Movie poster for The Hill

Overcoming is possible…with FULL. BODY. ROTATION!!!!

Sometimes it is hard watching bad movies over and over again so, this month, we’ve decided to get a little inspiration from the always exciting sport of baseball! Joined by special guest Derek Silva, co-host of the End of Sport podcast, we dig into the religious bio-pic of disabled baseballer Rickey Hill as he struggles to make the major leagues. While there was very little actual baseball in the movie there was a lot to discuss!

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 – 4 / 5

sarah – 5/ 5

Derek – 4.5 / 5

Total – 13.5 / 15

How difficult was it to watch the movie?

sarah – 5 / 5

Jeff – 5 / 5

Derek – 5 / 5

Total – 15 / 15

How often were things unintentionally funny?

sarah – 2 / 5

Jeff – 2 / 5

Derek – 4 / 5

Total – 8 / 15

How far back has it put disabled people?

Jeff – 3 / 5

sarah – 3 / 5

Derek – 4 / 5

Total – 10 / 15

The Verdict

The Jerry Lewis Seal of Approval

Part 1 transcript

[episode begins with the trailer for The Hill]

Jeff:

You are listening to invalid Culture, a podcast dedicated to excavating the strangest and most baffling media representations of disability. This podcast is all about staring into the abyss of pop culture adjacent films that never quite broke through because well, they’re just awful. So buckle up folks. The following content is rated I for invalid.

Episode theme song, “Arguing with Strangers on the Internet” by Mvll Crimes:

I’m arguing with strangers on the internet not going out today because I’m feeling too upset arguing with strangers on the internet and I’m winning.

Jeff:

Welcome back to another thrilling edition of Invalid Culture. As always, I am your host, Jeff, and we are joined once again by our co-host. Sarah, how are you doing, Sarah?

sarah:

Really happy outside of academia. How are you?

Jeff:

Yeah, doing great. Inside academia, I’m still on sabbatical, which is why I’m doing really great. Oh,

sarah:

Outside

Jeff:

Still inside academia. Yeah. Yeah, the academia that is my closet and my brain. Now, we also have a very special guest joining us today because as listeners will know, it is May, which means that baseball season is in full swing, and I realized that we have never been inspired by a disabled athlete yet on invalid culture, and I thought it’s about time we got to do a sports movie, but I am not really, I mean, I like sports, but I’m not a sports scholar. Sarah, it turns out, is actually an expert in baseball. So that was good, but I thought we should get another expert, and so I thought we should bring in the star. I would argue of the end of sports podcast friend Derek Silva. How you doing, Derek?

Derek:

Oh, wonderful. Thank you for that. I’m also on sabbatical too, so I’m sharing your insider outsider kind of place in academia right now, but I’m happy to be here.

Jeff:

Yeah, it feels good, doesn’t it?

Derek:

It does. It’s refreshing. Just get out of academia if we can. Let’s just all do it.

Jeff:

Right? And then in our own academia, outside of academia,

sarah:

It’s a test run. This is before you do it for real.

Jeff:

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So Derek, for our listeners who aren’t deep into your cv, can you tell us a little bit about the work that you do?

Derek:

Yeah, yeah. So I’m a sociologist of sport. I guess what kind of brings me to this episode would be I’m also a critical media scholar as well. I’m not a scholar of disability, so you both will school me when it comes to that, but I do take a critical lens when it comes to the sports world, and I co-host the end of sport podcasts, which looks at sport from a critical perspective in terms of labor issues, issues of harm and violence in sport. And I also do that in my academic work as well. I guess I’ll give a brief shout out to my forthcoming book called The End of College Football on Harm in US College Football with UNC press, and that will come out in the fall.

Jeff:

Yeah, so, okay, dear listeners, we have a real treat for you here, not just our guests, although they’re lovely, but we have found ourselves a real beauty of a film. We are of course this month talking about The Hill. The hill, which is on Netflix..you can reach it on Netflix here in Canada. For those of you who have not watched the Hill, the Hill is described as thusly: Growing up in an impoverished small town, Texas young Rickey Hill shows an extraordinary ability for hit a baseball, despite being burdened by leg braces from a degenerative spinal disease. His stern pastoral father discourages Rickey from playing baseball to protect him from injury and to have him follow in his footsteps and become a preacher. As a young man, Rickey becomes a baseball phenol. His desire to participate in a tryout for a legendary major league scout divides the family and threatens Rickey’s dream of playing professional baseball. It’s very long description on the back of the box, but how would you say they did here on capturing the tone of the film?

sarah:

Poor given this is a two hour film and it features about 30 to 35 minutes of total baseball or baseball related scripting. So it seems the background makes it revolve around the trope of being a baseball prodigy, but he is really kind of a prodigy at wandering around hitting rocks and complaining about his family. And then there’s some baseball kind of peripheral to that

Jeff:

On the side and a space launch. There’s also a space launch shoehorned in for some reason.

sarah:

That’s true. I forgot about that

Derek:

There were quite a few kind of odd curve ball, pun intended, curve ball moments in this phone.

sarah:

Oh great pun.

Jeff:

It was good. Which of course we all know the faster it’s thrown, the faster it goes out. So curve balls are not good for hitting numbers,

sarah:

But he didn’t really seem to be terribly proficient at hitting fast balls. A point to which they break up repeatedly several times during the 35 minutes of actual baseball footage.

Jeff:

Now, the timeline for this film, I also wanted to bring up, because I think it’s phenomenal, we don’t have to unpack this now. I think we’ll unpack it for the next 18 years of our life. The timeline of the film is never give up hope of our film.

Yeah. Now let’s talk a little bit about who actually made this film, because what you might be thinking is that this film was made by Rickey Hill and that is possibly true. That’s one potential answer, but there are some other names that are attached to this, some names that are a little bit surprising. One of the first names I want to draw our attention to is Angelo Pizo. Angelo Pizo is a fairly big name in religious adjacent sports, bio pit inspiration films. You may have heard of some of these films such as Hoosiers, Rudy, Courage. These films are basically, they birthed an entire catalog of films that still continue today, and arguably, we would not have the hill if it wasn’t for these other films. I think it’s also important that we consider The Hill in the context of these other films because they follow a very typical formula that may or may not have anything to do with disability per se. They’re very focused on this sort of idea of the unexpected guy who overcomes the odds based on hard work and a firm love of Jesus. So I’m wondering, Derek, what do you know about these films? What are your thoughts on Hoosiers Rudy Courage?

Derek:

I mean, they’re that trope of inspirational sports film that’s intended to be the thing you put on at Family Movie Night, and I think that’s where a lot of the viewers come from, and that’s why this film, I think, is done particularly well on Netflix and not in the Box Office because I think it fits that genre very well. And it follows the kind of exact same trope as you’ve kind of laid out in terms of, oh, there’s something that’s made an issue. There’s the nexus of a kind of tension-filled relationships surrounding sport with the main protagonist and someone around them, whether that be their father in this case, or a spouse or the family in general or someone else, and all these roadblocks along the way, and every time something happens so that person gets over that roadblock to kind of reach their dreams.

And I don’t want to put the cart before the horse in terms of talking about the end, but I think the, the final sequence of the film really highlights for me many of the issues with this genre of film. It highlights the fact that the real problematic endpoint or the dreams that have been arrived at aren’t actually beneficial or should be viewed as dreams. In this case, the protagonist went on to play four years in minor league baseball, and we know Minor League baseball has some of the worst working conditions in all of sport before having to give up the game four years later because their spine finally fully succumbed to the issue. So I really think this film masked all of that and really played into the inspiration, and that’s why it fits well for Family Movie Night. I think.

sarah:

Derek, have you ever profiled a Demotivational sports film?

Derek:

I don’t think it’s out there, to be honest.

sarah:

Is the first Rocky properly demotivational?

Jeff:

Right?

Derek:

It could be. I mean, some films, if you take the real view, the end, I think Friday Night Lights as both a film and a TV series did well to highlight the reoccurring cycle of intergenerational socioeconomic issues, trauma, alcoholism, mental health issues that if you move past the stepping stones of like, oh, we’ve made it to the championship game or the state or whatever, we won a ring or whatever it is. If you get beyond that, you realize, okay, society is reinforcing all of these harmful things, and I think it did a decent job. I still think those, the film and the TV series were pretty inspirational in the end anyways, right?

sarah:

So maybe The Hill was an incredibly unsuccessful inspirational film, but if its rubric was how close it came to Million Dollar Baby or Friday Night Lights, it’s actually extremely successful,

Jeff:

Right?

Derek:

Absolutely. And there’s an entire genre. It’s now very much a formula, and I think highlighting Angelo Pizo footprint or hand prints is important here because it falls the same vein as Rudy and all of those other films that were mentioned, like just believe and everything. It’s the American dream, and that’s what this at the end is always about. It’s that if you try hard, you work hard enough, you and you are righteous and believe in God and you’re God-fearing you, fear your dreams will be reached. And in this case, that nexus between sport and religion was completely kind of played open for us to see. It was a movie about that

sarah:

God found Rickey Hill fit for minor league baseball. For the Montreal team,

Jeff:

Yes, for the expos, yes. Yeah, I mean, it’s interesting. I mean, the hail I think is very overt. It literally references multiple times David versus Goliath, but that seems to be also at the root of a lot of Angela Peso’s work. Rudy is literally a tiny man, tiny little boy going up against Notre Dame, and this is a big thing. But Angela Pizo, I did not know. This is not the first time that disability has played a role in his work. He also did a movie called Bleed for This, which was about a boxer, a boxer named Vinny. Vinny Pza. I’m terrible with names. Apologies to Boxer. Please don’t come and kill me. This is about a boxer who ends up a car accident, has a disability, overcomes the disability, goes back to boxing, basically. Yeah, we might be doing bleed for this in a future season. Derek, we might need to have you back.

Derek:

Oh yeah, invite me back.

Jeff:

Angela Pizo also wrote one episode of the TV show, knots Landings. He broke this episode two years before writing Hoosiers, which seems really off brand to me, and so I had to break it up. This film has two other full writers though and possibly many more that were not credited. We also have Scott Marshall Smith, who’s also a bit of a name. He has written things like Men of Honor starring Cuba “Somebody sucked that Baby’s Dick” Good Jr. If you don’t know that, look it up. Also, Robert Downey Jr. Is in that one. Scott Marshall Smith also wrote the score, which stars Edward Norton, Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando. So there’s a bit of star power here, and the last listed writer is a guy named Bill Shain who hasn’t really done a lot. He’s written one of the short, also wrote a documentary about a street racer slash Vietnam War vet who partners up with an LA deputy slash pro racer and they end the fe between the Crip and the blood.

I guess they were successful. I don’t think that’s happening anymore. So it was good. So that’s sort of the writing team as we understand it. In terms of the director, the director is a little not really known. I did not know this director previously. His name is Jeff, not me, different Jeff. Jeff Celentano. He’s worked in pretty much every facet of film has been involved in a ton of spinoff movies in the nineties. So he directed American Ninja two, the Confrontation and Puppet Master two, but did that under a different name under the name Jeff Weston. He is now a screenplay writer, director, and active teacher at the Performing Academy in Life Forest, California. A lot of his films are sort of a mix of action comedy. They tend to be pretty B-list kind of made for tv. He has a recent focus, however, in biopic redemption stories, and so I think that might be why he was tapped for this film. Also, a lot of his films are about stark cross lovers with gang or mob affiliation that unfortunately not a factor in this film. I wish. He also has a real interest for psychotic killers in several of his movies included Bosco Heat and Under the Hula Moon, both of these feature characters dubbed as psychotic killers or murderous psychopaths that need to be overcome within the text. But we can finally talk about the thing that we all want to talk about, which is Dennis Quaid.

sarah:

Absolutely.

Jeff:

This film stars Dennis Quaid. Do I need to introduce Dennis Quaid? Do people know who Dennis Quaid is?

sarah:

I think you do, because in your notes you introduced him as the Star of Soul Surfer, and that’s actually Anna Sophia Rob.

Jeff:

Well, it depends on how you watch it.

sarah:

So I often confuse those two individuals. They’re both impossibly hot and completely charismatically controlling on screen.

Jeff:

See, some people watch Soul Surfer for the surfer. I watch Soul Surfer for the father.

sarah:

It wasn’t Soul Surfer’s Family, it was Soul Surfer.

Jeff:

Yeah, it was Soul Surfer’s Dad, the real hero. Dennis Quaid obviously has been in a million, literally maybe a million things any given Sunday stands out. Another sports film also, I always forget this, he was in W Herb, he played Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp, which I don’t know how I would forget something like that. But more importantly for this podcast, he was also in a film that haunts my pop culture and disability class at King’s, Johnny Belinda, which is an old film of phase that comes up a lot for whatever reason. So what are our thoughts on Dennis Quaid folks? Where are we on the qua verse?

Derek:

So I think I shared this story with Jeff offline, and when he asked me to watch this and comment and come on the podcast, he told me The Hill. So I read just very briefly about what it was before saying yes, and I thought to myself, I was like, I wouldn’t be surprised if Dennis Qua is in this film. It just kind of seemed like age appropriate for him in that character’s role in the role of the father as well. It just seemed maybe this is just like the rookie, the film, the rookie kind of, and I just see it. I am not surprised. I also said an or a kind of related film draft day, which isn’t about disability at all, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Dennis Quaid was considered for the role in Draft Day as well, and it ultimately went to Kevin Costner. Those two seem interchangeable when it comes to these types of roles. So I was super unsurprised that he was in it, but it’s also kind of jarring because very, very big name for a seemingly not big kind of, this doesn’t seem like a big budget film or anything like that, and kind of quickly taken out of Box Office and put on Netflix. I don’t know if that’s an indication of Dennis CO’s career. I don’t know. I have no idea, but I was kind of surprised.

sarah:

I think he might’ve just liked the script, which my head Canon was actually written by Rickey Hill and then was just edited and substantiated by actual screenplay writers. But if you get the guy who’s a semi-successful gospel singer to play your Come to Jesus, I’m rejecting the church in favor of the Church of Baseball narrative. It’s not just a fan cast. He probably read that and was like, I would love to be this guy. I want my name on that. And then it became the Hill,

Jeff:

Right? Right. He was like, I didn’t get the Oscar for Soul Surfer. Maybe I can get the Oscar for the Hill.

sarah:

Follow it up with my Church of Baseball Prodigy Epic. Yeah,

Jeff:

Yeah, that was the issue, very likely. So Dennis Quaid, of course, plays the Hard thumping Bible daddy, which I was going to say is a fairly one note character. I think there’s two notes to this character. He’s a bit of a loving father. He also is an abusive father, so 1960s.

sarah:

Yeah, I think there were some pretty heavy editorial decisions there around the historical profile of Dennis Quaid’s character.

Jeff:

Yeah, yeah, we will definitely have to talk about that. Yeah,

Derek:

I hope I have some thoughts on that as

Jeff:

Well. Yep. Okay, so we also have Colin Ford. Colin Ford would be the other sort of star arguably of this film. Colin Ford will play, I was going to say an older, older Rickey Hill, a teenaged, Rickey Hill High School senior Rickey Hill, Colin Ford. I found this fact interesting. Entered the entertainment industry as a 4-year-old model in Atlanta, which I find, I have no idea what that means, baby models, man, they’re everywhere. He’s also been in a ton of TV shows. You probably, however, recognized him as Dylan me in the film, we bought a zoo. If you are the type of person to watch that film or possibly as Steve Danvers and Captain Marvel, which he may have watched, he also did two very early two thousands Mormon films. There were historical films about the Mormons called The Work and The Glory, and anytime I see a Mormon, I want to talk about it. So there it’s calling forward. For our listeners who were in the disability verse will maybe recognize him from Dumb and Dumber. When Harry met Lloyd, he was Lloyd Christmas in the sequel to Dumb and Dumber. He also has done voice work in Family Guy, and he was in one episode of the Netflix hit series, Dahmer Monster, the Jeffrey Dahmer story.

sarah:

Oh, is that the daher that most people shortened to just Dahmer? Correct. Because of common sense conventions? Yeah.

Jeff:

It is officially Dahmer hyphen Monster, colon, the Jeffrey Dahmer story

sarah:

Silliness, the one that didn’t get permission from the witnesses to make most of the screenplay about the witnesses, that Dahmer slash Monster slash Jeffrey Dahmer story,

Jeff:

Which was made by the guy who did Glee, an American Horror Story, which also has some really fun disability politics. So yeah, it’s all interconnected. All interconnected. Last but not least, I have to bring this up because it’s going to play a role later. Joelle Carter is also in this. She plays Brie’s mom. She’s had a fairly impressive acting career, most notably appearing as Ava Crowder in the TV show. Justified. There’s another kind of coser in just right. Am I making that up? I think so. Is that Kevin Costner? Is it just

Derek:

Honestly mostly with Dennis? It could be. It could be either. It could be both at the same time,

Jeff:

Both just interchange. Yep. Also it within films like High Fidelity and American Pie too. So that’s sort of our cast of characters. There are a series of other characters that are unimportant. Okay, so some production notes about this film. This movie, it should be noted, was in production hell for years, largely it would appear held up by Rickey Hill himself, not settling on the right director for the project. According to history versus hollywood.com, over 40 directors were considered for this film over the span of 17 years. Ano was eventually selected at the recommendation of his brother. So the story goes that his brother was in a hotel lobby and he overheard Rickey Hill talking loudly publicly about not having a director for this film, and Jeff Tino’s brother leaned over and said, I got the director for you, my brother. I have no idea if this is true, but I find this hilarious.

Rickey has publicly stated that his intention for this project was to inspire. He says on his own website, I hope audiences find inspiration in their depiction of my life and that it offers encouragement to anyone with a physical disability because loving what you do is the key to a wonderful life. We can confirm Rickey’s family was quite poor while growing up. In some interviews I’ve heard it stated that they ate cat food. In other interviews, I’ve heard it say that they eat dog food to survive. Per the end of the movie, Rickey Hill does eventually sign a pro contract with the Montreal Expos, RIP, but he never played in the majors. He quit several years later due to injury. A local newspaper article written by Sally Kroger does say that Rickey has been through 49 surgeries in his lifetime, living most of his days of chronic pain, but never let it stop him from his dreams. He’s broken nearly every bone and has been in three near death car accidents where ribs and his fever have been smashed. His skull was cracked, and one wreck resulted in a year long concussion. In the last accident, troopers were surprised to find he was still alive. Why is the hill not about the car accident?

sarah:

That’s true. My other question, if you’ll indulge me for a second, was I do like that they admit he lived most of his days in chronic pain. He is got chronic illness, he’s got permanent disability, but I’m literally struggling to recall more than two or three scenes that even referenced the chronic illness. So if that’s your movie’s premise, wouldn’t that have taken up more of the screenplay?

Derek:

Absolutely. Not only did I notice that as well, but I think it was particularly interesting how the only time the disability crept in was when it was an obvious manifestation of getting in the way of something that he was supposedly dreaming of. That’s the only time or wanted even when he went to kiss his partner, the reunited with the long girlfriend from when he was four years old, which is also a little bit creepy, but also that’s a side story they’re going to kiss for the first time, and that’s when you see the back pain. That’s supposedly been always happening, and then you don’t see it again for the entire film, not

sarah:

When he is doing the big wraparound swings,

Jeff:

Full body rotation, Sarah, full body rotation.

Derek:

Okay. I don’t think, I am shocked that the actual script writing had full body rotation in the 10 times that it did

sarah:

Full body rotation.

Derek:

It just seems like there was probably a better way to write that dialogue than full body rotation every time.

sarah:

I felt that same thing about just about every single line of dialogue. I think whenever someone spoke, I was like, there had to been a better way.

Jeff:

You would think,

sarah:

But there wasn’t,

Jeff:

But no, but no, the last production note, I will say, so this movie was set in the sixties slash seventies, mostly as I like to do, I counted. We got four cripples in this text. The word cripple was used four times. Was that more or less cripples than you expected when you first started this film?

Derek:

Far fewer for me, to be honest, considering the time I expected

sarah:

I

Derek:

Texas. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just the whole scene seen, but yeah, yeah. Far fewer than I.

Jeff:

Far fewer. Okay. So we’ll give it a passive grade maybe on that one. Okay, good. Good.

Okay. Now, we of course have our own opinions about this film strong and maybe not so strong and definitely silly, but we are not the only ones. There are legitimate people in this world who write critique. Then there are more important people in this world that write critique. So how has the Hill fared critically? Well, as you can probably imagine, critics have not been enamored with this film. It currently sits with a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes from critics, how it holds a dazzling 97% fresh from over 500 verified audience members, meaning that it is a better movie than Alien, only 94%, and Lawrence of Arabia only 39%. It similarly has a ton of perfect scores on IMDB and Amazon. Most of these positive reviews talk exclusively about how great it is that this movie has no sex or swearing. So take that for what you will.

sarah:

It was God’s perfect film.

Jeff:

Yep. That’s what made it great. Five stars, no sex. I don’t fully know what you thought this movie was going to be if you went into it beginning line. I hope there’s not a lot of sex in this film.

sarah:

You know what? I’m going to stand up for the viewer on this one. I was just speaking to my friend the other day. I was watching, I don’t even remember what anymore. I think it was Immaculate, the New Sydney Sweeney movie, and I said, I think we’ve taken the turn away from Cinema Bashfulness way too far. I think we need to bring back some of the bashfulness that was originally in cinema because as not a sex haver, as an asexual, I don’t like any of it, but I find myself regularly having to sit through 10 uninterrupted minutes of either foreplay or full on sexual action, and I keep having to ask myself, even if I was a sex Haber, what is the purpose of this scene being longer than about 30 seconds? And it’s endemic at this point. It used to be a flag for HBO, and now it’s a flag for modern cinema and television.

Derek:

Yeah. I mean, I can always get, I’m with you. I don’t understand the sort of fetishization of sex across cinema and in, I think in this case, it tells the interesting story of who’s actually watching this film a little bit more. A hundred percent. The people who are watching this film are Go Hard Christians. I don’t know. That’s speculation, I should say.

Jeff:

I think it’s pretty fair speculation. Explain to you why that is in a moment. Okay, so let’s hear some critique here. So Raven Brenner running for the Decider. This is what they had to say about the film. The movie story is cliche and rather preachy, but it isn’t bad. Rickey’s story isn’t important and engaging. Whenever viewers aren’t being weighed down by the pastor’s repetitive prejudice against his family and community,

sarah:

I’m often weighed down by a pastor’s repetitive pettiness toward community.

Jeff:

Yeah. I was wanting to hate this review until the ellipses Raven really wanted me over with the dot, dot dot. I was like, is this important? Is it engaging

sarah:

The depths of his hatred while proclaiming God’s love?

Derek:

Yeah.

Jeff:

Yeah, yeah. That was pretty, yeah. Carla Hayes similarly was not super impressed writing for culture mix. Carla says, the Hill is a poorly constructed faith-based biopic about disabled baseball player. Rickey Hill, this long-winded and preachy drama leaves big questions unanswered about his life,

sarah:

Such as when he was disabled, which was apparently not all of the time,

Jeff:

Or also his 18 million near death car accidents.

