The Amazing Spider Man

[sasha_feather]

I loved this movie, but I think it had one big glaring error.



The anatagonist of this movie is Dr. Curt Connors, who accidentally turns himself into the Lizard via an experimental serum aimed at limb regeneration.

We know about Dr. Connors that he is a brilliant scientist with great equipment and resources; that he worked with Peter's father and was probably at least someone complicit in the deaths of Peter's parents; and that he has one complete arm (his left). It looks to me like Dr. Connors wears a wedding ring, but we never see or hear of a wife or family of any kind. We also know that he is unhappy with having a missing limb and dreams of being able to regenerate his own limb.

As a disability activist I had a mixed reaction to this. During a nice exposition scene, Dr. Connors explains to a group of interns that his experiments would also potentially help Parkinson's patients and those with macular degeneration. He says that he also wants to fix himself, and that he does not think of himself as a cripple but as a scientist. That is all well and good, but it's interesting what he doesn't do, and what we are not shown.

We don't know why Dr. Connors is so obsessed with this mission. Plenty of people lose limbs and go on to live their lives just fine with or without protheses. I heard an interesting story on This American Life yesterday about a dancer and Pilates instuctor who hides her missing limb quite successfully, partly in order to not get type cast. Dr. Connors, as a principal investigator (PI) in a lab, is not only able but actually expected to delegate all of his lab work (things that might require two hands) to people who are technical experts. As PI most of his duties would be in an office, writing grants and papers (which presumably he could dictate using a speech-to-text software or by hiring a typist), designing experiments, supervising his employees, and going to conferences and meetings. His work doesn't really require two hands and arms.

So what else might drive this obsession to regenerate his limb? Perhaps we would know if we were given any more back story on Dr. Connors. Did his wife leave him, and he feels like he would be a better husband/man with two arms? Did he lose the limb traumatically? We just don't know.

In this movie Dr. Connors is representing the medical model of disability, which focuses on fixes and cures, which makes sense given that he is a scientist. What is not represented in this film is the social justice model of disability, which focuses on the fact that disabled people exist and are OK just as they are, and it is the world that needs to change. These two models are not always in opposition, but can work together. For instance, most people would agree that preventable illness should be prevented. But if prevention fails, then the social justice model can step in and help you get on with your life.

Dr. Connors ends up taking the serum even though he knows he should wait, in part because he's pressured by evil people above him regarding human trials. Thus, he turns into a lizard and also goes kind of crazy.

Part of me really liked seeing a character with a disability in a movie. The character turns out to be a mad scientist type, which is rather a tired trope. And the mad, disabled scientist? Even worse. However, he is somewhat redeemed at the end when he turns back into a human and expresses remorse for his violence. I just don't need to see this in a movie or show anymore-- a disabled person driven by a need to be fixed-- although for a while as I was watching I was like, oh, but it's OK, he's *evil*... except that didn't really work. This character is not umambiguously evil. And it's not always wrong to want to be fixed. It would just be so, so, nice to see the other perspective--surely a more common perspective!-- of, "OK, I've got one arm, but so what? We're working on trying to cure Parkinson's Disease here which is a serious problem!"

Another problem is that he is played by an able-bodied actor, Rhys Ifans.

I remain conflicted about this movie and this portrayal. Mostly I think it would have been better with more backstory and more information about Dr. Connors.

Comments

AT is my fandom, you can't stop me

[jesse_the_k]

Word.

And now you've given me a reason to watch the movie, which is a nice present.

Also, there are scores of one-handed input systems. Right here at home:

Colonel Robert S. Allen, a well-known journalist before World War II, lost his arm while on active duty in Europe. He is seated here with Dr Anton Dvorak, the inventor of a one-arm typewriter that permitted him to resume his career despite his handicap.

Yes, once again, assistive technology is the alpha test for new systems. Unfortunately, DVORAK hasn't replaced QUERTY in the US, and I bet that there will be truly effortless speech recognition systems before it ever does.

