DVD cover of FDR: American Badass

Just in time for the US election we look back at the greatest disabled American president

To celebrate Remembrance Day, sar and Jeff are joined by media studies legend Beth Haller to discuss the documentary FDR: American Badass. The film, a campy, over-the-top spoof, features Franklin D. Roosevelt as a werewolf-hunting president who contracts polio from a werewolf bite. Join us as we chat about some of the broader issues of disability representation in media, the challenges faced by disabled filmmakers, and the impact of ableism in Hollywood.

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 – 2 / 5

Beth – 2 / 5

Total – / 15

How difficult was it to watch the movie?

Jeff – 3 / 5

sar – 1 / 5

Beth – 1 / 5

Total – / 15

How often were things unintentionally funny?

Jeff – 1 / 5

sar – 1 / 5

Beth – 1 / 5

Total – / 15

How far back has it put disabled people?

Jeff – 2 / 5

sar – 2.5 / 5

Beth – 1 / 5

Total – / 15

The Verdict

Regrets, I have a few

Transcript – Part 1

[Episode begins with the trailer for FDR: American Badass!]

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.

[punk theme song plays, Mvll Crimes song “Arguing with Strangers on the Internet”]

I’m arguing with strangers on the internet. Not going out today because I’m feeling too upset, argue with strangers on the internet and I’m winning. And I’m winning!

Jeff:

Welcome back to another exciting day of invalid culture. As usual, I am your host, Jeff Preston, and as usual, I am joined by my co victim, Sarah Curry. How are you doing, Sarah?

sar:

Feeling really good to not be living in America. How are you?

Jeff:

Yeah, how about that election? Very surprising, very surprising outcome that happened. Sure.

sar:

It’s great that candidate won.

Jeff:

Yeah, we totally know who won the election and we’re very surprised by it. America will never be the same, I assume.

sar:

Hope my American friends aren’t significantly, entirely impacted by these results.

Jeff:

Yep. It is either the greatest of times or the blurt of times depending on what happened after we recorded this episode, but it is totally November and that means that we need to honor the troops and that is what we’re going to be doing here today. And to do that, we have brought an All-American superhero. We are joined by a real expert, someone who knows every single thing about America. You probably know her though, as journalist, disability media scholar, writer of fantastic books such as The Beloved Representative Disability and Ableist World by Line of Hope, the newspaper and magazine writings of Helen Cower. Great one. Relevant for next year and disabled people transforming media culture for a more inclusive world. A book that I think I have a blurb on. Welcome to the show, the one and only Beth Taylor. How you doing Beth?

Beth:

Hey, how’s it going everybody?

Jeff:

Yeah, so good to have you on. So I have a little bit of a background. Did I miss anything? Who are you, Beth?

Beth:

Oh, I also have a nonprofit called the Global Alliance for Disability and Media and Entertainment that I’m co-director of. And we’re doing exciting things to try to get more disability representation in media.

sar:

What do you ally against?

Beth:

Ableism.

sar:

Good answer.

Beth:

Ableism in general. I never heard it phrased that way. Ally against. Interesting.

sar:

Well you said it was an Alliance. I was like, I need to know what she’s ripping shit up for.

Beth:

Ableism, crud in media that shouldn’t be on TV or film.

sar:

Okay, so you’re probably a big Corey Doctorow

Beth:

Who?

sar:

The guy who did, he did post humanism, but he also came out with this theory that’s really hot right now called Ification of Media, usually applied to media conglomerates. Yeah,

Beth:

Yeah. Yep. We’re in the middle of leaders. See what’s happening now in November because Hollywood is struggling these days and don’t realize that no one wants to go to the movie theater anymore. There was an article in the New York Times about literally all the companies, they all have major losses except for Amazon Prime and Netflix.

sar:

Really?

Beth:

Even Disney only broke even. So circling the Toilet.

sar:

Who owns HBO?

Beth:

Oh, there’s only about six companies that own all of us media

Jeff:

Pretty much.

Beth:

HBO is allied with, I forget who, I don’t want to tell

Jeff:

I think it was with Hulu, maybe? I’m not sure.

Beth:

One of them is Warner Brothers. They’re streaming Max. I know they’re not part of Netflix, Hulu, or I think Paramount Plus is with Hulu now. I mean, it’s all collapsing. And these people in Hollywood don’t understand that we all don’t want to pay $7 a month for seven different streaming platforms. It’s true.

Jeff:

Yeah. I love that. We got the internet and the first instinct we had was to just reproduce cable. We’re like, let’s just make cable again. That’d be good, but make it more confusing. That’ll be perfect.

sar:

It’s more expensive too, for the number of channels you used to get on the Rogers package 20 years ago, you’d get 500 and something channels, for like $99. Now we get six or $99.

Beth:

I know I still have cable in my house in Maryland, which I can watch anywhere in the United States on my laptop. And the one reason I did keep it, everyone was talking about, oh, I’m cutting the cord with cable. I’m like, no, I don’t add more things. I mean, I pay a car payment for it every month, but at least I don’t have to go out finding stuff that I want to watch and need to watch because of my area of interest is watching TV and film. And so now some of the people that got rid of cable are really sorry. They did you know?

Jeff:

Right.

sar:

I was certainly sorry during the Olympics. Missed cable for that.

Jeff:

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Well, the good news is you don’t need to worry because break dancing has been canceled apparently. So you don’t need to watch the next Olympics because Santa Reigns supreme in the world of break dancing and all of these references are super topical in November right now. So the other thing that’s really topical for November right now is World War ii. That’s right, folks. We have decided to go back in time to honor the troops with a documentary film, which you may know as FDR American Badass now as a way of a little…

Beth:

Exclamation point.

Jeff:

Exclamation point!

sar:

Yes.

Jeff:

Yes. American Badass!

sar:

Yeah, that’s important.

Jeff:

That’s important. Now, by way of trivia, part of the reason this movie is on this show is because many years ago I was checking my mail and I opened my mailbox and there was an envelope there from one Beth Ha and inside the envelope was a DVD for a movie I had never heard of, which was called FDR American Badass. So Sarah and I actually got to watch a piece of media history when we’ve watched this film together. We’ve watched it from the original DVD that Beth sent to us. For those of you who have not watched this movie before from the box, FDR America Badass is quote, after contracting polio from a venomous werewolf bike, FDR won’t stop at single-handedly ending the depression and prohibition with the help of a team of historic failures. He must end World War II by exacting revenge on an army of Nazi werewolves from the comfort of his Albert Einstein design, wheelchair of death, an outrageous over the top spoof FDR America Badass is the untold story of our country’s greatest monster Hunter president. Does that match what you watched, Sarah? How would you say they did on the description?

sar:

I think important context for this episode is that I’m joined by two Americans who have some idea of what actually happened, and I took zero American history courses my entire life, so my American history is quite poor. So I was constantly asking Jeff throughout this movie, is that canon? Is that canon Even as it got more ridiculous, but I genuinely don’t know which parts are supposed to be based on real life. So I thought the whole thing was fun and I would love to be told which events were actually real.

Jeff:

Yeah. What do you think, Beth, does that sort of capture the movie?

Beth:

I have to do some Googling. When I was watching it as an American, that was my rewatching it. That was my question. Some of it seemed really accurate dates and things, and then other parts, and obviously the werewolf stuff wasn’t accurate, but I was like, wait, they might’ve gotten the right year for when FDR got polio and they might’ve done this and that. I was just hoping that the world that watches this in America, you can stream it on a platform called Crackle. So I watched part of it while I was in the car. This is like beyond excellent because it’s a better FDR than FDR was himself. Right?

Jeff:

Yeah.

sar:

That’s what we love in a memoir, always the best version. Right?

Beth:

Right. So it’s better than any actual factual account because he’s so badass.

Jeff:

Right. More true to the person through the hyperbole. Yeah.

Beth:

Fair. Just the camp, the highest level of camp is like perfection

Jeff:

And it’s extremely campy in part because it was written by and starring a bit of a tip movie legend, a man named Ross Patterson who has written a bunch of these, we’re going to call it spoof. I don’t know that that’s the right word, but I’m going to use the word spoof, including screwball, the Ted Whitfield story, Darnell Dawkins, Mel Guitar legend, and the eventual invalid culture movie, Helen Keller versus Night Wolves. Patterson also stars in this film. He is the hillbilly politician, Levon Buford.

sar:

Is that true?

Jeff:

That is him, yeah.

sar:

The director was Cleveland? The writer?

Jeff:

The writer was Cleveland.

sar:

Oh, the writer. Okay.

Jeff:

Yeah. Yeah. Ross Patterson. And he has a bit of a cult following for a character that he played in an earlier movie of his in which he played a character called St. James St. James. And a lot of people really love that character, and I think that was part of the draw for this film on the B-movie circuit. Most people wanted to see him in a movie again.

sar:

Well, that’s interesting because Cleveland Buford’s characters one of the more shocking characters than what is premised as a fairly shocking film. He kind of went balls to the wall on that film.

Jeff:

Pretty out there. Yep. So yeah, I’d say that’s the Ross Patterson classic. Now Patterson did not direct it. He was directed, sorry. He was joined by director Garrett Bra who has done a lot of movies with Ross Patterson. These are two guys that have done a lot together. Garrett Brawith has worked in lots of stuff. He’s also worked in lots of roles. He’s done everything from acting to editing. He’s even a stunt man. He also plays Bob Saggot in the Unauthorized Full House story. And so I thought that was pretty cool as well.

sar:

What a rock.

Jeff:

Yep. Now Brawith was asked about whether or not they were concerned about the offensiveness of this film. Entertainment Weekly asked him if he was worried that people would be offended. He responded, I’d be offended, but trust me, there’s no danger of that. Pretty much everyone gets it on the chin in this one. That’s how we get back to our audience by finding a way to piss off everyone at least once. You are welcome. So I thought that was an interesting little quote,

Beth:

Other tidbit about the cast. So Lynn Shaye, she who plays Eleanor Roosevelt in this film plays Helen Keller in Helen Keller versus The Night Wolves. Beautiful. They put together all these people that are fantastic actors specifically to do camp. I mean, I think that’s one of the reasons it’s so good is because it’s not like a struggling actor who just needs the paycheck doing this goofy movie. It’s people that really know how to do a kind of spoof, campy, rocky Horror Picture show is kind of like the grandparent of all those kinds of shows and show that you can have a fantastically cool cult movie.

sar:

Absolutely.

Beth:

If you make it well acted and goofy enough. I think even though some of their jokes and FDR American Badass exclamation point are a little bit goofy sometimes, but they sell it so well, you don’t even really think about how goofy it is because you’re just roaring with laughter or some other character. And I mean, the fact that you’ve got all these folks that are really good character actors too,

sar:

Which everyone will accuse Lynn Shaye of because even casual movie watching viewers probably know Lynn Shea as the protagonist of the Insidious Series from the last couple of years. She’s also Constance for my video gamers out there in The Quarry, the RPG video game that just came out a couple years ago. She is done a ton of horror. So if you find yourself a horror film buff, she’s done American Psycho. She did Penny Dreadful. She did the really bad remake of the call, but Lynn, she was not the reason why it was bad.

Jeff:

Yeah. Lynn, she has been in everything. Barry Boswick, who of course plays FDR, he’s been in almost 200 things. The actor credits in almost 200 roles. I would say his most famous has got to be Rocky Horror. What I did not know is that Barry Boswick has also an accomplished stage actor and he won a Tony for the play, the Robert Bridegroom. I did not know that. That was fun.

sar:

Really?

Jeff:

Yeah. Abraham Lincoln is played by Kevin Sorbo, who you probably know as TV’s Hercules or maybe you know him from his transition into an alt-right tool. Pretty much everyone in this movie has a decent IMDB page and there were a lot of people in it, even though it only feels like there was maybe five or six actors, there was a lot of people in it. Even the Butler, George, FDRs Butler in the White House? George is played by the guy who played Kenny on the Cosby Show.

sar:

Hell yeah.

Jeff:

Everybody here is connected. It’s unbelievable. The cast that they drew together, and it was a really, really small budget. You can tell sort of, but the number of actors they have is you would imagine that would’ve ballooned.

sar:

It gave me the impression of one of those Adam Sandler hits for people my age where Adam Sandler basically calls up his homies and says, you want to fly to Hawaii and make a fifth rom-com? And they all go, sure man. So he’s got a $50 million cast, but there’s no way he even paid half that for them because they’re all his buddies. I would think the casting for this film went something like that just for the budget alone. This movie spent 10 times its budget in just the names they had, so they either weren’t charging or something more insidious.

Jeff:

I think that’s probably a fair assumption. A rumor is that Boswick apparently took the role as FDR several days before the begin filming, so very last minute. I think the other really important thing to note, it’s an independent film, has a very low budget, but it was actually largely pushed forward into production based off of a viral movie trailer. So they actually made a trailer that was kind of like a joke trailer about what this movie might look like. It did very well. It went semi viral at the time. So much so that the Phoenix New Times reports that when the film premiered at the Phoenix Film Festival, there was a packed house. People filled the theater to see it based on having seen the trailer be interested in the concept and knowing people that were in it and wanting to see them perform this. And so I am actually a little surprised that this movie has remained as under the radar as it has because there’s lots of star power. There’s a viral element to it, and it’s fun. I mean, it’s super silly, but it’s also kind of fun. So I’m actually kind of surprised that this thing didn’t become more of a cult classic than it has because quite a few years down the road now, and I haven’t heard anyone mention this movie in a long time.

sar:

Can I give you a counterpoint to that?

Jeff:

Please.

sar:

I think part of the reason this movie doesn’t have the kind of longevity of something like the Rocky Horror Picture Show is because A, it’s got the special unit problem of very its time humor that is sometimes super uncomfortable to watch now, which makes it interesting fodder for our show in so far as we can kind of pick a park and mock, which jokes don’t land anymore. But if you’re sitting through an hour and a half of that, I know why you wouldn’t enjoy it. I don’t think I’m very pearl and even I was a little bit uncomfortable at some of the being made in the film. So I think one, it’s got the special unit problem, two memes just as an ephemeral cultural item, don’t age well.