Derek:

The runtime on this was close to two hours or maybe even more than two hours.

Jeff:

It was over two hours.

Derek:

This was over two hours. Yeah. It did not need to be that long. And the fact that we know very little about Rickey’s life outside of baseball and his father, it’s shocking for a film of that length.

Jeff:

Now, rotten Tomatoes user, Kathleen agrees, and I’ve got to read you this. This is what Rotten Tomatoes user wrote. The character portrayal of Mother seems inaccurate. I believe her roots were Jamaican, so mother did not look Jamaican. Also maybe by choice. The life after baseball did not say Rick had continued in his father’s footsteps and nowhere, even in Wikipedia, doesn’t say anything about marriage. Children, a lot of unanswered info. Now, I read this and was very confused because I think we could all agree Rickey Hill’s mother in no way seems Jamaican in this film. No. Now I looked it up and there is a Ricky Hill with no E, R-I-C-K-Y, Ricky Hill from Britain, who is I believe, a soccer player. His mother is Jamaican and his father is Indian. But otherwise, I have found no evidence anywhere that Rickey Hill’s mother is Jamaican. So with

sarah:

Kathleen not confused that Rickey was also playing the wrong sport for the entire

Jeff:

In a different country.

Derek:

Not a sports fan. Not a sports fan.

Jeff:

Kathleen did answer with a lot of unanswered info. One of them being, when did he switch to soccer?

sarah:

Also moved to the uk.

Jeff:

Yes. And his father was also Indian,

Derek:

And nothing about accents then. It’s a little bit shocking.

Jeff:

Now, of course, these are professional criticisms and professionals. I mean, east Coast elites, they don’t really know what’s going on in films. The real reviews we can find in the comment sections of Amazon and IMDB. So let’s hear what real Americans, real people, they’re probably American, but who knows? Real people have to say about the Hill. First off, we’ve got Rotten Tomatoes user, Lori, I love that. It’s all first names on Rotten Tomato. It’s very personal. Rotten Tomatoes user. Lori gave this movie a five out of five and said, quote, wonderful, clean God-honoring movie. It was also a movie that was true to life and one that my friend and I enjoyed, but also we’re able to discuss and apply to our everyday lives. So the question I have for you is, have you discussed this with your friends and what are you applying from the hill to your everyday life?

sarah:

The Hill taught me that if I want to succeed as per dreams that seem on their face unachievable, I just need to possess the power to pause or entirely interrupt my disability at the kind of pivotal moment when he is banging out Homer after Homer after Homer and his back’s not hurting. So during my dissertation defense, I just had to have the innate ability to dial off my schizophrenia for three to three and a half hours, and with that, my dreams were achieved.

Jeff:

Yeah, overcomeable purely over accountable.

Derek:

I mean, I haven’t spoken about this to a soul other than you two. So in terms of that, but I guess you’re my friends, so yeah, so you’re my friends. So I guess that is one thing, and in terms of yes, what I’m taking out of it, it’s that for some religion truly is the opiate of the masses, and it can overcome everything and it can make life just fine and dandy. Also to echo what is with power of God, yes, with the power of God and with hard work, you can just overcome everything, including a supposedly debilitating thing that is every day affecting you, but we don’t really see it at all, and all of the kind of consequences and day-to-day issues are not really represented. But you’ll get the girl, you’ll get the job, you’ll get everything you want.

Jeff:

You’ll get Montreal,

Derek:

You’ll get the Montreal Expos

sarah:

…get the Montreal Expos. This was kind of a bitter crip community take from me, but I couldn’t help but notice that in that pivotal scene where he is begging the agents to give him another shot, even though there was a rule stipulated five minutes prior that said, please do not beg the agents to give you another shot, A, they made an exception for him because he is special and his disability is probably special, and B, he still whiffed that opportunity. But even excluding all that, all of it only transpired because I guess God loves him, and he could just miraculously turn off all of these odds that made the movie so inspiring, and I sat there with my arms crossed. Wouldn’t that be nice way to go, Rickey Hill?

Jeff:

So you never gave up hope, as the tagline says, right.

sarah:

I just got to hope harder.

Derek:

Yeah, just got to hope harder. Yeah. That’s the answer. Hope

sarah:

That’ll get me tenure, right? If I just write to everybody and I say, I just have a lot of hope and God on my side.

Derek:

I didn’t meet any production for the last 10 years, but I hoped I did, so I think I deserve.

Jeff:

Yeah, I would say, I think one of the things that I definitely took away from the movie is the importance of a hat. Wear an investor. If you have a man with money who’s circulating in the background, anything that’s possible, surgeries, training, get it onto teams. You got to get a money guy standing up

sarah:

To your abusive larger than life father.

Jeff:

Yeah, you need a money guy. You definitely need a money guy that runs throughout. For

sarah:

Sure. This movie actually might’ve been more interesting, had it centered on his angel investor slash coach. I would watch a two hour movie about how this guy finagled Rickey Hill into the position he got him in.

Jeff:

Yeah. Who is essentially running an auto shop slash wrecking yard, I believe. Yeah.

sarah:

He was a part-time professional baseball coach.

Jeff:

Yeah, absolutely. Okay. So Amazon, Amazon user Shield court gave this a three out of five title with great movie proofing. All things are possible. Good movie for families to show children. You can do anything in life. If you want it bad enough, you can succeed. Did Rickey Hill succeed?

sarah:

No, he didn’t. That’s kind of the central irony

Jeff:

Of the movie. Harsh, but fair.

Derek:

Yeah. So many, or a couple years ago, June Lee from ES PN broke a news story basically highlighting all of the horrendous working conditions that existed in minor league baseball, horrendous. That caused extreme deprivation in terms of socioeconomic status, home insecurity caused some mental health issues, physical health issues amongst players, and that just in 2022, finally, finally stimulated the minor league baseball, minor league baseball as a whole to start providing housing just simply somewhere to live for Minor league. So by having that end scene, oh, he spent four years in minor league baseball. It seems like dreams were made, but no. Okay. So Rickey went and worked for four years in one of the most brutal working condition areas of sport that we know borderline. That’s not professional. You can say they’re paid. So that’s simply not professional baseball, and it certainly isn’t the major leagues. And then it ended with an injury that ultimately rendered impossible to play. So did Rickey succeed? Certainly, certainly not objectively not, but this movie hides that fact completely.

sarah:

On a scale of Amazon warehouse to iPhone factory, where would Minor league baseball sit?

Derek:

Ooh. I would say it’s probably closer to the Amazon factory where they probably bean count literally everything. And if they’re not there for practice, if they have to go to the washroom too many times they get fired, that type of thing. Wow.

sarah:

That’s really fascinating context to add to is hope will achieve exactly what you’re looking for. Stories. Yes.

Jeff:

Right. So you’ve heard of Angels in the Outfield now, while peeing myself in the outfield,

sarah:

Turns out he took a really arduous route of applying for grad school

Jeff:

Right

Now. Okay. Our final review, this one’s a long one, you’ve got to indulge me, but it’s a ride and I could not, so this is an IMDB review, which is a great place for reviews. This is from EMDM md, I believe. This is just like that person smashed their head on the keyboard md. They gave it a 10 out of 10. I love this movie is the title. Okay. I thought I would like it since it has Dennis Qua, I actually loved the movie. It’s so refreshing to see a realistic movie with good actors and no cg. I thought the storyline was interesting, and I didn’t even realize the movie was over two hours. I’m not usually in for a long movie, but this one kept my interest. I just really liked Dennis Qua in this type of role. See, it was excellent, and all the actors were great in their roles. If a movie is going to have a sport in the background, I prefer it to be baseball because that’s the only sport that I like at all. I just love the character Red and whoever played them was so entertaining. I’m 55, and that’s how I remember old men acting and comported themselves when I was a child in the seventies. I enjoyed the historical setting, was quite accurate. I saw some things that were a little off, but overall it was excellent.

sarah:

I love this review because it admitted straight up that this movie was not even tangentially about baseball.

Jeff:

They got it. I love that. They’re like, if there’s a sport in the background, I’d prefer it to be baseball. The

sarah:

American sport. Yeah.

Jeff:

Yeah. The only one that they like at all

Derek:

At all. Emphasis.

sarah:

I also really liked that he pointed out that there were some historical inaccuracies, probably the most glaring one being that the fundamentalist mid Texas sixties preacher was not beating the shit out of his wife. I couldn’t stop bringing that up.

Jeff:

That is the thing that Sarah could not stop bringing it up. The thing that the people on the internet cannot stop bringing up is the fact that the car that he drives was released right around the time of when he was driving it, and yet the car he’s driving is like a 50-year-old beater, a beat up car, and that really upset people on the internet.

sarah:

Interesting. People love pointing out

Jeff:

They couldn’t handle it. That broke the realism for some people. Yeah.

sarah:

Yeah. Avatar was basically real life, but the shade of Blue James Cameron used actually was not released until post 2012. So we know that at least that part of Avatar was inaccurate.

Jeff:

Not accurate. No. I think we all know that the Navi hadn’t become water tribes until well after the 15th century split.

sarah:

Yeah. Thank God. Someone pointed that out.

Jeff:

Multiple people talked about the car, which, cool. The other thing I wanted to talk about, okay, there’s two things I wanted to talk about. Thing number one, this mention about no cg. I just want to do a real quick start temperature check. How were we feeling after he broke his ankle on a sprinkler and then they showed it? That was pretty wild that they showed it.

sarah:

Maybe a 70. No, he said he was 50 something, but grew up in the seventies maybe he thought that we do actually break actors’ legs for the bit.

Jeff:

Yeah. Well, better back then, back when you actually killed the actor and they died on set, it was better. Yeah.

sarah:

Yeah. War movies were just massive casualty fests.

Jeff:

Yeah. I don’t know if you know this, but Tom Hanks did not die at Saving Private Ryan. Yeah. It breaks everything with the movie.

sarah:

I’ve been memorializing him for years.

Jeff:

Well, and then the other thing was this question, this thing about how old men acting and comported themselves when they were a child in the seventies. Okay. I want to know what you think this person was referring to.

sarah:

I already told you. I think he’s referring to corporal punishment

Jeff:

That you believe that’s the lament

sarah:

Sixties Texas? Yes.

Jeff:

Yeah. Okay. But they loved that. They loved that part.

Derek:

So this review loved the fact that there was corporal real punishment?

Jeff:

That’s what I’m wondering. He says, I’m 55, and that’s how I remember old men acted like comported themselves.

sarah:

I’m hearing him say he really liked the dispositions of people like Red who played the baseball recruiting Phantom and Dennis Quaid, who plays the preacher father because they’re both extreme fundamentalists. Nothing that isn’t excellent is good enough, and all of those traits, the one that you’re missing there is what happens when something is less than good enough.

Jeff:

Right? Yeah. Yeah. That stood out. It’s funny, I think particularly as Sarah and I were watching it, we were talking a lot about they just outright abuse. The movie doesn’t hide by any means, but I mean doesn’t exactly hide.

sarah:

They dance around it

Jeff:

Quite a little bit. A little bit, yeah. Okay, so that’s what people on the internet say. Apparently, if you are an official critic, you did not like the movie. If you were into movies that did not have swearing or sex, you love the movie. That’s sort of the line. So let’s do sort a little round table here or sort of general impressions of the Hill.

Derek:

Yeah, I’ll start. Yeah, happy to start. In general, I think it was just that stereotypical cookie cutter inspirational film that is really about the American dream that chooses to do so through sport, through a tangentially related depiction of sport. It was boring, straight up, just boring all the way through two hours. I couldn’t believe that I was still watching this, to be honest. And I think it’s because of the, there’s no nuance to that story about the American dream. There’s nothing there. It’s a story that we’ve been told over and over again. So we think something is there, and that’s, I think partially why people, a particular niche of movie lover loves this film because they love seeing kind of that American dream over and over and over. Take it from sport, put it on film, put it on banking, put it on whatever story, whatever David versus Goliath story that you can get.

In this case, I think in the first 30 minutes, I actually, I had some hope for the story because it seemed that this was going to be more of a story about how the influence of religion is kind of dying and the influence of sport is growing. That dropped off completely, completely after the first 35 minutes. So I’m actually interested in the first 35 minutes. The movie was boring. It had a lot of weird things that happened, and I think the big takeaways, it was a failed opportunity to actually discuss the kind of true intersection between sport and religion as offering what Karl Marx would say, opiate of the masses, ways to deal with the shit that is capitalism, which was put right in front of us in this film. But it ultimately falls short in exploring that intersection in depth, and it could have done so through a true representation of disability. It could have done that. It was right up there. It was like the perfect down the middle strike that anyone could hit a home run and they just failed to even pick that up. And I think that’s the ultimate failing of this film and why it led to two hours of like, okay, is this film done yet? I’ve seen this film 30 times.

Jeff:

Yeah, yeah.

sarah:

Derek, this is why you’re God’s favorite sports theorist because it is wild how parallel I am to your review. But if you take out religion and you put in disability, that’s how I felt about the film. So I was just looking at it with my lens and you were looking at it with your lens, and I was just continuously frustrated by the mistakes they were making, even to the point of pettiness, if he gets up to the plate and I’m noticing that he’s not struggling at all, because this would not be an opportune moment for him to be struggling, which I bitch about constantly with goodwill hunting, but that’s a mental disability when it counts. There is no disability whatsoever in this film, and the central premise of this film is your ability to pass is absolutely central to whether or not you’ll make it in life, and I think there’s a really interesting relationship between the age cohort that likes this film and that premise. Those things go together. So anybody who was brought up for 60 years to believe, yes, your ability to pass absolutely decides whether or not you get to succeed in society. They fucking love this film because it proves that premise.

Jeff:

Yeah. I got to say, I mean, we’ve watched a lot of bad movies on this pod. This one for a religious film just felt far more soulless than much of what we’ve watched. This thing was so empty from start to finish. There were so many scenes where I think that the rocket launch scene is such a prime example because it’s like they had seen October Sky, that Jake John Hall film, and they were like, we got to recapture the magic of the hill folk going outside and trying to see the shuttle when it goes overhead. So okay, we’ll have them watch the liftoff, and it’s like, oh, get it. It’s the sixties. There’s just so much of that where they’re referring to all of these other cultural tropes, these existing scenes for movies that they’ve smashed together into a pastiche to try to show something that’s familiar and understandable, I think, to the audience as opposed to doing what people actually want from biopic, which is give us the nitty gritty of someone’s life. Give us the dirt, so to speak. There was some dirt here, but a lot of it was made up, which we could get into a little bit later. But unfortunately, we are all out of time for this episode. Oh, no. So if you want to know what actually happens in this film, you just got to come back next week, brothers and sisters to get the true story, or at least the story as told by Rickey Hill about The Hill, the story about Rickey Hill. See you next week,

And thus concludes another episode of Invalid Culture. Thank you for listening. I hope you enjoyed it or not. Either way, please take a second. If you haven’t to subscribe to our podcast on whatever platform you’re using, tell a friend, and better yet, do you want to be a victim on the podcast? Go on to our website, invalid culture.com, submit your name. We would love to terrorize you with a bad movie, have a bad movie of your own that you think that we should watch. Again, jump on our website, invalidculture.com, submit it, and we would love to watch the trash. Be sure to tune in again next week for part two where we will start to dig into the movie and find out whether or not it wins the coveted Jerry Lewis seal of approval!

Episode theme song, Mvll Crimes:

With strangers on the internet. Everyone is wrong. I just haven’t told them yet.

Part 2 transcript

<episode begins with a mash-up of young Rickey Hill saying “Full Body Rotation” and screaming>
Jeff:

You are listening to Invalid Culture, a podcast dedicated to excavating the strangest and most baffling media representations of disability. This podcast is all about staring into the abyss of pop culture adjacent films that never quite broke through because well, they’re just awful. So buckle up folks. The following content is rated I for invalid.

Theme song, “Arguing With Strangers on the Internet” by Mvll Crimes:

I’m arguing with strangers on the internet not going out today because I’m feeling too upset wing with strangers on the internet and I’m winning.

Jeff:

Welcome back to another thrilling edition of Invalid Culture, part two of The Hill, the baseball movie that you’ve all been waiting for. As always, I am your host, Jeff Preston. I am joined co-host. Sarah, how are you doing?

sar:

Always amazing. How are you, Jeff?

Jeff:

Pretty good. How many dingers have you hit so far today?

sar:

400 today. How about you, Jeff?

Jeff:

  1. I haven’t actually strapped on my legs yet. I’m hoping to get some full body rotation after this pod.

sar:

Full body rotation. What about you, Derek?

Jeff:

Yes, ma’am.

Derek:

I think I lost count after 16.

Jeff:

Okay. That that’s pretty common. I mean, 16, 200. It’s all the same in the bigs, my friend. Absolutely. Yeah. Derek Silva, thanks you for coming back. I’m glad you accepted a return to this challenge.

Derek:

Oh, happy to be here. I’m excited for part two of this conversation.

Jeff:

Okay, my friends, I think it’s time we got to talk about what happens in this film. The Hill as told by Jeff Preston, our story begins in 1960 something rural Texas where a young Forrest Gump, sorry, Rickey Cricket, no wait. Rickey Hill is blasting some rocks at gravestones with his perfected major league swing, sassy Child Bride and MLB Doping Investigator Gracie Shan confronts Rickey claiming that a cripple will never make the majors and suspects that the only way he can hit so well is because he’s Chean Rickey, son of a poor Baptist preacher just loves hitting dingers everywhere he goes, including blasting two through the front windshield of cowboy hat enthusiasts and local angel investor Ray Clements. Unfortunately, the Hills are almost immediately uprooted from their home when their pastor father is run out of town by a rabble of drunk angry hicks who wish only to consume tobacco while hearing the good word.

Approximately 30 movies, sorry, approximately 30 minutes of poverty and preaching. Later we finally get our first glimpse of actual baseball. Rickey and disciplines now settled in a different rural Texas town, stumbled upon a group of local boys playing some backyard ball and Rickey wants to join, but oh no, there is no place for robot boys in baseball says local full-time pitcher, part-time hooligan dubbed the flamethrower. A proposition is made if FU can hit a pitch thrown by this young phenom. The Hill brothers will be allowed to play in dramatic fashion after whiffing on two pitches. Rickey overcomes his feeble legs by destroying his leg braces, screams full body rotation, and blasts one into the outfield. The crowd goes mild.

sar:

I just noticed when you were summarizing it, the kind of simplistic parallelism the film itself makes between if you can hit against this really hard pitcher at 10 and then again at 16 we’ll allow you to play. And then the end of the film, spoiler alert, he’s trying out for Muff Red and he has to hit against their most competitive pitcher that’s being recruited. And I didn’t realize that until you were just summarizing now, and I was like, huh. Well, that was obviously entirely intentional and it brings up some interesting film theory things you could say about the point of parallelism or whether there’s any kind of bian relationship between where he starts and where he finishes. But I think all of those conversations are giving the film more credit than the probably simple premise of look how many times he’s being asked to hit a ball to fuel his future.

Derek:

Yeah, I mean, I think the first act of the movie set up what was the problematic premise of the movie, which we talked about in the last episode with this sort of, if you just work hard and you have this sort of Protestant ethic as a sociologist Max Weber, or sorry a male Durkheim would call it, as long as you have this kind of Protestant ethic, you will be able to succeed in life and succeed in a life that is a capitalist life, succeed in a life that they’re also depicting and they’re showing the viewer the really poor conditions of capitalist life, of precarity, of socioeconomic deprivation, of alcoholism, of tobacco and other forms of addiction and really highlighting those things. And then that’s setting it up as that can be overcome as long as you just turn to God. And in this case, the father being the pastor, it all kind of played into that religion trope or the religious movie trope that as long as you live a righteous life, everything your dreams, your hopes will be made possible.

And what I noticed in the first half is it really set up this moral or a series of moral quandaries, if you’ll put it on the part of, not Rickey, but his father James, which I found interesting in the first bit. I was actually intrigued. So the fact that when he was giving his sermon and he’s looking at people who are smoking and people chewing tobacco and then he makes the decision that that’s something wrong, that’s something that you should not do, and he calls it out. Okay, so it seems like cigarettes, like tobacco is being used as this sort of moral, I dunno, moral compass issue. I was intrigued at least to see where that went. And not to put the cart before the horse, but I think in later acts we see that falls flat and I can talk about that in the future, but I think the first act, I’d sum it up with their opportunity, there was opportunity for this film there presented and whether or not the rest of the film actually is just a repetition of that first act or if it actually builds on that. I think we can get in this conversation.

sar:

I think you’re right that Durkheim would’ve loved this movie, especially the kind of continuous unrelenting precarity narrative and how starkly it was contrasted against this kind of chosen one epic of Rickey Hill, which time would’ve been all about that.

Derek:

Yeah, well, any functionalist, and let’s be real, even in contemporary sociologists function, they seem to be like the same people who are writing reviews for this film.

Jeff:

That’s true.

sar:

He’s the core audience.

Jeff:

Well, I mean the father literally is a Protestant preacher. He’s a Baptist preacher, right? Yeah. Okay. I got to be real. When I started watching this, I thought what was being set up here in the first half or the first third, I thought they were trying to set up this notion of there is a corruption in the outside world, whether it’s the corruption of tobacco, the corruption of white sport idolatry, the corruption of, dare I say ableism. I thought that there was this notion of their family is this pristine unit that is struggling to live right in a world that is otherwise corrupted. So they live in poverty because the capitalist world doesn’t acknowledge the value of good preaching and good family, for instance. It felt like that’s where this thing was going, and spoiler alert, it does not, dear listener, that is not where this goes. I think you’re right

sar:

Though that it does intentionally set up the idolatry arc because of that scene with the baseball cards,

Jeff:

Right? Literally. Yeah, right. It’s like you’re like, who’s your God? Mickey Mantle. Yeah.

sar:

They went as far as exclusively drawing that example, and then I was like, oh, that was actually really good. And then they never brought it up ever again.

Jeff:

Right. And so I don’t know if this is a matter if this is perhaps, maybe this is where a talented writer, if we can go so far as to say Angelo Pizo is a talented writer. A talented writer has come in and said, let’s lay some foundation here, and then it just didn’t get picked up on or it got cut out in edits. I mean, this movie is super long already or is this a matter of, these are just things that Rickey remember happening. He’s like, oh, I remember when my dad got kicked out of that church because he harshed on people smoking and I remember getting yelled at because we had baseball cards. What’s really unclear? It’s like were they trying to build some thematic element here or is this literally just moments that he remembered?

sar:

Yeah, you could give it the bildungsroman angle, but I think especially if you have a talented screenplay writer doing the baseball card scene, which was fairly well thought out, and for people who don’t want to watch this, it’s that he and the Rickey Hill and his brother are trading very, very old baseball cards. This is the sixties of very famous players that they idolize and when the preacher father comes in, they try to hide the cards in their Bible. So then the father knowing that something’s up, opens the Bibles, finds the baseball cards and gives them this whole rant about false idolatry and how horrible it is to hold these people on a pedestal. The kind of central irony of that is that it’s a preacher telling them to do so. And if you’re not fundamentalist, you can fairly easily kind of start asking questions about, well, what’s the difference between listening to my dad, the preacher who’s been kicked out of multiple churches and listening to these baseball phenoms who are not trying to tell me how to live my life? And I feel like you can’t set up that rant being delivered by a preacher without the second half later where Rickey has the realization, oh, maybe my dad is also a false prophet, but he never does. So it could be that Rickey himself has never had that realization and he asked that bit to be taken out because it’s disrespectful to his father.

