased this when my sons were participants in the local soap box derby. It was great inspiration for them. I have the trophy, magazine article, savings bond, and pictures to prove it.” So just, help me out with the interpretation of this, if I’m understanding correctly, Gertrude’s sons were in a soap box derby and were so moved by this film that they won a trophy.
Jeff:
And savings bond, they won money.
Erika:
Someone wrote a magazine article about this win, and obviously there are pictures. But this movie was so moving, it was so moving.
Jeff:
Without this film, her sons would be destitute and poor right now.
Erika:
What do you think that savings bond racked up to?
Jeff:
Honestly, I wonder. Did the savings bond get wiped out in the ’08 housing crisis? Did it survive that? Did it get wiped out in the start of the COVID financial crisis? I love it. I also love the idea that Gertrude is perhaps using films to inspire her sons in all of their tasks and she’s like, “Well, when they were getting ready for University, I got them that Matt Damon film, and they watched that. And now they know about apples and anger and they did great and now they’re Harvard grads, and I have the pictures and the educational debt to prove it.” Do we need to get more tactical with the disability movies? Why have we not made a movie about a disabled person during COVID? Because maybe that’s all it would take.
Erika:
If there’s anyone out there working on it, we need to know.
Jeff:
Hollywood, you can have that one for free. That one’s on us, the next ones you’ve got to pay for. So I like that one, I also liked … There was one from presumably a completely real name, Gurgly Bidet. If that is a real name, and Gurgly, if you’re listening to this, shout out to you brother. Five stars Miracle in Lane Two, “This movie is one of my favorite movies. I can learn a lot from physically disabled peoples’ lives and I can see that everything is possible if we want. I will see it again and again, I like it.” “I can learn a lot from physically disabled peoples’ lives.”
Erika:
I mean, I think that is the moral of this story.
Jeff:
Yes, we are educational tools, predominantly. That’s sort of what we’re here for. I love this … And this is going to come up a lot in our podcast, I love this narrative of anything is possible if you believe. And it’s like you can’t fly, it doesn’t matter how much you believe, you’re never going to be able to fly, you’re not a bird.
Erika:
If we can dive into the film, there’s this question of wanting to play sports. And Justin, who I’m having a very hard time not calling Frankie, wants to … It’s not that he wants to play baseball per se, it’s that’s he wants to be an athletic superstar like his big brother. But we see this attempt to play baseball and realistically, he can’t play baseball. The question is asked, “How are you going to run the plates? How are you going to traverse the grassy outfield? Can you play baseball?” And maybe … I think that just kind of flies in the face of this idea that you can do anything you want if you just will it to be, you can overcome reality?
Jeff:
Yeah, and that just completely ignores, obviously, the actual experiences and challenges that people with disabilities face.
Erika:
Right, that’s the challenge.
Jeff:
Yes. Or maybe this is actually disconnected totally, but it’s like, “Okay, disabled people, their lives are terrible, but what we can learn from them is that as a non-disabled person, I am a tremendously powerful and [inaudible 00:17:49] person, I can do whatever I want, and I should stop wasting my life.” This is that inspiration porn thing, right?
Erika:
Yes. And I think we do catch a little bit of that in this film.
Jeff:
A little bit. There is one other review, I think, that stuck out to me on Amazon by Pandorafan685. It’s unclear if the rings or of, of course, the home of the Na’vi in the film Avatar. I assume there are hundreds of fans on both sides. Pandorafan685, five out of five stars, Good Filmmaking is the title, which is very suspect already. There are some typos in this, so I am going to try not to butcher this as I read, but … “Disney did a good thing shooting a movie about a wheelchair bound boy in Justin Yoder, based on a true story. I also liked the scenes when they are in courtroom deciding whether Justin should play baseball or not. I like how the mom always defends him because he’s handicapped and should have a right to play. This is a good movie.”
Erika:
It’s a balanced critique.
Jeff:
I know, I like how he starts out as it’s like, “I’m glad that Disney did this.” And then he’s like, “I’m going to talk about the one very specific moment in the film for one sentence, and then I’m just going to wrap it up. In and out.”
Erika:
I think Disney would appreciate this one, because they got the pat on the back that they were definitely looking for.
Jeff:
They went, “Finally!, Finally someone appreciated what we were doing with this film.”
Erika:
I do have a couple questions about their “based on a true story,” and I want to note that in the intro to the film, I believe the text is, “Inspired by the life of…” I have some questions about the historical accuracy of this-
Jeff:
Inspired by the life of Justin Yoder. So for those of you who are listening, yes, there is a real human named Justin Yoder. But I wouldn’t say this is an exactly blow-by-blow as far as two Canadians have been able to ascertain. Justin, if you’re listening, call us. And that’s actually real, I’m not even being a dick right there. I’d love to be your friend, Justin, not because you’re inspiring.
Erika:
I really want to know what Justin has to say about this film.
Jeff:
I would love to know what Justin has to say about this film. So we’ve looked in at what the fans have said, “fan” might be, I’m putting that in giant air quotes.
Erika:
There are a lot of five reviews, these are fans.
Jeff:
Yeah, these are fans. Okay, these people loved it. There were a couple three out of fives, that also seemed to love it, I will say. They were like, “Eh, TV movie, but I loved it.” But this idea about who the film is for is a recurring theme in a lot of that. Is this movie for non-disabled people to learn about disability? Or is this film for disabled people to be inspired by the accomplishments of the disabled person? Where do you fall on the paradigm, Erika?
Erika:
This is where I tend to fall in general on this whole discussion of disability narratives. I’m not sure it’s necessarily one or the other. I’m not even sure that this is really, at the end of the day, a film about disability.
Jeff:
No.
Erika:
Right? I think we’re going to see some big themes that are less about disability and more about humanity and life and death and everything that falls in between, and human interactions, and family dynamics. The family dynamics here are interesting, but [crosstalk 00:21:36] if I have to fit your mold, I’m going to go the narrative about I think it is more about inspiring than educating, and that is all that I can give you right now.
Jeff:
What’s fascinating is that a lot of the reviews seem to indicate that this is a movie for disabled people. They’re like, “Oh now, I would never watch this film, however, if you have a child with a disability, this is for them. Go and watch Miracle on Lane Two with your disabled child, that’s who this is for.”