Jeff:

Right?

sar:

So something like Rocky Horror, I think surpasses being called a meme because it was kind of, and Beth can correct me on this, it was kind of encapsulating a cultural moment in greater film, whereas something like FDR American Badass Exclamation Point isn’t really capturing a mood so much as capturing a very specific subset of chronically online people. And I think it would do extremely well with chronically online people with 10-year-old humor, 10 years ago old, not 10-year-old. Well, maybe both

Jeff:

Both. Both.

Beth:

Disability community would love it if they had heard of it too, because I think about when I was introduced to a great series of videos from the Mickey Faust Club, these disabled performers in Florida, and one of the videos is called Annie Dearest. It is a parody of Helen Keller’s story, but the parody part is Annie Sullivan is evil, like the mother in mommy…

Jeff:

Like the horror movie

Beth:

Like the mommy dearest.

sar:

Oh, okay. So the joke is that she’s an awful person, right?

Beth:

So I think that if people come to it with knowledge that this is not meant to hurt anybody’s feelings, and I think all the characters are pretty empowered and it’s nice to have a film of FDR represented where he’s seen in his wheelchair. And so I just wonder why we haven’t gotten a bunch more interest in it in the disability community…

sar:

Of FDR with Rocket launching wheelchairs more there be more films of FDR with a rocket launching wheelchair.

Jeff:

More of this. So I think Beth, your tapping into something important that I want to draw attention to. So obviously we have our opinions of this movie, but there are people who are more legitimate, well, not more legitimate than Beth, but more legitimate than Jeff and Sarah in terms of our opinions on media culture. And these are of course the critical reviews, the reviewers that have put stuff out. And while the movie actually does fairly well with critical reviewers, particularly in the nerdy sort of seamster world, the sort of B film circuit, very rarely is disability actually mentioned at all in these reviews. That isn’t typically the focus. So for instance, LB Lu Baky writing for Dead Entertainment says the good everything, the characters, the humor, the dialogue, and the over the top action sequences props through Ross Patterson, one of the best indie filmmakers today, John Ambrose writing for Good News now also agrees FDR R America Badass, no exclamation mark for shame is a funny, subversive, irreverent comedy that has a surprisingly good cast.

But this is different than the other reviews that I tended to find when I was digging through. So some of the internet commentary about this film does actually really latch onto this question of disability. So for instance, on Reddit, one Reddit user commented on the movie, said, the shriveled up polio legs will live forever red Free in my mind, another Reddit user commented, I usually don’t go to the bar because fuck that shit. But the one time I did, I was accosted by some Jag off who vehemently unironically insisted that this movie is amazing. Never going to bars again. Apparently not a fan. Not a fan of. This is the divisive rhetoric of today. This is where we’re at nowadays. Back in the early twenties times,

sar:

You can tell what team someone is on by their vehement take on FDR: American Badass.

Jeff:

I definitely now from anytime I’m at a bar, I’m going to accost every single person and only talking about FDR American Badass.

sar:

Grab the microphone, it’s a karaoke bar: Look, I’m just doing a straw poll. I need to know your opinion.

Jeff:

FDR: American Badass,

Beth:

Bring in a VCR or a DVD player to the bar, attach to play it on stage.

Jeff:

Yeah, put the LCD projector on my chair. Just project it everywhere. I’m everywhere I go constantly projecting this film.

sar:

I’m actually not surprised that they’re getting behe kind of extraordinarily biased or polarized arguments about this. Because going back to the other point, if you’re like a huge B film buff or you went to film school or your school made you do a number of film courses, shout out to Laurier or you’re big into the spoof scene, I feel like you would really get something out of this kind of b-movie love letter to B movies and kind of like some of the other films we had this season, it is totally unconcerned. If you are not their core audience, they don’t give a fuck if you don’t like it. They don’t even want wide release release for this really. So it’s kind of promoting its own cultural dissonance in that I think a lot of the people who would shout in a bar, oh my God, I love the Werewolf World War II film. That’s the reaction they’re cultivating. They want people to start arguing with that guy,

Jeff:

Right.

Beth:

I want to bring up the year too, so, promo for my new book, which you can get for free as an ebook: Disabled People Transforming Media Culture for a More Inclusive World. One of the people I interviewed for that book was Teal Sheer who has a web series on YouTube called My Gimpy Life. She’d be a great person for your podcast

Jeff:

If you’re listening, come on the show.

Beth:

The timing of things became very interesting to me when I was writing this book because Teal, I consider kind of a pioneer and these kind of disability focused series, but it was in the kind of early years of YouTube and in fact that social media is how she got funding. She self-funded a pilot episode and her episodes were only 10 or 12 minutes, sometimes only five or seven, and then she put it out on Twitter and I think her major donor, and she did GoFundMe and stuff like that. Kickstarter, I think it was Kickstarter or not GoFundMe. But anyway, so she found a major part of her funding from, he might’ve been Canadian actually, somebody who developed an app or an algorithm I think to late money, what’s it called? From Canadian dollars to US dollars.

Jeff:

Oh, auto exchange.

Beth:

Auto Exchange thing. He wrote the algorithm for it. So that even shows us how plugged in the community is because they don’t know what’s coming later. So they still think people are going to be going to the movies and I see this as something that could be streaming on your paid YouTube channel subscription or anywhere like that. And the same with what Teal was doing. She was almost too early writing Netflix saying you should put this on your platform. A lot of these streaming platforms claim to have disability content, but they aren’t out there grabbing up the stuff that’s already been made. This would be like Teal series that could have been, if you like this, you will like this. So these kinds of things are media artifacts that are still being pushed to the side, and I think it’s because of Ableism because

sar:

Right. Jeff, how many of our movies this semester have been on Netflix? None.

Jeff:

I don’t think. Netflix? No. Oh no, we don’t go to Netflix.

Hey guys, Jeff’s here, editors don’t. We absolutely have done a Netflix movie this year, the Hill. So there is one film we’ve done this year that was on Netflix.

We’re hanging out in Tubie, my friends. That’s where we hang out.

Beth:

Crackle?

Jeff:

Crackle, baby.

sar:

What she’s saying, if you have to go to totally off brand platforms to even have a chance at finding this comment in your scroll marathon, maybe that’s saying something about what we’re funding or greenlighting or choosing to preserve or not preserve in our film history or what we think is film history. How many films, Beth, are disability related that are currently greenlit on the Blacklist trivia question? I don’t know the answer, but I would be thrilled to hear your take for viewers at home, the Blacklist is a screenplay list. I don’t remember who does it. Jeff can do a Google for that, but every year they write out the most promising screenplays and promising is never translated to mean going to be critically acclaimed. It’s the most people show interest in green lighting this, and these are usually the films that the Amazon studios and Netflix and Hulu pickup because they’re easy sell. I think that might have a relationship to how many disabled films are getting green lit vis a vis how many of them are ending up on the blacklist

Beth:

And also the kind of problems Hollywood has with actually letting a disabled person be in control of their content. That’s true. I know disabled filmmakers who have brilliant ideas, they even have scripts they’ve written, but they’re not going to give away. They’re not going to sell their script to some bozo in Hollywood who’s going to strip it clean of all the disability

Content, not higher disabled actor. I mean, there is more of a actors now and writers are now at least putting a clause into some of their scripts that they will only let you film it if you use a disabled actor for part. But I don’t know, I think Hollywood has lost so much money because of the pandemic. We’re talking billions and billions and billions of dollars that they were really poised to start having more disability representation. I actually gave a talk to the Lionsgate film studio in January of 2020 and they were so proud of what they were going to be doing. They had the movie run that was coming out, which has a main character who’s an actual wheelchair user, and it’s like a two person kind of thriller. And so she carried the whole movie and she was new to being, I think it was her first film anyway, it was like a Columbia University student in New York and it’s really good.

But I think the last movie I saw in a theater was that, and Crip Camp. I saw Crip camp at the Museum of Modern Art Theater, and I saw Run in a little tiny theater that Lionsgate has in Manhattan. I took my friend Emily Ladau to it because a wheelchair user and writes about disability and media sometimes. And so we watched it and gave them feedback and also Emily’s a journalist and we had trouble with them because when I asked that somebody uses a wheelchair come with me, not my disability, I said, she’s also a journalist and would love to interview the young woman who is the star of the show or the movie. And she used to be editor for Rooted in Rights and some other publications that were more disability focused. And literally they were like, oh no, we want to get it out in mainstream publications. And I’m like, this has been a problem for the promotion of film content for a long time too, is they don’t see disability publications as resonant with the society, which I think is totally opposite of what they should be doing. They should be putting all the articles that they want written by disabled people. Then you’re going to get the disability audience. But one last example from how, because my organization, the Global Alliance for Disability and Media Entertainment, we’d done some consulting up until the pandemic through everything for a loop. And that’s why I ended up being a speaker to the Lionsgate movie studio, the people that worked there because they had reached out and we were reading some of the scripts and stuff. The first problem was they would give us a script to read after they’d shot us the movie. Excellent, perfect. So that was a problem. And so we watched Run long after they, we saw a director’s cut, I think. Anyway, and so Emily and I had some suggestions. The one good thing was we got them to change the poster. We said, this is going to be super offensive.

Jeff:

Perfect. Oh no. Are you able to share what the original poster was?

Beth:

I don’t see why not. The original poster. It’s a very good thriller, so they’re trying to go for some kind of Hitchcockian poster and they made the stairwell look like a spine.

Jeff:

Oh, classic. Yeah. Yeah.

sar:

Nice.

Jeff:

That’s quite the trope.

Beth:

Emily were just like, no. And there was something they did at the end of the film that I won’t spoil for you.

Jeff:

Yeah, big spoiler on that one.

Beth:

Yeah.

sar:

Well, if I could apply you with theory for a second, do you think that especially around it got my mind going when you were saying that by the time they had showed you as a disability consultant, a film or an image or I dunno, clips from the motion picture. It was already between 60 to 80% done. And that struck me as very similar to the stuff they’re doing at the UK labs around schizophrenia research in so far as the LXP users that they have do consultations, and this is kind of picking up speed in America, but not anywhere to the extent it’s being used at the NIM initiative at the uk. They would consult them so late in the process of these huge implementations that it came off as kind of a convenient performative politeness act like, Hey, we’ve already pretty much implemented this, but could we get your sign off really quick?

And not at any part of the initial development process where they could have asked things like, Hey schizophrenics, do you think any part of this program might be feasibly helpful to you? Why or why not? It just does not seem to occur to any of these experts. Why don’t we just ask them between steps one to five instead of step 2 72 80, and then in the instance that they do get feedback that is less than favorable, they’ll be like, well, I mean fuck disabled people. They don’t know anyway. They’re not going to like anything we produce

Jeff:

And it’s not for them, right?

sar:

It feels like such an easy solution when you pick up a blacklist script, just have a consulting table right then and there. As soon as we pick the script and have people there with lived experience who are like, Hey, I’m going to tell you why that’s problematic and you can do what that information, what you will. The downside is that would make a podcast Jeff’s completely irrelevant impossible. Because now through that consultation process, we have nothing left to mock.

Jeff:

We’re not making movies like FDR American Badass,

sar:

But I thought that that was a really interesting similarity between kind of how things get developed and produced in Hollywood studios and how research disseminates in especially psychology, mental health, sociological trends, big UK publications.

Jeff:

I think what you’re really, that line that you’re kind of drawn here, that’s a really important one for us to hold on to is this notion that in the same way that I think academic research is predominantly done on and about disabled people and is being produced for non-disabled people, for other academics that are not disabled. I think so too. In the film world, I don’t know that Hollywood perceives disabled people as viable audience members, so they’re not making any of these films for us. They’re making it for what they perceive to be the buying audience. And so it’s like, well, yeah, so why are there so many inspiration porns? Why there’s so many horror disabled character? Well, because that’s what the non-disabled audience, I don’t want to say enjoys, but it animates the audience, the non-disabled audience member to be, oh, I feel sad for this disabled kid.

sar:

Or see, I would even contest that though, because every time I watch a mental illness movie, I get 30 people in my inbox asking, Hey, was this accurate? So they do want to know how much of

Jeff:

It is truthful. The audience does. I don’t disagree with that, but I don’t know that they’re getting that deep into it, strangers.

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, invalid culture.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

[punk theme song plays, Mvll Crimes song “Arguing with Strangers on the Internet”]

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

Transcript – Part 2

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.

[Punk theme song, Mvll Crimes’ “Arguing with Strangers” plays to start the episode]

sar:

Going out today because I’m feeling too upset arguing with strangers on the internet. And I’m winning.

Jeff:

I’m winning. Welcome back to another thrilling episode of Invalid Culture, part two of FDR American Badass joined as always by co-hosts Sarah Cur and a media expert scholar all round. Amazing person. Beth Hayward here again, and I’m sure that we all would like to talk a little bit about the election, but I think we should move forward because we have to talk about a very deep film, which is of course FDR, American Badass. Okay, so let’s talk a little bit about the plot here. So for those of you who have not watched this film before, FDR American Badass begins with Franklin Delano Roosevelt out hunting with some friends when they’re attacked by a Roman werewolf common in the United States. Apparently FDR manages to kill the werewolf, but not before being bitten. Unlike the fabricated world of Teen Wolf where a werewolf fight turns you into a werewolf.

This historically accurate film explains that werewolf fights, in fact, have stricken FDRs legs with polio leaving them as shriveled floppy legs that quiver like meat Jello, FDR relieved that his penis still works, but devastated by his inability to walk meets a young disabled boy who inspires him to fight back against the polio and run for president of the United States. So I want to pick up where we left off there, Beth talking a little bit about this pivotal scene. So FDR is in bed and he’s upset about, needed a wheelchair, and then this Tim character comes in, which is usually sort of a point of mockery, often a terrible character. The sad, pitiful disabled child. They sort of vert this though, right?

Beth:

Definitely. I think I just love that scene because the child is basically as a wheelchair using child. He’s basically guiding the president forward in his journey, is now a disabled man and hopefully a disabled president because he wants to run it’s genius. And here, let me little fact background is that when Kenneth Branagh did this, a movie where he played FDR, that was from 2009 or something, Teal Sherer who was in that movie, she was in a disabled dance group in college that performed and then they saw that she wanted to be an actor. So she got hired to teach Kenneth Branagh how to use a wheelchair for his role as FDR in the non spoof movie of FDR non spoof.

