Cinemalphabet- C is for Cherrybomb

The rush of excitement from the last Harry Potter premiere has ended – and with it, the fame, the glory, and all of the attention that came from being a Harry Potter actor for Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, and Daniel Radcliffe, or so you’d think. In fact, they’ve all been very busy working. Rupert has Cross of Honor, Postman Pat, and CBGB under his belt, Emma has My Week With Marilyn, Perks of Being a Wallflower, and The Bling Ring to show for herself, and Daniel has a movie about Allen Ginsberg, The Woman In Black, The F Word, various plays, a British TV show, and Horns to show for himself. (Source: imdb.com.) None of that, of course, is taking into account the various films each of them were a part of whilst employed by Warner Brothers. Daniel’s stage and screen fare (from David Copperfield to December Boys) is too numerous to count, while Emma kept quiet with The Tale of Despereaux and Ballet Shoes. Rupert had Thunderpants as a child, but came to his own with Cherrybomb, which we’ll be exploring today.

 The adult themes of this movie movie might have been too obscure to cause too much controversy. Perhaps Daniel Radcliffe’s 10 minute long nude scene in Equus swallowed up all of the controversy, because this movie, well…ushered Rupert right into adulthood. Most viewers wondered exactly what the idea was with his hair, but luckily there was more to the story.

The plot of Cherrybomb is fairly simple- Rupert costars with Robert Sheehan, and it follows a soon college (American-high school) graduate named Malarkey as he decides whether he wants to follow his parent’s expectations or do his own thing. He does his own thing, and consequences (along with steamy sex scenes) follow.

The music adds to the mood of this movie that I can only describe as hipster in clothes and style, reminiscent of that very brief stage in high school where if you promised acid or some other type of drug at a place we weren’t supposed to be, we’d be there. What makes this movie painfully relatable, though, is that the fancy film making technique doesn’t take away from the bleak consequences.

Malarkey is found passed out in the pool where he works because of a rave the previous night. His sort-of girlfriend gets caught hooking up in her dad’s bedroom (by, er, her dad.) It’s not quite as painfully awkward as Kidulthood to watch, but it’s close. The attractiveness of the people, the fashion, the music, and the film technique keeps you watching.

Consequences are gravely spelled out (although I’m not sure family values were the point of this movie) by the end of the movie. The point is perfectly hipster, shrouded in cigarette smoke for you to sit and think about with coffee while you also thought about Rupert Grint’s 6 pack when he was laying in the pool.

 

Visually, the movie is a jewel. Beautiful to look at in several different ways – very expertly and carefully made. I don’t want to knock the writing by excusing the plot as only being about a party. I tried to watch the pilot of UK Skins with my brother once (and it ended up being with my Mom and Dad as well, on Christmas evening – that was fun) and he ended up commenting that it was literally about partying so he didn’t see the point.

I have to argue, though, that there is a point – and not just to the early series of Skins. (I refuse to defend the latest offerings, though I’m trying to have an open mind.) There is a plot below the obvious partying and the teenage angst, even if it is a rough, edgy coming of age film for Irish teenagers, though it’s appeal tends to stick with the 18-30 crowd.  And it’s worth checking out.

There Are No Queens or Kings Here

I was with my partner the other day and we were talking about the Famous People of the neurodiversity (specifically autism) movement- Amanda Baggs, for one, and Julia Bascom for another. I used to feel slightly out of the group for not being in Bascom’s circle. I felt…not as legitimite of an activist as anyone who was in the circle was. I found out (talking with my partner) that I’m really not the only one on the outside of the circle. And that’s…honestly okay.

I used to feel like apologizing for it, sucking up and getting in, and most of that was because I wanted to be involved in Loud Hands. I was too nervous to submit an essay. Then I remembered when she called self-diagnosis appropriation, to which my partner countered, how white and rich do you have to be to make that statement? Self diagnosers don’t have the power to take anything, which you sort of have to do in order to appropriate. But alas.

In one of her most famous blogs, she says that Sherlock is a tv autistic and not really autistic because he manages well on his own, and I guess that’s something you’d say if you’ve never watched Sherlock before.

Amanda Baggs is one of the oldest and most pivotal parts of the disability rights movement. But she doesn’t necessarily like me because of my aggressive style and I’m not always crazy about her. And I don’t have to be. I certainly don’t have to be because of her ‘functioning level’ or whatever.

Temple Grandin really isn’t in advocacy anymore. I guess you could say she’s popular with non-autistic parents of autistic children, but she’s certainly not relevant to a generation of activists who eschew functioning levels.

Have we ever considered the waves of disability activism? I’m not saying Bascom and Baggs have faded out, though hatred of people prevented from getting a diagnosis is on the same track Grandin is on (out.) 