Jeff:
And I find that fascinating that there’s this massive divide between what I think was the intended audience, which is I think to normalize disability. I think that’s what they were trying to do. And that’s totally not how people have seen it. Even our old friend DK, at the LA Daily News, he was like, “This might be an important film for disabled people.” This might be good for them to watch.
Erika:
I don’t know if this is the point at which we get to dive into where they went wrong if their intent was to educate, but I do think we have to talk about the way that disability is constructed in this film.
Jeff:
The good news is that this film is actually really straight forward and open about how it feels about disability. It doesn’t really hide anything. In fact, I think the best way to understand the politics of this film is to actually listen to the opening monologue. I cannot stress this enough. This is the opening monologue of the film, in which Justin, sitting in his bedroom, watching his able-bodied brother, Seth, play basketball, begins to lament about his life, and then eventually goes and has a nice conversation with God in heaven about everything that is wrong with his body. Take a listen.
Justin Clip:
In this living room, if Seth is perfect, then I’m special. Which is my all-time least-favorite word. It’s how people say they don’t expect much from a kid in a wheelchair. God, are you listening? God? God?
God Clip:
Who’s there?
Justin Clip:
I thought you knew everything.
God Clip:
I don’t like being tested.
Justin Clip:
Justin Ross Yoder.
God Clip:
Why are you here?
Justin Clip:
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I think when you made me you messed up.
God Clip:
I don’t make mistakes.
Justin Clip:
Well, somebody sure did. I mean, look at me.
God Clip:
You look fine.
Justin Clip:
Fine? I’m 12 years old and already had 24 major surgeries. My legs are linguine. I have more stitches in my head than a baseball.
God Clip:
What do you want me to do about it?
Justin Clip:
Isn’t it obvious? Fix me! Make a miracle! I mean, you still do miracles don’t you?
Jeff:
Do a miracle. And ideally, a miracle that is in an area where vehicles travel, perhaps a lane or a pathway would be fantastic.
Erika:
Not the main one, but the secondary one.
Jeff:
I think the fact this movie starts right off the bat, right off the hop, talking about Justin’s disability as he’s looking out this window forlorn, looking at his sporting brother playing, “My brother’s perfect and I am but a broken special child who was not made right with my linguine legs and my stitches in my head.” Defining disability seems to be a really important part of this text. How do they define disability in this film?
Erika:
Leaky. Wet, very wet. I think we later learn that the apparent diagnosis is Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus and we hear a lot about the Hydrocephalus because this fluid-filled head could burst at any moment, bringing on death. And that’s a big theme here that our hero, Justin … Is he the hero? Antihero?
Jeff:
Yeah.
Erika:
… That he could burst at any time. That he is living under the shadow of imminent death, he is broken, not made right-
Jeff:
A mistake. Although God says, “I don’t make mistakes.” But I think we, as the audience, are supposed to kind of agree with Justin, “What the heck?” But this is the journey, this is the journey the movie is going to try and take us on is that we are going to learn through Justin that he’s not broken, that he’s not a mistake, that he is special, I guess, but that it’s all part of God’s plan. If you didn’t know, there is a religious undertone (overtone?), central thesis in this film. And there’s a reason for that, I think, which we’ll discuss later.
Jeff:
But it feels like the medicine doctors, science, seems to be essential roles here in terms of defining who Justin is. His diagnosis proceeds him everywhere he goes.
Erika:
It’s virtually all that we know about him. I mean, we don’t know anything about Justin’s social … Outside of his family, we don’t know, we never meet Justin’s friends, we don’t meet his teachers, we meet his physician.
Jeff:
Yeah, we meet his doctor.
Erika:
That’s it, and God. He has a relationship with God and a relationship with his family, and that is virtually all we know about Justin other than his very leaky body.
Jeff:
Yeah, it’s almost like this weird … It’s like every time he meets a new character, he reveals a new thing about his body, like his body is him, that is his life, there’s nothing outside. I find it fascinating that we meet his brother’s friends. His brother maybe has a girlfriend, maybe it’s just a woman who’s a friend, and then there’s this other boy that is sort of around his brother for some reason. We meet his brother’s baseball team, we meet all of these people in his brother’s life and we never meet anyone in Justin’s life.
Erika:
Except for the villain in the movie who he links up with eventually.
Jeff:
Right, Justin does make a friend. Disability, then, seems to be very much situated within the body that this is a kid who’s entire life circles, it orbits. And that seems to be kind of the center of his family in some ways too.
Erika:
The concerns about Justin himself? Or the concerns about the medical aspects of Justin?
Jeff:
I would say both, I think, in some ways. Early on in the film there’s this scene where he has a bit of a headache and it’s like, “Drop everything, get him to the hospital.” Everything seems to kind of orbit the needs of Justin.
Erika:
And fascinating in that scene, Justin is not being heard. Justin is trying to tell the family that this is not an emergency, but everybody is so locked in their routine to save Justin’s fragile medical life that they can’t hear Justin telling them that he’s fine.
Jeff:
Right, being like, “No, this is just a headache, I’m fine.” Yeah. And even both the parents are working long hours to pay for medical bills. In a scathing indictment on the payment of academic professors in this world, the father is both a STEM teacher, he teaches in STEM, but has to work as a house painter to pay for the medial bills. And the mom’s hours and even the brother, eventually, will then sort of break down in the ways in which his relationship with the family is driven by Justin’s medical fragility.
Erika:
Is it worth noting that the brother, himself, also has some kind of undisclosed invisible mental health disability something? It’s not the center point, it’s apparently not as expensive, although he is going to therapy, it sounds like, weekly.
Jeff:
Yeah, and drinking bottles of medicine, like straight from the bottle, for his what I assume is erectile dysfunction. It’s unclear. It has something to do with his tummy.
Erika:
I believe he describes it as, “Matters that are like baseball.”
Jeff:
Yes, so like a stick and balls being erect.
Erika:
Scoring bases.
Jeff:
Yes, yes. I think the movie is probably implying that he has some sort of anxiety disorder.
Erika:
In either case, it is very much about emotions, very much about his emotions.