Jeff:

Amazing

Beth:

My info for that Anyway, but I just found it, this was such a great kind of twist to make the disabled child, the powerful one in that relationship, the one with all the knowledge and then the newly disabled man who’s a governor of state like accepts that knowledge from him and says, okay, this is what we’re going to do. And then the secretary finds his hot dog legs sexy. So

Jeff:

Right, right.

Beth:

It’s all good. I mean, this should be on Netflix. It should be, and I think back to your point Sarah too, about whether people are cringing through it. I think if going into it and Netflix and some of the other ones have that little two sentences about it or you can watch the trailer or whatever, I think people that are into that kind of comedy, they can’t find it because they don’t know about it on Crackle or wherever. But if it was on one of the major streaming platforms, then people that love that could see this different disability kind of discourse where this is an empowered president basically because of his wheelchair and not before. I’m not talking about when he under understands that he can still be president as someone who uses a wheelchair. That is a really empowering statement that probably only a parody could really address because in real life, like we talked about, he hid his wheelchair at all times.

Jeff:

Right. Which was not even a part of this discussion. Right? See?

sar:

But he wouldn’t have hit it if it was the Delano wheelchair.

Jeff:

Right? It was the Delano 2000.

sar:

I would’ve to every press conference, look at this, this is what you’re up against.

Beth:

Have you seen the real flamethrower wheelchair that exist?

Jeff:

I’m a very big fan, the real ones. Did you say there are wheelchairs that people made flamethrowers for? Yes,

sar:

Oh my God!

Jeff:

It’s amazing. Very cool.

Beth:

It has like tractor wheels.

Jeff:

Yeah. Tank Tracks.

Beth:

They’re all-terrain, wheelchair, and someone attached a flamethrowers.

sar:

Okay if we are talking about act ones, I actually really love that Beth brought up the empowerment angle because this movie, for everything that I could fault it for actually does that bit really well. Disability is a total non-issue in the way that sexism and racism and homophobia are just total non-issues and shifts,

Jeff:

Also non-issues

sar:

In this alternative universe where he jumps into that wicker chair and no one gives a shit and he didn’t even really seem to give a shit apart from waking up in the hospital and asking if his dick still worked.

Jeff:

That was the primary concern.

sar:

Beyond that, he was like, alright, I’m fine, whatever, let’s get in the chair and go.

Beth:

And I think that actually may be part of the empowerment of a person, the actual person of FDR who was raised as a wealthy person and so does not see any problem he can’t handle because he was raised as very, and I think he has even a regal look with that extended cigarette holder that he used in real life. So I think part of it is also the personality of someone who was raised in wealth and kind of knows, doesn’t know that they can’t do anything they want. And for this case that’s in particular because I see that a lot with people talking about white privilege and other areas of privilege, but we don’t talk about just economic privilege that sometimes a disabled person might have too. Absolutely. And so that’s not bad for FDR to be portrayed this way. And it’s not even bad that he might’ve been liked that way in real life because somebody with white privilege and wealth in the 1930s still might’ve been knocked down by suddenly having polio and not being able to move forward with their political career. And the real FDR did not do that. He embraced that and apparently he had no problem interpersonally, interpersonally with everybody who interacted with him and came to the White House. He was in his wheelchair. Did they

sar:

Even show scenes of him in the plantation south? And I thought it was kind of unrealistic that nobody was commenting at all on his wheelchair even when they got into the hot tub. And I was like, okay. Right.

Jeff:

How did they get in that hot tub?

sar:

Yeah, right. Fine. Now that you’ve added the regality angle and the additional context of it honestly would not have occurred to him that people would make fun of him for that or that they would think that he was incapable of doing something. I think it adds an extra layer to some of those scenes where I was kind of sitting there outside of context going like, why aren’t we talking about this?

Jeff:

Right? Yeah. I think it’s probably unintentionally clever. I don’t know that they were necessarily thinking about that when they made the film, but it does actually land for illiterate in some ways. Right.

Beth:

The hot tub is fantastic because right before you get to that scene where Cleon is introduced,

Jeff:

Well, let’s do that because that’s our next step. So we’ll start there. We’ll come back to it

sar:

Oh is this act 2?

Jeff:

Yeah. I didn’t know how to cut this up. So this is how I cut it up. Okay. So back to the story. So FDR goes on a cross east coast of the United States tour to meet with working class folk and learn about the impacts of the Great Depression. On his travels, FDR will then meet up with a southern gentleman and re pube congressman named Cleon Bay Bridge, Beford, who was also bit by a werewolf and survived. They’ve become fast friends sharing meals and his wife with Beauford promising to help secure FDA’s victory in the coming election. A victory that is celebrated by the entire family, active foolishly ud, some vase pooping. Yeah, this is where it’s very much that sort of 13-year-old humor. Meanwhile, in Europe, werewolf Hitler, werewolf Mussolini and Werewolf Hirohito are screaming to take down America. The plan is simple, poison alcohol with werewolf blood through and then through the Italian mafia bootleggers, this will make you into a vampire. So they’re poison in the water with blood, you drink the blood, you become a werewolf. And now America has been colonized by the werewolves, I suppose.

Beth:

I thought they were only poisoning through the liquor.

Jeff:

Yeah, through the alcohol. Yeah. FDR isn’t going to let this happen. Of course, he is outfitted with Einstein’s Gallo, 2000 a rocket launcher machine, gun wheelchair being the second weapon read wheelchair that appears this season on invalid culture. Nice. Now, Sarah, what is the favorite of the weaponized wheelchairs? You team Delano 2000 or are you team Mr. Do legs

sar:

And I’m using a lot of Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon references just because the House of the Dragon finale was really recently, but it kind of gave Targaron versus Lannister, those two chairs. The Lannister chair is definitely the Delano chair. It’s gold. It’s got the insets, it’s got multi-port exits for the rocket launchers. You can actually see him load it at one point, which Mr. No Legs didn’t bother with. Mr. No Legs has more of the proletarian special, which I like to think is more rugged because the message, the social message. But I think I’d have to go with the Lannister, obviously.

Jeff:

Yeah, you’re a Delano 2000 fan. Yeah, fair enough.

Beth:

Yeah, I think the other thing that’s interesting is so Warm Springs was a real place that he actually bought FDR actually bought it. He found this, it’s in Georgia. He found the warm springs so helpful to his polio.

sar:

Can you do that? Can you just buy regions?

Jeff:

You can if you’re a Roosevelt.

Beth:

No Warm Springs…it’s like a spring place.

sar:

Like a state?

Beth:

Yeah, or more just like a springs place. I went to a state park that had springs. So this is him just buying a farm that he’s putting, not a farm, but buying something that was already used for the warm springs that he could afford to keep running. And of course people, a lot of people had polio starting in the twenties through the fifties till the vaccines. So it would be a place where everybody that had polio could come and you go and there’s actually a warm springs picture of him in a wheelchair where he’s talking to a little girl who’s standing next to her. I can’t remember if she had braces or not on her legs. But anyway, so I mean that’s like campy gold to take this actual resort and distill it down to being a hot tub. Also financial assist because you don’t have to go film anywhere outside. They probably need somebody who actually owned that. So I think that’s super interesting.

sar:

That’s a cool piece of context.

Beth:

I think we have to Google it, but I think one of the first things he did when he became president was throwing out prohibition and suddenly alcohol was legal. So that was defeating the werewolf Nazis by doing that.

sar:

That’s right.

Jeff:

I will say so in the description on the box, they talk about right off the rip about how FDR ends the great depression and prohibition, but those actually were barely parts of this movie. That’s the first 20 minutes, maybe not even 20 minutes, they just sort of brush it aside. I honestly think they should have spent more time talking about that little bit of his history.

sar:

We are in misalignment here. I think if your team Mussolini Hirohito, my man Hitler, the werewolves of course, that was actually central to their plan of taking over America. The alcohol only worked because it was prohibited in America. So they controlled all the streams of entry, which is how they were poisoning millions and millions of people at once. And then one of the throwaway jokes is that nobody actually drank the sake because it was for women and sissies.

Jeff:

But I don’t think that we really heard doubt. There could have been this moment of FDR being like, I know the way to stop this. I’m going to legalize alcohol again. That was just not really addressed. But it’s like that would’ve been a moment. I think that could have tied back to the history to be like, oh, remember when he did this? This is why he did it. He did it because of the werewolves, which with a fly. But for a non-American literate audience, maybe not as obvious. Now I do need to ask Cleveland Bay Bridge. Buford is not a real person, correct?

Beth:

I don’t think so.

Jeff:

I don’t believe that is a real congressman. I looked everywhere. Please, if I’m wrong, Americans let me know. I do not believe Cleveland porridge. Buford is a real person. I think that was made up American.

sar:

Is there a CBB Congressman and they just changed the names?

Jeff:

I don’t believe so. I think this was just fully made out by belief.

sar:

Composite Character?

Jeff:

Yeah, composite of all sort of southern Republicans. Maybe.

Beth:

If he did go to Georgia, he’s not going to meet many Democrats back then.

Jeff:

Yeah, no,

Beth:

Except for black people who loved FDR because he helped get them to work too. His policies to get the US out of depression, out of the Great Depression included all people, all citizens,

Jeff:

Right? Yeah.

sar:

Was that why there were so many scenes with the random black basketball? He was invited to voting night and he was playing basketball in a ton of scenes that he really had no business being in. And the Southerners, I think called him their slave. But FDR himself never refers to him that way. He seems to just be chill with the presence.

Jeff:

I think it was the other way. I think that the Northerners were like, he’s a slave. And then there was a huge fight over that. And then the joke reveal is that he’s not. He works there. He’s educated that it was actually the Northerners that had sort of the wrong idea or the racist understanding, I think was sort of the joke that they tried to land. But this is the thing, unless it’s a dick joke, they struggle mightily to land other jokes. They really can only land sex jokes and drug jokes. In my opinion, I don’t know that a lot of the other people landed in many ways. So after foiling the Italian mafia with his tricked out wheelchair, FDR is left to make a decision about how best to repay the fascists in Europe and Japan. Meeting with in Churchill, FDR explains his reservations for getting directly involved in the conflict.

He explains that the American people just won’t stand for it. FDR has an affair with the secretary for whatever reason. I guess that’s a shout out to the real FDR. There’s the sex scene with the ketchup up of mustard. This then leads to a barely returned to B plot where FDR and LNR are having a bit of a lover spat after learning that the access forces are taking over Europe and getting high with the ghost of Lincoln. FDR decides it is time for the US get involved in the war. Pearl Harbor never happened. You heard here first. This will lead to our thrilling conclusion in which FDR takes his Delano 2000 Airborne. He attacks Europe, conveniently killing Hitler and Mussolini were on the front lines of the battle, which is of course, as we know in exactly how World War II ended.

sar:

Well, Churchill and FDR were also on the front lines. So they had the medieval style, the big homies right up there at the front. Bannerman.

Jeff:

Yeah. Yeah. And that’s exactly what happened. You’re welcome troops. Thank you for your service. Now that’s our movie in a nutshell. Those of you who have listened to this podcast before will know that we have a fully rigorous peer reviewed, completely scientific rating system, which we call the Inval Culture Scale, which we use to determine whether or not this film passes muster. Now, as you know, we played this game a little bit like golf. The lower the score, the better the film is. Okay, first up, on a scale of one to five, with five being the least accurate, how accurately does this film portray disability?

Beth:

I say two just because of the empowerment scenario. I mean, it’s a spoof, but this is a wheelchair user in almost every scene after he gets polio from the werewolf that he is using his wheelchair as part of his life and it’s no big deal. After he decides and then he gets tricked out by Einstein, and now it’s a way to win World War ii. So even though it’s a spoof, it’s a spoof of empowerment, not a spoof of inspiration porn or ableism.

sar:

I agreed with Beth. I also went with two, and a lot of it was for the empowerment reason. I like to put this in contention like I did earlier with special unit, which was a film that was also ostensibly a parody, but we couldn’t stop talking about how it was laughing at the disabled people instead of laughing with the disabled people. And I think contrary wise, this film does a pretty good job. One of the reviewers said of laughing at everyone who appears, including the disabled individual. It was almost a total non-issue that he was a wheelchair user and they actually create boons for him as a result of having the disability. So I felt two was fair.

Jeff:

Yeah. Alright, well we are in copacetic alignment here. I also gave it a two for many of the same reasons I took Microsoft. I think the over-reliance on does my penis work? I mean, that’s super trope, I would say for sure. And yeah, I’d say it’s a two. I will say though, I want this on record, if this was a question of how accurately does this film portray werewolves, I would give this movie a Bloody five. It is wrong in every way about werewolves in every way, how werewolves work. I mean, there’s no reference to the moon. The Nazis and the fascist werewolves are always werewolves. They don’t transition back to humans. I’m very upset about this. So two on disability, five on werewolves. Okay. Scale of one to five, with five being the hardest, how hard was it to get through this film?

Beth:

One, it was a blast as a viewing experience. You don’t have to use many parts of your brain, but it’s like good comedy and every little tidbit kept me going, when are they going to spin the Batman, the bat cave presidential seal again? And it moves really fast. So the comedy, they don’t stick with one bit for a long time and milk it forever. So I think the quick pace helped with of the comedy that might’ve been a little bit goofy. And also the good acting. You really, I was bored when the werewolves were on the screen, so that would be the only thing that I would’ve cut back time on. I didn’t care about them. I wanted to see what FDR and his team were going to do, but I really felt like it was a fun watch. That’s why I wanted to get out there so more people can know about it.

sar:

I’m in total disagreement with that. We’re in agreement on the score. I also gave it a one, but the werewolf scenes were my favorite scenes regardless of historical accuracy in either the werewolf or the humans for which they were based. I had a lot of fun, and I dunno if that means I’m a secret fascist or I’m a Nazi or something. But I think some of the most fun scenes in the film was the kind of outright mocking of totalitarianism and the bone headedness of their schemes.

Beth:

Yeah, yeah. All for that. I’m all for that.

sar:

Oh yeah. There was a bit they kept doing where as soon as an assistant would finish helping one of the leaders, they would shoot them in the head and get another assistant, which feels very reminiscent of kind of Putin’s Russia right now. So something’s never changed. I love those, but I tend to parody of political systems more than I like Scatological humor and dick jokes. Those really just don’t land for me. So I found a lot of this film. I was petting Jeff’s dogs. I was kind of absentmindedly looking at the screen, but I had enough fun with it and I totally agree with it. Agree with you about the pacing. It was quick. So one,

Beth:

Yeah, I think the thing, I’m not a supporter of Nazi werewolves or ves or Mussolini werewolves, but for me, I guess I’m more of a vampire girl. Werewolf never be for me. Oh, you needed to see the Lincoln movie. I was wondering. It came out the same year.