It is freeing, though, as an activist, to consider that there are no kings and queens. No royalty. Amanda Baggs is a pivotal part of our movement, yes. Do I need to agree with her all the time? No. Julia Bascom’s Loud Hands Project is one of the most important pieces of activism in the last few years. But some of her ideas of activism are a bit…well…wrong.

There is plenty of room for growth, and plenty of us to listen to.

Good Guys and The Steubenville Rape Trial

Most of you probably know by now that two teenage boys got (really lightly) convicted of rape and got one year (the adult sentence is 10 years) in juvenile detention recently. (Nonviolent crimes by teenagers get more.) You might not know that the girl they raped is getting death threats. Most of you have opinions on the subject.

It’s a highly charged discussion because right now, no one is disputing that the girl got raped. (There is heavy ‘she was drunk, though’ coating in some discussions.) And most people are reflecting on their kids, grandkids, nieces, and sisters and thinking of the possibilities of that being them because this time the ‘good boys’ did it. The athletes.

The jocks. The nice young men who had a bright future ahead of them. For once what happened isn’t the Facebook Meme rapist who looks for girls who wear short skirts and put their hair up in pony-tails and didn’t take the self-defense class or carry mace. For once it’s not the strange, scary criminal but possibly the boy you sent your daughter to formal with. The guitar player in your youth group praise band.

For once it’s one of the good guys.

And a lot of people are reflecting on how sad it is that their futures are now tainted because they are sex offenders. How they’ll cope with it. I’ve seen Christians on Facebook make no mention of the rape victim and how…you know…she’ll deal with this but write paragraphs about how we need to have empathy for the rapist. And I just…I have to address that.

No, men who are doing this, I’m not comfortable coming up to you and privately confronting you on the way you’re talking about rape. No, I’m not comfortable bringing someone else to talk about it with you.

You have friends who were raped. Multiple ones. In your church. Like…in the pews next to you. Volunteering and serving right next to you. And it may have been done by the good guy with the bright future and the totally nice personality. You may have heard that she reported a rape and you think he’s innocent because he says so. You may not know at all. You may think that this is a thing that happens rarely and when it does, justice is always served.

But justice isn’t always served. The text messages admitting that they had sex with her without her being awake are the only reason justice was served. Some sex-ed classes (like abstinence only, the one I went to at least) didn’t adequately teach what rape was. Cops don’t believe you. Rape kits don’t get examined. Largely people don’t care, so it gets explained away as not being able to hold your alcohol or skirt size, having made out with him or any arbitrary detail. This case is unusual and people care. And they were found guilty.

So – men- here’s what we need from you right now.

• Stop talking about how concerned you are about the rapists’ welfare. -No, seriously. From several of you, that’s all I’ve seen. A lot of concern about the rapists’ welfare and talk about how they will live with this in agony and torture for the rest of their lives. This is alienating. Irregardless of your intentions, it is terribly alienating. It lets us know definitively that you won’t be on our side. You’ll be on his. You’re proving it to us right now.
• Start talking about what the rape victim is going through – Don’t be afraid to use that language -victim – I know it’s uncomfortable because it makes you think about a bad thing happening but she was raped. And the men who did this to her only have to be punished for a year. She’s getting death threats from people right now. Her struggles and her future and her dreams – let them be important to you by talking about them.
• Call out your bros- don’t let this kind of behavior pass. Ever. The harrassment, the attempted rape, the rape – any of it. Just don’t. Actively call it out without apology. This can include the rapists who were already convicted of their crime. Do not leave it up to us and do not wait until it has already happened.
• The system is working if the world will be safe from men like those two, who will begin their adulthood on the sex offender registry. Please do not make your primary concern their future and how they’re not going to be successful anymore.
• Listen to the women around you. Most are probably too intimidated to talk to you about this, but don’t take that as an excuse. Listen anyway.

I Changed My Mind About Taylor Swift. (Why?)

It was only 30 percent influenced by Ed Sheeran’s tattoo, I promise.

I was firmly in the ‘Taylor Swift is kind of sexist’ camp for the longest time, awkwardly ignoring the fact that the main Sexist Person we targeted was a woman. I still maintain that some of her first songs had some madonna/whore ingredients, but…maybe a girl can change?

It’s entirely because of RED that I changed my mind. (It’s entirely because of Ed Sheeran that I even bought RED.) First, I stumbled onto ‘We are never ever getting back together’ to give it a try. I found some brutal honesty about unhealthy relationships and communication that I just didn’t expect out of Taylor Swift. Mostly she gets lambasted for whining about her exes which isn’t really a valid criticism anymore, since most music, made by either gender, is entirely based on whining about your ex, and sometimes the ex is famous and also a musician. Taylor didn’t invent this.

Ed did an interview (that I’m too lazy to look up)  where he talked about his work with Taylor, and he commented that she was one of the most hardworking people in the industry. She played the aforementioned song for him and said, ‘I mean is that okay?’ He looked at her and reassured her that it was a hit. And he was right, it was. (Skeptics like my old editor will comment that Ed also said he likes Nickelback and doesn’t see what the big deal is.)