Jeff:

I mean also the fact that at the beginning of the film, it’s like don’t idolize baseball players in a film that’s about trying to idolize a specific baseball player. Yeah,

Derek:

Yeah. I mean also just I’ll pick up on two points then. I thought that the character Rickey Hill was actually not that narcissistic to use. I think we can get into what that term means, but his father actually was, his father was the center and always put his emotions, I’ll never forget the scene. Well, this is the one scene that really struck out to me, struck me, and it’s when he’s about to beat his eldest son for forging the signature, and I think we can get into that as well, but he’s about to, and what holds him back is his own realization and his own emotion, and then he put the emotional labor on his Sunday, get away from him to give him a moment as if he’s the one there that needs the moment. And he did this in several ways. So I think that picking up on that false idea, that would’ve been amazing. I agree completely. That would’ve been a way in which this story could have been redeemed later on, and that just wasn’t picked up on at all.

Jeff:

And I think that what the movie’s trying to do really badly is it’s trying to show the father, I hate that I’m going to use this phrase liberalizing, that the dad is becoming more liberal generous as he goes. And so he’s like, okay, right. If I tell people to stop smoking in church, I’m going to lose my job again. So maybe I can let that slide and then it’s, I’m not going to let my son play baseball. Okay, I’ll let that slide. I’m not going to watch him play baseball though. Oh, well, okay. I’ll let that slide. And so the whole movie is this downward trajectory in some ways of a preacher giving up on his morals and giving up on his view of the world, which in some ways is a tragedy, but it is pitched in this film I think is being proposed as a good thing that the father is becoming more open-minded and is becoming a better father and a better preacher.

Derek:

But it seems to me they kind of fail in that though, because one of the penultimate scenes, one of the penultimate scenes that Dennis Qua is in, his wife, his assuming wife who works at home brings him his food and he instructs her to put his plate down as if he controls what’s going on. So if it makes me question if that’s the arc, because if that was, he wouldn’t do that. He’d be like,

sar:

I think it’s much more likely that they were setting him up to be just as much a false idol as all of the baseball players. He grew up falsely idolizing, and the only reason I can think of for why they would take out the other half of that parallel because 50% of a half is a fairly significant part of the hole is because Rickey didn’t like it

Derek:

And it can’t be a success story at the end. It can’t be, oh, he made it to the minor leagues. He’s a success. It simply can’t. If that’s the case, if the story is about false idols and it is about change and reflexive thought on the part of both Rickey and his father, it can’t be like a overcomes everything story. You’ve got to be like, oh, well there’s still deeply problematic issues here and I didn’t win and I have this debilitating pain and all of these things that we’re just kind of side skirted.

Jeff:

Yeah, pushed off to the end credits, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s take a step back. So on the heels of Rickey’s Sandlot moment pressure is now mounted for him to try out for the local youth baseball league. Unfortunately, as you can probably imagine, Rickey’s father believes that baseball is the opiate of the masses and would prefer his son focused on a legitimate career becoming a poverty stricken pastor like his old man. This will then set up a clear tension in the film, Richy believing that God put him on earth to hit homers and his dad’s belief that baseball is too dangerous for his un people son and distracts from the worshiping of JC after a near full-blown belt beaten of his brother for forging a parental permission slip, Rickey eventually convinces his father to let him play and he is well on his way to the majors.

The film now jumps forward to Rickey’s senior year where he is officially a baseball superstar on the high school circuit. His child, Brian Gracie, has stumbled back into his life ready to immediately restart their childhood romance and the scouts are lining up to see him play. That is until tragedy strikes after one again, face it off against the flamethrower and coming out once again, notorious Rickey will have a tragic incident, slippery and falling on the nemesis of all out fielders an in-ground sprinkler system breaking his ankle when evaluated by a local doctor, it’s discovered that not only is Rickey’s leg essentially ruined, he also has the spine of a 60-year-old man caused by a rare degenerative spinal cord disease. Rickey may never play baseball again and worse still, he might not recover in time to play in an open MLB tryout coming to his town in two months time. But friends, it gets worse. God does not have an HMO and so Rickey cannot afford his life saving surgery.

sar:

Alright, don’t tell me to back up and then present an hour and 50 minutes of the film. I want to go back way back in that to when he is still in high school because I think there’s a really interesting moment here that is wasted and I like how you phrased it as baseball is the opiate of the press and I know that Derek was talking a little bit about that in regard to religion in the last episode, but if you use baseball as the opiate of the masses, A, you’ve got the cool religion angle because of his problematic father and his problematic family and they’re problematic Winnebago Baptist Church, but also when he gets to high school, you introduce all of these figures besides the angel investor, Ray, whatever his name was that come in to the Baptist setting and start kind of vehemently trying to stand up for Rickey and offering accommodations and all of these things that we associate with good allies than disability theory.

And I was like, okay, that’s actually really getting interesting because they’re introducing all of these ways to try to intervene on the central tension because a lot of people not degrade, but maybe dislike films like Goodwill Hunting and Precious, where the central kind of conflict between ex teenager or young adult and ex adult that’s extremely abusive and oppressive is just not realistically overcomeable and that seems to be one of the driving forces of this movie. This kid and his brother and his mother and whoever the fuck else just do not hold the power to overcome this larger than life preacher. And the film comes ready with answers to that and these guys are so quickly forgotten in favor of this prodigal narrative of his ability to hit Homer’s alone by itself will cause him to absorb himself of all previous circumstances and kind of in turn trivializes the narrative of allies helping out when you need accommodations, legibly or not for disability. So they kind of built it up and then smashed it all in the same 20, 25 minutes.

Jeff:

Yeah, that was one thing that actually that I will am going to give full props to this movie. I like that. Although there are moments and where it’s like the Rigley Hills show of lot of this movie is about how it takes a nation or a village to raise Rickey Hill and Rickey Hill couldn’t…

sar:

There was a lot of advocacy here

Jeff:

Without a lot of support from all intergenerational support and internal and external family system support. And I’m like, that to me is the small town experience that I had growing up with a disability in a small town. That’s what I remember is it’s about the community wrapped around and coming to support. So I’m like, okay, thumbs up to that and maybe a tiny thumbs up. I mean, the movie starts out very heavy with Gracie’s father is an abusive drunk dick. He beats the wife and he beats the kid and he’s terrible, but that’s not Rickey’s dad. Rickey’s dad is a good preacher man, and then by the second act, we actually do get this a version where it’s like, no, he was full on going to whoop that brother in front of everybody. And so I was like, you know what? I’m going to give the tiniest of credit, I think to this film actually engaging with masculinity, fatherhood and abuse at this moment in America. It sort of did try to talk about it even if it didn’t talk about it. Well, and even if it backs away a little bit and it’s like, okay, no, no, don’t worry. He didn’t actually beat him with the belt though, which it’s like, well, what about when the cameras weren’t rolling?

sar:

He totally did. Yeah.

Derek:

Yeah. And I mean I think the end thesis of the movie being that as long as you work hard and you are God-fearing that things will overcome, it was always going to hide all of the things that allies have to do or that people have to rely on in order to deal with the alienation of advanced late stage capitalism. And it was again, the missed opportunity for that to be discussed. It told the story of, okay, mark said religion is the opiate of the masses. I would argue religion simply is not any longer, at least in many advanced capitalist societies, that actually things like sport are the opiate of the masses and you can watch it. You can sit on a Tuesday when you’re come back from your shift work and deal with your shitty job and shitty boss and shitty colleagues and the fact that you own nothing that you produce and you can just crack open a Bud Light and watch the blue Jays face the lose. Yeah, lose against the nationals or something. Not only are we dealing with that, but I think that understanding of society relies on this genre of film,

sar:

And I’m saying this mostly to rile up Derek, but going to your point, and I do mean this if we’re going to say that something like professional sports is an opiate of the masses, I wonder what you’d then think of people treating X sociological phenomenon as sport. So politics being treated like your favorite sports team, watching your current favorite genocide unfolding and treating that yet another sports team. Do you think this film is getting in the way of that at all, or is it substantiating just sports?

Derek:

It doesn’t problematize that at all. It doesn’t problematize the fact that we in a society are massively polemical and polarized and every way and that we treat everything. There’s been a sport ization of everything that if you’re a liberal, that’s your team, that you’re going hard for that team as if they’re not talking about genocide as if they’re not actually engaging in colonial, settler, settler colonialism, ongoing genocides that are ongoing right now, that there’s way more at stake. And I think part of the argument, the theoretical argument that I would make in my work is that yeah, sport is replacing things like religion in terms of being the way in which we deal with the alienation of shitty advanced capitalism. But I don’t mean to trivialize that. I am not trying to make it seem like sport is just another one of those things. No, I’m trying to actually make the claim that there are a bunch of different things that are making us truly despise one another through and do what capitalism does, which is pit everyone against everyone.

Sport is one of the ways in which we do that, but also we’re seeing politics does that. I live in rural Ontario and I see fuck Trudeau things happen and I see more Trudeau bumper stickers than Toronto maple leaf or Buffalo bills or anything like that, and I think you’re spot on to make the connection and again, an opportunity for this film delve into that a little bit and just nothing, not even, and I mean sport historically and still contemporarily has that is only positive. People approach sport as if it’s only this positive thing. It doesn’t have these kind of negative consequences. They don’t see

sar:

The jingoistic layers that kind of support how it works.

Derek:

Exactly. They uncritically explore, look at sport. It’s just like, oh, it teaches teamwork, it teaches leadership skills, it keeps you healthy. It’s all good for society, but it doesn’t look at all the ways in which it reify social inequality, exclusion, and is an imperial project for instance. Right.

Jeff:

And destroys bodies literally destroys bodies in this film back to disability

Derek:

Absolutely destroyed and there’s literally one of the most popular sports in the world is absolutely intended to ruin your brain, period. Is that football? Yeah. No, the end goal of that game is head trauma and once you look at it like that, you can’t unsee that it’s about staying injury free, which means not getting concussed because that’s what the entire sport is premised on other sports are,

sar:

But yeah, the premise of the sport is running into each other as fast as you possibly can. How do you only sustain three concussions per career? Maybe three concussions per game.

Derek:

Yes.

Jeff:

It’s important to note that there was also a question there though. It’s like, wait, is it football or is he talking about hockey or is he talking about boxing or MMA or Oh shoot. There’s a whole lot of others that also have those same kind of conditions. That’s true.

Derek:

Elite professional sport. I tell people, and I learned this from my colleague and co-host of them, the sport, Nathan Coleman Lamb who said this to me, and I can never pay him enough to because he’s kind of changed my view. The entire project of professional sport is injury prevention.

sar:

May God bless you, Nathan.

Derek:

That’s it. It has nothing to do with skill it nothing. Because if you can’t play, you will never be in the professional. You will never, which is Rickey. Yes, yes. It’s Rickey and thousands, thousands of others. Yes, but you’re right. Yeah.

sar:

Okay. Wait, do I have the quote right? The entire premise of professional sport is prevention of injury.

Derek:

Yes.

sar:

And if we’re translating injury only…Jeff knows where I’m going with this. If we translate injury nly, it is completely antithetical to disabled people playing anything at all.

Derek:

Exactly.

Jeff:

Yeah. Well, this is where I think if you want to get real funky with sports, it’s like, so what does it mean? What do the Paralympics mean? And a lot of people are like, okay, that’s a circle life in square. Okay, but what does Special Olympics mean? Then? What does it mean to build a game or to build a competitive sport where competitiveness is a part of it, but winning isn’t necessarily the top five objective of this type of design of sport and how does sport change when the fundamental roots of it are shifted or if it’s built on different foundation? But that is a whole other podcast.

sar:

You don’t want to talk about the epistemology of sport today?

Jeff:

Well, I think we’re going to continue to, in fact, because our listeners probably want to know what happened to Rickey. We left him on a bit of a cliffhanger. Whether or not Rickey’s legs were about to fall off is where we left off. Okay, so let’s forge ahead. Now, as you could probably imagine based on this podcast, the local community rallies around Rickey launching Operation Rickey Hill, kind of lazy. Brandon donation bins start to pop up everywhere. The local community raises $2,000 in nine weeks, which, okay, I don’t want to throw any shade on a rural community. I’m sure $2,000 that that’s a lot of money back in the seventies. Okay, but come on, do you really love this man? Rural Texas? Of course. Professional

sar:

Fundraiser, Jeff Preston here to hit and dingers about their fundraising ability.

Jeff:

Those are rookie numbers because they raised $2,000, but they are $4,000 short of what they need for the surgery with hope, almost completely lost cowboy hat wearing Angel emerges. Ray Clemens is back and ready to finance the surgery. Rickey goes under the knife after some debate with his father, and we are treated to a lovely recovery montage as Rickey goes from the hospital bed to the baseball diamond. But will he recover in time for the tryouts? Yes. After a miraculous recovery, Rickey is ready for tryouts and fully intends to show that he is the best homer hitter in the world. At the same time, he absolutely still has the spine of a 60-year-old and is cut immediately because he is not able to run, which is apparently a central still in the sport of baseball, you kind of have to run dejected. Rickey storms off, throws his bat and glove away and drives off in his beat up incorrectly aged vehicle.

But Rickey, he ain’t known quitter. This is the hill he wants to die on storming back, get that in there. I’m sorry. Storming back into the tryout and completely against the rules that were just laid out. Rickey demands that the scouts allow him to hit home runs as many homers in a row as you can, and if he is successful, that he be allowed to play in the big final tryout game later that night. For reasons that I don’t understand, they agree to this condition and Rickey begins to blasted Homers out of the stadium and not just out of his stadium, but into the stadium next door, nearly assassinated pro scout, Red Murph. Impressed Red Murph now lays out a challenge. Rickey will prove himself by playing DH for both teams in the big game, and if you can hit off of every pitcher, red will recommend him to the majors. Amazingly or not, Rickey does just that. He goes into the final game, plays for both teams and hits off of every single mustache, handlebar, mustache, hooker in the game. He gets hit, he gets back up. Rickey has overcome and is certified as the greatest baseball player of all time, or at least good enough to be signed by the eighties Montreal Expos and never play in the Natures Good, blessed, good Night. The movie is mercifully over about time,

sar:

Right? Yeah. I felt every minute of those two and a half hours.

Jeff:

Yes. I’ve never been so thrilled for the concluding song to start playing, which encourages you in a very folksy turn to just rub a little dirt on it. Rub a little dirt on it, brother. Well, I’ve scot you down. Rub a little dirt on it.

sar:

Yeah, that’s advice that upper middle class people give to people in permanently precarious positions because that’s generally worked for them, given that all of their problems were really easily surmountable,

Jeff:

Rub a little dirt on it or have $8,000 surgery. Those are your two options.

sar:

Angel funded of course, and that Jeff and I watched these films together because nobody makes us laugh more than ourselves and each other. So when we were watching this, I called it about the halfway point. I was like, if they’ve made this film about how the DH designated hitter position was made, this is actually an awesome premise because if it’s because of a disabled person, I actually love this. I want to know if that was why DH was made. It was not. They dismissed this at the beginning of the third act, and DH is already a well-respected position, albeit only for a few years. That year before this was…

Jeff:

That year! The year that this is set in is the first year that Major League Baseball has a dh.

sar:

It wasn’t because of Rickey Hill.

Jeff:

It wasn’t Rickey Hill

sar:

Would’ve made this one point better for me if this was the story of how we invented DH

Jeff:

Man. Okay, so what you’re talking about right now is an incredible third act in which Rickey Hill goes to war with the powers that be at MLB and says there is an opportunity for players to play. Players who are not able to run or because of the debilitating high school injuries they’ve sustained can no longer play the field, but can still blast the ball as good as Babe Ruth, who if you remember, wasn’t quite a runner himself. I mean probably from all the cigars he was smoking while playing. That could have been an amazing movie, but that is unfortunately not reality. So it is not what we can,

Derek:

I have to say in some of the last scenes, why the hell was Red Murph standing next to the picture?

Jeff:

It never,

sar:

Ever,

Derek:

Ever happened.

Jeff:

Okay. Sarah and I actually also brought this up while watching because I’m like, he’s going to die a line drive get taken out by those. Asked me

sar:

How safe it was that Red was standing there and I was like, oh, he’ll go to the hospital.

Jeff:

He hit at that he will probably die. And also he is like 80 years old. His bones are probably hollow at this point, that wild through

Derek:

His head. Another thing, dead giveaway that folks who were writing the script didn’t actually, I don’t think they know sports or I don’t really think they fully understand, is the scene where red turns to the all-star professional reliever and says, if you hit him again with the ball, you’re done, never

Jeff:

Done. Done from what?

Derek:

Red you are a high school, maybe college age level coach or a scouts. You are not instrumental in changing an Allstar. I can understand if it’s a minor league player. This was a major league Allstar coming for a rehab assignment. He was

Jeff:

On a rehab stint. Yes. Also who does a rehab stint at a tryout game.

Derek:

An exhibition game in southern Texas with old alumni.

Jeff:

With no real teams.

Derek:

Yes. Yes. Made up teams with one DH that’s on both sides. Yeah,

Jeff:

But you needed a hard thrower.

sar:

They proved how brave he was by having that 80-year-old man stand beside the fastest fastball pitcher they had and just stood there against a guy who they already proved could hit it 400 something large.

Derek:

The animosity itself makes no sense. If you want to understand sport or just understand labor issues, if you look at the scout, the scout is hired to do a particular job. The scout doesn’t want animosity towards people that they are scouting. They want to find people in order to do their job, ostensibly do their job. And I think that uncritical take on authority is riddled through this film. It’s just like the authority of red is just assumed. The authority of James is just assumed. And anytime that’s that authority is kind of questioned, it gets just swept under the rug. When the mother-in-law is on the cusp of passing away and says, let Rickey try, it’s like that could have been a moment to confront that hegemonic masculinity, that patriarchal head of family household or something, or later on when he is speaking to his wife about Rickey and there was a moment of conflict. These were all opportunities in which they could have actually tackled hegemonic masculinity. That kind of, it is intertwined in ableism as well and hegemonic ableism as well. All these

sar:

Things. But we also know that that’s never going to happen when your setting is fundamentalist sixties Texas.

Jeff:

That’s right.

sar:

No one in this film is going to argue against an older adult.

Derek:

Yeah. That’s why anytime I see a movie that’s unapologetically the actual plot is just the American dream in any setting, all of these are impossibilities because the American dream is driven on compulsory able bodiedness, on compulsory, compulsory heterosexuality, on hegemonic masculinity, patriarchy, settler colonialism, imperialism, all of these things that just can never be tackled Well, because

sar:

What we’ve epitomized by the original American dream was the straight successful white male. How do you generate that through all these circumstances that only only benefit the straights CI White male. Exactly. And we expanded that imaginary to, oh, now Taylor Swift is the American dream. Now you’ve done all of these kind of subtle corrections to the narrative, but in making those connections, you’re getting at what Derek’s getting at with questioning power structure relationships, or questioning whether or not someone is Jing Egoistically correct. About face or just because they said so. And as soon as you start doing that, you can’t even really say Taylor Swift is the American dream because she still benefits from parts of that narrative.

Derek:

Absolutely. You can’t have a happy ending. There’s not a happy ending in society. There’s simply not the way we’ve built society. It will not be happy. It will not end well for you. Won’t

sar:

Someone think of Galen Weston?

Jeff:

Right. Finally, please

sar:

Someone create alogia for the billionaires.

Derek:

Let’s just talk about one of the people I despise most on this point.

Jeff:

Oh man.

Okay, so that’s our movie. Long and short, very long. There was nothing short about this that long. It was extremely long. It was long. So, okay, I think we probably should just address before we get into our closing thoughts. So quite obviously, this movie has lots of overcoming narratives, the idea that one special ability will help someone to overcome their disability. So Rickey’s inherent wealth is tied to his ability to hit dinners and dinners he will hit. But the thing that I really wanted to talk a little bit about, because we haven’t talked about it yet on the pod, is this notion of disability presented as a test from God. That it is a challenge that is to be met and then forth opportunity. So Sarah, I’m going to turn to you first, then we’ll go to Darren. What do you think about how this movie sort of positions disability in its relation to religious intervention?

sar:

Yeah. I’m not going to beat you at a religious argument because you grew up Baptist and I grew up Buddhist,

Jeff:

Catholic, Catholic. Whoa. The Pope is the head of church here. Come on.

sar:

I didn’t know Jesus was Jewish till university. I made it to 19 years old without ever having learned that fact. But I can approach the disability angle. I think this movie does a really good job with some of the most fundamentalist heritage disability. And if you really strongly want to believe in them, this movie is just your wildest dreams come true. It’s like angels in the outfield meets goodwill hunting meets a beautiful mind, meets insert your favorite overcoming narrative that was modestly, religiously based. And I think a lot of people would actually relate to some kind of form of God’s will or nobody can give you things that you can’t overcome or those narratives because I am surrounded by people who are very quasi-religious at best. And I’ve heard that plenty of times in relation to my own schizophrenia. There’s nothing you can’t overcome if that’s what was meant to be.

You can take God right out of it and make the kind of secular argument toward that. And I think that will resonate with people that it worked for. So it kind of self worth in so far as if you were able to overcome it, you can look back with this nostalgic lens of, ah, it was because I was always meant to overcome it. But when you create that narrative, you also create the inverse even if you didn’t want to. So all of the mentally ill people who end up hospitalized, who end up the infamous cases like Rosemary Kennedy who spend their entire life institutionalized for similar illnesses, are we then saying that God did not want them to overcome. We had Destiny written in the stars and Rosemary’s Destiny was a depressing institution. Ward. Those are the kinds of things that you’re saying without saying when you agree with the premise that for you God’s child or Destiny’s child or W’s child or academia’s child getting spicy now it’ll work out for you from the realm of what’s already happened. And if it doesn’t, fuck you deserved it. So it’s just the deservingness narrative done over and over and over again. And if you want to do it with sports, you can do it with sports. That’s what this movie did. Yeah.