Jeff:

Yeah, this was all connected.

Beth:

I wondered if it was referencing when they kept talking about what Abraham Lincoln did, they were referencing

sar:

It’s an AU.

Beth:

I saw that one, but it’s not a parody. It’s an actual

Jeff:

Well sort of, yeah.

sar:

Oh, Lincoln was canonically a vampire.

Beth:

No, Vampire killer. Abraham Lincoln Vampire Killer.

Jeff:

Vampire killer. Yeah, he killed the vampires Sarah. He was on the side of justice.

Beth:

They would reference Abraham Lincoln. All I could think of was that movie. And I was like, but that was vampires.

Jeff:

Yeah. So this movie of course comes out when there’s this whole revisionist history thing happening in movies and books.

sar:

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

Jeff:

Exactly. It’s the exact same type as all that, right?

sar:

Oh my God,

Jeff:

I think they were definitely nodding. So I’m going to be the outlier on this one. I gave it a three. And this is deeply personal to me. This is not actually, it’s the werewolf thing again. It’s the werewolf thing again. No. So when I watched this, I was really amped up to watch this. I thought I was going to really, really enjoy it. And it’s not that I didn’t enjoy it, but I did find the level of the humor really got tired fast for me

That it was just sort of the same thing over and over again. And I’m like, I understand why this is probably funny if you’re half wasted and you’re with your bunch of friends and you’re filming this thing together. And it’s just like, wouldn’t it be funny if these historic figures that are well regarded sort of historical figures are these sort of plotty mouth, whatever. I’m not saying you can’t do that. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do that. I’m not saying you won’t enjoy that, but I found it was just a little thin. I thought it was going to give me a little more. So I thought the worst film I’ve ever seen, I mean there are way worse films that I’ve watched for this stupid podcast, but I actually found myself enjoying some of the other movies that we watched this season more where I was a little bit watching. I was checking my watch toward the end of this one.

Beth:

Was there any difference between when you watched it back when I sent it to you?

Jeff:

Yeah. I liked it more the first time I saw it, but it was like 10 years ago. I was a baby back then.

sar:

He’s a different person now.

Jeff:

I’m much more sophisticated now that you see I’m a real…I’m the eldest boy now.

sar:

Oh, here we go, Kendall.

Jeff:

Okay, so my first little favorite question, on a scale of one to five, with five being the maximum, how often did you laugh at things that were not supposed to be funny?

Beth:

Yeah, I think that for me, I rarely because I thought everything was meant to be funny. So that’s why I gave it a one. So when I interpret this as when humor was not intended was that it was directed at something that it shouldn’t have been directed at. So I’m probably misinterpreting the question like you said, you that’s a totally valid interpretation.

Jeff:

That’s exactly what we’re asking.

Beth:

This nonstop comedy, what I wouldn’t say was nonstop laughing, but I did chuckle at certain things because it’d been so long since I saw it that it was basically a first viewing for me. And so all the cleverness I think works really well on the first viewing, but you don’t need to watch it a second time.

sar:

No, not necessary.

Beth:

So that’s why I put a one because I just felt like everything was planned. And even some of the references that maybe a Canadian wouldn’t get the hot tub in place of Warm Springs resort, that kind of fun stuff, or some people might not know what the spinning thing was from. So you’ve had me at spinning bat cave presidential White House. It was just so nostalgic for me for a lot of the kind of old goofy boobies that America used to have because I think in addition to being this spoof for parody, it’s also kind of part of the B movie genre that was really big. And in the thirties, forties and fifties. And also movies were really big in the Great Depression because

Jeff:

Right, huge.

Beth:

They cost 5 cents. And so if you could scrape up five pennies, you could go probably into an air conditioning environment and watch movies all day for 5 cents. So there was that B movie level of quality that I just thought was there, and that was why I was going to give it the one because

sar:

I think that’s a great answer. I agreed with you, but I was coming from the opposite spectrum. Like you said, I am really not the target audience for this film. I wasn’t alive when any of this happened. I don’t know anyone who was alive when any of this happened. I know basically nothing about American history. I have no relationship really to American politics pre-Obama. So 2012, I’m two years out of high school at that point. I think that’s when I started getting into Obama. But that’s my cultural touchpoint for any kind of relationship with American politics. So this film is really not for me in any way. And I still found myself enjoying it, but I don’t think enjoying it for a lot of the more clever references. When Beth was talking about the cigarette that I thought was, because I’ve seen it on people like Groucho Marx or these forties feminist figureheads from historical films.

I thought it was mocking him. I didn’t know about his background. I didn’t really get the hot tub scene. I found the totalitarian jokes kind of funny, but highbrow humor here was really lost on me. The other problem with this film, and I don’t even think that me not being the target audience was a problem necessarily, but it does impact my score. It had a really absurd jokes per minute in the screenplay, which is something we talked about with special unit where if you’re throwing enough jokes per minute at the wall, something’s going to land. But it’s also going to frustrate the audience if too many of them, and I think I’m speaking for Jeff A. Little bit here. We were both a little frustrated by the end of the film at how many in a row weren’t landing. So that’s kind of the core dice roll of putting that many jokes into a screenplay. Right? So one.

Jeff:

Yeah, again, I think we’re all aligned on this one. I also gave it a one I laughed, and when I did it was at things that were obviously intended to be funny. They were clearly trying to get a laugh out of these things. There wasn’t really any moments where I saw something that was just so absurd or so silly that was not intended to be, I mean, that the entire thing is intended to be silly. And so in some ways they’re kind of protected a little bit, I think, which is interesting. 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?

Beth:

Since I was watching it kind of with fresh eyes, I don’t think it puts disabled people back at all. So I gave it a one. Yeah, I could have done without the Scatological stuff or whatever, but I actually think the sexual content is really important because FDR is presented as a sexual being. And for most of the movie, he is a wheelchair user. So in a lot of sense they hit on truth and parody because they were just trying to break all the tropes. They ended up making this movie that did not pander, did not have pity, did not do anything insulting because I could see to disabled people,

sar:

I’m going to go right in the middle with 2.5. I think on its face, there is not anything really disastrously wrong with this film. And I do really agree, and I said to Beth earlier that I really like the empowerment take this film has where it almost gives you this shit’s creek alternate universe of what if nobody gave a fuck about wheelchairs kind of thing. And it does kind of hit that home. What I think the problem is, which is kind of related, you can’t talk about this film without talking about special unit because it’s on a different side of the spectrum with what both these films were trying to achieve as satirical vehicles for disability culture. I think if this became a kind of symbol of disability on film, that would be a problem because it’s kind of defined by nonstory making complete misunderstandings of history and stupid lowbrow jokes that people will think, oh, that’s what disabled people understand and think is funny. And I don’t think that’s what they tried to do, but if you make this film emblematic, that is what people are going to take away from it. In the same way that, and I’m going to bang my drum on this a little bit here. When a Beautiful Mind became emblematic, we started associating traits with that film, with traits of mental disability in general. Right now, swap out a Beautiful Mind for FDR American Badass. I think that would be disappointing at best. 2.5.

Jeff:

Yeah. Fair. Yeah. So I’m right in the middle of you guys. I’m going to give it a two. I’ve waffled a little bit between 2.5 or 1.5 and two. I think that light, Beth mentioned disability is such a non-factor in this film that I kind of love that and in a way that I don’t think that they were intentionally ignoring it by any means. It wasn’t your typical same old joke like, oh, he can’t walk. That wasn’t sort of the ongoing low hanging fruit joke. Having said that, I was really struck by the volume of comments online about polio legs and about specifically his polio legs in people that were commented on the film. And so clearly that polio legs, they landed with people. And I think it landed in a way that the center of that joke was look at how gross they are and look at how creepy it is. And then that becomes sort of the root of the sexual scene with the ketchup of mustard in that it’s this grosso humor is sort of what they’re going for. And so I’m like I, you’re right up against the line there. I think you’re right up on the line in that, I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it, but I am saying that this does continue a long line of this idea of disabled bodies are gross in some way, but I think that’s actually a relatively minor sin in a movie that got werewolves so wrong, so, so wrong. We’re back to the werewolves guys not letting it go.

sar:

We also have to underline if we’re going to do parody, it’s not fair to say for a whole group of people that’s not funny or that didn’t hit because when we were talking about special unit, we agreed, there is a group that thinks this movie is very funny and they are a disabled audience. That group is not us, but they’re out there.

Jeff:

And I think this movie is the exact same. I think there’s a large group of people that I might not say this is the best movie I’ve ever seen, but I think based on our scale, this movie is actually pretty good. And if we tabulate our total drum roll, FDR, American Badass on the Invalid Culture Scale gets a 19.5, which puts it at the high end of the second top of the list Regrets of I have a few, which seems pretty fair.

sar:

Yeah, I think that worked out. I think it’s in no way a serial offender. It makes all the same couple mistakes over and over and over again.

Jeff:

Right? Yeah. And even if they’re, I don’t know that they’re necessarily mistakes. It’s true.

Beth:

Yeah. One thing I would add is the lack of authenticity. I mean, I think we haven’t talked about that, but none of your questions got that. So if had one more question, of course. Not that I know of. Anybody involved with this production had a disability.

Jeff:

Yeah

Beth:

Why I recommend people watch things like My Gimpy life or any dearest, which you can find on YouTube, both of them, because then you see comedy coming from the disability community, which it would be good for people to have kind of contrast. I think this is a very funny movie. They’re not intending any harm toward disabled people and they’re playing with tropes that need to be crushed about disability. But still, I think it would’ve been a different film. And so now we just need a disabled crew to remake this movie. Yeah, make a Broadway show. Broadway show with songs.

Jeff:

Yeah. I would honestly…

Beth:

Off Broadway show…with songs.

Jeff:

put Zach Anner in this. I would love to see what someone like Zach Anner would do with this film. So yeah, Ross Patterson, if you’re watching, get Zach Anner got a couple other cool dudes. You could still be Buford, that’s fine. But then let’s do it up and let’s raise the humor up like half a bar. Not even a full bar, just half a bar up a little bit. Maybe just the pooping in the face thing. I don’t think anyone found that funny. So maybe cut that.

Beth:

I don’t even know why that was in there.

Jeff:

Yeah, it was a weird, I think it’s just Poop is funny. Maybe. I don’t know.

Beth:

I think it was the Gross Out era too. 2012. More the Gross Out era.

Jeff:

Oh big time, big time product of its time. Just as we are all products of our time. And it has been a lovely time. Sarah, to you. Beth, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.

Beth:

Thank you. So happy to be here.

Jeff:

You totally survived. We survived. And I think that probably you should come back again next year because we should talk about Helen Keller.

sar:

We’re dying to do that film with you.

Beth:

Yay. That’d be awesome.

Jeff:

Thank you. We should totally do it. And with that, this is the end of our season of Invalid Culture sort of. We have one episode left. It is our Christmas episode, our holiday episode. We don’t know what to call it. Episode it is coming out in December. It’s special. It’s different. We’re not going to be talking about invalid films. Instead we’re going to give you guys a bunch of little presents. So tune in next month, check it out, and we will be back again with another fun season before you know it of invalid culture. Stay safe out there, folks.

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, invalid culture.com, submit it, and we would love to watch the trash

[Punk theme song, Mvll Crimes’ “Arguing with Strangers” plays to conclude the episode]

 

 

DVD cover of The Amazing Mr. No Legs, featuring the iconic shotgun wheelchair firing.

Will anyone survive the wheelchair of mayhem?

We launch season 3 with a bang, heading to the mean streets of Tampa Bay to learn about drug smuggling and murder cover-ups. Despite what the title of the film implies, Mr. No Legs is weirdly absent throughout much of the film…but will that hurt or help it’s rating?

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

Sarah – 1 / 5

Total – 3 / 10

How difficult was it to watch the movie?

Sarah – 1 / 5

Jeff – 1 / 5

Total – 2 / 10

How often were things unintentionally funny?

Jeff – 2 / 5

Sarah – 1 / 5

Total – 3 / 10

How far back has it put disabled people?

Sarah – 1 / 5

Jeff – 1 / 5

Total – 2 / 10

The Verdict

Is this actually art??

Transcript

Jeff [talking over the theme music of Mr. No Legs]:

Tampa Bay, Florida. The 1970s. When a college boy turned drug dealer accidentally kills his girlfriend, there is only one person who can solve the problem. The amazing Mr. No Legs. Drugs, murder, a man with no legs. This movie has everything that you could possibly want and will likely piss off the liberals. Tune in to Mr. No Legs.

 

[Invalid Culture’s punk theme song, “Arguing With Strangers” by Mvll Crimes]

 

Jeff:

Welcome back to a new thrilling season of Invalid Culture and boy oh boy, do we have a year in store for you. As always, I am your host, Jeff Preston, and I am joined by my co-host, victim, Sarah Curry. How are you doing, Sarah?

Sarah:

I’m pretty good. How are you doing this year?

Jeff:

Well, I got to say it’s a new year and we have quite the belated Christmas present that’s been delivered to us here in January. This month we watched The Amazing Mr. No Legs. This is a movie from 1978, which you may have not heard of because it’s actually … Well, it was actually very difficult to get your hands on it, but thanks to some miraculous restoration, I was able to get my hands quite easily on a Blu-ray of this film, which may or may not be the final cut of the film. From the box, Mr. No Legs is about the “double amputee”. Mr. No Legs may not see much of a threat at first, but cross him and you’ll see why he’s Florida’s ruthless drug kingpin D’Angelo’s deadliest enforcer. With his unique martial arts mastery and shotgun welded wheelchair, Mr. No Legs is virtually unstoppable. But when a henchman kills the sister of a straight shooting cop, D’Angelo’s whole enterprise made undone and threatened to bring Mr. No Legs down with it. Would you say that’s a pretty accurate description of the film, Sarah?

Sarah:

It’s only missing the 15 minute long car chase, but I think other than that it’s pretty faithful.

Jeff:

Yeah, that’s spoiler, I think. You don’t want to spoil the ending there for people.

Sarah:

I don’t want to spoil a seventh of the entire film.

