1. What is the main thesis of this film?
It seems to me that the main thesis of the film is simple: people in wheelchairs are no different than everyone else in society. That point was made clear when Mark Zupan’s friends stated that Mark was an ass before the wheelchair. The wheelchair did not turn Mark into an ass.
2. What were the main arguments in support of this thesis?
Some of the main points that support this claim would be the conversation the men were having about sex. It is clear that they can participate in and enjoy sex. They were also all engaged in sports. They were clearly active and were not sulking about their condition, which they do not see as a condition. They were also engaged in everyday activities like joking around. For example, one of the guys hid under a box and the other guys in the room asked some lady to pick up the box at which time the man in the box revealed himself causing the girl to scream. Finally, the individuals in the movie were not looking for sympathy. They were content with their lives. They didn’t want handouts from people. They knew that they were no different than anyone else in society and wanted people to realize and understand that point. For example, when one of the guys was asked if he needed help to his car while he was at the grocery store, he was annoyed. He stated that he wouldn’t come to the store if he couldn’t get back to his car. In other words, he is fine. People do not need to pity him.
3. How does the thesis of this film relate to the course?
This course is all about deviance, and while we may not think of people in wheelchairs as deviant, we do view them as different. According to Alex Heckert and Druann Maria Heckert (2002) some people can be viewed deviant simply for having an unfortunate condition for which they cannot be held responsible, and according to Alexander B. Smith and Harriet Pollack (2000) in “Deviance as Crime, Sin, and Poor Taste,” Howard Becker defines deviants as outsiders. Our society tends to pity people who are different. The term deviance in Sociological terms deals with anything out of the norm (Heckert 2002). People in wheelchairs would not be considered normal as our society believes that anyone who can walk would want to walk; therefore, people in wheelchairs need our pity and sympathy. People in wheelchairs are not deviant in the sense that they are committing atrocities. They are deviants simply for being different.
4. Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?
Some of the most convincing points in the film were the attitudes of the gentlemen in the film. Joe, for example, was an unapologetic tough guy who didn’t back down from anyone. He lost the use of his legs when he fell sick with Polio, but he didn’t look for sympathy. Instead, he became the greatest Murderball player in United States history, he has been married for several years and supports his family, and he has been able to find gainful employment throughout his life. The other part of the movie that was quite convincing came when the guys were having a candid conversation about sex. One gentleman even went as far to show you how he reinvented the doggy style. The men in this film were like most people in society. They had desires, goals, and dreams.
5. Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?
I would have liked it if the film had spent more time researching people who did in fact give up. It seems to me that not everyone shares the same outlook as the men portrayed in the movie. While they did provide us a small glimpse into the first days of individuals who were paralyzed, we really did not get a sense of what it was like for people who did give in and decide that life was indeed horrible. Finally, I want to know why this sport is sex segregated. Those wheelchairs look pretty secure. It seems to me that the producers of this film should have asked and researched why women are excluded from this sport. Generally speaking, co-ed sports can take place when there is a third party exception. For example in horse racing, there are women jockeys. In auto racing, there are women drivers. The premise for allowing these exceptions is the horse or the car is doing all the work, and not the woman. Therefore, why don’t women participate in this sport with the premise that the wheelchair is doing all the work? And I don’t accept the premise that it is a contact sport.
6. Choose one argument, point or question that most stands out for you from the film. How would you study this point? Briefly design a research study around that point.
The point that stands out to me is how accepting most of these men were of their new life in a wheelchair. I would really like to know if this is the status quo. How many people are just as accepting? How many people decide that life isn’t worth living if it has to be in a wheelchair because of the pressures our society puts on people to be normal? I would like to research people who have been paralyzed and see how their lives have turned out. Does everyone have the same positive outlook? How many individuals, who are in wheelchairs, found it difficult to assimilate back into society after their accident? Were they able to find work? How hard is it to go on dates? If they are married, did their marriage survive? If they have kids, how did their kids react? Do their kids treat them differently? Do the kids get treated differently from their friends at school? Do the individuals in wheelchairs have a sense of hopelessness or do they look to the future as bright? To research this I would make visitations to the hospital where people who are rehabbing from their accidents. I would ask them if I could follow them throughout their rehab and while they attempt to assimilate back into society.
Alexander P. Smith and Harriet Pollack. (2000). Deviance as Crime, Sin, and Poor Taste. In Patricia A. Adler, and Peter Adler (Eds.), Constructions of Deviance: Social Power, Context, and Interaction (pp. 19-28). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
No comments:
Post a Comment