Jeff:

But the inspiration of this film is that he achieves his dreams, he makes the majors he, he doesn’t achieve, but that is the end of the film. The end of the film is he married his sweetheart at home plate of the expos field, and then he played four years in the minors and then it’s cut to credits and that’s the end of the story. And so I think it’s fascinating that from Rickey’s own words, the intention of this film is to inspire physically disabled people that he hopes that physically disabled people are inspired by it, which to me, I would say means that he hopes that you would watch the film and say, if Rickie Hale can do it, I can do it too. I just have to put the time in, got to put the work in. I got to hit a lot of rocks with sticks and I can do it even if people say that I can’t. And it’s like, okay, so that is on its face, not necessarily a bad message on its face.

sar:

I’ll disagree. Continue.

Jeff:

You should not necessarily listen to stereotypes that people try to place on you. I don’t disagree with that. But if you actually look at the actual narrative and the actual set of the story, it really is saying having unique ability and then relentlessly to the detriment of your body, pursue that one ability and drive yourself into the ground doing it. And that’s the path to success. And that’s how you too will earn to be commemorated in film. Right. I think the whole, to bring us back to that disability as a test from God, it’s all about trying to make disability meaningful. Something that is seen as sort of senseless or empty or meaningless that we can’t wrap our heads around. We give it meaning as well. It’s just a test from God or you two shall overcome or it’s a party. It’s an interesting part of your story that you’ll then tell in your film once you’ve overcome it,

sar:

If you deserve it, if it was meant for you, it will happen. It’ll happen. The non secular version of that myth.

Jeff:

Yeah, a hundred percent. And so I think that’s one thing that I found really fascinating about this film is how there is the public narrative of what this film is supposed to be as he sees it, as Rickey sees it. And I think probably as the people that wrote it see it versus what it actually is saying, these things couldn’t be further apart. And I don’t think that there’s any actual understanding that these two roads have diverged as far as they have.

sar:

The only hope it’s generating is if you are good enough at passing, you can have some of what you surmised you deserved. And that’s a way different message than if you hope hard enough, you’ll get literally whatever you want. It’s about adjusting your expectations via your actual ability level. And then even then you’ll probably only be able to do part of that.

Derek:

Yeah. Yeah. Just to echo your point, I think you’ve put it perfectly, Jeff, in terms of I think what the message here doesn’t just impact folks with disabilities, it, it actually sends the message that you should, and we should all be willing to put our bodies through an incredible amount of pain, harm and potentially long-term consequences in order to do the things we love. We quote unquote love. And that that’s a really terrible message, especially in sport when you realize so many people get injured, like lifelong injuries. So many people are dying. So many people are, I think mostly of American football when I talk about this. There are other things boxing, there are other violent sports of course, but people are literally subjecting themselves to years and years and years and years and years of head trauma and receive no remuneration ever.

Jeff:

Yeah. There’s no payoff.

Derek:

And in this case, there was no payoff here. So in 2022, if you played aaa, which is the highest level of major of minor league baseball, you were getting at most $700 a week, a week. That is not some

sar:

To be at the top of your game

Derek:

In 1975, I would say that was probably, and he was what, single or aa max? Like 20 bucks. I would say.

Jeff:

You were paid in steroids. Yeah, he paid in steroids.

Derek:

You have travel to the away game. That’s your payment.

sar:

I agree with all of this.

Jeff:

So I think what we’re all sort of saying here is that I think this movie may have been a horror movie by accident.

Derek:

Well, certainly not for the 65-year-old evangelicals. They love this movie.

Jeff:

They just don’t realize it yet. They don’t realize that they are in Get Out.

sar:

It supports comfort viewing in so far as if you don’t think about it at all, it is an inspirational film about a disabled guy who makes it into the minor leagues. And as soon as you apply a modicum of thought into the scenario, it’s actually a disempowering film about hiding disability at all costs and how disability is antithetical to anything you could hope or dream of.

Jeff:

Right.

Derek:

But here, look, there’s Dennis Quaid.

sar:

Yeah, but

Jeff:

Do you like Dennis Quaid?

sar:

Made by Dennis Quaid? So whatever. Yeah.

Jeff:

Hell yeah. Hell yeah.

Now, as you will know, if you’ve listened to the blog before, we have a perfectly empirical, scientifically rigorous method, which we use to measure all of our movies tongue firmly in cheek. This is of course the invalid culture scale. Now, like golf, we play this with the lowest score wins or the lower the score the better the film did. So let’s take a look and let’s see where the hill falls on the invalid culture scale. So first up, on a scale of one to five, with five being the least accurate, how accurately does this film portray disability?

Derek:

I would say a 4.5. Can I do point fives here? Wonderful. I think that the day-to-day lived reality are completely put out of focus and just hidden. And as we’ve talked about on the podcast, and Sarah’s mentioned several times, the ability to pass was centered and throughout the film, so portraying disability as kind of the only this quote nuisance that arises only when something good is about to happen, I think that’s really problematic. Incredibly problematic. When you think about the lived reality of everyday dealing with anything, with anything that might make you less able-bodied or able mentally than other people. I think you had an opportunity to really dig deep into that lived reality and you had two hours to do it and you didn’t do it at all. So I think it was not accurate whatsoever.

sar:

I agree with everything Derek said. I’m a little harsher. I want to give it a five because it kind of went out of its way to obscure disability at best. And given the runtime, disability is about as tangential as baseball itself. It is a minor character if you consider it a character. I’m kind of surprised Jeff picked it, but I think Jeff did not know upon picking it how little this disability film had to do with disability.

Jeff:

That actually is completely correct because if you look at the Netflix description of this film, it is like watch this man overcome his disability. And it wasn’t that at all. For some people they tricked you with baseball. For me, they tricked me with disability.

sar:

Goddamn right

Jeff:

Marketers, man. Can’t trust him. Okay, so I I’m going to split the difference. I gave this a four a little bit. I was not as harsh. And the only reason I was not as harsh on it is that I love that they not love. I appreciate that they had the ES to openly acknowledge that if Rickey could not have raised the money, his body would’ve just been left broken. So despite the fact that there is a medical treatment that he just wouldn’t have got it. And so I’m like, whoa, this is an American movie that is about rah rah America. But it also was able to be like, oh man. But also, wouldn’t it be weird if we just didn’t raise that $8,000 and he just had broken lines for the rest of his life? Whoa. That would be weird. So I’m giving them one bonus point for openly discussing the

sar:

…accidentally in favor of Obamacare?

Jeff:

Of being accidentally critical of capitalist medicine. Okay, next question. On a scale of one to five, with five being the hardest, I don’t think I even need to ask. How hard was it for you to get through this film?

Derek:

I think that I originally wanted everything in me to not give it a five and I wrote down four. And one of the reasons why, because the happy go lucky storyline, it’s easy to get. I’ve seen it a million times. It’s actually quite easy to get through a fight. But now talking about it for two hours in a couple episodes here, I have to change that to a five because it was so long I wouldn’t have continued watching it past 46 minutes, which is just getting into that. After that 35 minute buffer, I would’ve stopped watching it and I will never watch it again, nor will I ever speak about it again, probably in my life. So I have to give it a five

Jeff:

Except at my funeral. You will be bringing it up at my funeral.

Derek:

It’ll certainly be in the eulogy

sar:

Thanksgiving dinner. If somebody really wants to start the table fight, they can bring up the premise of The Hill and Derek’s going to stand up and go like, this is my Roman.

Derek:

My father-in-Law will just say, oh, I watch this really interesting movie The Hill. It’s about sports. Derek, let’s talk about it.

sar:

It’s gone. I can’t do that.

Jeff:

I’m filing for divorce.

sar:

I’ve watched some pretty brutal films with Jeff, but they don’t usually have this length of runtime. And I did think that you could have done this movie in 40 minutes and told the entire story as it appeared on the screenplay as it’s written now. So I got to give it a five.

Jeff:

Okay, so we are aligned on this one. I love to be punished by movies for what you will about me as a human, but this one was brutal. I was bored throughout. I wanted it to end. I would not have gotten through it if it wasn’t for you guys. Thank you, Jeff. Don’t watch this movie. Having said that, if this movie was a tight 88 minute, I think they probably could have pulled this off. I think they probably could have held my attention for 85 minutes probably if you cut out basically his entire childhood, this movie actually probably would’ve been decent. And maybe the entire father storyline and maybe the entire, you know what if the movie was just the final game? Yeah, just that time. The film. Yeah. I think if…

sar:

The childhood and the father storyline is like an hour and a half of this two hour film.

Jeff:

So yeah, I think, yeah, it was brutal. That’s a five. That’s a pretty solid five.

sar:

That’s a five.

Jeff:

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

Derek:

So I went through, and to the best of my recollection, I counted the number of times that I actually did this. And I said, if it’s from one to five, that’s the number that I’ll give it. And it was four and it was four times, and it was mostly due to, it had nothing to do with anything substantive. It was like the cheesy one-liners that I just couldn’t get over that were so bad. They made me laugh. And I am not really a motive when I watch films, so I wouldn’t laugh. Even in comedies, I don’t really laugh very often, but for instance, when the sort of scout I, it kind of put the MLB player in to face Rickey right at the end, and then the camera pans to the angel investor and he says he’s sending in his final attempt to ruin Rickey’s day.

That stuff makes me laugh. That wasn’t necessary. That dialogue was not necessary. And it makes me laugh. Or when Dennis Quat actually seemingly aged when he went from, I don’t know if you guys noticed that, but he seemed to look younger when Rickey was older and I couldn’t fully understand that. And then the final scene, another one was when they are reunited and Rickey realizes his father, the hard ass pastor is actually at the game for the first time because of course, and Dennis Quaid looks to him and goes, I guess we’ll have to get used to your new career now. I’m like, what? That’s not even aligned with the character arc whatsoever or, yeah, I think I had one other, oh, and I think I laughed out loud when Rickey just objected to being sent away and every other player was being sent away and they were arguing and they sent, and then Rickey’s just like, but just give me a try. And they’re like, okay, here you go. I laughed out loud. That makes no fucking sense. Why would they do that for 30 players? And then Rickey, you’re just made no sense. So four times I laughed out loud, so I’ll give it a four. That was a long-winded answer to that. No

Jeff:

Fair. I think for our viewers, for those who care about authenticity, Rickey Hill has also stated that his father did not, basically, his father didn’t come to a lot of baseball games, but his father came and checked on him after every game they talked about it. His father was actually pretty actively involved in his fall career throughout. So anyway, I don’t know why they thought it was super important to make his dad a dick in this film. But I

sar:

Do also remember laughing at Rickey Hill’s plot armor moment where they have the big explanation, do not disagree with the coaches. If you’re out, you’re out. And as soon as our main character was out, he was like, no, wait, but I would like to disagree. And it was just accepted, no questions asked. I did laugh at that and I hate this question every single time, every single episode because I’m laughing throughout the entire film every time, but it’s because I’m watching it with Jeff and we amuse each other. So then I have to go back and try to piece out, okay, when was I laughing at Jeff and when was I laughing at a legitimately funny thing the film did, and I think it was very little, the film. This film was kind of bleak for an inspiration porn narrative and spends a lot of time with the kind of poverty porn circumstances of his childhood exploitated to the nth degree for the purposes of this film, because it just makes a better story. This was like narrative journalism 1 0 1 as a film, but if you’re going to do it as narrative journalism, it’s not funny. So two,

Jeff:

Yeah. Okay. I was actually right. I’m lined up exactly where Sarah is on this one. I also gave it a two. And the reason is the only time that I legitimately actually laughed out loud at a non-intentional laugh out, loud moment again, man, I’m going to come off looking such a bad person in this episode. So he is in the doctor’s office and the doctor is, every tendon in your life is destroyed, everything in your body is broken. And also you have this spinal cord of a 60-year-old, and then there’s this sort of like, but you’re telling me there’s a chance. And I’m like, this doctor’s literally just told you that your body is broken, irreparably broken. And he’s like, okay, but I can probably make that tryout in two months.

sar:

You laughing in the face of this young man’s optimism.

Jeff:

It was so straight faced and so silly that they have this super serious, we’re going to give ’em this terrible medical. And I’m like, okay, but you couldn’t even make it six months after the surgery. You had to make this two months. I had a bad ankle sprain and that sucker was at least a month and a half of recovery. And that wasn’t even surgical. That was literally the amount of damage that they described. And then they’re like, oh yeah, you’ll be ready to play in two months. I was like, objectively, that’s hilarious. I’m in the power of prayer baby, but otherwise boring, not funny, even when it thought it was being funny. So I gave it a two. Okay, last but certainly not least, my favorite question, if that last one is Sarah’s worst, this one’s my favorite. On a scale of one to five, with five being the most, how many broken leg steps has this film put back? Disabled people?

Derek:

I would say five. If you approach, I have two answers. If you approach this film as a film about disability, it’s a five. Absolutely. If you think that that’s going to be a centerpiece of this film, it’s a five, it’s a 10. But I think most people are not approaching this as such. And because it’s actually not part of the plot line, it’s not one of the fundamental things. Keeping this film together, it’s actually just a story about believing in Jesus and following capitalist rules. I would say a three or a four for most people that the underrepresentation of the issues is a big issue, but I think most people aren’t even going to associate this with disability whatsoever because it was so few scenes that actually showed anything.

Jeff:

So we’re going to call that a four. Is that a five? A three and a four. We’ll split

Derek:

The difference. Yeah. Sounds a four sounds. Yeah. The very empirical objective measurement here. Yes. We’ll do a four.

Jeff:

It’s scientific folks. Yeah,

Derek:

Scientific, of course.

sar:

Derek, is that your final answer?

Derek:

Final answer.

sar:

Gotcha. Okay. I think it puts us less overall steps back than quid pro crow. And I don’t think it deserves a one or two either, because as Derek so aptly put it, this film is in no way about disability. So if you read the back of the box and you think, oh, this is disability overcoming narrative. You’ve been bamboozled. Not it’s a shitty baseball movie that has very little baseball in it. It’s a coming of age. Bill D’s Roman from a bunch of preacher kids in sixties, Texas. So three.

Jeff:

Yeah. Yeah. Again, we’re pretty aligned. I waffled a little bit on this a little bit. I was also in the five range. At first I was like, God, I’m like, you probably shouldn’t tell people with debilitative disabilities to ignore science and ignore doctor’s advice.

sar:

Try harder,

Jeff:

Brother. If you just hit a few more dinners, you’re going to make it, brother. So I was there, but then I came to the same place that all of you did, which is that mercifully, I think this film largely left us out of the mix. That disability was such a small part of it. They were like, we’ll give you your Forest Gump moment where he is running in the straight leg brace and we’ll give you the for gum moment when he breaks the brace off and gets full body rotation. But after that, I mean, if we imagine the film started when he’s in high school, this actually feels more like the film about just a injury prone athlete, which it’s like, is that really a disability text or, I think that for most audiences, they would separate this out and they would see it more as just sort of an injury prone and not debilitating disability, which is separate from the reality of course, of Rickey Hill as we understand it. So I landed at three. I think three is probably where this fits. It’s not the, I mean, you can’t even compare this to Quick pro quo. I mean, come on. That’s not fair. It’s not fair to anybody.

sar:

Do you want to know, do you want a drum roll or do you just want to hear it straight up?

Jeff:

Yeah. Well, we never do drum roll. I mean, we’re very low budget here.

sar:

You need to be a drum roll. Last episode,

Jeff:

I called for it and then I did not do it.

sar:

I did all this math for you. I added these numbers under 10.

Jeff:

Would you say that you overcame your disability?

sar:

I did.

Jeff:

How much addition did you do in the creek when you were a

sar:

Child? There are probably people from primary school who would come on here and argue with you that I’m mildly dyscalculus.

Jeff:

It’s a reason I make you do it and not me. For the same reason.

sar:

God gave me a Windows machine and a said machine on the seventh day it Unoo gave me calculator. So I just run that through twice. So Calculator came up with a score of 46.5,

Jeff:

Just barely making the major leagues with a score of 46.5. I am proud to announce that Hill qualifies for the prestigious and sought after Jerry Lewis seal of approval, our worst score than you could receive, an invalid culture. Congratulations. The Hill. Wow, you’ve won your Oscar.

sar:

That’s close as they’re going to get.

Jeff:

Dennis is still waiting for the call. It’ll come in a day now.

sar:

Honestly, in his role of shitty fundamentalist preacher, he killed it. I don’t have many notes for him in terms of how he played that role. I have a lot of notes for how that role was written. I don’t have any notes for how Dennis Quaid played it.

Jeff:

If you’ve taken nothing from this episode, take Dennis Quaid. Consummate professional.

sar:

Yeah, phenomenal actor.

Jeff:

So this concludes another episode. We are at the end. Thank you so much for joining us, listeners. But more than that, thank you so much for subjecting yourself to this Derek.

Derek:

Oh, thank you very much for having me. This was a lot of fun.

Jeff:

Absolutely. And this means that we probably should do another sports movie next season. I don’t know. Is it time to do Soul Surfer?

sar:

Angels in the outfield?

Jeff:

Is there a disability in Angels in the outfield? I don’t know. Think viewers, listeners don’t think if there is a disabled character.

sar:

See, since I was a child, there’s about as much disability in Angels in the outfield as there is in the Hill. So if the Hill qualified, I feel like Angels in the outfield should qualify.

Jeff:

Fair enough. Okay. That actually maybe. Maybe that’s fair. Maybe. Alright, well fans, if you have a movie that you would like us to do a baseball, no, we’re not doing another baseball movie. No, no. If you have another sport movie that has a disabled character and you want us to do it, please. Well, okay. Sorry. Hold on. Boys and girls, I need to back up. I have been completely ignoring the fact that we started this podcast with a movie about soapbox derby. So we have done a sports movie on this podcast. I’m so sorry. But if you want to do more, give us another one and we’ll talk about it. So tune in again next month. We have a very special movie with a special guest. It’s going to be a ton of fun before we go on our summer hiatus. Take care. Be safe and do not watch this movie.

<Mvll Crimes theme song>

Jeff:

And this concludes another episode of Invalid Culture. Thank you for joining us. I hope you enjoyed it or not. Did you have a film you would like for us to cover on the pod? Or even better? Do you want to be a victim on Invalid culture? How to word to our website invalid culture.com and submit. We would love to hear from you. That’s it for this episode. Catch you next month and until then, stay invalid.

Cover of the film "My Christmas Guide" featuring characters Trevor, Payton and guidedog Max.

What if seeing puns became a movie?

Anyone can see it is Christmas-time, but will a blind man spot the benefits of using a guide dog? Do you need eyes to be a man and a professor? In our 2023 Christmas special, Jeff and sar peep the recently released Hallmark Channel made-for-television film My Christmas Guide. Join us in gazing into the Christmas vomit abyss that is this romantic (?) holiday thriller woke-a-thon.

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 – 2 / 5

sar – 1 / 5

Total – 3 / 10

How difficult was it to watch the movie?

sar – 4 / 5

Jeff – 5 / 5

Total – 9 / 10

How often were things unintentionally funny?

sar – 2.5 / 5

Jeff – 3 / 5

Total – 5.5 / 10

How far back has it put disabled people?

Jeff – 2.5 / 5

sar – 4 / 5

Total – 6.5 / 10

The Verdict

Regrets, I have a few…

Podcast Transcript

Jeff:

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 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. Now let’s dig in to the worst films you’ll wish you never knew existed.

Mvll Crimes [musical interlude]:

I’m arguing with strangers on the internet // not going out today because I’m feeling too upset // I’m arguing with strangers on the and I’m winning…and I’m winning!!

Jeff:

Welcome to a special bonus edition of Invalid Culture. As always, I am your host Jeff and I am joined today by past podcast and new co victim. Sarah, welcome.

sarah:

Hello. Thanks for having me.

Jeff:

Are you excited to be here again?

sarah:

Obviously I haven’t been here since the last Christmas special.

Jeff:

Yeah, we’ve been on a bit of a hiatus, but we thought it’s Christmas time, it’s time for family, and so it was time to bring you back for another moment of torture

sarah:

Time for more terrible Hallmark films vaguely about disability.

Jeff:

Absolutely. That’s the time of the year. It’s the reason for the season, I believe. So this year to ring in the festive season, we were given a present by the Hallmark Channel. Once again, a Hallmark has decided to dip their giant toes and walking sticks into the world of disability and media or film. This time with the 2023 November release of My Christmas Guide. Now from the Box, My Christmas Guide is allegedly a movie about “a college professor who connects with a guide dog trainer after losing his eye sight and a adopting a seeing eye dog.” That’s essentially the high level, but we’re going to dig a lot deeper into this movie. Before we do though, as I said, this is a Hallmark movie, made for TV, is released in November. It was written by Keith Hemstreet. Now he has a very interesting history. He has written a ton of movies in the last year that all appear to be romantic TV shows, things like a Royal Christmas Crush also came out this year and Love in Glacier National also cave out this year, so Keith Hemstreet just banging out the romantic TV movies. It was also directed by Max Mcguire. Max splits their time between Christmas movies, Christmas by Design, Record Breaking Christmas, The Most Colorful Time of Year and murder movies. Other movies he’s done: Abducted on Prom Night, The Good Wife’s Guide to Murder, the Ice Road Killer, et cetera.

sarah:

I want him to combine those two genres. I feel like he would be the guy to do it. I want the Ice Road Christmas killer.

Jeff:

Yeah, I love it. I love it. I thought that was phenomenal. What a career path. Great. Now, unlike most films that we do in this podcast, this film actually features an actually disabled actor playing their own character. Ben Mehl is playing the main character Trevor. Ben is disabled, is blind, and is best known probably for his role as a librarian in Netflix’s show You and he’s noted in an interview that quote, my role on you was my first role where I haven’t had to pretend to be able to see more than I actually can. He went on to talk about this movie in particular, stating that to be able to represent a character who has vision loss while personally having similar experiences attracted me to the role. He says that he hopes that he’s able to raise people’s understanding and awareness of the different experiences of disabled people and wants audiences to always be reminded to be aware of disability. So that’s a little bit about who we have in our main character. Trevor, does that help you understand the movie better at all, Sarah?

sarah:

No, but I really wish that he went for the seeing pun in that based on the script.

Jeff:

Yeah, not to always be aware, but to always see to

sarah:

See disability wherever we go.

Jeff:

Absolutely. Our romantic lead, a female lead is played by Amber Marshall, who is our guide dog trainer. She is from London’s own, I should have said London’s own Amber Marshall from London, Ontario, best known probably for her role as Amy in CBC’s Heartland. So we’ve got some real Canadian media legends

sarah:

Here. That’s something I’ve actually heard of. That’s pretty cool.

Jeff:

And then there’s a third character not in the Love triangle, but critical to the film, which is Trevor’s daughter.

sarah:

Oh, I thought you were going to say Chainsaw.

Jeff:

No. Chainsaw is the most important character to me.

sarah:

He was also surprisingly important to the Love Triangle, though. Don’t sleep on chainsaw.

Jeff:

Don’t sleep on chainsaw, but Chainsaw, unlike Ava Weiss who plays Annie, Chainsaw was not in the film Moonfall, which Ava Weiss was. She is in the terrible possibly amazing film Moonfall.