Jeff:

Yeah. You got to keep that under wraps. Under wraps.

Sarah:

Gotcha.

Jeff:

Now, this of course is … It’s a movie from the ’70s. It is a grind house film that is exactly what you probably imagined it is. It’s shooting, it’s punching, it’s bar fights, but it’s also a whole lot more than that, particularly because of the people that were involved in the making of this film, which is almost as shocking because the film itself. So Sarah, what can you tell us about Mr. No Legs?

Sarah:

According to my research, there is a kind of Adam Sandler like cast style to this film, as in the producer and the head writer of the screenplay already knew each other from five different adaptations of Flipper, like the dolphin, which apparently has five films. And then they called up all their friends in Tampa, Florida and said, “Hey, I’m doing a ’70s action film,” except it was the ’70s so I guess they didn’t say the current year, but they also might’ve. You don’t know. Because genre evolves and is inherent like that. And they got a shocking amount of people. They got an actual double leg amputee to play the titular role and he is also a double black belt in karate in real life. And he was a Marine and the director was on the US Air Force swim team. And the director was also a scary movie monster in one of these old horror films so he had some notoriety for that. There were a number of action movie stars in this that people recognized from other films. There was … Oh no, it wasn’t John Agar. John Agar was known for being the former husband of Shirley Temple. So everybody here is also really, really old.

So it was hard to get the original cut of this film and we still don’t know if we have the full cut of this film, and I think we can talk about that a little bit more when we get to the ending because that actually made the ending make more sense. Because you said you got the Blu-ray, which was restored in 2020. It came out in 1978, but it was filmed in 1975. But between ’78 and 2020, the original pre-VHS film versions, which were apparently recorded on a rarer film stock, were damaged. So they had to restore the damaged film stocks to get to the VHS versions to get to the Blu-ray versions and so on and so forth. So we don’t actually know if we have the full version of Mr. No Legs, also known as … What was the UK name? Destructor. Also known as The Amazing Mr. No Legs, also known as Gunfighter, which was the script name, and also re-released as Killers Die Hard.

Jeff:

Yeah. So this is a prequel to Die Hard is what you’re telling me.

Sarah:

Yeah. And it does better. It goes harder than Die Hard.

Jeff:

Yeah. There was a ton of very familiar actors in this. Rance Howard was here from Chinatown. Luke Halpin, also from Flipper. Flipper is all over this movie. I would say that we wouldn’t have this film if it wasn’t for Flipper.

Sarah:

It was a reunion of Flipper.

Jeff:

I never thought I would say that ever on this podcast.

Sarah:

Yep. But here we are.

Jeff:

So while it was difficult for them to actually get this film out, whether it be for the damaged film stock and the VHS and then numerous different names or the re-releasing, there is still a bit of critical acclaim for this film, in part because it becomes a bit of a cult classic. Which I was skeptical of at first. I fully understand now that I have watched the film. The film really became popular, weirdly though, in the 2000s. Probably because of the internet making it easier for people to access this film, which led to a variety of film websites and podcasts like this one that started covering this absurd film, which then spread its popularity. But people’s response to the movie is actually really interesting in a very kind of strange way. I have been provided a series of reviews for us to go through and talk a little bit about. Most of them have been culled from our favorite place, Amazon reviews. They’re the best, most authentic reviews, I would say, of popular culture. So let’s dive in a little bit.

Our first one, this is a five star review from Sean R., coming to us from Australia in 2020. So this would’ve been right in the thick of COVID. Take that for what you will. The title of this review, “Have you ever wanted to see a guy with no legs do kung fu?? This movie is insane. It’s got everything. Bar fights, detective work, a wheelchair with guns and ninja stars and bad assery all over. More movies need to be made like this.”

Sarah:

I actually included that review because I thought it was hysterical and probably reductive because there’s no way the film actually comes out this way. It’s actually pretty dead on and it’s funny to read after the fact because he pretty much nails it.

Jeff:

Yeah, it’s a pretty good summary actually of this entire film in a lot of ways. I do enjoy the fact that he wrote this in 2020 talking about a movie that was made in the ’70s, what 50 years later, and is like more movies need to be like this.

Sarah:

It was visionary.

Jeff:

They perfected it. They perfected filmmaking in 1975.

Sarah:

The cinematography anyway. And I think I called it when I was talking to you, the David Caruso style line delivery, which was obviously made pre David Caruso. But it felt like every single scene, two cops had to look at each other and deliver ’70s quips just minus the sunglasses.

Jeff:

The script for this movie … I don’t know if this movie was actually written or if they were just feeding them lines off camera.

Sarah:

They gave them a general scenario and just said go.

Jeff:

But sharp though. There were so many zingers in this film.

Sarah:

There were.

Jeff:

And they were presented in a way that didn’t feel like they were looking at the camera after they dropped the line and be like, “I don’t get it.” They were just sort of seamlessly integrated in this casual way. It was great. I will say my biggest qualm, and this isn’t a script qualm, but the accents in this movie were terrible. D’Angelo talks like Al Capone for some reason. One of the cops’ girlfriends allegedly has a Latina accent. Maybe it’s an eastern European accent, maybe it’s a Scandinavian accent, maybe it’s a speech impediment. I have no idea what was going on there. It seemed like every character was thinking about a character that they’d seen in a film previously and was like, “I’ll just try and sound like that.” So the mobster guy is like, “I’m just going to sound like a mobster, which sounds like a person from New York, even though I’d be in Tampa.” And the girl was like, “Oh, I like bond movies and I’m by the pool a lot, so I’m going to sound like a bond girl.” Who are European generally. That was outrageous.

Sarah:

My bet for the brunette danger girl was that she grew up in Tampa like everyone else in this film and doesn’t have a natural Latina accent. And the director said to make her more exotic, “Hey, can you bullshit us an accent from your country?” And she goes, “I’m from here. I’m from Tampa.” And he goes, “Just do it. Just please.”

Jeff:

Right. And she was trying to do it live. She was imagining what an accent might sound like in her head as she was trying to parrot the lines

Sarah:

That is frame for frame what I think happened in the shag room on set.

Jeff:

Yeah, absolutely. Okay. So we got another review. This one is from, I believe IMDB, from Humanoid of Flesh, which is good. I prefer my humans to be made of flesh, personally. This one is a seven out of 10. A mob enforcer with no legs. Descriptive. This is the review. “First of all, Mr. No Legs doesn’t quite live up to its outrageous title, but it’s still a decent action flick with ground house exploitation feel. Rod Slinker is a mob enforcer without legs. He gets fed up with his immediate boss’ insults and pay and decides to double cross the mob when he’s had enough. The insults about his condition enrage him to the point that he decides to wage war on the mob. There is also an awesome wheelchair of mayhem, which helps him to dispatch various mobsters and other scum. Cheaply made and rather inept action flick with several fantastic fight scenes and pretty brutal killings. The action is fairly slow moving and there’s not enough Mr. No legs, but if you are into ’70s cult cinema, you can’t miss this movie. Seven out of 10.”

Sarah:

Okay, I do love the phrase wheelchair of mayhem, however, I disagree with that the action is slow moving. I actually thought that the action went a little bit too fast a lot of the time.

Jeff:

There was pretty much only action in this movie. They were either sitting beside a pool talking on phones with giant wires all over the place, or they were fighting. I mean, there were multiple murders in the same bar on different nights.

Sarah:

And the bar fights, I almost didn’t know where to look because there were multiple fights happening at once, synchronously during the shot. So whoever choreographed the fights did a pretty okay job because they don’t run full on into each other. But there’s just so much happening. I don’t know what this guy’s watching where he’s like, “Yeah, Mr. No Legs was pretty slow for me, but seven out of 10.” What?

Jeff:

Yeah, this was written in 2010. So this is of course before this man would’ve experienced COVID and understood what it really means to be in a slow event-less sort of moment, I suppose. Also, this one really stands out to me because there’s this line in it where he talks about the lack of pay and the comments about his condition enraging him. And I’m not sure here if he saw a different version of this film than we did that included scenes, but I don’t remember any scenes in which his condition was brought up, mocked or referred to in any way.

Sarah:

He had that one line when he went inside after he flips off his hot danger angel babe, where he goes like, “The mob boss is going to flick me like a pencil into the street? Hell no.” And I didn’t really even know what that expression meant, but it was clearly supposed to be an insult.

Jeff:

Yeah. But it doesn’t seem about his condition. I think he was trying to say that he was going to be penniless. That all he would have is a pencil. He would have nothing to his name, I think is maybe what that line-

Sarah:

I don’t know if the class warfare angle works for a mob film though.

Jeff:

Yeah. I’m very curious about this. I would love to know if there are scenes in which his disability was brought up, because notably, there’s only one moment when his disability is kind of … There’s two moments I suppose that we’ll talk about a little bit later, but it’s certainly not really in a derogatory way that I would say it anyway. The drive for Mr. No Legs is that he’s a bit ambitious, he’s tired of being at the bottom of the hierarchy of the mob, and he realizes that he’s about to get flipped on. That the mob boss is going to kill him, and he decides, well, I’m going to kill him first.

Sarah:

Yeah, I think he does get wise to it and he just tries to get in on the action first.

Jeff:

Okay. So we have another one, and I want to note before I read this, this was written in 2006. So this review was written before MAGA and even before … This is before all of that, and I think that’s important. Maybe there was evidence that this was coming all along. This is a nine out of 10 review from Steve Neiland. Ny-land? Neil-and? He writes, this is the title, “My New Hero and Every Liberal’s Worst Nightmare. Rod Slinker, wherever you are, whatever you’re doing right now, you are my new action adventure movie hero. This movie is one of the most amazingly endearing and delightfully stupid exercises in brain-dead cult mayhem ever created and so badly deserves a chance to see the light of day on a DVD reissue, if only for the sheer number of people who would potentially be offended by its gleeful off the wall, willingness to go beyond the constraints of good taste and show us things that will boggle the mind.”

Sarah:

I struggle to agree with this mostly because of the N word drop like an hour into the film, which makes it very problematic. But A, he did correctly predict that this would get a Blu-ray re-release a little over 10 years later. And B, I do think there’s a lot to really love about this film, especially if you’re a bad action or an ironic film watcher. There’s a lot to love. I spent a lot of this movie laughing so hard that my roommate asked me what was going on in my bedroom place.

Jeff:

I 100% agree that this movie is both amazingly endearing and delightfully stupid. Full marks. I fully agree with that. I’m wondering about this thought. And again, we will note there is a hard R N word dropped in the middle of this film. I’m wondering about this thing about being offensive. Do you think that now as we flash forward to a post MAGA world and a world where allegedly cancel culture is out of control, do you believe that there will be a sheer number of people offended by this film?

Sarah:

I think it’s possible he’s comparing this kind of off the wall nonsense film to this deep intelligentsia culture that I think is just as much a parody as the counterculture that this is parodying. Neither of those two cultures actually exist in any semblance of reality and him pinning those realities against each other is just this over the top way, like this film, of bringing two worlds together. Does it lean more to the, I don’t know, traditional hard right? Yes. But I don’t think if this came out now, anybody would A, take it seriously or B, think that it was at all trying to be this Christopher Nolan-esque hard go at epistemological thought and beat cops in Tampa Bay.

Jeff:

And at the same time, there was some interesting gender things going on in this film. I don’t know if it was intentional, but there was a scintillating homoeroticism happening at all times between almost all of the male characters. There were some delightful crop tops in this film. There was a trans woman at the bar in this film. There was a little person.

Sarah:

There was also a little person.

Jeff:

Yeah. There was a little person.

Sarah:

Watching the bar fight. Nobody punched him. They just let him watch.

Jeff:

Having a great time. And then at the same time, there were these women are to be seen, not to be heard, that women played no real role in this movie beyond delivering phones and flirting with the men a little bit.

Sarah:

But counterpoint, they did make being a danger angel look incredibly good. I came out of this movie like I wouldn’t say no to that career. They were living large. They were in cabanas. They were in rooms entirely composed of shag beds. They were eating huge breakfasts and dinners. They were being driven around everywhere. Not so bad. All I have to do is get told to fuck off when the guy has a phone call from his mob boss. Deal.

Jeff:

And also she had a gun. One of them had a gun as well. She had a loaned some gun.

Sarah:

Oh, the brunette. Yeah.

Jeff:

Yeah.

Sarah:

My gun is in the other guy’s Camaro. And she goes, “Here, take mine.”

Jeff:

Take mine. Yeah. And it’s like a little dainty two shot pistol and he’ like, “Oh, is this even a gun? It’s not even a man gun.”

Sarah:

My baby handgun.

Jeff:

There was some stuff going on there. There was also an implication of a pimp that was pimping out men potentially. They see a pimp on the street and one of the greatest lines of the film is, “What he’s selling, you don’t smoke, you stroke.”

Sarah:

Yes. Extremely memorable.

Jeff:

I’m not sure. Maybe that was a reference. I read that as referring to that he has men that he is prostituted out. Maybe I’m wrong on that. Maybe they’re within-

Sarah:

No, I think you read that completely right. I think this was one of the most accidentally inclusive films of the 1970s. It’s from the Schitt’s Creek school of inclusivity where they never comment on who they’re using ever. They’ve got gay guys in bars, they’ve got sparkle wearing guys, they’ve got every edict under the rainbow. They’ve got a variety of genders and people of various ages going to school. There was like a 40-year-old in college. There was the little person in the bar. They had everybody. They had the guy in the wheelchair, and he’s not even one of the top seven or eight I named, and that’s supposed to be the titular disability or way of inclusivity in the film. And I’m just like, everybody here has something to bring to the table. That was pretty neat and nobody comments on it at all. They’re just like, “nope. Standard. This is everyday life. This is how these people want to live. They do them and I do me.

Jeff:

Yeah. I mean there was a race riot in the bar at one point.

Sarah:

But that was only because of the one woman who was then promptly killed for not being inclusive. Everybody else hated it.

Jeff:

Yeah. Well, there was a white guy who didn’t like the black woman, and then the black bartender bottled him. So there was a bit of justice in this film too. I think it’s also important to note that this movie is named after Mr. No Legs, but Mr. No Legs is not even the main character of this film, I would argue.

Sarah:

No.

Jeff:

A side character. 100%.