Jeff:
Absolutely. And doesn’t really get any play. In a lot of ways, it’s like, “Well you’re fine, Justin’s not. His physical needs are far more important than you psycho-social needs.” So I think one of the things that, as we said earlier, a really contentious moment in many of these films are what I’m going to call the Yoder fantasies. So Justin Yoder often daydreams throughout the film, he has these sort of fantasies. So we made notes on all of the ways in which Justin kind of fantasizes, and what the outcomes of all of those fantasies are. And the film actually starts with a fantasy scene in a very relevant moment.
Erika:
So I think they’re at … Is it a grandparent? Great Uncle?
Jeff:
A Great Uncle? I think it said Great Uncle.
Erika:
Yeah, so they’re in a church, at a funeral. There’s a religious figure talking about the life of the deceased and Justin goes into this wondering, “What would they say at my funeral? What would my funeral be like?”
Jeff:
As one does at a funeral.
Erika:
But the anxiety is, “Nobody would have anything to say about me, what would they say about me?” There’s nothing to say about me. The only thing that anyone knows about me is my fancy, Quickie manual wheelchair.
Jeff:
Yeah, there’s this monologue from the preacher, right? Who’s going on about all of the sweet add-ons to the wheelchair. Which I am going to contest. I do not see offensive wings anywhere on that wheelchair. I think that is completely made up and shame on you. But it’s funny, it’s like immediately he, number one, as a child, a 12-year-old is thinking about his own death which we’ve been primed to understand that death is a part of his life, it’s lurking around every corner. But at the same time, shout out to this film in some ways. I think it’s actually a really clever fantasy here, to be like, “People don’t see me. I’m just a wheelchair, the wheelchair is the best part of me that people see.” And that that’s not true. Even if it is literally the first scene in the movie, second scene, they’re like getting ready for the funeral in the first scene and then they immediately are at the funeral and he’s dreaming about the sweet release of death.
Erika:
You know where the fantasy ends, is where he actually … So it’s all in his head until he vocalizes, “What about me?”
Jeff:
Yes, at the funeral. Which, hilarious for one. That’s something I’m going to start yelling at every funeral during the eulogy. And this is what then sets off the journey. This is the hero’s journey, is for Justin Yoder to become more than his wheelchair. You know what, I actually think I now agree, I think this is a battle against his physical impairment. But if he wants to beat the wheelchair as being the most important thing about him.
Erika:
And the vehicle that he chooses-
Jeff:
Is another wheelchair.
Erika:
It’s through sportsdom. It’s through ultimate achievement of athletics as embodied by Seth, his virulent but-
Jeff:
Erectily troubled brother.
Erika:
More subtly fragile brother who has a supreme collection of trophies. I have a fair few trophies myself, but this is unlike anything I have ever seen before.
Jeff:
This man has won every sporting competition in America since the 1980s, all of them.
Erika:
Since before he born.
Jeff:
Yeah, he was winning trophies in utero for sure.
Erika:
Although I don’t know about that because mom, we learn, doesn’t … Her sports knowledge is quite lacking. I believe he argues something about a touchdown at a baseball-
Jeff:
Right. Yeah, because she’s a woman, right? So sports don’t work in women’s brains. We all know that, that’s just truth.
Erika:
The gender stereotypes in this depiction are strong.
Jeff:
Oh yeah. Yeah, if nothing else, Disney is like, “There are two genders and we know everything about them.”
Erika:
And they know nothing about each other.
Jeff:
Right, so they are completely divorced from each other and they only tolerate each other insofar as sexual relation. Procreation is a part of it, but this movie is actually pretty pro-sex.
Erika:
I mean, again with the under overtones, they are there. But there is no sex.
Jeff:
No. Unfortunately, the movie does not have any hardcore pornographic moments, unfortunately.
Erika:
They are alluded to. There is the strawberry massage oil in the bedside table.
Jeff:
Yup, absolutely. And his parents do try to bang on the kitchen table?
Erika:
But they can’t, because they are too busy making money-
Jeff:
They’re interrupted, literally.
Erika:
-To cover Justin’s medical bills.
Jeff:
Oh yeah. Let’s put a pin in that one. Because those are really more our fantasies, as opposed to Justin’s fantasies.
Erika:
Right, Justin’s fantasies.
Jeff:
Right, yes. So he has these sports fantasies, he fantasizes about his sportsdom.
Erika:
So the sports one that I remember, did you remember this one? He’s picturing himself playing baseball. It’s like a bases are loaded, crowd going wild, dark night lit by stadium lighting, and he’s in the outfield waiting to catch this ball or I should say, the ball is waiting for him to catch it.
Jeff:
Precisely.
Erika:
Because the ball hangs in the air as he gets out to it.
Jeff:
Yeah. The rules of Justin’s fantasy life are confusing, I am confused. Because he has the power to control the ball so that he can wheel to get to the ball. And honestly, shout out for them not eliminating his wheelchair in his fantasies. That is a common thing in films, where they’re like, “Of course he would fantasize that he could walk.” And that’s not Justin’s fantasies, Justin’s fantasies are really about a world that kind of bends around him in the way that he is. Which, dare I say, this movie might be kind of progressive accidentally. So he can control the ball, but he can’t make his wheelchair go easy in the grass. Or, he doesn’t fantasize about himself being muscular and ripped. We never see Frankie Muniz in an athlete body in any of these fantasies.
Erika:
I don’t know, I think what we see is it’s not that he wants to play ball, it’s not that he wants to be good at ball, it’s that he wants to accomplish the quintessential act that will earn him the symbolic trophy.
Jeff:
Right. Yeah, it’s the win that he wants.
Erika:
It’s the win.
Jeff:
And he doesn’t want to change for it.
Erika:
I don’t know though, because he asks God to fix him.
Jeff:
That’s true, that is true. And then we have the legal fantasies. The legal fantasies are I guess I’m team family court, what are you? Are you team family court? Or are you anti-family court?
Erika:
I was kind of neutral in the family court. It didn’t bother me. It fit in well with the other fantasy scenes that we have appearing throughout. They moved the plot along, they enable some grappling with topics that we might not have otherwise seen come through. I thought the jury composed of 10 or so different couples of the parents was a bit of a stretch, but …
Jeff:
I liked how it showed two different but also kind of familiar archetypes of disability parents. They showed this dynamic in which Justin’s parents, the mom and the dad, are not actually totally aligned on what’s best for Justin, and what Justin needs.
Erika:
Exactly.