 

So just off the absolute top, Sarah, just really quickly, how did you feel about this movie?

sarah:

If you excuse all of the really poorly done references to the fact that they’re trying to do an inclusivity film, but through the lens of extreme exclusivity, they were obsessed in every scene with pointing out that the protagonist was blind. He is different guys. By the way, this is an inclusivity film. I was actually much more fascinated by the love triangle angle because I am convinced and we can argue about this, that the true victim of this film was Chad, the heavily gaslit boyfriend. I really feel like he lost a lot in this, and you’re supposed to just go with it because he is a nothing character and I disagree. I’m coming out in defensive Chad here. What did you think,

Jeff:

Jim? Chad? Yeah, I would say honestly, and I apologize to all the Hallmark fans out there, this was probably one of the most boring films I’ve watched for this podcast.

sarah:

It was hard. That was a tough one.

Jeff:

It was so slow and nothing happens. I think it’s the only redeeming quality, thank God. I don’t know if this is cinematographer decision or the director’s decision, but the number of Slowmo glamor shots of the Guide back of

sarah:

Max, yes, was the

Jeff:

Only thing that helped me get through this film.

sarah:

We were counting them at one point.

Jeff:

There were many. That was great. That was great. I have huge, huge love for that, huge love for chainsaw, and while those are our opinions and our sort of overarching views of the film, we are not the only ones who have opinions views about this film. There are of course critics that have written about this film that have analyzed it, have spoken about it, and let’s hear a little bit from them. And so our first critic that I wanted to talk about is Brett White. Now, Brett White wrote a very long thing about this film for Decider. It’s basically a blog that lets you help to understand if you want to watch a movie or not, which I think is actually a pretty clever, I pretty clever conceit. This is what Brett White had to say about his experience with the film. There’s a lot of patient character work that you only realize was character work, right? As the script is making big emotional moves, he goes on to say, interestingly, Trevor feels unlike any hallmark hunk we’ve ever had, primarily because he has a brainy profession and doesn’t exactly brood smolder or flirt with our leading lady. Trevor’s a different kind of leading man, and Ben is fantastic in the part

sarah:

I’m desperately trying not to ask for his background, but I’m thinking definitely Laurier and definitely film studies, and I can say that because I did Laureate film studies. I do like, what did I call her? I called her b-list Santa Stark, the protagonist love interest. She was probably the closest thing to actual talent in the film, but the rest, I don’t know, agree to disagree.

Jeff:

I particularly like this quote because it seems almost like Brett White is kind of calling Ben not attractive, is sort of like he’s

sarah:

Not my type.

Jeff:

He’s smart. He doesn’t brood or smolder or flirt.

sarah:

I needed a positive adjective and the one I went with was smart.

Jeff:

He’s a brainy professional,

sarah:

But even, okay, can we do quick rants?

Jeff:

Yeah,

sarah:

Even the scenes where they let him, okay, so context, they let him be some kind of amalgamation between sessional professor and full professor depending on what room he was standing in. That’s another thing. But if you take for granted that he is a legitimate English professor, every single time he does a scene where he’s supposed to be very bookish and knowledgeable about classical texts, he blows it. It sounds like he just read it the other day and he’s nervously commentating on it, and everyone around him immediately dismisses anything he says about literature to be like, no, your only legitimate character trait is that you’re blind. We don’t care about this book thing.

Jeff:

Yeah, I fully agree. I feel like the one thing I didn’t believe the most is that this man was a professor.

sarah:

Oh yeah. At all. He did no research for that role.

Jeff:

He had the satchel, he had the satchel bag…

sarah:

He did have the satchel, he did the, what’s it called, mock neck turtleneck. He did that a couple times and he attempted to speak in professional situations about literature, which I guess on its face I agree with, but I’ve heard sessionals do a better job than this. Maybe full professor.

Jeff:

Yeah, it sounded like chat GPT writing a professor character. Actually, I think that would probably be better, but yeah, so Brett White, he is a fan. He liked it. It’s a different kind of leading man. He’s not a hunk, he’s not brooding, he’s not smoldering. He doesn’t flirt, but he is fantastic. This was not the opinion however of CGVSLewis on IMDV who gave this a five out of 10 title in their user response quote, A guide dog finds a home for Christmas and a woman boots or obnoxious boyfriend. This is the title of the review.

sarah:

I already disagree, but continue. Yeah.

Jeff:

Okay, so I don’t know what CGVSLewis sounds like, but I assume it sounds a little bit like this: Also, as I keep mentioning, I like my entertainment as entertainment and not social justice causes. I work all day at a hospital as I have for 30 years, and I don’t want to come home turning on my entertainment to be the lecture. Granted, this was a soft lecture, but it still took several opportunities to hit us over the head with the challenges faced by those who are mobility impaired. Guess what? I see it every day at work. A big part of our job is education, and I would like to just be entertained when I come home tired and with sore feet. I did really appreciate the classic literature quotes. That was my favorite part.

sarah:

Where was the classic literature quote? Oh, in his lecture where he started reciting Chaucer from memory or something?

Jeff:

No, you were giving them way too much credit. He had a quote from To Kill a Mockingbird of one kine. He had a quote from Mark Twain and he had a quote from Ellison, which is probably the most not high school English class book, Invisible Man, that they referred to.

sarah:

Oh I’m hoping he was quoting American Psycho. That would’ve been great.

Jeff:

No,

sarah:

That would’ve been a nice Easter egg.

Jeff:

I love the fact that somebody went on a anti woke rant about a Hallmark movie, about a guide dog,

sarah:

The absolute wokeness of mobility impairment.

Jeff:

I also love that part of their job is education, but they don’t know that this would not be defined as a mobility impairment.

sarah:

Yeah, yeah. It checks out actually.

Jeff:

Okay, I’m sorry. I think we need to talk about this film. So let’s take a little wander through the story of my Christmas guide as best as I understand it.

So our movie begins with the introduction of Trevor, a Dickens-obsessed professor of “Classic Literature” in <insert random American town that is totally definitely not St. John’s NFLD>. Losing his vision and wife, no relation, several years ago has left him disoriented. After damaging his face walking into a non-OSHA compliant construction site, there are questions about if Trevor can continue working because there is apparently no way to make a 6-month long sidewalk construction project safe for blind people. One day, while picking up his dog-obsessed daughter from school, local guide dog trainer Payton is out for a stroll and observes Trevor aggressively serving Blind Man™. After staring silently at Trevor from across the street for an entire scene, Payton decides to intrude on this stranger’s life, demanding the school secretary give her dog guide service literature in a clear violation of school stranger danger rules. After some debate about whether or not a dog would make Trevor’s life easier or harder, he eventually relents and begins training to acquire extremely photogenic guide dog, Max. This training largely consists of being guided around town with Payton cosplaying as a harnessed dog and giggling maniacally. What are your thoughts on the beginning of the film, Sarah?

sarah:

That’s almost hard to characterize. I think for the first, at least half of its runtime, I was kind of confused as to what the movie was actually about because I think I was looking for, because when we watched Christmas Evil last year, there’s a fairly robust plot line. There’s this trauma circuit between the brothers and then there’s this B Ark where the brother tries to redeem himself by this Christmas party. There is virtually no blot in this film in comparison to last year’s film. So I kept waiting for the moment of intrigue, but I think upon reflection, the moment of intrigue was actually Peyton forcing herself into Trevor’s world via this kind of weird play at his daughter’s school to get him to adopt a dog because she’s the one who trains the dogs. But then I don’t even know why she knew what school to go to. It stands up until you start thinking about it and then you’re like, wait, that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Jeff:

Yeah, I think they were leaving the school. I think that’s how she knew that was the school that

sarah:

The daughter went to, and she just shows up with disability information. By the way, in case you’ve only been blind since yesterday, I actually train seeing eye dogs and you can have one. Yeah, I didn’t like it. I didn’t like the setup.

Jeff:

Would you say that Peyton is a crafty capitalist or is she a conniving capitalist?

sarah:

Peyton is garbage, so a capitalist in general from the Marxist,

Peyton definitely coming out in favor of getting more clients for her dog training school, but she’s also spending most of the movie gaslighting the shit out of her boyfriend to think that he’s a terrible boyfriend so that she can break up with him with zero regrets or remorse in order to be with this blind guy that she just met, who I guess she thinks is hot or has a charismatic personality or both of which he actually exhibits neither. So I’m not sure what she’s seeing, but she’s definitely seeing more than what she sees in Chad, and she spends so much of this film and you were with me and I was so mad just telling this guy over and over like, you are no good. I don’t like what you’re doing to me. While he’s trying to be the kind of prototypical supportive boyfriend, they even named him Chad. They did him dirty, but they didn’t even make his villain arc good.

Jeff:

So let’s talk about that. As our story continues to unfold, we discover that Peyton is in a strained relationship with her golf obsessed boyfriend, literally named Chad, who is leaving her for Christmas to go golfing in Florida with his friends and chainsaw. Yes, these are their names. I should clarify here. Chad does not look like the kind of person who would have friends named Thurp and Chainsaw. Chad very much looks like the type of person whose friends would be named like Huston and Beauregard perhaps

sarah:

And Derek.

Jeff:

Yeah, absolutely not. And trades up. No. So as Peyton and Trevor start to work together, sparks begin to fly that even a blind man could see that maybe there is something here. Trevor’s daughter, Annie is now starting to get bullied at school because her dad is blind, but through the miracle potential of Peyton becoming her new mommy, she almost completely ignores a bully. Instead of wandering down the school shooter pathway, Peyton and Trevor continue to get closer with Trevor showing Peyton around the only campus in America where Christmas is clearly winning the war on Christmas. Peyton eventually decides to do a totally normal professional relationship thing and introduces Trevor to her father at a Christmas charity event because Chad has bailed on this commitment in order to golf at the number one golf course in Florida.

sarah:

So one, I think we decided partway through the film that although it seems to be introduced from Peyton’s perspective that Peyton and Chad are in a fairly serious relationship, it starts to kind of erode by the two thirds mark, and it seems to me at least that they’re in a way more casual arrangement than Peyton seems to think from the interactions they’re having. But even then he’s doing stuff like calling her from Florida to check in and ask for permission to stay longer with his friends and stuff, which to me seems like solid boyfriend behavior and she gets off the phone rolling her eyes. I can’t believe he would ask for more time. I can’t believe he’s not coming home to me right away from this trip that has clearly been prearranged for months. I don’t know. I’m back on this.

Jeff:

Sure. I mean, I will say there was the swap out where he implied that he had this big surprise for her and then he brings her outside and the surprise is that he has bought himself golf clubs.

sarah:

Surprise baby. I’m leveling up my golf game.

Jeff:

So I, I think this is the tension that they’re trying to draw out and this is that he keeps on insinuating that something’s coming to her, but it never is. It’s never coming. But I think you’re right in that there does appear to be this clear disconnect between where Chad thinks the relationship is and where Peyton thinks it is, because Peyton thinks it’s like we’re married or we’re about to get married, and Chad is sort of like, I might see you next week maybe

sarah:

Pretty much. Peyton also seems to not respond at all to emotional dialogue cues, which he gives a ton of, and at least among my female friends, we talk a lot about how that’s maybe missing in some relationships. Chad’s got it in spades, even if they’re just casual. He’s got the full social worker routine about how validated does this make you feel, or I’d like to remind you that you’re special to me kind of thing. I don’t think a lot of people have that, and she’s just sitting in the car like, Ugh, insufferable. And I’m like, really? Is it insufferable though?

Jeff:

Meanwhile, we have some really scintillating, some scintillated romance sparking between Peyton and Trevor. I will give this movie credit. They did not do the typical trope of the blind man touching the woman’s face and saying, you are beautiful.

sarah:

I’ve felt sure I was waiting for that.

Jeff:

They did not do that. What they did do instead was have Trevor essentially say, you smell real pretty. There is a scene in which he essentially says, well, I can’t see you, but you smell pretty and then asks if he smells pretty.

sarah:

He actually kind of demands that he complimented.

Jeff:

And I’d like to know how many of your relationships Sarah have started with an exchange of smell description?

sarah:

You know what? I think many of my past relationships have actually started on the seeing description how drop dead gorgeous I am. That is a joke. So maybe the joke is because he can’t see, hey, he’s got to start with smell, but he has taken that way too seriously. It gets a bit weird.

Jeff:

And I also wonder, I mean that the implication is that she has a lovely perfume or something that she’s wearing. I would’ve given this way more credit if she had been eating smart food before they met and she smelled like smart food. That is an appealing smell. I would That’s true. If you smell I smelled like smart food, I might ask to be out on a date. That’s true.

sarah:

If you follow it up with offering that smart food to me, yeah, I’d go places with you no problem if

Jeff:

You’ll share the smart food.

sarah:

Exactly. That’s fair enough. I’m getting right in the car.

Jeff:

That’s actually the surprise maybe that Chad had for the end of the film of family sized bag of smart food, perhaps.

sarah:

Perhaps.

Jeff:

Perhaps. Yeah. So we move forward in our film. We’re finally at the end. Chad has now returned from his golf trip only to discover that his girlfriend is spending literally every moment of her life with this clumsy blind man that she had lured off the street confronting Trevor Chad assures Trevor that Peyton is just not that into him. This is just how she is with all the blind people, so he shouldn’t get the wrong idea. Trevor, of course, has a masculine identity crisis and after being forced to go on leave because the school cannot figure out how to make this construction site accessible despite Max clearly having a guide dog that can navigate it has to go on leave. This is the final straw for Trevor whose big sad boy energy results and giving up on everything going home to sulk and returns the dog that he has been living with for weeks.

This tension is almost immediately resolved when a recording of Chad and Trevor’s conversation is revealed to have been captured on the guide dog business security camp. So Peyton dumps Chad runs to Trevor’s arms and assures him that he is a real man and definitely like a professor, even though he is blind, Trevor’s child now, a young offender after assaulted her bully in the cafeteria with a cupcake, is excited for Christmas and spends the final scene watching her dad make it out with new mommy on Christmas Day, which I think makes this film a prequel to Christmas evil.

sarah:

That was a bit of a wild crossover right at the end.

Jeff:

I did not plan this to be essentially a two part that was beautiful. This is evil, but it worked out perfectly. So there’s two things I want to talk about in this part of the film. So thing number one that I want to address. What are your thoughts about the fact that the university forces Trevor to go on a two-term leave because they cannot make this construction site accessible?

sarah:

I actually thought that this is one of the more realistic moments of this otherwise relentlessly unrealistic film because if you do believe and it flip flops throughout the whole film, but if he is a sessional instructor, he would absolutely lose those terms if somebody else could make their lives easier and replace him. So that is completely believable. And in that instance, if he’s been working term to term as a sessional, he probably would have to return the guide dog. And this is an argument I made to you before because all the upkeep costs associated with the CNIB and dog raising and dog training and paying off the dog as well as just all the costs associated with keeping the dog alive, IE vet bills and food and whatever else, he probably legit can’t afford the dog if he loses his sessional contracts. So that was, I don’t think they meant for it in any way to be that realistic. I think it was just a convenient plot point. But from a labor studies perspective, that was probably the most interesting part of the film.

Jeff:

So I had a similar take, but maybe a little hotter than yours. I think on the one hand, I don’t think he’s a sessional because he does have an enormous office and it has a fireplace. It does. Which his office is actually bigger than his chair who is in a cubicle farm for some reason. He does. So he has an enormous office to himself that has multiple Christmas trees. His boss chair, I would assume maybe a dean is in UNC cubicle somewhere on campus. But on the one hand, it’s obviously completely absurd this notion that the solution to, I mean, there’s been a lot of construction in my life and I’ve never been told, well, you can’t come to work. We don’t know how to make it safe for you. There’s a absurdity to it, but at the same time there is this unintentional kind of nailed it where not even just universities, but I think a lot of organizations, it’s exactly the type of baffling response to inaccessibility that rings actually weirdly true.

sarah:

Right. I was going to challenge you on that. Do you really not believe no one responds

Jeff:

Exactly. No one responds to inaccessible situations in a rational way. The responses tend to be really irrational and bizarre, and so in that way, this is actually maybe a really accurate representation that maybe there is actually a bit of reality to be like, yeah, I actually could see an institution being like, well, I don’t know what to do, so we’ll just pay you to not be here.

sarah:

I thought it was totally realistic. Do you remember what happened a couple years ago at u Guelph where the elevator stopped working? So they emailed all the students in wheelchairs and they were like, yeah, take online classes. We’re not fixing the elevator quickly, don’t come. And all the students were like, that’s completely unreasonable. And they didn’t fix it until they got roasted in the news for it.

Jeff:

Yeah. And so think in that way, it seems absurd, but it actually is maybe not completely out of the world. I will say it does seem like an overreaction given the scale of the problem. All we’ve seen of this construction is it appears they’re replacing sidewalk like pieces. This is not a major construction project by any means, and it feels like just a little bit of fencing is all it would take to make this accessible. But I digress.

sarah:

I would also argue that you are at an institution that has a disability studies department, so perhaps it’s easier for me to believe as being from an institution that actively hates disability, that we would fire those people instead of accommodating for them because we would never get a department like disability studies.

Jeff:

So this is the other question I have because they are really, really vague on their wording on what happens here because the way it’s framed in the film is that he just won’t be teaching for the winter term and the summer term that he’ll be taking two terms off and that decision is made and then five students write a letter to the boss and the boss changes his mind.

sarah:

Yeah, I forgot about that.

Jeff:

And reinstates, and so it doesn’t sound like they were necessarily firing him. It’s like he was going on leave. That’s sort of how they kept framing it, is that he had

sarah:

…and the students have a little solidarity protest about it.

Jeff:

Five of them, yes. I just want to put out only five of his students were willing to write a letter to say, you shouldn’t ban him from campus. Correct. Which seems like a low number, a really low number

sarah:

For an English prof. I don’t know. That also kind of rings accurate to me.

Jeff:

Yeah, I mean when they did do this shots of the students, there did only appear to be eight students in his class. Exactly.

sarah:

So five out of eight is actually great.

Jeff:

I also though don’t imagine many universities would do anything if five students wrote them. I think there’s a lot of universities that wouldn’t respond to a hundred students writing to them necessarily. So yes, there was though obviously that scene also killed me because clearly they were trying to do this whole sort of dead poet society like, oh, captain, my captain kind of thing, where they have the students marching into the office, but they didn’t have the budget to hire a lot of people. And so they’re like, well, we’ll have three people and one of them will hand in multiple letters and that’ll be our big protest maneuver. Then all the viewers will get their uplifting, all the students care about him. I felt really underdeveloped, I would say.

sarah:

I think the whole film felt a little underdeveloped. So in that sense, I’m with you. Fair enough.

Jeff:

Fair enough. So I think what we’re moving toward then is there are some tropes here in this film, some pretty well worn others, maybe not quite, but I thought we should probably talk a little bit about some of these tropes. So the first trope that I wanted to talk about is the requisite scene at the beginning of the film in which Trevor has to explain his disability because you Yeah, you

sarah:

Got to wonder why they went for the medicalization angle for something like blindness, because I think it’s fairly culturally accepted that there are some people who can’t see, and that’s kind of all the explanation you need.

Jeff:

They don’t into a surprising amount of detail.

sarah:

I want to see retina scans. I want to see exactly how much Trevor can’t see.

Jeff:

Give me the exact, why don’t you give us the camera view to show us stats, what he’s not able to see. Yeah. This felt weird and it felt weird in particular because of how much time the movie spends reminding us and showing us. If you cannot see

sarah:

From, he wears these ridiculous glasses just as a visual of, remember Trevor is blind,

Jeff:

Giant blackout, wraparound glasses, awful. Got the walking stick, always rocking the eye dog. Eventually he is surrounded by icons of blindness, and yet there needed to be this moment where he sits down for a very serious conversation to tell Peyton all about his medical history.

sarah:

Yeah, Peyton, somebody he literally just met.

Jeff:

Yes, but she smells good. So she does. She’ll understand

sarah:

Marker of trust.

Jeff:

Yes, yes. I’ve always wondered what would happen in my life if every time I met someone, 10, 15 minutes into the conversation, I started reading them out my medical chart and was like, alright before. And they’re like, this is a Starbucks, just make your order, please. And I’m like, no, you need to know about my formal muscular dystrophy.

sarah:

Pardon? It is

Jeff:

The big one.

sarah:

Exactly. The big one. We’re bringing that back.

Jeff:

Yeah. So I wonder, I feel like people would just tolerate it, but I don’t think it would make friends.

sarah:

No, I think people would uncomfortably wait for you to come to a complete stop and then they’d take a right hand turn.

Jeff:

They would no doubt of the relationship probably pretty quickly.

sarah:

Pretty quickly.

Jeff:

What I would love to see from a Hallmark movie is for them to just apply this as a standard for all characters, whether or not they actually have. So it’s like every character is introduced and then they’re like, you just need to know that I actually have dandruff and have my entire life, and I fought it and I was bullied for it. And it’s a thing that my scalp is so dry, medically dry,

sarah:

I’m the love interest and I have adult onset asthma and I’m going to relay for you the factors which make my life more difficult.

Jeff:

Yeah. I’m not really good at sleeping. My security rhythms are really off. Correct. And so I’m actually often really tired. And it’s a medical condition though.

sarah:

Correct. And the blind guys, are you trying to do an oppression Olympics here? I don’t give a shit.

Jeff:

You can take your C Pap machine and stuff it

sarah:

Chill out, buddy. At least you can see it.

Jeff:

Right. So that actually is a great segue to the second trope that I wanted to talk about. This movie spends a lot of time making puns around the word seeing exhausting and sight constantly. Everyone can see, obviously you can see if only they could see why was this intentional or was this Freudian?

sarah:

It had to have been because sometimes you can almost see the actors looking off screen or looking toward camera one or two. Did you get that?

Jeff:

I really wondered how in it, there were so many of them that at times I feel like this was just how the people wrote the script. This is just how they talk with this sort of idea of site being equivalent to knowledge that you must seem to understand. But then there were other times where they very clearly were leaning into it and trying to make this pun. Yes, but it was overwhelming at times. Yes.

sarah:

The equivocation of blindness and ignorance made this film really uninclusive for me. Not only because of how hard they went on it, but also how hard they went on his visual as his defining character trait is that he is blind. And if you know anything else about him, that’s just a bonus, which feels to me extremely uninclusive for an inclusivity film about, look at Trevor, he’s just like us. He has romance problems like us. He has to walk around traffic and construction like us. It just all rang really hollow when you add in all of those, I don’t know Tropey signals about, but remember he’s blind.

Jeff:

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I don’t fully understand why they felt they had to keep reminding us. And it may be because this is a made for TV movie. It’s clearly designed to sit within commercial breaks. So people are kind of coming in and coming out at any moment. And I’ll say, and I don’t know if this is a, I compliment to the film, but you could pretty much start watching this movie at any point in the movie and you would have all the information you need to understand what’s about to happen.

sarah:

It’s like friends, it doesn’t matter where you start.