Sarah:

He gets as much screen time as the danger angels, and one of the danger angels is actually the calling from on high that signals that Mr. No Legs is about to get a short scene. Whenever you see the blonde babe danger angel at the pool, you know that we’re about to see her counterpart, Mr. No Legs.

Jeff:

100%. Yeah. She is the siren that inaugurates the birth of Mr. No Legs.

Sarah:

Oh yeah.

Jeff:

Yeah. So I’m interested. I don’t know that I fully agree with Steve that this would cause a liberal nightmare to occur necessarily. Which is interesting. I think maybe this film has something for everyone, which is a very weird thing for this podcast. That’s not usually the case.

Sarah:

No. We were joking that every scene construction, I guess mostly because of Mr. No Legs himself, was automatically ADA compliant in the architectural sense. There were no scenes about, oh man, the mob thing is in the basement. Mr. No Legs can’t get down there. Which was what I was kind of expecting coming into this film. No. It’s just inclusivity and compliance and racial justice and LGBT justice and alliances the whole way through.

Jeff:

We got to put a pin on that because I actually want to come back to this and talk a little bit more about the fact that this film is wildly wheelchair accessible. But we will come back to that. We have one last review. This one from Coventry. I assume the entire town came together and wrote this. I assume that’s what that means. This one is the eight out of 10, so another happy customer. This one is titled, hilariously, “He’s a role model to us all. Let Mr. No Legs be a source of inspiration for all of us. Not because he’s a relentless one man killing squad, of course. Because he’s living proof that you can still chase your dreams and realize your ambitions even if you’re physically disabled. Yeah, right. Enough with this rubbish. The Amazing Mr. No Legs is totally demented in idea as well as execution exploitation feature with a premise that is unique and refreshing, and production values look so cheap and amateurish that you simply have to show admiration for the costume crew.

“If you just imagine what these guys could have accomplished if they had a proper budget at their disposal. The titular anti-hero controls the complete drug business of a major town and acts as judge, jury, and especially executioner whenever someone screws up or tries to double cross him. Although he hasn’t got any legs, duh, everyone fears it obeys Mr. No Legs because he’s merciless, is an expert in martial arts and drives around in a heavily armored wheelchair. When the sister of a dedicated cop gets in a drug execution, it means the start of a devastating war between the good cops and the bad drug dealers and everyone in between. The script is surprisingly convoluted and well-written, but those are not the main reasons why this film will stick in your memory. It has girl on girl bar fights, wild shootouts, bad acting, sword fights, odd cars, and virulent chases and much more.

“The Amazing Mr. No Legs is extremely violent, but never actually shocking since the effects of the stunts aren’t exactly convincing. Some people might take offense upon seeing the fight sequences involving the handicapped lead character, but then again, I don’t suppose easily offended people are likely to put Mr. No Legs on their Christmas list. The slow motion sequence where actor Ted Vollrath demonstrates his genuine martial arts skill is literally jaw dropping. Ever seen a guy with no legs kick someone repeatedly in the stomach? No legs. The titular ought to be considered as one of the greatest cult icons ever. A truly menacing, bad to the bone and self reliable villain. Mr. No Legs is not an easy movie to come across, but it’s definitely worth the search.”

Sarah:

I love that he wrote his dissertation on Mr. No Legs and I kind of wish I did too because I think I would put out a banger dissertation on the inclusivity potential of Mr. No Legs. I think I figured out what we don’t like about these people apparently repeatedly saying that easily offended people won’t like this movie. This is what I think it is. I think it’s because people who tend to do the worst, most devilish, far right MAGA-esque part of that view would be of the opinion that Mr. No Legs could never be amazing or an action star or an action hero because to say that would be to go against the traditional American values that they hold as their Lord and Bible. So to have these people come out like, “Oh, the liberals are going to hate this super inventive and investigative and inclusive flick about this man with no legs that achieves everything we could ever offer.” It doesn’t really make sense, and then they try to throw it back at you with the, “If you’re easily offended, you won’t like this.” But he’s talking about himself and that’s wild to me. Right?

Jeff:

100%. Yeah. I think that they are feeling uncomfortable about it, and they assume then that the other side will also be feeling as uncomfortable as they are about this.

Sarah:

But we’re not. You guys are just unknowingly slipping over to our team here.

Jeff:

Yeah. I will say I do find it really interesting that this starts out as a weird inspiration porn. Being like, we should all be inspired by him.

Sarah:

I think he’s mocking the liberals.

Jeff:

…but then he also then comes back to it. He recants it and he’s like, “No, no. That’s all silly.” But then he returns to it and is like … First of all, he’s like, “The violence in this is not very convincing.” And then he says, “But the no legs guy’s martial arts was legitimate and amazing.” That this was an incredible ability that this guy portrayed. And I’m not a black belt martial artist. I did not personally find any of the martial arts in this film, let alone Mr. No Legs, as either A, legitimate or B, impressive in any way.

Sarah:

Okay. From background, we do know that this guy in real life is a double black belt.

Jeff:

Is a martial artist. Yes.

Sarah:

So he knows what he’s doing and he obviously does his own stunts, but we know there’s also a big stunt cast in this movie, so a lot of people are not doing their own stunts, especially when we get to the car chase. I think that’s just one or two guys playing the part of every single person in the car chase for the sheer danger level of that entire sequence. I do agree with him that a lot of the action scenes you kind of can’t take seriously because you can tell, especially in the bar fight, when they’ve got the broken bottles, they’re not actually hitting each other. They’re kind of coming close and stopping and you catch it in the lens, and it’s funny in kind of a kitschy way. Or that sword fight scene where he’s got the broad sword going into the Camaro, it makes no sense whatsoever, apart from the fact that it was a pirate themed bar. So you’re like, okay, I guess the broad sword could have maybe come from there. But could it beat the shit out of a Camaro? I’m not sure. I think the Camaro would win that fight. And then how many spoilers can we do?

Jeff:

All of them.

Sarah:

All of them. Okay. So the other one … And maybe I just don’t have enough martial arts experience for me to personally believe this, but you were led to believe during Mr. No Legs’ martial arts sequence that once one of the baddies got him and threw him in the water, you’re like, “Oh man, it’s over. He’s got no legs. He’s going to have to use all his energy to just stay afloat.” And he ended up being more dangerous in the water than he was on land. He was taking kills like nothing, and then climbing out of the pool and climbing back into his chair like it was just another Tuesday for him and rolling away.

Jeff:

Okay. So do you believe then that Coventry, when Mr. No Legs karate chops a man to death in the pool, do you think that this person was actually what an incredible display of martial arts?

Sarah:

I mean, I think he thinks that, which is fine with me. He is allowed to be in beloved community living the reality where his martial arts skill is so great you can karate chop a man to death underwater.

Jeff:

One karate chop to death.

Sarah:

One chop. It’s all it takes.

Jeff:

Yeah. And so I found that really interesting that … Again, I’m not a martial artist. I didn’t find any of the martial arts that this felt impressive. I mean, I didn’t feel like I was watching Bruce Lee here by any means.

Sarah:

I think his above water martial arts were pretty cool.

Jeff:

Oh, I think they were cool scenes. I don’t disagree with that. But I don’t think there was anything impressive. He literally blocks a kick. Okay. The front kick and the back kick that were in slow motion, that was great cinema.

Sarah:

He delivered a very literal ass kick.

Jeff:

Yeah. I don’t know though that that would hurt. Again, I’m not a martial artist. I’ve never been punched. But I kind of feel like getting a bum to your belly probably isn’t going to incapacitate you. But again, I’m not that. What I do kind of feel though is Coventry is like, “We shouldn’t be inspired by this guy. That’s liberal nonsense.”, but then he comes back and is like, “Oh, but he’s so inspiring in his martial hearts abilities.”

Sarah:

Okay, but he doesn’t say the word inspiring. He says the word menacing, bad to the bone and self reliable. So the real villain in this is rhetoric all along. You just couldn’t use the liberal catchphrases to describe his inspired-ness. If you say menacing and bad to the bone, that is the same thing as saying you’re realizing your ambitions and being an inspiring character. You’re just being more of a badass about it.

Jeff:

Yeah. He’s cool. He’s a cool guy. And I think he is a cool guy, but it’s interesting that this need to both preface it, recant it, but then also lean into it at the same time. That even-

Sarah:

I don’t think he knows he’s leaning into it.

Jeff:

I don’t think so either.

Sarah:

I think he sees a legitimate difference in rhetoric there. And I think because we have the benefit of multiple degrees and arguing with people, we can see that he’s just circuitously making the same argument and he thinks that argument is different.

Jeff:

Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think that this maybe actually gets us to a really interesting insight in people’s responses to disability in film. That I think everyone obviously is bringing their own baggage when they watch something. They’re bringing in past insights and past experience. They’re like, “I’m a black belt martial artist, and that’s not martial arts.” For instance. But I think that in this instance, and in a lot of instances, people are bringing in with them what they believe the expected response should be to the disabled character that they’re supposed to feel a certain way. They then maybe feel a different way, and either that’s a good thing or a bad thing. So I think often because he felt good about this character, that he felt that he was cool and menacing and badass, and maybe something that he would aspire to be, then it shifts it into this is a good representation, I like it, I’m happy. But then when those ideas are conflicted or confronted in some way, people don’t feel the same way or don’t feel right about it. They have this different response then, I think, to the film and then perhaps say maybe that was offensive or that was unrealistic or unbelievable. It’s interesting that at no point did Coventry not think it was an unbelievable thing that a man with no legs would be this mobster. He was like, “Yeah, this is possible. It’s happening and it’s fricking cool.”

Sarah:

Yeah. I think what I was saying at the beginning of the review about how I think the words easily offended are working in multiple reviews is what you’re saying about how he’s taking inspirational. So we got to the same conclusion using different keywords.

Jeff:

Yeah. Well, I have to say, ladies and gentlemen, this film was a ride, literally and figuratively. And when we come back next week, we are going to get into the nitty-gritty and take this film step by step and really unpack what is the genius, maybe, of The Amazing Mr. No Legs.

 

[Theme song, “Arguing with Strangers” by Mvll Crimes finishes out the episode]

Part 2!

Jeff:

Previously on Invalid Culture.

Have you ever wanted to see a guy with no legs do kung fu?? This movie is insane. It’s got everything; bar fights, detective work, a wheelchair with guns and ninja stars and badassery all over. More movies need to be made like this.

Sarah:

I actually included that review because I thought it was hysterical and probably reductive because there’s no way the film actually comes out this way. It’s actually pretty dead on and it’s funny to read after the fact because he pretty much nails it.

[Invalid Culture’s punk theme song, “Arguing With Strangers” by Mvll Crimes]

Jeff:

Welcome back to another episode of Invalid Culture, Part Two of the amazing Mr. No Legs. I as always, I’m your host, Jeff. I’m joined by your other host, Sarah.

How you doing, Sarah?

Sarah:

I’m pretty good. Pretty sorry to leave the audience on a cliffhanger.

Jeff:

I know, but this is the car chase of the No Legs episode. We got them here and now this is the last 20 minutes of destruction.

Sarah:

That’s true. You made it and now you get 15 unabridged minutes of hilarious violence.

Jeff:

Yeah, that’s how every Invalid Culture episode’s going to go this season pretty much.

Sarah:

Oh, perfect.

Jeff:

So it’ll be good.

Okay, Sarah, so for those of our audience who have not, for reasons that I will never understand, not watched this film, can you help us understand as best as you can, the plot line of the amazing Mr. No Legs?

Sarah:

So in act one, the rising action of what becomes Mr. No Legs, you get the inciting action of the killing of a 20-something female and her 30 or 40-something boyfriend. The boyfriend is obviously tangentially involved with the Tampa mob scene for the smuggling and selling of cocaine and cocaine accessories, and-

Jeff:

A very small amount of cocaine.

Sarah:

Yes, a bizarrely small amount for… And D’Angelo gets called a kingpin for this. So Tampa in the ’70s, extremely non-competitive drug scene. Anyway, Tina finds Ken’s drug paraphernalia in his bedroom and the paraphernalia itself is hilarious, but she flips out and Ken accidentally kills her. But this kicks off the whole film because Ken was a low level mob guy and now the mob people have been called in to help cover up Tina’s death and for some bizarre reason, they decide to also kill off Ken.

Jeff:

Yeah. To get rid of the evidence of course.

Sarah:

Yeah, but they didn’t even really have to. Tina fell… It looked like she found the stuff, she goes into the living room, she falls into the back of a CRT TV, takes a critical injury and dies on the floor. Nothing needed to be covered up.

Jeff:

No, not necessarily, but they are mobsters and the key detail here, Tina’s brother is a cop.

Sarah:

Okay, that’s true. So Ken was the problem. No, Tina was the problematic character and Ken couldn’t have Tina’s dad getting involved, but he obviously had to get involved. But with all of that action, you set up what became the kind of environment, if you can call it that from the film, where there’s this kind of Romeo and Juliet action between the cocaine mobsters and the Tampa Bay beat cops.

Jeff:

The start of the movie also introduces us to our titular character, the amazing Mr. No Legs who rolls into this film literally in his manual wheelchair in which he has double shotguns mounted in boxes on his armrests. So he rolls up on some people that were skimming a very, very small amount of cocaine out of the already tiny amount of cocaine. He pops his shotguns out of his arm rest and blasts away taking out these two dock workers. He will then later be called in to help dispose of Tina’s body. And it’s at that point that he explains that he leaves no evidence and shoots Ken in the head.

Sarah:

Yeah, my understanding is that he’s like a Mike Ehrmantraut style mob enforcer, but he kind of just comes onto the scene and his analysis of every single scenario is just killing whoever was involved. There’s no analysis whatsoever. He gets called to the scene, he gets there, he brings out the shotguns, he shoots whoever’s there on site. The dock workers didn’t need to die. Ken didn’t need to die. The people in the bar in act two didn’t need to die. Arguably, the only people he ever fought that actually had a reason to die were at the very end of act two, beginning of act three when people were actually coming after him. He was just ruthlessly killing for sport beforehand.

Jeff:

So he’s this merciless character. He’s a killer. He’s an enforcer. He’s also a problem solver, and he seems to have what may be the best PSW in the world. There is a man who is unnamed, does not talk and drives him around at times, seems to help him, but then also vanishes halfway through the film and is never seen again. So I don’t know exactly who this man was, if he was another mob guy or possibly like a state assigned support worker who just was like, I just worked here. I’m not saying anything. I’m enabling this man to live independently.