Jeff:
And then we get this … I don’t actually know the dad’s politics, that’s a little bit less clear, but the mom’s politics are really clear. What she thinks is best for Justin is abundantly clear, and that is inclusion. This is that fierce disability mom, the special needs mom that we hear so much about, where it’s like, “My son-”
Erika:
Well, Justin even calls her … He describes her as the grizzly bear.
Jeff:
Yeah, right, that she’s going to maul anybody that gets in the way and that the most important part is that her son is included, inclusion.
Erika:
Because sports are for fun, she says. And the thing that we learn about Dad is that Dad is sportsman, but Dad has renounced sports because Justin can’t play. So what Dad really wants … And we see this as his enthusiasm for soap box derby picks up, what dad really wants is for Justin to have the authentic sporting experience.
Jeff:
To be a sporting man, yeah. Yeah, so he wants authentic inclusion, whereas the mother seems to want more participatory inclusion.
Erika:
Yup, totally.
Jeff:
And the final fantasy, the reason that I first messaged Erika and was like, “We have to do this film, we have to,” because it has one of my favorite scenes in a film that I maybe have ever seen. That’s going to change as we do this. As we do this podcast, I’m going to come to new favorites. So tell us about the end of the movie, Erika.
Erika:
How to begin to describe this scene? I wish I could recall, and we might have to go back and look at this … What is the prompt? What does Justin say to God that prompts God-
Jeff:
So I know this.
Erika:
You know this?
Jeff:
I actually know this.
Erika:
Okay, what is it?
Jeff:
Everything is wrapped up, the movie is basically over, and Justin realizes he’s a champion now, he’s won soap box. So he connects with God one last time. And because this is a movie about death, he’s like, “Hey God, what is it like in heaven?” Like, “What is heaven like?”
Erika:
And God, who does not make mistakes…
Jeff:
And so then, God’s like, “Well let me show you.” And I can’t describe it without dying and seeing it. And Frankie Muniz, Justin, describes it as perfect. What is perfect heaven?
Erika:
Perfect heaven for Frankie/Justin is everyone in manual wheelchairs tinged in gold with giant flopping angel wings.
Jeff:
Just zooming around.
Erika:
Zooming around, looking as angelic as you could imagine. Perfect, it’s perfect.
Jeff:
Okay, let’s take a step back here. Here’s what I want to know. What are the rules of heaven in this world?
Erika:
Well I’m just wondering, is it that you are physically disabled on arrival? Or is that only physically disabled people get into heaven?
Jeff:
This is the question, the existential question of this film, does God disable you when you arrive in heaven and put you in an angel wheelchair? Or the more militant interpretation, only disabled people go to heaven? Or, are there multi-heavens in which the disabled go to the disabled heaven, the non-disabled go to the non-disabled heaven, and Seth goes to erectile dysfunction heaven?
Erika:
I think this conversation might be it’s own podcast, but I think the most salient point here is that we have reached the culmination of this film, it’s utmost message, which is Justin is perfect.
Jeff:
Yeah, perfect as he is.
Erika:
Now the real question is, is he perfect because he has now achieved his trophy?
Jeff:
Well yes. See, he was flawed before. He was going to hell because God only likes winners.
Erika:
I mean, he’s a champion race car driver.
Jeff:
Yeah, this seems to be the message. Okay, we have to talk about sex. We have to. Because we have come too far.
Erika:
Because Disney wasn’t going to, so someone has to.
Jeff:
But Disney does talk about sex. What is amazing to me about this film is ostensibly, it is for children, but there are overt references to sex. Like, his parents are written as sexual beings.
Erika:
I think the first thing that we see, Dad comes in the front door, Mom’s on the phone, and they have this sort of quick romp in the front hallway.
Jeff:
Yeah, before a funeral.
Erika:
You may be wondering why we keep referencing strawberry lube. And that is because there is a scene in this film where Justin Yoder discovers the strawberry “massage oil” in the bedside table of his parent’s bedroom.
Jeff:
I am not a sex therapist, I am not a registered massage therapist. But it seems to be the only reason you would want a flavored massage oil is if you were going to consume said massage oil. Is that an accurate take?
Erika:
I mean, there’s got to be something to be said for the olfactory experience.
Jeff:
It wasn’t scented though. It was strawberry flavored.
Erika:
I mean, flavor is … Yeah. I mean, you can’t contest that, nope.
Jeff:
This was clearly a sex lube joke in a children’s show.
Erika:
Oh yeah.
Jeff:
Undeniably.
Erika:
And if it were just on it’s own, let’s say dad was a massage therapist, and happened to have a collection of massage oils, that’s not the case. We have flirty parents who are-
Jeff:
Constantly trying to bang, perpetually.
Erika:
But are they actually sleeping together? Because I think we see them, they’re trying to, they want to, they have made kids. But there seems to be this obstacle.
Jeff:
Right. Yeah, they’re always being interrupted. They’re always interrupted by the disabled kid. It’s like, “Who will win? Two horny parents or one wheely boy?” And the answer is the wheely boy is supreme.
Erika:
Perfection prevails.
Jeff:
Yeah, he is perfect in his absolute desexualizing self.
Erika:
Is there something here about the religious overtone and the abstinence?
Jeff:
That’s a really interesting question, because I feel as an audience, we are supposed to feel for the parents, like we want the parents to be just mating all the time. And we want them to have that. But Justin, his differences, his specials, makes that just not really possible. But I think we’re supposed to want it though.
Erika:
I think it kind of also helps us tap into this impaired masculinity that is a commonality between, I think, all of the men in this film.
Jeff:
Yeah, so let’s talk about how a film about little penis cars go down a road. I will say, the film informs us that some people believe the soap box derby racers with the black tips go faster. Unconfirmed if that’s true or not.
Erika:
Completely unnecessary comment. When that comment is thrown out, there are no black tips to be seen.
Jeff:
No. And Justin Yoder does not have a black-tipped car. So it’s not true. The color of your car does not necessarily impact the performance. What if we look at this film through the lens of gender masculinity?
Erika:
I mean, this is your wheelhouse, but this is a quest for a trophy. It’s a literal quest for a trophy.
Jeff:
Right, the basis of the movie is … It’s almost like a Cain and Abel story, sort of, where it’s super God sport athlete brother who has friends, and all of these phallic trophies, and then loser beta brother who wants to be a man and win trophies, or steal trophies.