Jeff:

No. You just jump in wherever and you’re like, okay, well this guy’s clearly blind there. People are mentioning it, obviously they clearly have something going on. Oh, her boyfriend’s name, Chad. So he must be bad. Yeah. Okay. So I think that there may be that element here happening where the form is requiring it, but I think that’s a very generous assumption and I don’t think that that’s probably what’s going on.

sarah:

I think that speaks more to how little plot there was. It was bizarrely simplistic even for a Hallmark film.

Jeff:

Yeah. Well, I think it’s important to remember the writer and the director of this film made by 18 movies this year. So I assume they probably wrote the thing in four days, maybe

sarah:

Four hours,

Jeff:

Maybe.

sarah:

Maybe filmed in four days across Cobourg all the way to St. John’s.

Jeff:

Yeah, yeah,

sarah:

Yeah.

Jeff:

The other trope that I noticed that really stood out to me in this film was the bully. So Trevor’s daughter, Annie is being tormented a boy at school who is constantly doing a pantomime of her father. So he is constantly walking around with his eyes closed, being like, I’m blind, look at me and walking into stuff or touching stuff, and Annie’s getting angrier and angrier. Eventually Annie will decide to smash a cupcake in his face. Annie is then suspended, expelled, punished for suspended, suspended for violence on school campus. Again, I think accurate and brave of Hallmark to stand up on the anti-retaliation things that happened in school. And then eventually she will save the bully because as we learned in Star Wars, there’s always a bigger fish and there’s an even bigger bully who is picking on her bully. But this bully wets the bed, I don’t know how Andy knows this, but this boy who clearly experienced trauma as a child and is now bedwetting as an older child, gets called out embarrassed. He runs off and the blind bully is now your dad’s pretty cool actually, and everything’s resolved. Sarah, why do you think whenever we have a disabled character, there is always a need for a bully to be harassing this person or their family?

sarah:

Okay, so I’ve only been thinking about this for 10 seconds, but this is my conspiracy theory for why there is a hyped up bully character. I think, and this doesn’t work if you do it with Christmas Eve, but I think it’s the exception that proves the rule. I think a lot of these movies, especially as they get worse, like Harley Quinn or Beautiful Mind or Silver Linings Playbook, they put in these really simplistic bully characters to stand in for years and years or maybe even decades of accumulated kind of ableist trauma stems or all of these side comments that people made over the years that you could kind of take generously or maybe they didn’t mean it like that kind of thing. And over time, that starts to become its own kind of subra within you as to how people are being seen you. So if you take that as, or the bully as a stand-in for all of those collective years of trauma that you accumulate from these little microaggressions or maybe major aggressions both, it is a really silly way of representing all of that in one shitty character that takes up way less script time, way less film time to get the same kind of trauma across.

But if you don’t understand how all of those microaggressions can pile up into one big bully, I think that nuance is lost on you. And I think in this case, I don’t know if I would give the hallmark screenwriter credit for that’s what he was doing, but I think it could have been, I think I might come out for an at bat for him trying to represent trauma in a quick and dirty fashion.

Jeff:

Yeah. I struggle with this a lot because to have no bullies would be to imply that there isn’t, that people are all treated great all the time and that we never bring up disability, which is not obviously accurate to say when people get bullied just like anybody else, obviously.

sarah:

Absolutely.

Jeff:

So I don’t think it’s an answer of we should never do this, but I also though struggle with it often feels like there’s this quiet appeal in these characters that the viewer is to learn this lesson, to learn the lesson, to number one, to not be that person. So don’t be the bully, which is probably a good lesson. But then I worry that even more so there’s this story being told around the need to defend disabled people, that the world is hostile toward them and that your job as a strong able-bodied person is to stand up for the weaker in able disabled character who’s going to fall prey to this. Correct.

sarah:

And cannot, cannot possibly defend themselves.

Jeff:

Yeah. Trevor never,

sarah:

Even in the film, Trevor didn’t defend himself. It was his daughter that came out of defense of him, which I think he may have been, that would’ve been an honor fight at that point. But I think even more so there’s a kind of irony to that argument because the film itself, as in the screenplay, spends a ton of time bullying Trevor through all the seeing tons and how he’s walking down the street and he always looks a bit doe-ish and the constant visual similes for blindness and ignorance. The film itself is bullying him in the absolute, and we’re supposed to look at that bully and be like, and that’s why we can never be ableist and it doesn’t work. It rings hollow because the writers themselves are clearly wildly ableist about how blindness operates in society.

Jeff:

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And it’s also that same, how many times have we seen the story that the way to fix a bully is to help a bully? And I’ve always found this really complexing to me. If I think back to my time in elementary school, I genuinely do not think that if I had helped the people that were bullying me, I do not think they would’ve stopped bullying me because that’s not how bullying works. It’s not like a social credit system where, well, I will pay you $10 and now you’ll stop bullying me. It doesn’t work like that because at the root of it, there’s a power thing going on here, but there’s also a whole internal thing going on here with the individual. And so then what I’m watching this scene, and he, number one, she basically PTSD shames this boy who’s wetted his bed even though he’s much too old to wet his bed, which is pretty obviously, I would say aside that he probably has experienced in things in his life. So she bullies an older guy, and I wonder the type of dude who’s going to pantomime blindness to mock a girl whose father is blind. I don’t think that he is going to react with thanks to her intervention. I feel like

sarah:

I learned my lesson. Yeah.

Jeff:

I feel like he’s going to be, the worst thing that could happen to him is that he’s being saved by the person that he is ridiculing constantly. I don’t think that’s how you overturn that power dynamic. So it seems like such a weird liberal dream that, well, if we just help each other, we can all build forms of community and that’s the high road. Which isn’t to say that you should also slam cupcakes in people’s faces either. I also don’t think that that’s how you resolve bullying, but

sarah:

I feel like we can almost picture the writer’s room conversation, and I think you hit the nail on the head with calling it liberal fantasy writing where they’re in the room and they go, okay, how do we humanize this bully to show that problems are relative and everybody has their own shit they’re going through and somebody calls out, what if we give him some very obvious trauma symptoms like late stage bedwetting. So now you’re introducing this whole subplot that you can choose to take interest in who is abusing this 12 or 15-year-old boy and why isn’t anyone reporting this? So instead you just get the daughter like, Hey man, that’s really not cool, and I’m going to mock your trauma coping systems because you make really shitty blind jokes in the lunchroom, and if you take it at face value, sure. You get the relativism argument of even people who are mean have their own shit going on.

And it’s possible that everybody is suffering in many of the same ways you are, even if you’re not visibly disabled. But now you’re introducing kind of layers of trauma and deity or long-term illness through this bully character that the movie doesn’t have a hope of framing correctly. They can’t even frame simpler disorders correctly. So this bully character becomes really problematic in a film theory sense because you don’t get his story rectified. Nobody attempts to actually help him because they’ve already deemed him an antagonist character and we get no resolution as to what happens to him. So it’s disappointing.

Jeff:

We’re almost supposed to laugh at the big bully who pees the bed, who also I guess could be defined as disabled, like leafy body disabled anyways by unable to control bodily function. So it’s like, ha, that guy suffered a trauma. Let’s laugh and mock him. But also we are not to be mocking the blind character that is off limits.

sarah:

Correct.

Jeff:

Yeah. Now we’re such an interesting example, unintentionally I think of the way that disabled population, the disabled community is segmented off from itself. And so you have people talking about, well, we need to do better by blind people in this movie. And then they’re like, but also we’re going to just throw under the bus this other type of disability that somebody’s experiencing.

sarah:

Well, it kind of reflects the ongoing conversation even within CDS of disclosed and undisclosed disabilities because disclosed are the ones, if I’m being incredibly reductive, getting all the love right now, everybody wants to include the disclosed disabilities, the more obvious ones, the ones where there’s no moral argument that they did it to themselves or et cetera. Not as willing to include people with terminal illness, mental illness, kind of long-term, undisclosed disabilities or disabilities, we can’t quite as readily understand as blindness. And that can maybe be typified through the bully character who has some obvious traumas and isn’t accepted the same way as the guy with the easily recognizable, easy to diagnose relatively unthreatening disclosed disability.

Jeff:

Yeah, definitely. Now the last trope that I want to talk about comes to us toward the end of the film. So this is after sort of the major breakdown. Trevor is having this masculine identity crisis. He doesn’t think he’s a real man, he doesn’t think he’s a real professor. And we get this very bizarro scene in which Trevor goes and stands behind the lectern and asks Peyton if he looks like a professor. And he discloses that ever since he became blind, he does not think that people will see him as a professor anymore. Again, seeing him as a professor and that he will not look like a professor. Unfortunately, he does have an app that will tell him the color of his suit, but the app, if he puts it on himself,

Will not say professor, unfortunately. And this also ultimately culminates at the end of the film in which Peyton goes and gives an impassioned speech, which convinces Trevor that despite his disability, he is a real man and he is a real professor, and this is sort of what he overcomes his insecurities and will take back his job and will create presumably a mass murderer in his daughter as he starts to make out with Peyton in front of her. So we have this trope often in film in which it is the role of the non-disabled character to come in and to convince the disabled character that they’re not that disabled after all. That may be the only disability and life as a bad attitude. And this movie leaned into it heavily.

sarah:

So I have continuing my completely unrealistic film analysis of this piece of shit film. I think there’s a really interesting connection here, and you can take it in multiple directions, especially if you’re a better scholar than me between, and I’m doing this on the spot, so correct me if I’m wrong, masculine hyper ability. So him at the lectern being this amazing prodigal totally deserving professor character who can do no wrong, all the tropes that we established with cis white male academics who historically have been put up on these Greek like pedestals with the rampant academic notion that we just cannot seem to erase. And it actually goes back to what we were saying about the film bullying him itself, all of that, his narrative of masculine hyper ability and how he doesn’t believe that he could do that. Well, blind relies on the audience presumption that you thought until this moment that blindness equals ignorance.

Like you entered the film this way and nothing we have done so far persuades you otherwise. So then the end of the film when what’s her face, Peyton is correcting him. Like, no, I think that more people than just cis white males could succeed in the academy. And it’s possible that academics don’t just look like that he does really even seem to believe it. Then it’s a really stilted kind of, oh, well, maybe agreement that speaks more to the masculine ability narrative continuing to ring true, and he can be able, despite his disability. And the word despite is coming from this ignorance narrative that you assume everyone in the room has, which anyone in Disability Gang would be immediately offended by. Why are you taking it as a given that that’s what I think that’s my five seconds of film theory about the end of that film.

Jeff:

No. So you’ve totally tapped into something that I really have wanted to talk about with this film. Yeah. Because to add another log onto the Beautiful fire, or maybe it’s a fire that you’ve built here. Excellent. Is that the movie also? It absolutely draws your eyes to the fact that his blindness is a recent development. The implication being he was not blind when he became this hyper-masculine failure of strength and knowledge that the blindness came after, and that it is now a threat to

His current standing, despite the fact that we do get a scene of him listening to, I believe it was a Christmas Carol and might’ve been, or was it one of Dick Dick’s novel? He’s listening to an audio book of a Dickens novel while he’s holding the book, and they ask him, why are you holding the book? You’re listening to it. And he is like, oh, how it feels. Okay, chill out, bro. Anyways, oh, and so anyway, it’s interesting that the movie is both trying to say, of course you’re still a professor even though you’re blind. But the movie itself had to backfill this story and say, oh, but he was a prophet before he became blind. So he did it before disability hit.

sarah:

Yeah. So you’re saying it kind of negates the narrative that he could have even become a professor if he wasn’t blind or if he was blind, he wouldn’t have made it.

Jeff:

Who knows? Maybe it’s like, did they need to put that in there because they felt that the audience wouldn’t believe it, that a blind man could be this professor? So they had to add that in, and I don’t know which is worse. Did they need it to be this lost narrative? He lost his wife, he lost his sight. They were allegedly not connected, but that he’s experienced these tremendous losses that Peyton and to a lesser extent, max, the dog will now fill that there’s this void that needs to be filled. And one of those voids is his relationship with his daughter, which is strange since the end of the marriage. And the other void is his masculinity. He’s lost his masculinity because he lost his wife and he lost his sight. He’s been castrated and that only a woman being reeded to his life. Can he regain that? And once he’s regained it, what does he get back his job? He’s now allowed to be a pro again because the students and the girl have come together, and now he’s a whole man again, even though he’s still has flaws,

sarah:

Count on Jeff to do a psychoanalytic reading of literally any film he has given.

Jeff:

I’m just saying maybe the walking stick is a penis.

sarah:

Do you thank Deleuze and Guattari directly for that, or does that go in the work cited?

Jeff:

I think that was a Lacan. I think that was more of a Lacanian take.

sarah:

Yeah, I think that’s sort of a Lacan. Well shut out, Jacques Lacan.

Jeff:

I think that Lahan hated this film because,

sarah:

Well, according to your reading, he would’ve loved it.

Jeff:

I’m not saying he wouldn’t have been titillated by it. Oh yeah. I just don’t think he would’ve liked it.

sarah:

Jacques Lacan on masculine hyper ability seen through the body.

Jeff:

Yes,

Mvll Crimes:

Exactly.

Jeff:

So as always, invalid culture is of course a completely rigorous and scientific endeavor, and we have developed a completely scientific way of measuring the quality of films. It is of course our invalid culture rating scale.

sarah:

Correct.

Jeff:

We are going to go through our questions here and see where this film lands on the invalid culture scale. As always, we are playing by golf rules, which means the lower the score the better. So let’s get this started. On a scale of one to five, with five being the least, how accurate does this film portray disability?

sarah:

Are we talking about just whether or not the protagonist was accurately blind one? Yeah.

Jeff:

Did it do a good job of presenting blindness or was it way out in the stratosphere about what blindness is?

sarah:

Well, I think you said the actor was actually blind. Right. So what…

Jeff:

Actor was, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they did a good job of it.

sarah:

No, I think the film was actively mocking him, but in terms of the portrayal of the protagonist being blind, I have to give that a one.

Jeff:

Yeah. I am going to give this a 2.5 is my view on it. I understand that he was fairly new to his blindness, but it also just felt really odd to me that he didn’t seem to understand how to be blind, nor was he actually actively trying to find ways to be blind. I found it odd that all of the solutions to his problems were externally generated, but also he was never animating the finding of solutions. He was always just kind of standing there being like, wow, I’m just going to have to keep running into posts. The beginning of the movie starts with him giving this sort of human rights rant about the legal code against the construction site and being like, there’s not obstructional ball. And you’re like, oh, okay. He’s like an advocate, but then routinely throughout the movie, he just gets completely blown over by everybody and everything, and so I’m like, I don’t know. Yeah, he’s new to it, but that felt a little bit, yeah. So I’m going to revise it. I’m going to give it a two, two out of five.

sarah:

Yeah, I feel you. I think that’s a good consideration to keep in mind.

Jeff:

On a scale of one to five, with five being the hardest, how hard was it to get through this film?

sarah:

Oh, wow. Four. The pacing kills this. This could have been a short film, like 25, 30 minutes, and you would’ve lost nothing.

Jeff:

Yeah, I gave this a five. I feel like this was one of the harder ones to get through. It had both so much and so little like all at once. There were lots of little side plots, the bully side plot, the construction side plot, that learning how to train a guide dog side plot, whether or not he would have a dog. His divorce, the Chad side plot, there was so much going on, but yet it also felt like nothing happened in this film. And that’s, I think never a good sign.

sarah:

What if it was the Banality of Day-to-Day life and how we choose to invest or divest in different parts of ourselves, and he went full hundred percent investment in Peyton and Blindness at the expense of literally everything.

Jeff:

His job. That’s actually why they let him go. Had nothing to do with the construction. They were just like, he is obsessed with his dog trainer. We think there’s a lawsuit coming. We have to get this guy off campus.

sarah:

You haven’t been to work in a week. That’s why we’re letting you go. It’s not the blind thing, and he walks away. It was definitely the blind thing.

Jeff:

Definitely the blind thing. 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?

sarah:

Not as much as Christmas Evil, unfortunately. I would say 2.5. There were some funny moments, but a lot of it was just so dull.

Jeff:

Yeah, I would say I gave this a three. There were a few times where I was chuckling. I mean, I was laughing a lot at just the sheer volume of Christmas. I understand that this is Hallmark, and this is their method. Every scene will be the vomit of Christmas. But there is something legitimately hilarious about seeing a professor’s office in a university in America that is covered in Christmas. Trees is funny. That is funny. And also the dean or chair had literal wrapped gifts on his table. Love that. Literally, what a flex. Bring

sarah:

Back the spirit of Christmas.

Jeff:

Yeah, love it. So I leave it a three, but I agree with you largely this was not as entertaining as I would’ve enjoyed.

sarah:

Amen.

Jeff:

So then last but certainly not least, on a scale of one to five, with five being the most, how many steps back has this film put Disabled people?

sarah:

I think in terms of disclosed disability or disabilities that you can see and readily apprehend and interact with and are fairly obvious to the casual viewer, it does a pretty okay job with OSHA violations and some standard troubles that come with heart of sight. I think in retrospect, only because of the conversation we had today, this film really does undisclosed disability dirty. So for every point that I can award it for being super woke to an extent about some of the hardships of blindness, it felt like it was being reported to me by a 12-year-old girl who had recently read the A ODA, which I’m not saying there’s a problem with, but if the screenplay writer is above the age of 12 years old, I am expecting a little bit more depth. Right. You said golf score.

Jeff:

Yeah. High is bad. One is good. That’s a lot of steps back.

sarah:

That’s a lot. That’s quite a few steps back.

Jeff:

Quite a few steps back. I was more generous on this film. I gave it a two in the sense that I think, as you said, I don’t think they did a ton of harm per se. There was nothing that really sort of stood out. I do take rock off, I think for this repetitive masculine disability wrap up, this insistence that if you’re male and disabled, that you inevitably are going to have these weird hangups about your power proficiency, sexuality, whatever. But I also don’t think that that’s the most egregious of sins, so I’m going to give it a 2.5.

sarah:

It felt kind of tokenism plus not just blindness, but male blindness and what your hangups are going to be as a result.

Jeff:

Yes. Okay, so tabulated our scores together

sarah:

With

Jeff:

The score of 24. My Christmas guide are: Regrets, I have a few.

sarah:

That’s like the second tier, right? That’s not bad.

Jeff:

That’s pretty good.

sarah:

You know what? Not bad.

Jeff:

It didn’t blow it Hallmark. Congratulations.

sarah:

Not on this one. Anyway,

Jeff:

It’s not art. And perhaps because it was so shallow it couldn’t do more harm.

sarah:

That’s true. Yeah. If the dialogue had a little more depth to it, it might’ve actually done more overall damage.

Jeff:

And this concludes another episode of Invalid Culture. Thank you for joining us. I hope you enjoyed it or not. Do you have a film you would like for us to cover on the pod, or even better? Do you want to be a victim on invalid culture? Head to word to our website, invalid culture.com and submit. We would love to hear from you. That’s it for this episode. Catch you next month and until then, stay invalid.

Mvll Crimes [musical interlude]:

I’m arguing with strangers on the Internet // Everyone is wrong. I just haven’t told them yet.

 

Cover of Monkey Shines dvd, featuring an angry toy monkey with bloody knife in its hands.

IC returns with a spooky entry just in time for Halloween!

After a (brief?) hiatus, Invalid Culture returns with season 2 getting started with George Romero’s cult classic Monkey Shines. Focused on the exploits Allan Mann and his helper monkey, Ella, things get a little gruesome when the help that’s need is muuuuurder. Join Jeff, Erika and guest host Clara as we dig into the blood and guts!

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 – 2 / 5

Erika – 2 / 5

Clara – 3 / 5

Total – 7 / 15

How difficult was it to watch the movie?

Erika – 2 / 5

Jeff – 2 / 5

Clara – 1 / 5

Total – 5 / 15

How often were things unintentionally funny?

Erika – 1.5 / 5

Jeff – 1 / 5

Clara – 1.5 / 5

Total – 4 / 15

How far back has it put disabled people?