Sarah:

He could. Okay. It’s arguable because we also know from the last episode, he’s got that blonde bombshell, Danger Angel, and whenever he starts doing mob dealings, he just turns to the Danger Angel and goes, “Beat it baby.” He could also be doing that to his PSW. Maybe he just waits in the getaway car.

Jeff:

I mean, the PSW was there for the first murder for sure.

Sarah:

That’s true.

Jeff:

But the dock workers, the PSW was behind him and then helped him back into the car.

Sarah:

Yeah, that’s true. I don’t think we see him again after that though.

Jeff:

We see him once more when they’re back at the house. Yeah, which is why I’m not sure who this person is, but I like to believe that they’re just some low level PSW fresh out of college, and this is just the luck of the draw. This is who they were assigned and to work for.

Sarah:

Sometimes you get a grandfather, sometimes you get a mob enforcer. It’s just the way she goes.

Jeff:

Yep.

So I think we got to talk about the wheelchair because I think this is something that a lot of people are going to want to talk about because it’s so ostentatious. It is amazing. It’s very cool.

Sarah:

What did the reviewer call it? Because he had a great phrase for it. I think it was something like wheelchair of mayhem and that’s dead on.

Jeff:

Yeah, pretty much describes it.

I want to know. So Sarah, I don’t know if you noticed this, but you can clearly see the shotguns at the back of these boxes that they’re in. I thought they could have done a better job of hiding them. They did do a very good job of hiding the ninja stars, which are magnetized to look like hubcaps on the wheelchair’s rims.

Sarah:

The shuriken additions to the wheelchair killed me. When those came out…

Jeff:

Absolutely incredible. So he’s a gun wielding martial artist. He’s adept at throwing stars.

Sarah:

That’s right. And that brings us to act two. So act two introduces the homoerotic romance angle of Captain Hathaway and beat cop, Chuck, who teams up with his homie, who has the second-highest kill count in the film after Mr. No Legs, not Chuck, his homie to investigate Chuck’s sister’s death at the hands of her deadbeat boyfriend who was in the mob, but they don’t know yet he was in the mob, but they also don’t know yet the big reveal at the end of act two, that Hathaway, the police captain, is also in the mob. So they spend an entire 15, 20 minutes sussing this out on police investigations in Camaros and other muscle cars, and they find time to get into two different bar fights.

Jeff:

At the same bar.

Sarah:

At the same bar. Yeah.

Jeff:

Yeah. This is one of my favorite parts of the film is that Chuck goes to this bar to meet with his informant in which he walks into a full-blown race riot and is just like, okay, and just starts killing people.

Sarah:

He said something like, “You didn’t like the service here,” and then they launched.

Jeff:

He full-blown murders at least three people in this bar, like fully murders.

Sarah:

Four people were bottled to death, which I thought was awfully specific.

Jeff:

So he’s a bloody path through this bar. The following day, he returns to the bar and kills another two people.

Sarah:

Yes. And it was funny because when they were sitting in the Camaro and Chuck was sitting there like, “Man, this is really boring police work.” And Andy goes, “Our tusk is to observe and report.” And Andy can’t stop killing civilians.

Jeff:

So I also really appreciated the Colombo investigation scene in which Andy…

Sarah:

Oh, my God.

Jeff:

… goes into the house of Ken and finds the blood on the floor, which he picks up with a napkin, puts it in his pocket, the broken television, the dead flowers, and he proceeds to walk around and just push around some shirts, look under the bed, and then comes out. He’s like, “Well, I figured it all out. I think this guy killed Tina.”

Sarah:

I’ve done a better job looking for my phone charger drunk in my bedroom in total darkness than he did with the crime scene with Tina’s body.

Jeff:

The crime scene felt like those apps that you see advertisements for on your phone where it’s like, can you find the clues of the mystery? And there’s this giant key, it’s all highlighted. It’s like, can you find it?

Sarah:

And he brushes past the shirts in the closet and he lifts up the bouquet of flowers and he is like, “Well, no damning evidence under here.”

Jeff:

Now, all of this has led to, of course, Chuck has an informant who turns out to be a racist who drops the N-bomb in the middle of this film and starts out the [inaudible 00:11:48] riot, and that’s how he ends up at the amazingly named bar, the 7 Seas.

Sarah:

Okay, so the first bar fight was the race riot and the racists, which is weird for Tampa, but maybe not weird for Tampa in the ’70s. The racists are clearly the ones in the wrong here, and they get the shit kicked out of them by the rest of the bar mates, including Mr. No Legs, who shows up about halfway through. I don’t think we’re ever told who called him.

Jeff:

He was there. He was at a table. He was at a table in the background.

Sarah:

People get thrown through the plate class window. People get thrown over the bar top. There’s transgender people watching. There’s little people watching. There’s people of all different races watching. There’s the bartender who’s this older black male with an afro kind of just holds his head and rubs it like, “Oh, another Tuesday.” This is just standard practice for 7 Seas Bar.

Jeff:

After the fight is over, the bartender laments, “I’ll be damned.”

Sarah:

He was not upset enough about the trashing of his bar.

Jeff:

And so this leads to another, I would say, iconic scene in which it is discovered that the police have found the body of Ken, which was apparently not very well hidden. And now Leo, who is the branch manager of the mob, I guess, he’s like a middle management below Mr. No Legs, above Ken, I believe. And so he and someone called the Mower, never explained why that’s his name, dress up as ambulance attendants to go and try and steal the body from the hospital. And this of course does not go well. They are interrupted by our two researching detectives. A fight ensues, as every 40 to 50 seconds, a fight ensues in this film, and the badlands get away, but something very fishy is revealed. Captain Hathaway has sent them to identify if the body was Wilson’s body, but Andy had never said Wilson’s name to Hathaway.

Sarah:

But I love that he specifies it’s because he didn’t do his paperwork. He’s like, “I know he doesn’t know that name because I did not submit the work I was supposed to do yesterday.” The crime here was that Hathaway thought that his beat cops were halfway competent and they weren’t. And their own incompetence actually leads them to kind of accidentally reverse Colombo solve the crime, because he was like, “Wait, Wilson?”

Jeff:

“He shouldn’t know that name. He didn’t get the blood in the napkin like I did.”

Sarah:

“I haven’t done my homework for weeks.”

Jeff:

This was like the ChatGPT solution of a mystery, like a murder mystery, where it’s like the end of the second act, they don’t know how to wrap it up and they’re like, “Oh, I know a good trick. We’ll just have someone disclose something that they shouldn’t know and that’ll be the way that we resolve this.”

Sarah:

Well, I’m honestly surprised that they even caught that. That had to be end level mystery solving for both of them at that point. That was their career highlight.

Jeff:

Now, at this point, we haven’t got a whole lot of Mr. No Legs. I remember as we were watching it, commenting, Mr. No Legs is not actually very present in this film, and when we do see him in the middle act, it’s either A, at the bar, shanking a racist in the stomach, or B, it’s by his pool with his bombshell, blonde mistress, wife, support worker, maybe, not sure, throwing his ninja stars at dartboard.

Sarah:

Okay. And I think that actually makes him a legitimately aspirational character because when he is not out at the bar achieving racial justice, he’s hanging out with Danger Angels at the country club.

Jeff:

This is also the moment when we finally had an answer as to why Mr. No Legs is Mr. No Legs. It’s disclosed in a conversation with D’Angelo, the mob boss, that Mr. No Legs, before he was Mr. No Legs, I guess he was just Mr. Legs at that point, was at the docks. He’d worked at the docks and he’d lost his legs in a dock accident, and D’Angelo then brought him on to the mob racket to take care of him after the injury because, of course, there is no healthcare in America.

Sarah:

Yeah, I think it’s relevant at this point to include that Mr. No Legs does in fact have no legs in real life because in disability film, we really cannot take that for granted. And he does all his own stunts.

Jeff:

Yeah, they did not Lieutenant Dan this 100%.

Sarah:

No, they did not. They did not Beautiful Mind this operation.

So then we get to act three, the final act, and the final act is also surprisingly absent of Mr. No Legs for a film that’s called Mr. No Legs. So you get the showdown. Mr. No Legs decides that he’s had enough with the bullshit of his mob boss, and he’s pretty sure that the mob boss is lining up to pick him off anyway because he’s always been fairly low level. And I think that’s where we get the review, where the reviewer thought that there was some kind of class consciousness angle there, but I don’t think Mr. Legs is about that.

Jeff:

No.

Sarah:

I think we agreed on that. So Mr. No Legs sets up a showdown between his secret informant, captain Hathaway, and D’Angelo, the small shipments of cocaine mob boss of Tampa Bay, Florida. And when they meet up, it’s actually kind of funny because they look at each other and they go, “Hey, who told you to come here?” “No legs.” “You?” “No legs.” And they kind of chuckle and they go, “Well, that’s kind of funny, actually because I was a bit to pick him off.” And Mr. No Legs, just like how he appeared in act one, rolls back into the same warehouse, does the same stunt with the double barrel shotguns on both sides of his manual wheelchair and immediately picks off D’Angelo. But Hathaway puts up more of a fight, kills No Legs with, I think he emptied the entire gun, like six shots into Mr. No legs. Unfortunately, he doesn’t even get a good death scene. We just see his arms fall to the side and that’s it. We never see him again. And Hathaway goes on an epic car chase with the rest of Tampa Bay, Florida. Discuss.

Jeff:

Yeah. Yeah. So Mr. No Legs goes out in a bit of a blaze of glory. So he’s jumped at the pool by, I believe it was three, possibly four thugs. He fights all of them off with his incredible kung fu. He judo chops a guy to death in a pool. He drowns another man. He ninja stars another man. And he butt kicks another man and then punches him to death in the face. So he is taking out four guys single-handedly. His PSW helper man, I think, ran away. He was not present at all during this scene. And then he goes and has this blaze of glory, kills the man that wronged him but doesn’t get the cop.

This car chase that Hathaway then goes on literally feels like half of the movie. It keeps going and going and it has literally every car chase cliche that’s ever been created. There are rollover cars that explode. There are cars that go through a mobile home. There are cars that drive through baskets of fruit. There’s a car that drives through ice bricks. There is cars that spin out. There is…

Sarah:

You forgot the jump.

Jeff:

… power slides. There is a jump off of a raised bridge.

Sarah:

The jump.

Okay. My pop theory is that the script was actually created after they had fully written this car chase to justify the budget needed to make this spectacular Hot Wheels style car chase. It was wild.

Jeff:

I fully endorse this theory, and it’s odd that there’s so much emphasis on the car chase, but in all of the promotional material, that is not what people talk about. Everything is about fighting.

Sarah:

That’s why I was so bothered by the synopsis. Yeah, a fifth of the film is actually just the car chase.

Jeff:

Right. And so why are you talking about gunfights and martial arts and all this other stuff when the car chase is literally the only thing you cared about? And the bar fight, I guess.

Sarah:

Fair.

And if we’re talking about things the film does well, which I think is later, but I’m going to jump in really early here. Off the top, the cinematography of the car chase, the whole sequence I actually thought was beautifully shot. I think, on average, the cinematography in this film was nothing special. Definitely not Villeneuve level or anything. When we got to the car chase, he was putting some serious thought into the direction of these supercars and muscle cars and all the damaged cars and where the placement of all these obstacles should go. It was better than Die Hard.

Jeff:

My theory is this, my vibe for all of this movie is that it’s all a pastiche of the things that the director and the writer like in film and television, and they just took all the stuff they like and tried to reproduce it. So the fight scenes are WWF, right? They are so WWF. They clearly were wrestling fans, and the bar fight in particular was like they live on steroids. It was so WWF. And so I think similarly, they love car chases and they were like, well, what are all the best things we’ve seen about chases and let’s just redo them.

Sarah:

They did that. It was greatest hits. It was the Shania Twain Greatest Hits album of ’70s, early ’80s. They’re actually also omniscient car chase scenes.

Jeff:

100%.

Sarah:

Amazing.

Jeff:

It was high octane. The cops were wearing visors clearly to hide the fact that it was the same stunt driver in every car.

Sarah:

Yeah, because the stunt driving was actually really good. They were doing stuff where I was like, this is actually actively dangerous to shoot. It’s the ’70s.

Jeff:

Oh, yeah. Again, it wouldn’t surprise me if literally this movie created three or four Mr. No legs during the car chase.

Sarah:

So in that way, it’s actually disability activism.

Jeff:

Maybe, actually. Yeah.

Sarah:

DAV recruitment. Not only inspiration, but active recruitment.

Jeff:

Yeah. I really wonder if the buddy cop piece came first or if the No Legs piece came first. Was this a matter of they knew this guy and he said, yeah, let’s get him into a movie. Let’s put it together. Did they have this buddy cop car chase thing, and then they met the guy and were like, “Oh, let’s shoehorn him in”? And then we’re like, “This is the best part. So let’s make this the sell for this film.” Because it is the most original part of this film.

Sarah:

Definitely.

Jeff:

Mr. No Legs is everything else you’ve seen a million times before.

Sarah:

Okay. And this is edging into disability theory light. And I wouldn’t say I’m on the side of goodness here because you could say that I’m being kind of tropey or putting him up on a pedestal, but stay with me. If you were the guy who directed five different versions of Flipper and a producer called you up and was like, “Yo, I’m going to give you like 100K. You want to grab your boys and make a film?” And he goes, “Adam Sandler style, knocking on doors of his friends’ houses in Tampa, Florida. And one of his friends says, ‘I got a guy. He’s a war vet. He was literally on the Marines. He wants to dabble in acting as a side gig, but there’s one thing.'” And the flipper director and the flipper writer was like, “What? What could it possibly be? This guy’s a badass.” And this other guy goes, “He’s got no legs.”

Jeff:

Movie brain.

Sarah:

Origin story. And a film was born.

Jeff:

A film was born.

Sarah:

And I think the sheer notoriety of that guy, because even in the IMDB reviews, and these guys get intensively into film in ways that we don’t. I think we are casual film lovers and these guys can name every second cameraman in Caddyshack type film lovers. And they were naming other things that these relatively unknown actors were in besides Flipper. And everybody seemed to know Mr. No Leg’s backstory as this war vet, but he hasn’t actually done anything else. So I think he’s just this whole guy in Florida, like Waterloo used to have this guy named Bucket Man, and all he did was walk up and down the streets of Waterloo banging a bucket to a beat, and everyone knew who he was. My theory is that Mr. No Legs is the bucket man of ’70s Tampa. And they were like, we got to do it. We got to make an action film with Mr. No Legs and everybody treats him like he already exists and he belongs here because he does. He’s already a local legend.