Erika:
Oh yeah, because he doesn’t have to earn it, he would happily just give his hand. He will lie, he will cheat, he will steal, as long as he gets the trophy.
Jeff:
Possession of the trophy is what matters. But if possession of the trophy validates him in the way that his brother Seth has been repeatedly validated as the holder of the [inaudible 00:48:46].
Erika:
I was surprised to find out a bit later in the film that Dad also was an athlete.
Jeff:
Also, holder of trophies.
Erika:
Not just a STEM professor painter.
Jeff:
Slash house painter.
Erika:
Also, former holder of trophies. But he has renounced his athleticism in the name of … I guess, is he trying to be on Justin’s level? He doesn’t … Because this is the tension with Seth and Dad, older brother and Dad, is that Dad hasn’t participated in this athletic lifestyle with Seth. He has to sit it out because Justin can’t participate and he can’t be there for Seth if he can’t be there for Justin in the exact, precise same way.
Jeff:
Yeah, there’s like this guilt. Like if he engages with Seth’s proper masculinity, it forces an acknowledgement of the improper masculinities of Justin, that he’s not a winner, he doesn’t possess the phallus. Is this about guilt in creating? Does the father … Is the necessary punishment of birthing an inadequate male, the punishment is that he then is also not a male? Is he contaminated by … Because that is the fruit of his loins, this disabled child, and therefore he has to give it up. And he also has to relinquish Seth, but as Seth can’t be the son anymore because he produced a faulty product.
Erika:
Right, I think then the mission of his life becomes rehabilitating this impaired son. His only chance at redemption is to fix the son.
Jeff:
Right, to be able to reclaim, to get back the power of masculinity. So the brother is a big part of this film, obviously. The interaction … Sort of the interaction with Seth and Justin is one thing, but more so, it’s this interaction with Seth and the family and the ways in which his athletic achievements are no longer being validated because Justin now is into racing soap box cars. But the brother also has problems. So as we said earlier, he is now seeing a doctor for reasons that we do not know, and he’s guzzling non-descript medicine.
Erika:
I think it’s Pepto because of his stomach issues.
Jeff:
Interesting. But it’s a medical bottle, this is not over the counter Pepto. This is the real … This is medical grade.
Erika:
Antacid? Is it an antacid?
Jeff:
Antacid, yeah, maybe. Yeah, it’s odd. Whatever it is, apparently there’s no dosage. Because he just slugs it like it’s a bottle of whiskey. What is it about these films that seem to always position the disabled person in juxtaposition with the hyper athletic and hyper performative sibling, whether it’s a brother or a sister?
Erika:
Is it the contrast? Like is this part of defining disability as lack or as other?
Jeff:
It’s like a desire? Literally in this film, Justin literally desires to be sad.
Erika:
I have a beef, and maybe it’s a beef or a confusion. So we started this film and Justin is gazing out on the driveway basketball court, flat pavement surface.
Jeff:
Mm-hmm (affirmative). And a Paralympic sport.
Erika:
Right, fabulous. So it makes sense when we see the baseball fantasy, you know, we’ve got grass, it’s tough to traverse in a chair with a glove on, that much makes sense. But why can’t he be out there playing ball in the driveway?
Jeff:
Yeah, with his brother.
Erika:
And his dad. Later in the film, we see the dad and the brother reunited and they are, once again, on this flat plane of a driveway playing ball, which Justin explains that his legs are linguine but his arms are kind of ambiguous. His arms seem to function well most of the time. But occasionally, he is acting some kind of hand gesture.
Jeff:
Some sort of spinal cord injury.
Erika:
Yes. I mean, he does enough with his hands in the film to suggest I think he could hold a basketball.
Jeff:
Yeah, and probably throw one, probably. Yeah, and note also that the brother literally plays every sport. So we hear that he is a baseball star, we see him play basketball, he wins the league or something at soccer. This kid is playing every sport and dominating at every sport, just crushing it. And Justin wants to live … He lives through that a little bit, he talks about Seth pushing him around for a victory lap when his brother wins. So he gets to kind of earn some of that or feel some of that pleasure of masculine conquest. But he wants the real thing, it’s like not a good enough hit for him.
Erika:
The moment that that starts is when his brother, instead of taking him on a victory lap, is gallivanting with a woman.
Jeff:
Right, absolutely, yeah. He’s like showing off to this ambiguous woman character, who I do not believe has a line in the film.
Erika:
Is she the same blonde friend?
Jeff:
From the beginning, yeah. I’m 90% sure.
Erika:
Yeah, if she is the same one I think they might have had some dialogue when they were roaming through the neighborhood. And then there’s also the outburst scene when Justin calls out that his brother is crazy, that he’s going to a shrink, and that he’s crazy, cuckoo, nutso, he just unleashes everything…rawr…
Jeff:
Right, exactly, he’s like, “Well my legs don’t work, well his brain doesn’t work,” right in front of the girl, because she is there, right, when that happens.
Erika:
Yeah.
Jeff:
Yeah, he has to humiliate him. It’s like I can’t get to the Zenith of masculinity so now I need to pull you down into the sad castration land of the man without the phallus.
Erika:
Yeah.
Jeff:
Now another thing that I’ve noticed, I’ve noticed this in a lot of films, particularly about physical disability. I think it has to do with masculinity, I believe, is that Justin Yoder, throughout this film, is just bursting with fluid. This is a goopy dude who just does not have control of his fluids. He’s got water in his brain, he makes reference to losing control of his bowels, he makes a lot of references to bladder problems. He is just this leaky, fluidy boy. And I wonder how much of this is about contamination. It’s that anxiety, not just that Justin might die, but that idea that Justin’s body is just seeping out on everybody. And I think fluid and masculinity, there is certainly a connection I would say. A seminal connection, if you will.
Erika:
You seem to have glossed over the blue vomit scene?
Jeff:
Yes. Literally bursting with fluids. Oh man. I’m assuming that vomit scene, I think they probably thought that would play with the gross funny. This guy is just fluidy, super fluidy. And that seems to be a problem. Like literally, there’s the problem of his life. But there’s a lot of times where his bowels and his bladder comes into it with just no connection or context.
Erika:
Yeah, the other connection that it’s just bringing me back to is when the race car driver, not in a God fantasy, but in real life, visits him in the hospital when he finally does burst with fluids. Race car driver visits him in the hospital and picks up his bed pan as a steering wheel and then takes it as a souvenir.