Mac, Linux & Windows offer Dvorak input out-of-the-box. Back in the day there were special-purpose typewriters. And now there are lovely chording keyboards, curved keyboards and many others, all on display at (wait for it) onehandedkeyboard.com

That is all.

Re: AT is my fandom, you can't stop me

[sasha_feather]

Nice! Thanks for the links!

[senmut]

Your points all hit the nail squarely. May I hypothesize the root cause of these points?

Hollywood, idiots they are, seem convinced that anyone with a disability will stop at nothing to be normal again. This is all while failing to comprehend that A) normal does not exist, B) disabilities are not abnormalities to be cured/fixed, and C) many people have disabilities and are very successful in adapting their worlds to fit what ever change in mobility/function/processing they have.

Because of this, they feel no need to provide the backstory, or clarify the reason for the obsession. Because obviously (to the idiots of Hollywood) all people would be obsessed to be 'whole' again.

That's just my view of looking at it, having weighed and measured and debated the idiots of DC comics in re: Oracle for many years. I do love the post here, and hope many read it so they actually THINK about the idiots of Hollywood before it gets worse.

[sasha_feather]

I agree completely, although I would add that it isn't just Hollywood. This is the prevailing view in a ableist society, one in which people think it's somehow OK to say "I'd rather be dead than disabled" and other such crap. It also makes for lazy and bad writing.

[gehayi]

It might have made more sense if they'd included a detail about the comic book character--that, in the past, he'd been a brilliant surgeon. He could still be a scientist and researcher with one arm...but he needed both hands to operate. I can imagine a talented person being DEEPLY frustrated at being unable to exercise his/her gift.

But instead it was just, "Well, he does this for no particular reason" or "He does this because he's evil" or "Because he wants to take over the world." And all of that made Curt Connors more of a stereotype and less of a person. It wasn't necessary.

[sasha_feather]

That makes much more sense! Indeed, it would be difficult to have to change one's life path like that, especially if one felt that it was a calling or gift. Which is not to say that others haven't been able to adapt to a new life with a a disability, but yes.

Thanks for the link!

[luinied]

As someone who has neither seen the movie nor followed Spider-Man in the past, I'm still awfully disappointed that they left that motivation out. Because, in addition to addressing the criticisms in this post, isn't it better for a villain of Spider-Man to have more personal conflict between great gifts and personal circumstance? You know, for that whole contrast between heroes and villains thing?

Also, that link made me realize just how accurate the Spider-Man side of this comic is. And realize where Dr. Shark comes from.

[oyceter]

I was glad that the movie explicitly associated Connors' turn toward homicide and EEEEVVIIILLL with the magic potion, as opposed to it being the boring "I am disabled and resent the world and this has turned me EEEVIIILLLL!"

That said, I still really wish he weren't all motivated by wanting to be able-bodied and that Hollywood would realize you can actually have more than one person with a disability in a movie!

[sasha_feather]

Yes, I definitely liked that he wasn't evil throughout the film, and that he explicitly showed remorse for his actions at the end. I was talking with someone else about how it would have been nice to contrast Dr. Connors' attitude with someone else who doesn't want to be fixed, but as you say, that would require more than one disabled character, which seems beyond the ability of Hollywood screenwriters/directors.

[minoanmiss]

This was also my biggest problem with the movie, and you've analyzed it brilliantly here.

[thingswithwings]

This is such an excellent, thoughtful post. I especially like the way you say that the medical model of disability makes sense for a scientist character, but that it's not like the medical model and the social model are in direct opposition. That makes a lot of sense.

I feel like my main objection to this character is, like you say, how commonplace he and his narrative are - it amounts to there only being one story that gets told about disabled characters, and I want so many more.

[sasha_feather]

Yes, it's the stereotype problem: there's this quote from Chimamanda Adiche:

"The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue; it is that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story."

I have another quote today about the false dichotomy of illness vs. identity, or in this case, medical vs. social models, but I have to think on that a little more and will post later!
:D

[thingswithwings]

Yes, absolutely! I love that Chimamanda Adiche talk.

I'll look forward to your later post!