Jeff:

And grew into this cult legend beyond. He is the best part of the film.

… about this film. And I got to say, of all the films we’ve watched so far for this podcast, this one didn’t give us a lot to chew on. The one most obvious thing to point out, I would say disability trope that comes up in this movie, of course there needs to be the disclosure scene. So there is that moment where it’s like, why does he have no legs? It was an incident at the dock. So we had to have that little slipped in. It had no real relevance, and there was no reason for us to know why Mr. No Legs, A, had no legs, and B, why D’Angelo employed him. Because at that point, we already knew that he was a merciless killer. That’s why he’s employed. It has nothing to do with the fact that he was injured at the docks.

Sarah:

Absolutely.

Jeff:

That didn’t need to happen. But there’s this, again, this desire that you must position disability, you must explain why it happened or what happened, because that’s the thing that everybody wants to know and they can’t get past it.

Sarah:

I think it’s worth noting though, that they wait till almost halfway through the film to do it. Normally that comes pretty early on. It was late into act two before somebody was like, “Yo, what’s the deal with Mr. No Legs?” Our introduction to him, I actually thought it was pretty badass, even from a CDS angle. He rolls into the warehouse, flips down the… What’s that called? The arms…

Jeff:

It’s an armrest.

Sarah:

… of his chair, flips them down into two fully loaded double barreled shotguns, looks up, starts firing. That’s your introduction to disability in this film. And I have no notes. That’s great.

Jeff:

Yeah, it was completely unnecessary to disclose it. I mean, and similarly, I fully believe, I thought that they were going to just be like, “Oh, he got injured in Nam.” That he’s a war vet and that’s why he’s also a killer, because he is a soldier, he’s trained, but they were like, “No, he was a dock worker and now he’s a martial artist.”

Sarah:

Well, it’s funny that they reversed the trope for it because he really was an injured and retired marine. So that would’ve been the only legitimate instance where you could do that without being tokenistic…

Jeff:

Totally.

Sarah:

… because that’s his real ass backstory. And you got to wonder if it was Mr. No Legs himself who was like, “Nah, just make me a dock worker.”

Jeff:

“Yeah, no, I’m just a regular man. Anyone could do what I do.”

Sarah:

Yeah, “Except I have shurikens on my wheelchair.”

Jeff:

“And I will go right for the neck.”

I did see the other one, and this is a little tropey. There does seem to be this desire often when it comes to adaptive devices to build in cool features. And this is something that some people get bothered by it. I actually am going to go in a really different direction with it. I think that we need to actually embrace this and realize that at the moment, we are not creative enough with wheelchairs. At the moment, we think of wheelchairs purely as mobility devices. We’re like, we’ll give you a chair, we’ll give you some wheels, maybe a battery and a motor. And that’s it, more or less. But what if we built wheelchairs that were like go-go gadget chairs. Why aren’t we putting things like our robotic arms and lift devices and all these other tools that could help somebody live independently?

We don’t do that for a variety of reasons, but a lot of them are because of policy. A lot of them are money related, but I think a lot of them is that we don’t have the creativity. And so I find… And this is where I wanted to come back to from the previous episode or mentioned, I want to talk about accessibility in this film because something that I think is really amazing about this movie, and I think this is something that we see in this super wheelchair that’s rigged out with gadgets, is that within the movie space, we have the ability to create anything. The world of a film doesn’t exist. Literally, they have to build sets to make a film. You are building buildings often if you have budget or in this instance, you’re like choosing buildings.

So for this film, they actively made these choices to ensure that all of the places that they were going were wheelchair accessible, and they needed to because they had a cast member that had a disability. But what’s amazing about it is that we then present this fantasy world in which we kind of had a what if the world was accessible? And so in some ways, in 1975, the same year that the UPIAS puts out their manifesto of the social model of disability, we have this movie that comes out that basically shows if the world was just accessible, disabled people could be anything, even killers, they could even be mob enforcers.

Sarah:

I was wondering where you were going with that whole bit. And I’m really glad we got there with it.

Jeff:

I landed it. It was a bit of a journey. I apologize.

Sarah:

You did a lot of work to get to that destination, and I appreciate that.

Jeff:

Yeah, but it’s one of those things where I feel film so often lets us down, is that rather than leaning into the fantasy of what disability and accessibility could be, they instead lean into the fantasy of a world either without disability, a world that’s precarious for disabled people or a world in which disabled people are the threat themselves because of. And I feel like this movie resists all of those things, even though Mr. No Legs is dangerous.

Sarah:

Okay, I’m going to go, yes and. And I mentioned this in the last episode, but we didn’t go into too much debate over it. I mentioned the Canadian TV series, Schitt’s Creek, because it got really famous for this kind of defacto inclusivity angle it used, and everybody was kind of wondering because the same way there’s a trope around how did you become disabled, there’s this kind of corollary trope around, especially for leading gay characters, how did you become gay? What was your moment? What was your coming out? All of these side questions. And Schitt’s Creek was really interesting because they kept doing interviews mostly for American publications where they kept answering that with, we didn’t want to honestly engage those questions. We wanted to just show you a town and a place where nobody wants to ask that. It’s just it’s fine however you are and however you come, and all the problems they have are not identity based in that way.

It’s like silly problems about socialization or class rhetorics especially, or I think there was an arc with a minor racial rhetoric, but they never, ever, ever brought the LGBT intersectionality angle to account on purpose. And I think there were some people who said, that’s not realistic and therefore not inclusive because it’s kind of this envisioning of a reality that doesn’t really exist. But I guess, my counter argument to that would be kind of [inaudible 00:34:00], the reality we’re currently in doesn’t really exist because I’ve made that up too. You can do that forever and ever and ever because my experience of the real is obviously really different from the real that existed in Tampa in 1975, and that is going to be really different from the reality of 1980s Kuala Lumpur. So if I’m trying to build arguments on what I feel the real is, we’ve entered this kind of pseudo [inaudible 00:34:31] in fantasy of now I have to define something that which is, by its own nature, undefinable. So in that instance, why don’t we just create what we want to see?

Jeff:

Yeah. Build the world that you wish to live in.

Sarah:

Yeah. Kind of Adrienne Maree Brown vibes.

Jeff:

Yeah, a little bit. A little bit. One thing that I think we need to leave off before we go into our ratings of this film is that it is remarkable in some ways, that this movie was made in the 1970s and is possibly one of the more progressive representations of disability that I have ever seen.

Sarah:

Absolutely.

Jeff:

In part because it just is. It doesn’t need to be defined. It doesn’t need to be a motivating factor.

Sarah:

No.

Jeff:

He just happens to be disabled. That’s just a thing.

Sarah:

And apart from race, which I guess was beyond the realm of the believable in the ’70s, especially ’70s America, especially ’70s southern America, you can keep adding layers onto that, but they treat kind of disabled identity, but also sexual identity with this kind of Schitt’s Creek nature of, “Yeah, dude, that’s just you. That’s how you’ve come to the table. That’s fine with me.” The only thing characters ever seem to have a problem with is race, and it’s only really the white characters who have a problem with it. So that’s saying something too, right?

Jeff:

Absolutely. Yeah, and I feel like they fully knew what they were doing in that, or not, or maybe not. Maybe they accidentally got this right. And maybe-

Sarah:

If that was accidental, that’s a phenomenal accident because that film was more inclusive than most actual published disability theory I read in my lifetime.

Jeff:

There were so many accidents, so many accidents in this film.

Sarah:

Yeah.

Jeff:

Well, as you know, every movie that passes through the gates of Invalid Culture must be evaluated through our completely scientific, rigorous, tested methodology, a scale that we use to measure the quality of film.

Sarah:

It’s at least as rigorous as anything coming out of clinical psychology, I’ll say that.

Jeff:

Taking shots, I appreciate that.

So like in golf, our scores mean the lower the score, the better a movie fares. Lower is better, that’s what we’re looking for.

So we’re going to start out here. On a scale of one to five, with five being the least accurate, how accurate does this film portray disability?

Sarah:

I think if we’re reading it with the live into what you want to see and be and do in the world argument, which is what we were ostensibly operating on toward the end of this conversation, I’d have to give it a one, because it is portraying the disabled world as we want to see and be and do in it. And it’s doing a lot of work that a lot of modern disability films seem completely incapable of or are blatantly unwilling to do, which is to take people as they are.

If you put this up against, especially psychosocial disability films like Silver Linings Playbook and A Beautiful Mind, the entire consciousness of the film is about what’s wrong with them and how you can use that positively. In this film, it’s still about… It centers on the disablement of Mr. No Legs. They call him Mr. No Legs. It’s probably not his name, but it’s about everything he can do. Even the reviewers who called themselves far writers who in this argument, you think they wouldn’t be with you on this, they could do nothing but tell us how much of a badass, how much of an inspiration, how much he brings to the world and society. So in that way, he would be a really phenomenally well done disability character, even if this came out last year, which I think in a lot of ways is kind of sad, right?

Jeff:

Right. Yeah.

So I was almost in line with you. I gave this a two out of five, and the only reason that I took off marks was that I don’t believe the full accessibility of the mob layer and everything else in Tampa was very accurate to reality. It did present this sort of dream world of full accessibility, but I think that’s a minor sin. I’m not totally against that, but it would’ve been kind of hilarious if he had gone to the bar, the 7 Seas Bar to start shit and it was inaccessible and he wasn’t able to get in. That would’ve been… Actually, and then double barrel shotguns [inaudible 00:39:43] for it. [inaudible 00:39:44].

Sarah:

Okay. He would’ve, I’m calling it, thrown the chair with one arm down the stairs, launched himself down there and started fighting.

Jeff:

Yeah.

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

Sarah:

I thought this film was an absolute delight. I said in the last episode, my roommate actually asked me what I was doing because I was sitting in my room with Jeff just laughing maniacally for much of this film. It is genuinely hilarious. I give it a one. I’d watch it again tomorrow.

Jeff:

Yeah, this was a hard one for me. It was under 90 minutes. Blessings. But also every scene, at the end of the scene, I was ready for the next. I was like, give me more. I want to see what’s coming next. There were zingers throughout the film that were delivered perfectly. It was silly and funny and weird and a fight every 10 seconds.

Sarah:

And you know what? Callback to the cinematographer. Whoever they got for that, he was legitimately very good. He was well above the caliber of Mr. No Legs, the film, and he made it look, especially the car choreography at the end, really good.

Jeff:

Totally.

And this might be actually the hardest one for us to answer. On a scale of one to five, with five being the most, how often did you laugh at the [inaudible 00:41:20] that we’re not supposed to be funny?

Sarah:

Okay. Yeah, that’s hard because I really do think that there’s no way this was supposed to be serious. There’s no way. And if you know, it’s supposed to be a funny kind of pseudo parody, but also goes really hard for a parody on manly man bravado action films, it’s a one. But if you think that they legitimately wanted every minute of this to be Die Hard and you come out of this kind of wishing you were him, I guess it would be a 2 or a 2.5. I don’t know. I think maybe I’ll go in the middle. Maybe I’ll go two.

Jeff:

So hilariously, I had almost the exact same wrestling with angels in my mind, and I also came out at a two. And the only reason I came out at two is that I think there were lots of moments in this film that were objectively hilarious. I think they clearly wanted to be funny. A lot of the little one-liners were clearly supposed to be funny. I think a lot of the fight scenes… When you stab at a Camaro with a broad sword, clearly intended to be funny.

There were other parts of the film that I’m not totally sure if they were in on the joke or not. I’m not sure if they were trying to mock hypermasculinity or if they were just performing hypermasculinity, unclear. But either way, it was funny, and I think I lean more towards you, like this is supposed to be like a Grindhouse-like film. And so I think that that kind of over the top nature, that sort of funny, I think it’s supposed to be funny. So I’m going to give it a two. It might be a one, but I’d want to talk to the directors and find out a little bit more about what they were actually intending.

Sarah:

Yeah, if the directors came out and said, this is a parody of big macho action films, it would be a one for sure.

Jeff:

Okay.

And our last question. 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 we should be citing this film in the AODA. I think this should be a core piece of disability arguments and disability empowerment moving forward because it wins over even the most hard to win people on the epistemological and ontological use value in the loosest sense of CDS gang. One.

Jeff:

Yeah, this was an easy one. I didn’t even have to think about it. If there was the ability to give zero, I would give zero. I do not believe this set us back. Okay, maybe it did earn the one. It doesn’t deserve the zero. The only thing is that I think it does unfortunately lead to a tremendous disappointment by both disabled and non-disabled people when they realize in the real world that every wheelchair does not have double barrel shotguns hidden in the armrest. And that maybe does set us back a little bit. It promises a future that never occurs.

Sarah:

You know what? Never say never. Because everybody thought iRobot was a spectacular 2044 future, and it’s looking more like a 2004 future.

Jeff:

Fair enough.

With the lowest score ever on Invalid Culture, drum roll please, the amazing Mr. No Legs clocks in with a score of 10. This might be an underappreciated piece of art.

Sarah:

If I saw a poster in a store for this film, I would buy it outright.

Jeff:

If I saw Mr. No Legs’ in Tampa, Florida, in real life, I would beg to become his Danger Angel.

Sarah:

I want to be a Danger Angel as a career choice now. This movie has changed the trajectory of my life and probably yours because you will forever be in pursuit of a Mr. No Legs style chair.

Jeff:

Yeah. So I’m going to chalk this one up as an enormous win for the disabled population and an absolute abject failure, on my part, for trying to find a terrible movie, because I didn’t. I accidentally found a good one.

Sarah:

I’m going to be so much more disappointed next month because the fall is going to be hard from here.

Jeff:

It is a steep drop-off as we get going in the year of 2024. That’s right, folks, there are many more episodes to come, so be sure to tune in next month as we continue, or rather maybe begin our descent into the depravity of disability representation in film.

And thus 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 over to our website, invalidculture.com and submit. We would love to hear from you.

That’s it for this episode. Catch you next month, then until then, stay invalid.

[Theme song, “Arguing with Strangers” by Mvll Crimes finishes out the episode]