Jeff:
Which he definitely pooped in.
Erika:
Oh yeah.
Jeff:
There is no way.
Erika:
Think also, when the family comes in and he tells them that the famous race car driver has taken his bed pan, there’s sort of a bashful moment of, “Oh yeah, by the way, can someone call the nurse?”
Jeff:
Right, like, “Also, I still have more fluids that I need to get out of my body.” Why did he not try to win a trophy for biggest poop?
Erika:
I have a question about this leakiness. How are these fluids different from the tears that his brother ultimately sheds? Because I do believe his brother is the only one that we actually see cry.
Jeff:
Yeah, that’s true.
Erika:
I think Vic, who we haven’t really talked about, but Vic, our sort of villain turned family member.
Jeff:
Something.
Erika:
Vic talks about sadness following the loss of his child and-
Jeff:
Entire family.
Erika:
But yeah, it was the brother that we do eventually see burst into tears. And that just seems like that those fluids are treated differently.
Jeff:
Yeah, I think part of it is control. I think control is another thing that’s running under this. Things that Justin cannot control, things that Seth can and cannot control as well, that seems to be a big part of this narrative, right? Like the ways in which Justin is not at fault, and the ways in which Seth perhaps gets to a point where he also is seen as blameless in his erectile dysfunction.
Erika:
But the thing with … I guess Justin’s leakiness is Justin. That is how we know Justin, he is a leaky boy.
Jeff:
He’s just a moist boy.
Erika:
But Seth, Seth has this on lock. No one is to know what these secret doctor’s appointments are about. He has a stomach ache, he does not have any kind of emotional issues. He doesn’t even have emotions because he is sport.
Jeff:
And as the famous film quote goes, “Winners never shiver.” He’s in control.
Erika:
The famous quote?
Jeff:
Yeah, it’s Werner Herzog. That is probably a very niche reference.
Erika:
Well, this might be the right demographic.
Jeff:
Maybe, our friends and family specifically.
Erika:
Specifically your friends and family.
Jeff:
That’s who’s listening to this, I assume. Hello family.
Erika:
Hello friends.
Jeff:
Thank you for caring for my leaky body. Don’t have a brother, but my sister has a lot of trophies, maybe they were right. What I didn’t have growing up was a villainous black man who eventually became my best friend. This is, of course, the character Vic. And I think we need to talk about Vic.
Erika:
Child hating is a descriptor that you have left out.
Jeff:
Oh sorry, yes, hates children. And is feared. At the beginning of this movie, he is feared by the townsfolk. Right, is that what I would say? I think that’s accurate.
Erika:
Oh absolutely. He’s this mythical figure that supposedly kills children or murders someone.
Jeff:
Yeah, he’s a murderer for sure. But also is very concerned about hooligans in his neighborhood, specifically the children hooligans. Don’t believe me? Take a listen to how Vic is introduced at the start of this film.
Justin Clip:
I’m in a good town with friendly neighbors, with one major exception. Old man Vic.
Vic Clip:
You hooligans are going to get somebody killed.
Justin Clip:
Who is all alone, hates kids.
Jeff:
Vic is a complicated character. At the start of the movie, he does not want to get involved. He is literally the villain. But eventually Justin discovers that he can access a trophy through Vic, either by stealing one of Vic’s trophies from his garage or maybe, if Vic will take him under his wing, to learn the ways of the box.
Jeff:
So Vic eventually takes Justin under his wing, they form a relationship, at which point we are informed that Vic has lost his entire family. That his daughter drowned?
Erika:
Yes.
Jeff:
Died swimming.
Erika:
Swimming accident.
Jeff:
And then the wife, I think, died of a broken heart, I think is the … implication?
Erika:
Yes, the doctor’s called it many things, but he’s convinced that it was a broken heart.
Jeff:
It was a broken heart, classic, absolutely. Is this a prequel to Star Wars? And Vic himself wanted to die.
Erika:
He didn’t have the courage.
Jeff:
Yeah, he had contemplated ending his life, but he didn’t have the strength to do it. And so he lives as a villain, an angry man taking care of cars. He’s into rare cars, sports cars if you will, and swears off soap box.
Erika:
This is how they meet. They meet because villain Vic is in a car show and Justin sees an opportunity to co opt this trophy.
Jeff:
Right, yeah, so Justin makes this deal. He’s like, “I will help you win the car show by being the pathetic wheelchair boy, and in exchange you will let me have the trophy of the car show.”
Erika:
He is like, “Yes.” And then Justin gets impatient and tries to steal a trophy and ruins Vic’s prize possession sports car in the process. And I don’t think we can look past the symbolism of the sports car.
Jeff:
Yes, Justin Yoder breaks into his garage and destroys his sports car. And that is the birth of a beautiful friendship.
Erika:
A beautiful friendship that inspires Vic to become a new person.
Jeff:
Yeah, it’s like as Justin is learning how to be a soap boxy derbier, because apparently Vic is like the Dale Earnhardt of soap box, this guy knows it all. He’s like, “Oh yeah, the instructions tell you to make it this way, but that’s wrong, because soap box derby is a lot like nuclear physics.” And Vic is the Oppenheimer of his text. So it’s ostensibly Justin learning from him. But of course, this is a family movie, old Vic has got to learn a lesson as well.
Erika:
And what lesson does he learn? We have an audio clip for this one.
Jeff:
Yeah, roll it.
Erika:
If I may.
Vic Clip:
I wanted to die, but I just didn’t have the courage, just crawled up into a ball and forgot to care. I was doing pretty good too, until you come busting into my garage.
Justin Clip:
I’m sorry.
Vic Clip:
Sorry, that’s the best thing that could have happened to me.
Justin Clip:
Really?
Vic Clip:
Yeah. I got to know you, see what you’re going through, how you just keep going. You got me and my car back up and on the road again.
Jeff:
And now Vic is ready. He’s overcome his feminine emotions and he’s ready to be a man again. But that was the piece of him that was broken that needed to be fixed. It’s funny, too, because at the end of the film, Justin’s dad tries to hug him and he’s like, “A handshake will suffice,” because I’m a man again.