Jeff – 3 / 5

Erika – 2.5 / 5

Clara – 2 / 5

Total – 7.5 / 15

The Verdict

Regrets, I have a few…

Podcast Transcript

Host 1, Jeff:
Just when you thought it was over, we’ll come back with a whole new season of Invalid Culture. That’s right. Welcome back. It is time for us to watch some terrible movies, but this season, we got a whole new game plan. We are not just going to be watching the movies on our own. We are also going to be subjecting some of our friends, some of our enemies to the terrible, terrible films. So, welcome back to another season of Invalid Culture with a very spooky episode to get us started. Oh, hey, new season, new theme song. Shout out to Mvll Crimes. Thank you so much for letting us use this banner. Take it away in mvll crimes!
[Intro song: “Arguing with Strangers” by Mvll Crimes, a heavy punk song with Joan Jett-esque singer, quick beat and shredding guitar rifts.]
We’ll come back with a whole new season of Invalid Culture. That’s right. Welcome back. It is time for us to watch some terrible movies, but this season, we got a whole new game plan. Welcome to Invalid Culture, a podcast dedicated to excavating the strangest, most baffling, and worst representations of disability in pop 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 really quite broke through, because well, they’re just awful. I’m your host, Jeff Preston.
Host 2, Erika:
Hi, I’m your other host, Erika Katzman. Today, we are delighted to welcome a guest host, Clara Madrenas.
Host 3, Clara:
Hi, I’m Clara, also known as wife of Jeff. I am a social worker in the mental health field, and I really liked Monkey Shines.
Host 2, Erika:
Ooh, coming in strong.
Host 3, Clara:
Oh, yeah.
Host 1, Jeff:
Okay. Okay. I mean the idea of this project was the torture those that are in our lives. So, it only felt fitting that we should have my partner on here. As Clara alluded to, we watched this fun little movie called Monkey Shines. For those of you who have not seen the movie, Erika, can you maybe give us a rundown of what is happening in his film?
Host 2, Erika:
I would love to. So, our protagonist, Allan Mann, is this totally regular fitness obsessed man of action. He’s out for a leisurely jog as he does with a bag of bricks on his back. Suddenly, he’s hit by a car and loses everything, both his physical ability and his girlfriend who leaves him for his doctor. Distraught, now a prisoner, I am indeed quoting promotional materials for this film when I describe him as a prisoner of his wheelchair, Allan contemplates ending his life. But luckily, a family friend and pre-ethics committee researcher, Jeffrey Fisher, has been injecting test monkeys with shredded human brains. But internal faculty competition and failing experiments means Jeff must find a new home for prize mutant monkey and what better place than home care.
Now, a trained helper monkey, Ella moves in with Allan to care for his needs, but they begin to form a telepathic connection. Ella starts to carry out violent attacks on people who have wronged Allan and becoming jealous of the human women in his life begins attacking everyone. In the end, Allan must kill Ella before she can kill again, which he does by biting her on the scruff of the neck, whipping her head back and forth for approximately 30 minutes. So, that about sums it up. What did you guys think of this film?
Host 3, Clara:
I thought it was delightful. I thought the monkey was adorable. I thought that scene where he bites the monkey and shakes it to death and it just splats roadkill in his little house, that was just wonderful. What else? The weird scenes where he’s biting blood out of his own lip and the monkey makes out with him, that was just so weird and so entertaining.
Host 1, Jeff:
Brave that they went straight to bestiality an hour into this film.
Host 3, Clara:
Did they though or was it some vampire thing heralding to Romero’s… I don’t know.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, precious bodily fluids, I think, for sure.
Host 3, Clara:
Yeah, they needed to share the bodily fluids in order to have the telepathic connection, obviously.
Host 2, Erika:
Well, that’s how telepathy works.
Host 3, Clara:
Whenever I need to feel more connected to someone, I just sip their blood.
Host 2, Erika:
Jeff, can you confirm?
Host 1, Jeff:
Duly noted. I’ve wondered why I was always feeling so faint. Suddenly, it makes so much sense. Yeah. What did you think there, Erika?
Host 2, Erika:
I did not hate this film. Given your mission to torture people with terrible film, I have to say, I think that you went a little bit easy on your wife because this was not a torturous experience for me. I’ve poked around the interwebs enough to know that some people were not terribly fond of this film, but maybe it’s having the reference package that we have. Taking the films that we’ve previously reviewed as a reference point, this was not bad. We’ll take a look at some problematic tropes, but I think all in all, I think this is going to measure up pretty decently against some of our others.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, I think that’s a pretty fair assessment. I think it’s funny that a lot of people refer to this as B-list horror film as being schlocky and weird. Anyone who’s been following the podcast will know that this is probably the biggest production film we have done on the podcast. There’s probably more time and money and still put into this. It’s not a bad film, but I will say I feel like it’s almost like there’s two very different films in this. There’s the film that starts for the first 18 minutes or so that is just beating you over the head with disability tropes and then there’s this whole other thing that is actually borderline resistant to general ideas and thoughts about disability.
It’s almost like there’s two movies that jammed together where you’ve got these two really blah things at the beginning and the end and then this weird, interested grove in the middle that I think perhaps people missed, because they were so frazzled by the first 10 or 15 minutes. They’re like, “Oh, here we go again. Yet another movie like this.” And then it turned to be something else.
Host 3, Clara:
Yeah, it’s almost got that rear window disability used as just a convenient way to get him to not be able to move in certain ways. And then because they started from that point, they folded in a bunch of things that weren’t actually super disability related, but in doing so, they created a character that had some, dare I say, depth. He was lonely. He wanted to connect with that monkey.
Host 1, Jeff:
Just wanted to find someone that would love him.
Host 3, Clara:
I wanted to connect with that monkey. Such a cutie.
Host 1, Jeff:
Unlike his wife, right?
Host 3, Clara:
Yeah. I don’t know. She was rude.
Host 1, Jeff:
Now, of course, we have our opinions about the movie and we’re going to talk more about it, but we always like to begin with the thoughts of other people. So, we went through our trolling of user-generated comments and it pulled out a couple that were interesting that I think maybe touch on things that I hadn’t maybe saw or thought about in the film. Okay. So, let’s hear what actual film people, and by that, I mean random people on the internet had to say about this film.
Host 2, Erika:
So starting us off, we have a four-star review from Sean Lehman who says, “Jason Beghe stuck in a wheelchair all movie does a pretty good job of projecting vulnerability and anger as I would imagine anyone in his situation would feel. Jeffrey Fisher as Allan’s scientist friend is a well-meaning character who initially can’t believe what Allan tells him until it’s too late. Even Boo the Monkey is a cute little character whose misguided love lands her in a lot of trouble. Dramatic horror movies bring a different sense of tone that doesn’t always jive with the normal horror fan. For a film of this type, it relies on solid acting performances and we get just that.”
Host 3, Clara:
The focus on the performance is interesting. I mean, other than the fact that Stanley Tucci has both no range and yet quite the range, I didn’t really notice anything about the performances themselves, but this guy, he really dialed into the feeling in this movie.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, I would say this is actually one of the more professional, thoughtful sounding reviews that we have ever looked at. This borderline professional, I would say.
Host 3, Clara:
Yeah, there’s a sensitivity there too.
Host 1, Jeff:
I wonder though, there seems to be some massive generalizations in this that really crack me up. So, for instance, the fact that the vulnerability and anger, that is just what anyone would feel in this situation. He wants people dead. People are killed because of his rage, which I find it interesting. Well, yeah, he is stuck in a wheelchair. Of course, he would want all these people to die.
Host 3, Clara:
I think though there was a depth there where he didn’t really want them to die. He was a little sad when they did.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, he was trying to stop it. He was trying to stop it. How this whole relationship between him and the monkey play out, we will have to unpack a little bit, because I don’t think I understand… I was about to say the science of it. I don’t know if that’s right, but I don’t know if I understand the internal science of the film. I also don’t want to point out that “Was Jeffrey Fisher a well-meaning character?” This was a man who was banning drugs in his lab, smoking amongst the monkeys, scraping human brain, and injecting it in a monkey.
Host 3, Clara:
He had a lot of chemicals in that lab to be lighting up around.
Host 1, Jeff:
That’s a lot of smoking.
Host 3, Clara:
All that steaming stuff that the monkeys trashed later in the movie. Also, why did the monkeys trash his lab?
Host 1, Jeff:
Revolution, baby.
Host 3, Clara:
Aww, so cute.
Host 2, Erika:
All right. We have another four-star review from A McCleman. This is one of those unknown movies that you will be pleasantly due to its quality, not its theme, surprised by. The director does not resort to gore or silly tricks, no sudden pigeons, no cats being thrown into frame to create a truly disturbing and frightening atmosphere as he gradually shows the protagonist becoming more and more absorbed by his “problem”. I’m sorry guys. I had a bit of a hard time getting through this review, because I do recall some gore and I also recall some sudden appearance of a monkey out of someone’s spinal column.
Host 1, Jeff:
That’s true.
Host 2, Erika:
I just have some off the bat questions about the integrity of this review.
Host 1, Jeff:
I have nothing but questions about this review. I fully agree. There were absolutely jump stares in this film. I mean, he broke the monkey’s neck with his mouth and threw its corpse on the ground. I mean, it might not be literal entrails being ripped out of someone’s body, but I would say it was relatively gore. Not that I have problem with that. I also love this “problem” in quotes. The problem being that a monkey is murdering everyone around him.
Host 3, Clara:
What is the problem? Because a very striking scene was when he does try to die by putting that bag over his head and it’s a horrific moment that they skate right through it, but it’s terrifying. Is that his problem, that he himself would like to die?
Host 2, Erika:
Extremely unclear.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yes. More and more absorbed by this problem that is encountering him.
Host 3, Clara:
That it’s in quotes, right? It’s a problem but not really. Is that what the quotes are all about?
Host 1, Jeff:
I mean if you look at the broad story, the dude loses everything including his wife.
Host 2, Erika:
Does he though? Because he gains the monkey trainer lady in a gradual way that makes no sense. He has a pretty sweet life. He’s got a lot of technological setups to make his life seem relatively simple and easy. He loses stuff. The movie really clips along in terms of how quickly he seems to have a very accessible house. If it wasn’t for the monkey killing everyone, he seems to have a pretty sweet deal going.
Host 1, Jeff:
I fully agree.
Host 3, Clara:
Even then, if he could hide that the monkey was killing everyone, if he just subtly let the monkey do its thing.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, I think we might chop this up to McCleman being on the same wavelength as Sean Lehman in terms of just making assumptions about what people’s lives are most likely like when they incur a disability. Finally, we have a five-star review from an anonymous user who went to the trouble of titling their review, “Never mess with God’s creation,” followed by a review that reads, “Loved this movie after seeing Jason Beghe portraying a quadriplegic and then seeing him portray Hank Voight on Chicago PD. He’s two completely people.” I just want to clarify that I am reading the review when I say he’s two completely people.
Host 1, Jeff:
Two full people.
Host 3, Clara:
So poetic.
Host 2, Erika:
Loved Ella. She tried so hard to, number two, please Allan, but I felt sorry for her in the end of the movie when Allan killed her.
Host 3, Clara:
He more than killed her. He broke that monkey. Spoken like a true Chicago PD fan completely.
Host 1, Jeff:
Absolutely. What I want to understand is what relation does the title have to basically anything else that he says at the review? I don’t disagree that it applies to the movie perhaps, but it’s like he set it up as this one thing and then he subverted our expectations with a very different review.
Host 3, Clara:
And then never mess with God’s creation. The movie seemed to take a pretty pro-Darwin approach in my opinion. So, I don’t know that God’s creation is a huge factor here.
Host 2, Erika:
I think this is a cautionary tale when you go injecting human brains into a monkey, things might go poorly.
Host 3, Clara:
But they also might go very neutrally because think of the architecture, the mechanics of that. You inject the frozen, sliced up human brain into the monkey’s veins.
Host 1, Jeff:
Blood?
Host 2, Erika:
General course.
Host 3, Clara:
Yes. He’s got brain in the bloodstream. I don’t know. I’m skeptical of the whole thing.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, we’re going to talk some more about the science in our next segment.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah. I have so many questions about the science. I think my last favorite point about this review is the idea that they’re shocked by the fact that this actor can play two different characters. Has this person never seen actors before?
Host 3, Clara:
Well, we don’t know that they’re different characters. They’re completely people, but they could be the same.
Host 1, Jeff:
Well, they’re different names. So, you could have changed his name, I suppose, because he is Allan Mann in… I was supposed to say Monkey Paws. … Monkey Shines. And then he’s Hank Voight when he reappears in Chicago PD.
Host 3, Clara:
Are you confirming or denying that Chicago PD is a sequel to Monkey Shines?
Host 1, Jeff:
I’m going to reserve judgment until after our conversation. Okay. So, we’ve talked a little bit about what other people thought about the film. We’ve talked a little bit about what the films about in general, but I think it is time for us to get analytical. So, while this movie, I think, does a good job of some things, there are some of those old fun tropes that we get to endure in this film. Particularly you mentioned earlier, the first 20 minutes of the film or so, really lean hard into telling us that Allan Mann is a man of physical form and function. What did you guys think about this opening scene in which he covers his body in weights to go for a casual stroll?
Host 3, Clara:
And nude stretches earlier in the film.
Host 2, Erika:
That was extremely unusual. So, as an experienced distance runner and I’m decently experienced, I have run many thousands of kilometers in training for actual long distance races, not once have I strapped weights to my wrists and ankles and filled a backpack with… Were they bricks? Were they blocks?
Host 1, Jeff:
They were bricks.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, bricks. I mean, I’m no man, man. So, maybe that’s why.
Host 1, Jeff:
That’s why.
Host 2, Erika:
But yes, just back to Claire’s point, I have also never nor could I imagine myself stretching completely naked. Just the thought of sitting on a carpet with exposed genitals, I’m not feeling that, but to be actually stretching in a way that is mashing my nude body into said carpet. No shade to people who stretch nude, who enjoy nudity in general, but there was something unusual about that.
Host 3, Clara:
Especially when there was no other nudity other than the sex scene. We don’t really see his body during the sex scene. So, we see this horrific exposure of him doing his weird nude stretches and then he’s disabled and then his body becomes something else. Something that we don’t see doing nude stretches.
Host 2, Erika:
It almost read a warning for if parents had inadvertently brought their child to this film thinking that it was a cute monkey movie for kids. It was like PS, this is going to get a lot worse than a fully naked man. So, now is the time to shield virgin eyes.
Host 1, Jeff:
This is exactly what Susan Jeffords talked about in the ’80s, you have all these movies like Rocky and Top Gun, Topical. They have all these movies of hard man bodies like Stallone and Schwarzenegger that are trying to recapture this hard man status that was thought to have been lost in the 1970s. So, I think this him stretching with tight oiled muscles, firm buttocks clenching or thirsting for the road to run is they’re trying to set up this duality where it’s like this man has everything until he doesn’t when he’s run over by a truck.
Host 3, Clara:
Yeah, there is something very militaristic about stuffing your backpack with bricks. It reminds you of the big packs and the huffing through the forests of jungles of Vietnam. And then it’s interesting that the scientists are not hard bodies.
Host 1, Jeff:
Exactly.
Host 2, Erika:
They’re nerds.
Host 1, Jeff:
They’re egg heads. Yeah. The one is a heavy smoker who does drugs. The other is this sweaty ham looking man more or less. Also, note that they don’t show him getting hit by the car exactly, but they do show the brick shattering. I honestly wonder if this is Romero being like, “He was built a brick shit house.” That is the joke that’s being made here and then the brick breaks. So, even the hardest of bodies can suffer.
Host 2, Erika:
And then we pretty quickly find ourselves in the OR.
Host 1, Jeff:
Almost immediately. We have that nice cut the body open scene. So, while we were watching this film together, moments into the film, after the accident happens, tell us what you asked, Erika.
Host 2, Erika:
I believe I said I’d like to know how many minutes into the film we get before we find out that he is no longer sexually viable, basically that his penis doesn’t work anymore.
Host 1, Jeff:
The answer is 15 minutes and 5 seconds, about 10 minutes after Erika asked this question.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, I mean, I think Romero has a real gift for foreshadowing. We’ve established that much.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yes. Yep. It was pretty clear. I will say though, this was a mic drop moment though when he does reveal the impotence. I love it because he drops this line and then the scene just ends. If you don’t believe me, how abrupt it is, take a listen to this.
Speaker 4:
I’m sorry I didn’t make the party. Linda called me. She sounded pretty crazed. Linda’s dumping me. She didn’t come out and say it, but no, I can tell. Linda’s just not comfortable with the change yet. That’s all. She doesn’t come around.
Speaker 5:
Hey, she walks out on you now. Fuck her.
Speaker 4:
I can’t.
Host 2, Erika:
So, science made its best effort. It failed. He is painfully aware.
Host 1, Jeff:
This scene felt like something that would be in South Park. Just this weird beat, the back and forth of delight. He’s trying to be all supportive and being like, “Well, whatever. Who cares about her? There’ll be more.” But it has to come back to the dick. It has to come back to that’s the problem. She’s leaving me, but I can’t, which I wanted to just put fully in view. She clearly left you, because A, Stanley Tucci obviously. Two, he’s like a rich doctor. She left for the money, I think, honestly.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, I think what we’ve covered to this point, this setup of this physically superior man and then understanding the devastating loss of his physical superiority is setting us up to understand that Allan is an object of care. That is, I think, clarifying he is no longer sexual. He is an object of care. He will still be surrounded by women, but they will be there to… I mean, I’m hesitant to say take care of him because I don’t think that taking care is really what they’re doing so much as competing with each other to be the caretaker. This is really interesting. This was interesting for me to think about in the context of this plot because I don’t think this is really something that we have seen portrayed before.
Host 1, Jeff:
No, there’s this immediate shift from women in this film predominantly shift from romantic object immediately to maternal object, literally a mother and then this cold nurse. Well, okay, we could talk more about this later, but this woman who wears many hats including monkey trainer, wheelchair repair person, adoptive device, she was an OT who then sleeps with him. So, she’s a mother and shaves him, his little groomer. So, we have this person who starts out as the maternal carer that then becomes the love object again. That reconstitutes him and he regains his autonomy after he sleeps with her.
Host 2, Erika:
I know this is not our story can we talk about one moment, but we do need to talk a little bit about Mel. So, monkey trainer Mel is how I will henceforth be referring to her. Monkey trainer Mel slips into Allan’s orbit as a monkey trainer and then as you have alluded to suddenly just becomes a caregiver. It’s as though any woman who slips into Allan’s orbit then becomes a caregiver, because suddenly, we see her shaving his face, which is A, quite intimate, and B, relatively, there’s an implication of trust and care and sensitivity. And then it just spirals from there. Wait a sec, wait a sec. We have seen perhaps the first time that Mel and Allan bring, when moments after learning about this support monkey, it is somehow ready to support Allan specifically.
So, Mel shows up with the monkey and honestly credit to this actor Kate McNeil for her face acting, because in that scene, she is so visibly torn into by her romantic attraction to Allan, but also this apparent inappropriateness of her feelings for him. I don’t know if it’s because he’s a client or because he’s disabled or because his penis is broken, but whatever it is, it’s clear that she’s so conflicted.
Yeah, we’re deep into spoiler territory here, but it’s clear that when he regains this ability to, well, this is a fresh spoiler, but walk later in the film, when he shows her that he’s perfectly capable of satisfying her sexually even without a functioning phallus, her confusion is just alleviated. Suddenly, that hold back in her face is gone and she’s just there. She’s ready now. She can be romantically into him. That’s quite an arc.
Host 3, Clara:
Yeah. It’s another piece of just unintentional goodness that this movie seemed to have, because another thing you touched on there was the fluidity of their social networks was clearly just a matter of narrative convenience. So, the fact that the ex-girlfriend gets with the doctor and the scientist is a family friend and the caregiver is also the monkey trainer, it was all very confusing and clearly just there because that’s the easiest way to limit the number of actors we need in this movie. But then it hinted at this sense of community or collectivism that they had in their little bubble that was sweet, cute that they all help each other out in these weird ways despite the fact that all the women were so maternal and caring and all the men were purely selfish.
Host 2, Erika:
So, in that way, there was that bit of a friends vibe where everybody knows each other, but there was also this really tense competition between the four females, the mom, the nurse, Mel, and the monkey.
Host 1, Jeff:
Absolutely. Yeah, which I think is this other trope that the movie… I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but it gets caught into this whole idea of when caretakers become lovers and that whole falling in love with your nurse thing is happening. I think it’s important to note that this woman who’s never met him but has trained the monkey starts to shave him and yet the male family friend who would know how to shave, given that he is a man and shaves his own face clearly or maybe not, maybe his mother shaves his face.
I don’t know how it works in this world. He never delivers any care. Jeff doesn’t provide any care nor really any service other than giving him a monkey. As Claire said, he gives the monkey for selfish reasons, because he’s trying to hide the monkey. He would not have given that monkey otherwise.
Host 2, Erika:
So, there’s the caretaker turned lover, but there’s also some interesting unpacking around the parent, the mom, right? Because the doctor actually instructs the mom to leave because she is apparently causing Allan’s depression. The mom has some, I guess I’d say, stereotypical, but in an accurate way, if that makes sense. So, the mom declares, first of all, doesn’t ask if she’s needed or wanted, but just declares like, “Oh, well, I’ve sold my business and my house. I’m moving in with you because no one else can take care of you.”
Never mind the fact that they’re clearly extremely wealthy and could probably afford hired care if needed. But no, mom is going to sacrifice her life to be there to care for her son. When we see Allan go and spend the weekend at Mel’s, mom is just losing her mind, upset that “Where were you? How could you not tell me?” How old is he? He’s in his late 30s, early 40s.
Host 1, Jeff:
It’s hard to say. I mean, back in the ’80s, he might have been 13. Triple aged, very rapidly.
Host 2, Erika:
Fair point.
Host 1, Jeff:
He was in law school, so he was probably somewhere like mid-20 and he was written for the Olympics. That’s why he was jogging. So, he would’ve been probably early to mid-20s.
Host 2, Erika:
I think even at mid-20s, it would be very normal for an adult in their early 20s living alone, not to inform or check in with their parent or caregiver for that matter about what they were doing with their weekend overnights, et cetera. There were quite a lot of accurate representations, and this was one of them that portrayal of overreach.
Host 1, Jeff:
I wonder if that accuracy is driven by, “Was George Romero being like I want to make a commentary about familial relations after an accident and how people can feel like they maybe are intended to be or must be taken care of or whatever,” or was this all about designing more antagonism so that the audience is like, “Oh, no, Ella’s going to kill the mom next”? I’m wondering. It’s like the narrative purpose perhaps doesn’t actually matter, because I think now watching this movie, this was made in the ’80s, now watching this in 2022, there’s some interesting stuff to be drawn from this that was perhaps not intended, but I think is actually accurate to some people’s experiences after encountering an injury like this.
Host 3, Clara:
I also find it hilarious, the trope of the caregiver, mother, girlfriend situation, because it’s so common that the of intimacy of shaving becomes sexual intimacy. As someone is disabled, there’s this relationship between caregiving and sexuality. I found that fascinating because a part of the reason that I think Jeff, you and my relationship works is because we’re very distinct. I do not play much of a caregiving role at all in your life. I think that’s a good thing because it keeps us able to maintain our relationship that is built on a lot of other things without that expectation that I play some maternal role or that you play some needing role. Something the tropes leave out too is sure, there is caregiving, but the caregiving is directed by you.
So, as much as there’s this disabled person is so helpless and needs to be cared for, whatever, you are actually the one in control in your caregiving relationships. It would be really shocking to me if anything about that ever became intimate or sexual because it just doesn’t have that dynamic in the real world for the most part. It’s so practical and clinical in a way, but also so shared that you have the power and control in directing your care and they have that physical capacity to provide things that you might not be able to reach. But it’s so much more egalitarian than these sexual relationships seem to… There’s weird power and control stuff going on in these sex scenes that is not going on in my observed interactions and experienced interactions with caregiving, right?
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah. So, I’m sorry, but can we talk about that sex scene?
Host 1, Jeff:
I would love to talk about the sex scene. Before we even talk about the actual scene, I just want to note that this sex scene was originally intended to be much longer and a lot more gratuitous, but Romero actually cut a lot of it for various reasons. Famously, one of the producers of the film actually had liked it before the cut, where it was a lot more gritty, which included a penetrative oral sex scene, which was then cut. I would imagine probably it would’ve had to have been cut for ratings. This movie would not have been in cinema if they’d shown him putting his tongue inside this woman. I don’t think they would’ve allowed that, but somewhere in the world there is presumably a longer cut of the sex scene.
Host 2, Erika:
I thought it was pretty great. The first thing I noticed was that they were making creative use of the adaptive equipment that was already in the room, which I think it was both realistic and it felt natural.
Host 1, Jeff:
Totally, totally.
Host 2, Erika:
It was a pretty racy scene. I felt like it wasn’t sanitized or it wasn’t made weird. Essentially disability ceased to exist in this scene.
Host 1, Jeff:
So, when I was watching the scene, all I could think about was the sex scene from Coming Home, obviously John Voight, which was about a decade before this film. Famously, there’s this sex scene, and in that sex scene, in my opinion, it was like, “Oh, this is how they do it.” It felt almost instructional. It was looking in on how the others have sex and it’s like, “Oh, it’s oral for them.”
Obviously, the scene is really actually more about the woman in Coming Home. It’s about her of liberation. Arguably, possibly this is a lesbian sex scene. That’s a whole other body of academic work, but I felt like this is the opposite. Like you said, this felt more a natural this is how people hook up in some ways. There was a bit of a clumsiness to it, but there was still a naturalness to it. There was a fairly long breastfeeding moment that I was like, “This feels a little bit maternal.”
Host 3, Clara:
Yeah, I didn’t read that as maternal in the moment, but now that you mention, it went on.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, he was like suckling.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah. In the moment, I think my mind was like, “At what point does movie sex become porn?” So yes, I was engrossed in that and I think missed the suckling metaphor or is that a metaphor? Symbolism, yeah. Now that you pointed out-
Host 1, Jeff:
Literal action.
Host 2, Erika:
… I can’t unsee that.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah. But then it moves on and it becomes this other thing that they both are willing and enthusiastically involved in. Both of them come at this on level ground, which I think is actually interesting.
Host 2, Erika:
I think when you mentioned the relationship, I think ultimately the sex scene is less about their relationship than it is about his rehabilitation. Yeah, I don’t know if it’s rehabilitation, but I mean she is in this therapy monkey trainer, happens to have a house full of adaptive equipment. Like you said, she does ring a bit like an occupational therapist. Not that OTs have homes full of adaptive equipment.
Host 1, Jeff:
I was about to ask, so do you have a barn of adaptive equipment that you use to train? So that you know exactly what it’s like.
Host 2, Erika:
I mean, I could see in a very highly specialized practice, which she must have had given the cutting edge technology of the day that she had kicking around in her home that she was using to train the monkeys. I bring this up as a bit of a double edged situation, because on one hand, we see it sink back into this very stereotypical, “Oh, he’s regaining his sexuality.” This is the turning point where you can almost predict at that point that he’s going to walk again. He can have sex. He’s totally going to walk again. But on the other hand, just to give it a bit of a more compassionate read, it also is this moment in the movie where we see him more than this.
He gains a whole dimension as a character. He’s often just very glum and all we really see him do is move his head side to side in order to move his joystick. We don’t see a whole lot of emoting other than some monkey infused rage. He comes out of a shell in a way that I think could actually be read as a positive representation of the reality of learning to live in a disabled body, especially with an acquired disability and the positive experience of getting physically close with someone and being able to explore your body and abilities in a different way.
Host 1, Jeff:
I think it really connects with the fact that his other girlfriend, as he understands it, left him because he could not please her. And then he has this inversion where now he’s met a woman that he does please. I think that there’s this good woman, bad woman thing going on. The ex-girlfriend, we know nothing about this person. I think one of my big critiques is I would’ve liked to have known what their relationship was like first before the accident, so to speak. So, that we have a bit of a comparison. Maybe this is actually about him learning how to have a healthy relationship, because all the other women, his mom, the caregiver, and presumably the ex were all not healthy relationships for different reasons, but they were all bad relationships and often bad because the women were “bossy”.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, I think a different podcast could delve deeper into some of the gender representation here.
Host 3, Clara:
Oh, yeah.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah. Lots to be said about it.
Host 3, Clara:
They also did though a decent job of weaving in this unexpected complexity in ways that seemed unintentional, but could have been fully intentional. The fact that they referred to his injury or whatever it is has made him disabled, they referred to it at one point as congenital when they find out that he has two breaks in his spine. So, it’s like they have this big brick shattering accident scene, but it’s also just something that would’ve happened anyway.
Or when he discovers himself and his physical rehabilitation is very much tied to the girlfriend, but a psychological rehabilitation that the getting better from that horrific bag on the head scene was very much the monkey who was the evil character that helped with his psychological rehabilitation. So, there were these interwoven complexities that they just dropped in very, very quietly and didn’t focus in on, but that to me felt actually very worth thinking about.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, it made it better. It made it better because they didn’t just say it. You maybe have just actually latched onto the principle crime that most of the films make that we cover on this podcast is that they try to explain everything. They say outright exactly what they’re trying to tell you and it just is so cringy.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, I mean, this one definitely did that when he had his injury and then the surgeon was announcing, “We have a C-5, blah, blah, blah. Just so everybody knows what we’re dealing with here. This man is paralyzed. He will not be moving limbs below his neck.” So, it was guilty of that to some degree, but yeah, that was really interesting. It almost taps into a proximity to nature trope that there is something less human. He’s working his way back to completely personhood or something.
Host 1, Jeff:
To be a complete person.
Host 2, Erika:
But he had to climb through the monkey to get to the woman.
Host 1, Jeff:
So, I think you brought us to our last thing that I really want to talk about here, which is the science of this film, because the science in this film is wild because Romero both put some effort but also put no effort into trying to build an internal science logic to this film. Where do you guys want to start on the science of this film?
Host 2, Erika:
I guess we could start with the human brain that was very obviously a chicken breast-
Host 1, Jeff:
Classic film trick.
Host 2, Erika:
… being shaved into a serum and then haphazardly injected into the body of the monkey.
Host 1, Jeff:
Which made the monkey smart.
Host 3, Clara:
I just love how exceptionally childish that is, where it’s like, “Okay, we’ve got to find a way to get the human into the monkey. Let’s just do it literally. Let’s just do it this way.” It’s so childish and yet so perfect. I love that.
Host 1, Jeff:
It’s both lazy, but also creative. They weren’t just like, “Oh, it’s a demon,” or “Oh, I zapped it with radiation,” which I think would be the remake if they were to remake this movie now in 2020. It would be radioactive waves or it’s 5G cell phone towers. So, it would be this other technology, but it’s all about injection and contamination. So, it’s both clever, but also that’s not how this works, that you definitely don’t get smarter by injecting brains into people.
Host 2, Erika:
So, we have this bafflingly juvenile concept of science juxtaposed with a dead on critique of academia, because the doctor is going to these extreme measures because he’s under pressure to produce more research.
Host 1, Jeff:
Literally taking a drug, which forces him to stay awake for eight hours, which I think is just meth.
Host 3, Clara:
Yeah, well, the scraping of the chicken breast brain, he was tweaking. That’s clear.
Host 2, Erika:
Oh, yeah. The injection of that meth also seemed a little haphazard, straight to the arm and go.
Host 1, Jeff:
No measurement. It’s fine. Yeah, 100%. And then you have this debate about ethics, and what’s amazing about it is that the scientist friend, Jeff, repeatedly claims the high ground as the moral researcher at this institute, because he’s not torturing or murdering these monkeys like his colleague is, who is a body man. He’s like, “Why aren’t you sending me your dead monkeys? I want to do autopsies on them.” I’m like, “Okay, but you’re also injecting human brain into a monkey.” I don’t know that you can claim the ethical research high ground in this instance.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, I think the last piece around that, just the presence of science in this film was that we have this mad scientist situation happening, but also really sharply juxtaposed with what I’m assuming is cutting edge technology for the mid to late ’80s in terms of the wheelchair, the sip and puff system, the mechanical lifts.
Host 3, Clara:
The voice activated entire house.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, it was rocking Alexa like 30 years before Alexa.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah. So, there was also just a shockingly present embrace of good science also. So, I don’t know if that’s maybe entirely unintentional or maybe there is just commentary on the goods and the evils of science.
Host 1, Jeff:
This was Romero’s first studio film, but if you’re a Romero fan, you’ll know that he often uses the films to critique societal problems, whether it be racism, consumerism, et cetera. These are factors in a lot of his films. There’s definitely this duality, I would say, when used right. Particularly, I would say analog or non-intelligent science, so technologies like the thing that’s holding the book or the complicated phone system that uses punch card in order to auto dial.
These were all seen as good, helpful adaptive technologies, but then technologies like science used by doctors now is a problem, because you have these two doctors, one who’s botched the surgery and ruined his life and stole his girlfriend juxtaposed to this other family doctor who is a man of science, a good doctor who looks deeper than surface. He has a rigor in a way that the other doctor perhaps didn’t. So, it seems like there’s this pivot on the more sentience is involved, the more dangerous the technology is or the worse the outcome.
Host 3, Clara:
It’s noteworthy that he tries a couple things. At the climax of the film when he wants the monkey dead, he tries a couple of things that involve the assistive technology in the house. So, he tries to get a door open, he tries to make a call, but what is it that actually kills the monkey? It is his teeth, right? It’s the most human thing about him, which is his body that is able to crush the monkey and fling it aside.
Host 2, Erika:
Well, guys, we got good and deep into that one. Now I think it’s time to draw back a step and get trivial. Jeff, what do you have for us this week?
Host 1, Jeff:
Okay. So, there’s a lot to talk about on this one because there’s a lot of stuff in this film. It’s also a much bigger film than most of the things we do. So, there’s a lot, and we’re going to miss a ton of it, I promise you. So, obviously, you might remember me from such films as George Romero, obviously well known in the horror community. Night of Living Dead fame, I would say he is maybe the most known. Stanley Tucci might be the most known, most famous in this. This was his first studio film, and there are a lot of references online about how he really did not like the interference of the production company distributor Orion, that sanitized a lot of the original cut, including changing the ending. But we’re going to talk about that a little bit later.
Stanley Tucci, obviously the legend. Joyce Van Patten, who plays the mother, has actually also had a pretty productive career. She’s been in a couple movies, had Marley and Me and Grown Ups, has done a ton of TV cameos. That’s actually what most of the other characters in this film have done. They’ve had long careers of bit parts in TV shows, but many of them are actually still acting, including Jason Beghe our main character.
But more interesting about him is that Jason who plays Allan in the film had an actual horrendous car accident in the 1990s, in 1999.Hhe was in a coma. He was in a hospital, tons of broken bones. He did break his spine, but it got better, I guess. But most importantly, he was intubated and he kept on waking up in the hospital and pulling out the tube which damaged his lungs. So, he attributes his now gravelly voice, which is what got him the job apparently on Chicago PD. He blames that actually on him pulling out the intubation tube repeatedly after his accident. So, he actually is basically living minus the monkey, he is living the life of Allan, which I think is a wild, wild turn of events.
Host 2, Erika:
All right. Let’s get into the equipment facts, because I spent the better part of this film trying to figure out whether this equipment that is seen in the film is legit. To the credit of Romero or whoever on the team was responsible for doing their research, I think they did their research. The industrial looking chain based Hoyer lift that we see throughout the film, I still can’t wrap my mind around the mechanics of this, but Jeff, you did some research and what did you find out?
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, it looks like the frame and the chains that are used to hook into it does appear to be very similar to an Invacare patient lift. That lift looks more like a traditional Hoyer with the bar that you use to brace it up and down. This may be actually an Invacare track lift from back in the ’80s possibly, or it may be something that they cobbled together for cheap where they just got parts of a broken one and put it together. Yeah, apparently, BDSM chain sex devices, big inpatient care back in the 1980s.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah. I mean, there were definitely some inconsistencies. I just cannot figure out how it’s possible that anyone but a walking actor could have hoisted themself up into a sling at such a height to be hovering at standing height over a steaming hot bathtub.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, I don’t understand why they were cooking him like a lobster. Why is he not lowered into the water? Why is he suspended above a full bathtub that is piping hot?
Host 2, Erika:
The other piece of technology that I was really gripped by in this film was obviously the wheelchair. So, Allan has a wheelchair that he operates using a mouth operated joystick. I’m assuming it that just given the complexities of actually using a sip and puff system, learning to use a sip and puff system or even to control a wheelchair with one’s mouth, I’m assuming that the actor was not actually using a functioning system there, but the wheelchair it turns out actually has a bit of a history.
Host 1, Jeff:
Huge history. So, he is in an Everest and Jennings marathon, which is a belt motor wheelchair. It was their hardcore chair. Well, they’re all built for hospital use, but this was the heavy duty one and made for bigger people and had a higher weight range. But Everest and Jennings actually also has a really weird connection within the world of disability in the United States. They were one of the largest equipment manufacturers in the US. They were one of the first companies to mass produce wheelchairs. That all happened until about the 1970s. They were hit with an antitrust suit by the Department of Justice.
Eventually, there was a class action lawsuit because of malpractice and things that they were doing. That was settled out of court in 1984, which was the beginning of the end of their organization. They had a bad ’80s that turned into a worst ’90s, and the brand was eventually sold off. However, their wheelchairs have appeared everywhere, including being used by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. For those of you in the disabilities studies world, it was Everest and Jennings wheelchairs that were predominantly used by Ed Roberts and the Roland Quads in Berkeley, California.
It was also an Everest and Jennings chair that was the first chair that Christopher Reeve used in 1995 after the accident. So, these were a big deal. This is a big deal company that was making chairs that were ended up in the hands of a lot of people on camera, to say the very least, which is interesting given that this was originally a California founded company. Yeah, this is a real piece of disability history here that is represented. Finally, a wheelchair that is not a quickie.
Host 2, Erika:
Right. So, moving on to production fact, we chatted earlier about the fact that the sex scene was intended to be much longer and significantly racier, but was ultimately scaled back for the release. We’ve also alluded to the original ending of the film being changed. Now it’s my understanding that this was not Romero’s decision, but actually the distribution company, was it, that decided that this film needed to have a happier ending, which is really interesting because ultimately this has a huge impact on the disability narrative. We’ve also alluded to the fact that our protagonist, by the end of the film, is no longer paralyzed or is gradually working his way out of paralysis. He has a spinal surgery that presumably reattaches some spinal nerves.
Notably, he became a candidate for that when he willed his hand to move, which was the criteria for candidacy for that surgery. I don’t know if that is a factual criteria. I strongly doubt it. Yeah, so ultimately, it turns out Romero did not actually intend for this to happen. He was not supposed to recover from this accident, but this was the film company or film distributor’s attempt to make this a more appealing film to broader audiences. Very interesting.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, it’s that real drive that we have to see the disabled person walk again at the end. If they’re not going to die, they have to walk again. Although I am a little upset that we did not get a different drummer’s montage at the end of a dead Ella running alongside him. That would’ve just made it so much better at the end.
Host 2, Erika:
So last bit of production facts we have here. So, there was actually some substantial negative publicity around this film. It was actually disability activists that were vocal about the promotional materials or in response to the promotional materials for the film. So, what I initially read in a news article from 1988 was that people were upset about the… I guess in the promotional materials, there was a monkey in a wheelchair.
So, that was the official story from the production company that, “Oh, right away, we will get that out of the publicity campaign.” But what they don’t really get into and what the likes of Paul Longmore actually and other known disability activists were speaking out against was first of all, just the idea of a monkey attendant turning into a monster.
But secondly, there’s a poem, parts of which appear on the film cover and a much longer version of which shows up in this ad campaign. I mean, it starts out there was a man whose prison was his chair. Should we just read the poem? Here it is. Once there was a man whose prison was a chair. The man had a monkey. They made the strangest pair. The man was the prisoner. The monkey held the key. No matter how he tried, the man couldn’t flee. Locked in his prison, terrified and frail, the monkey wielding power, keeping him in jail. The man tried to keep the monkey from his brain, but every move he made became the monkey’s game. The monkey ruled the man. It climbed inside his head. Now as fate would have it, one of them was dead.
Host 1, Jeff:
Spoiler poem.
Host 2, Erika:
Spoiler poem, but honestly misleading. I fully spent this entire film assuming that the monkey was going to eat Allen’s face.
Host 1, Jeff:
It’s odd that they lead with this idea like, “Oh, no, one of them will die. Don’t worry, but which one?” That’s the real drama. But I also feel like this is not representative of really any of the film.
Host 3, Clara:
No.
Host 1, Jeff:
Am I wrong?
Host 2, Erika:
No, you’re not wrong. I mean the bit about the monkey, but the narrative of the poem that Allan is a prisoner, locked in the prison of his chair and the monkey is controlling his fate, that’s just inaccurate. I feel like this is much the altered ending of the film. I feel like this poem also is really targeted to the American imagination that understands disability as a prison, wheelchairs as something that people are confined to. It’s really appealing to that.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah. I wonder if this is a situation where Romero did not make the movie the studio wanted and this is actually the film they really wanted. They actually wanted this film to be about this frail prison. I feel like the studio wanted Rear Window. They wanted that disabled man, trapped, going to die, that he’s disabled. That’s just not what Romero brought them. They were like, “Well, whatever. We’ll just advertise it that way. We don’t care if that’s what it actually is.”
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah. I’m really curious. I felt a little bit torn when I found out that there were renowned disability activists speaking out against the film, which I felt really was not a terrible disability representation. From what I understand, the outcry was actually about the promotional materials more than the film itself. So, that makes me hopeful that maybe folks would’ve felt a little bit more compassionately towards the film than when they did the promotional materials.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, my sense is that the audience response to this is divisive. There are some within the disabled population that think this is a hilarious movie. They love that it’s campy. They think it’s cool and retro and interesting. And then there are others who think that it’s playing on the same tropes. It doesn’t do anything new. It’s all the same old garbage. It’s also a film that was relatively difficult to get your hands on until fairly recently. There’s been a bunch of new releases, Blu-Ray special editions and that thing, which has made it much easier to access, but there was a period in the early 2000s, where it was actually hard to get a copy of it.
So, I think that might also contribute a little bit that the thing that most people had access to was the promotion and not necessarily the film itself, but if you are paying attention, you will notice that parts of this film are both referenced and shown in the documentary Code of the Freaks, which talks about representation of disability in popular culture. So, this movie has had an impact, if nothing else. But I think it’s that time for us to talk a little bit about what we thought. Let’s rate this film.
For those of you who do not know, we have built an empirical, completely scientific, like brains injected the blood scale to determine the quality of our film. Like golf, our little game, the lower the score, the better. We have four questions that we are going to ask each of our viewers to rate on a scale of one to five, and we will determine the quality of the film. So, let’s start up. Our first question on a scale of one to five, with five being the least accurate, five being bad, one being good, how accurate does this film portray disability?
Host 3, Clara:
So, I think there’s some of the things we touched on like the interactions with the mother who was annoying and the surly nurse and there were aspects of his experience that seemed not to be entirely driven by disability alone. He seemed to have some other dimensions there as well. So, I thought that contributed to overall realism and the fact that he used assistive technology comfortably without it being a whole thing in the same way that I’m thinking of different drummer in the piss tube. It was just a little bit more accurate than that.
Host 2, Erika:
I totally agree. I will be so bold as to give it a two.
Host 1, Jeff:
I also gave it a two. I thought that they actually showed real devices, things that people actually do use in their life. So, there was a bit of woe is me, but yeah, I thought there was some accuracy. Obviously, marks are taken off, because this whole double spinal problem that was missed by the one, this is obviously science fiction. The idea that you would not do a surgery unless someone can move a part of their body first to prove that it is in fact this problem also seems highly suspect. Okay. Question number two, scale of one to five, with five being the hardest, how hard was it for you to get through this film?
Host 3, Clara:
Yeah. One, I thought it was smooth sailing, entertaining. There was even some cute monkey moments. It’s little facial expressions. It’s little hugs. That was great.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, I’m largely aligned. I’m actually going to give it a two just for some confusion, for instance, around the science. There was a lot going on there, but generally speaking, yeah, it was a pretty smooth ride.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah. I was also a two in part because I was completely hung up on, “Is his brain influencing the monkey? Is the monkey influencing his brain? Is this telepathy? Why is the blood ritual involved?” Yeah, there were some questions there where I was like, “I do not necessarily,” in a distracted way, because they would add these little tidbits of information that it was like, “Oh, well, that explains it now.” I’m like, “I am even more confused at this point as to what is happening between these two characters.” But this is by far, I would say the best film we’ve watched for this podcast, which is both hilarious and sad.
Host 2, Erika:
I just want to give a quick shout out to Mac and Me, which is somewhat of a contemporary because I think that that was our other probably best. I feel like there’s something about the late ’80s. There was a vibe.
Host 1, Jeff:
Should we even think about the fact that the Roland Quads and the whole stuff in Berkeley was like 1970? And then you guys look at adapt. This is a couple years before ADA has passed. These films are actually perhaps coming out during an American disability renaissance in some ways. So, maybe it’s unsurprising that these are better representations.
Host 2, Erika:
Better but not perfect. So, our next criteria on the scale, one to five, with five being the max, how often did you laugh at things that weren’t supposed to be funny?
Host 3, Clara:
I had more less of laughing at things that weren’t supposed to be funny, finding things adorable that were not meant to be adorable, but laughing at things that aren’t funny, I didn’t do that too much. I thought Romero has a good eye for intentional, funny, shocking. So, I would give it a one or two.
Host 1, Jeff:
1.5 is good.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah, I was in the exact same spot where I found it was a little bit hard to decipher on this. I actually vocalized at one point during the film, “Were we supposed to laugh at that?”, because I felt like sometimes it was actually intended to be funny, even though it was not like haha funny. So, I will join you in the 1.5.
Host 1, Jeff:
Yeah, I’m going to put it as a one. I think that Romero was taking the piss throughout the entire film in some ways. I mean, I think he was trying to play this serious, but it looked serious, which is what makes it funny. I think that was the vibe. I think that we laughed predominantly at the things that were supposed to be funny, I think.
Host 2, Erika:
All right. Our last criteria, on a scale of one to five, with five being the most, how many steps back has this film put disabled people?
Host 3, Clara:
I’m going to give it a low rating again. So, I’m trying to approach this from the lens of someone who just didn’t know anything about disability and I feel like there wouldn’t have been too much in the film that would have really affected that person, Better Sue, the normie, that would’ve been so convincing because the whole movie had an air of lightness to it. Yeah, like Jeff said, taking the piss a little. So, I’m going to give it a one.
Host 2, Erika:
I’m going to have to go a tiny bit harder on it just for the whole stereotypical trope of mad man, man loses his madness and then regains his madness, but really that was pretty much the worst of the crimes it committed. So, I’m going to give it a two.
Host 1, Jeff:
So, I’m going to break the rules right now and I’m actually going to give it two ratings. Rating number one, I’m going to give a two to the Romero cut, which we have not seen which had hardcore sex and no cure at the end, but that is not the movie we received. So, I am going to give the Orion cut a solid three, because yeah, the man stuff, this return to normalcy, and also the very obvious marketing ploy was like, “Oh, babe, yikes.” But I think that Romero cut might have been a one or a two if we had ever got it. So, I’m assuming Romero was listening to this podcast. Please release a director’s cut. The people want to see it.
Host 3, Clara:
The cure at the end was so pointless. Why? I revised my score to a two based on that alone.
Host 2, Erika:
Yeah. I honestly bumped it to a 2.5. I had forgotten about that when I gave it that rating. That’s a serious hit as well.
Host 1, Jeff:
The people have spoken with a score of 23.5. Monkey Shines is officially a Regret, I have a few. Almost an underappreciated piece of art.
Host 2, Erika:
That feels about right to me. All right. Well, that is a wrap. Thank you so much, Clara, for joining us today. It was truly a pleasure to share this bizarre experience with someone else. Hopefully, you are not leaving feeling overly traumatized.
Host 1, Jeff:
That concludes our first episode of season two of Invalid Culture. We hope you enjoyed the episode. As always, if you have a film you’d like us to cover, head over to our website, invalidculture.ca, submit. Or if you would like to be on the podcast as one of our guest victims, please also head over to the website. Send us an email. We’d love to have you on.

 

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.