Erika:
And then shortly thereafter they are out on the freeway, he has decided he will no longer be towing his red sports car around, he is ready to drive it, and he’s got his convertible, hot woman in another convertible is checking him out on the highway. Confirmation that this masculinity has been restored fully.
Jeff:
Oh yeah. Vic and that woman, 100% met up in a truck stop, they got out the strawberry lube, and then Justin interrupted them.
Erika:
He had not yet-
Jeff:
I think that was a deleted scene.
Erika:
He had not yet achieved his trophy at perfection.
Jeff:
No, he had not fully achieved. So no one is getting laid until Justin gets laid.
Erika:
So when we get into the soap boxing … Soap boxing? That’s what they call it, right?
Jeff:
Yeah, the suds. When they get into the suds.
Erika:
When he first starts the sport, there is this extreme celebration over the fact that he finishes. It’s like … That is definitely not what he was in it for.
Jeff:
Survival was a huge accomplishment.
Erika:
Right.
Jeff:
Yes, and then he goes on to win the national trophy. He wins it all against a woman. Most of the people he races against are women, I will also note.
Erika:
Yes, which is interesting because what do we know about the sport? Have there been female champions in this sport?
Jeff:
Because I’m now a sud head, like everyone else, I actually did look this up and there are female winners, 100%. I will say, the year that Justin Yoder competed there were no women that won that year.
Erika:
Justin must have won.
Jeff:
So that’s a fun thing about that, is because according to their website, Justin Yoder has never won a national championship of the All American Soap Box Derby.
Erika:
You’re telling me that a novice joined the sport and didn’t win in his first competition?
Jeff:
Yeah. Oh also, we should also point out for our listeners who have not seen the movie, he only makes the nationals because someone has to drop out.
Erika:
But he lost to that person because of his leaky malfunction.
Jeff:
Yeah, he had a disability, a leaky moment, and ends up in the hospital. So as far as I know, Justin did not win a national championship. Justin Yoder, if that’s wrong, come and fight me, and we will prove that we are both real men. So the movie ends in triumph. He wins the championship, which he didn’t.
Erika:
We’re re-writing history here, so go with it.
Jeff:
I’m going with what I read on the internet. And if I’ve learned anything about the internet, it is that it is 100% true. But the movie inspired by, not based on, Justin wins, Vic becomes a man again, Justin’s dad and brother figure out their relationship, they’re now besties again. And that’s it. Are you inspired?
Erika:
Were you inspired?
Jeff:
I mean, did I for a moment consider whether or not I could take over the soap box industry? The thought crossed my mind. I would say no, I was not inspired. I’m sorry.
Erika:
I think I was maybe slightly … I don’t know if inspired is the right word. But I did kind of appreciate the … I appreciated that this ultimately ended up being a story about Justin learning to accept himself.
Jeff:
I will fully agree with you, from a disability politics perspective, I actually didn’t hate this movie. Even if it was completely ham handed most of the time.
Erika:
Yeah. I mean, when you have someone telling someone else’s story, presumably without consulting the protagonist, despite their brief cameo.
Jeff:
It’s unclear how involved Justin Yoder was in the making. Yeah, they don’t cure Justin Yoder, he wins the medal, I think he has to win. I feel like if he didn’t win people would be upset. Because the real story of Justin Yoder is that the brake that is invented, the Justin brake, that is a real thing. And that literally is a thing in soap box now. He does have a mechanism named after him. But that’s not exactly made for TV movie material.
Erika:
No, and it was … Unfortunately, that was quite down-played. There was a good bit of a scene where the brother, interestingly, kind of inexplicably, because the brother does not strike me as the type who was so politically engaged that he was going to be the one to come up with the strategy to call the media to ensure that this hand brake was allowed to be used despite very strict soap box rules that regulate the construction of soap boxes and only allow a foot brake.
Jeff:
Yeah, feet only.
[Theme Music] Hip hop beat from “Hard Out Here For a Gimp” by Wheelchair Sports Camp
Jeff:
So we felt it would be remiss of us to not talk a little bit about some of the very strange little things we’ve learned about this film in production of this podcast. Because of course it is not just about watching the films, but rather it’s about digging in and trying to find out what, if anything, we can find out about the film. And we actually did find some interesting things about it.
Jeff:
So one of the things we wanted to keep track of is what brands of disability equipment are present within these films. So for those of you who are wondering, I’m sure you are, Justin Yoder’s wheelchair in Miracle in Lane Two is a Quickie brand wheelchair, so that is one notch for Quickie. And I also was thrilled to see in the credits, there is a wheelchair consultant credited in this film, a Barbara C. Adside. Now why Justin Yoder was not their wheelchair consultant, I don’t know. It seems like you had one in house. After all, he does appear at the end of the film. What does a wheelchair consultant do, Erika? Do you have any idea?
Erika:
I mean, I think your question about why it wasn’t Justin is rather on the nose, because if we already have someone involved in the telling of this story who is rather expert at wheelchair use, why are we hiring an outsider? But on the flip side, if we’re writing and directing a film, folks who have no insider knowledge about the world of wheelchairs, I suppose there are … We need someone who can talk about the logistics of chairs and fields, for instance.
Jeff:
Like how to push it maybe? I wonder if this is like an OT. I wonder if Barbara C. Adside is like an Occupational Therapist or something who was like, “Okay, this is where you get the chair, this is what it looks like, here’s how you push it.”
Erika:
Oh, so you think it’s more about acquiring it and using it rather than … I was thinking about the translating it into reality into the film.
Jeff:
Okay, this is like the dramaturge for Frankie Muniz, he has his own wheelchair person maybe. He’s like, “Oh no, I’ve got a woman … I’ve got a person for this very role. She’ll really help me work through it.”
Erika:
Of all people, Justin’s pastor came up with the concept for this film, I believe wrote the film.
Jeff:
Wrote it, and was involved in directing.
Erika:
So there’s a factoid for you.
Jeff:
His pastor, which to me means he wrote himself into the film. Because the pastor at the beginning of the film at the funeral.
Erika:
Yeah, so there’s a real life connection. And another interesting real life parallel is that Justin Yoder’s dad is, in fact, a college professor in deaf community. Does he teach ASL?
Jeff:
Teaches ASL I believe.
Erika:
I found that rather fascinating that on the whole, we’ve agreed this film has some troubling plots, perhaps representations, and so this was a factoid that really shocked me, that there were disability or deaf community actors here. And this just raised a lot of questions for me about what was their involvement in the film? Were they consulted? Was the family, was Justin consulted or part of the film? Or simply the subject of the film and not really invited to participate beyond that?
Jeff:
Yeah, if you look online and read, there’s actually an article about his father talking about the importance … His real father, not the man who plays his father in the film, the real Father Yoder, he talks about the importance of deaf culture and protecting deaf culture, and trying to bridge the hearing world and the deaf world, and really advocating for deaf people, deaf culture, particularly within the church. And it was at that church that they met the two writers of the film. And it’s interesting, since the Yoder family are actually this kind of activist family, or at least advocate. They are trying to raise the voices of lots of disabled people. And Justin seems to do that as well. There’s not a lot on the internet about Justin Yoder, but it does appear that he continues to try to speak out for acceptance of disability, I would say. Which is kind of cool.
Jeff:
I almost wonder if they told the wrong Yoder story. I wonder if there’s actually some more interesting things going on in the family that soap box derby is maybe actually just one slice of a broader narrative of acceptance, inclusion, thinking about disability not as a revolting other, but rather as an other that we should be accepting as opposed to fixing, rejecting, changing.
Erika:
Yeah, and it’s unfortunate, then, that that’s not the story that got told here.
Jeff:
So final thoughts. Erica, Miracle in Lane Two, what does it mean?
Erika:
I definitely don’t want to give this film more credit than it deserves.
Jeff:
Fair.
Erika:
It is all kinds of problematic. I’m quite disappointed in some of the significant oversights as I’ve already expressed my frustrations with why is Justin watching people play basketball from his bedroom window when he seemingly is perfectly capable of playing basketball? It tells us something about who created the film and what imagination drove the creation of this film that we see those kinds of oversights. I do … Ultimately I feel okay about the sort of underlying story of self-acceptance, but for me, that glimmer of hope was very much shrouded by the sap, the very thick sap that, I think, said a lot more about the people creating the film than its supposed audience. Whether we believe that the supposed audience were the disabled in need of inspiration or the non-disabled in need of education.
Jeff:
Yeah, at the end of the day, Yoder has to win in a non-disabled place in order to be seen as valuable. That is the overcometh that happens. He couldn’t go and join the Paralympics, that wouldn’t have been enough, that’s not the trophy he wanted.
Erika:
Absolutely. But I will say, in sort of maybe some credit … Again, I don’t know why I’m trying to give this movie credit, there is perhaps some credit due in the fact that they didn’t force him into the baseball. He didn’t go and play baseball just for fun. He found a sport where he didn’t have to change who he was to participate, he got to be himself and he won the trophy.
Jeff:
Absolutely. And if we were to take a theoretical take, what do you think … Not the politics, but what do you think is the ideology of Miracle in Lane Two.
Erika:
I mean, kind of summarizing … If I could summarize what we’ve covered in as few words as possible, I saw a narrative of this phallic trophy masculinity life, threatened by, pursued by this disability as death.
Jeff:
Yeah, like it’s not just the loss of the phallus, it’s like the death of the phallus.
Erika:
And for the procreative possibility to die en route.
Jeff:
Yes.
Erika:
All the death.
Jeff:
All the death.
Erika:
What’s your theoretical take?
Jeff:
I feel … I think that this film, it treads a lot of the typical physical disability tropes. Like the feelings of inadequacy, the feelings of wanting to be included but not being included. And the idea that the focus of the person is the body, caring for the body, trying not to lose the body, trying not to die. And knowing that that might be inevitable anyways. So while I think it does some good things, which perhaps is actually a credit to the Yoder family … And maybe the good stuff in this film is actually the influence of the Yoder family and what was kind of observed in them, the way that they operated, talk, and that kind of thing. It’s interesting, to me, that the film still had to cling to that kind of … He still had to overcome, there was still that drive, they couldn’t let it go. He had to win at the end of the day.
Jeff:
So I wonder how much of this is about performance of normative activity is the pathway to acceptance for disabled people, that disabled culture is not the direction. You should not lean into your disability, but rather you should force yourself into the normative world.
Erika:
100%, I feel that. My question is, is that a conscious objective of this film? Or is that the sort of subconscious leaking into the attempt to create a film that’s going to sell?
Jeff:
I think so. And I don’t even know if the idea was to sell. I think part of this was a desire to heroicize Justin Yoder. I feel like one of the intentions was to share the story about the special boy. I think that that was a driver to show this fun family who are doing great things despite the challenges they face.
Erika:
But to retell the story in a way that he wins …
Jeff:
Yeah, to give him what he didn’t have.
Erika:
Or to give him what the filmmakers felt it was important for him to have.
Jeff:
Which is why I will be making the sequel to Miracle in Lane Two, which is about how Justin Yoder won the Oscar for best film.
Erika:
For best cameo?
Jeff:
No, the film in general, because he directed it in my movie.
Erika:
Oh, yes yes.
Jeff:
In my movie, Justin Yoder wrote, starred in, and directed Miracle in Lane Two, and then won the Oscar.
Erika:
This just goes to say, you can do whatever you put your mind to. Anything is possible.
Jeff:
Yeah, exactly. And he won it against Kathryn Bigelow, because he has to defeat a woman apparently.
Erika:
Oh yeah.
Jeff:
Did you see the Hurt Locker? That was nothing compared to Miracle in Lane Two.

[Theme Music] Hip hop beat from “Hard Out Here For a Gimp” by Wheelchair Sports Camp

Jeff:
Well I think that is maybe as far as we can go on Miracle in Lane Two. I think we’ve really unearthed some things. And if you feel the same, if you enjoyed your listen, then check back. We are going to have more episodes coming in. Make sure you subscribe, and of course make sure you tune in, because our next episode is sure to be a barn burner. That’s right, we are going from the glorious streets of Akron, Ohio, out to the West Coast, for a little film known as Different Drummers.

From all of us at Invalid Culture, we hope to talk to you soon.

 

We’ve been working hard all summer on the first season of Invalid Culture and cannot wait to share it with everyone. Over the past 6 months we’ve laughed, we’ve cried, we’ve questioned everything and soon, so too shall you.

We’ll be seeing you anywhere you cast your pods in Fall 2021!

– Erika & Jeff