Then I listened to Dear John (not on the same album, but I’ve been secretly loving most of Swift’s music for years) after having been told to look at it from the slant of emotional abuse and cried, knowing it was about John Mayer. (I cried for other reasons. Shhh.)

‘Everything Has Changed’ remains one of the best songs I have heard, and not because Ed Sheeran is in the song.

Can I be honest and say that most of the criticism the feminist community sends out to Taylor is a little…sexist? I guess I can’t say it’s entirely that one group, and the general consensus isn’t explicit, but all of it implies that she’s a bit of a dumb blonde. And can we be honest about how messed up that is?

She had a fling with Harry Styles, so we assume she’s not able to have a stable relationship. (We don’t, to be sure, ever do this with boys.)

Sometimes the way activists target women (Stephenie Meyer, J.K. Rowling, Kristen Stewart) makes me uncomfortable. Seeing John Green and Steven Moffatt get ripped apart is refreshing because for once it’s…not a woman.

One song on RED even criticizes sexism and in hollywood and how and why women choose to leave sometimes. (Unless I’ve really grievously misread the song. Like, that’d be a stretch, though.)

So I changed my mind about Taylor Swift. And even if you don’t go out and buy RED, consider two things

1. The majority of the reasons people hate Taylor Swift and make fun of her have to do with sexism  and misogyny.

2. Ed Sheeran asked to work with her first.

Autistic People Should

have jobs.

have jobs that are accessible to them so that they can also have lives.

be the writers and lead characters of your favorite tv shows. No apology. No doubt. Explicitly spell out the diagnosis and leave no room for ‘no, because autistic people…’

have the services they need academically.  Always.

have access to other services they need. Always.

Autistic people should be who you listen to before you listen to parents of autistic people.

Autistic people should never think they are bad because of their neurology.

Autistic people should get married.

Autistic people should exist in the safety net our society provides, because the unemployment rate and rates of poverty and homelessness for autistic people is inexcusable.

Autistic people should be heard regarding ABA therapy and places like the Judge Rotenberg Center.

Autistic people should know that they are not a curse or God’s judgment upon their family, but they are a full human being worthy of the same rights as their peers.

Autistic people shouldn’t have to live daily with the kind of torture that would garner big headlines should it happen to a non-disabled person (see also- Judge Rotenberg Center.)

Autistic people should…..

Being an ally goes beyond comparing me to a kid with downs syndrome, and yes, Sherlock is autistic

It’s because of the way I laugh sometimes, smile sometimes, and clap. I don’t know. But there’s a reason I’m charged as being oversensitive often and get right down to the bottom of the issue when someone says ‘you remind me of (insert name of someone we know with downs syndrome.)’  Or insisting that my favorite tv show character isn’t autistic (even when the evidence is strongly against it.) Because you always get that look.

That tone in your voice. That ‘I’m an expert in these matters’ tone. If I asked, you’d probably put ‘because I know you’ down as your reasoning. Or your pastor’s kid has downs. But it’s really not cutting it, and some of you have called me a bitch in person for telling you so. Let me address both areas thoroughly.

‘Sheldon Cooper/Sherlock/Abed isn’t autistic!’ You proclaim, kind of angry that I’ve tainted that character with the label. But here’s the thing. What it means to you is a drop of water and it’s an  ocean to me.  Dan Harmon got fired from Community, so Abed may change. In light of that and the fact that most of my friends who watch Community aren’t autistic, I’m going to be really frank.  
You’re not a bloody expert on autism just because you know me.
Or if you’ve seen a documentary.
I’m stripping those titles off you.

To you, Abed is amusing and funny. Sheldon Cooper is hilarious but rather geeky and you don’t like the thought of him being autistic because autistic people are x. (Insert stereotype about autism that has no basis in fact and has everything to do with functioning arguments and ‘but autistic people can’t be cool.’) Sherlock said he was a sociopath, after all (good job missing the sarcasm, by the way.) But all in all, it doesn’t really matter to you if these characters are autistic, aside from ‘that would make my character retarded.’

But to me (and people like me,) it matters. Popular culture representation of people with your disability matters. It just…it just does. Julia Bascom says it eloquently with Someone Who Moves Like You.

Sherlock’s executive functioning impairment and too fast brain are seen without looking away, but his best friend doesn’t leave. Max from Parenthood barely counts here, because his diagnosis is explicitly spelled out, but he’s important as well. He’s one of the most realistic and best depictions of autism I’ve ever seen on screen and he matters a lot. It would matter a lot if you took the diagnosis away and insisted that he wasn’t autistic.

I’ve spent a large part of my life racing to get to the point of ‘as good as the rest of my peers’. That’s a stupid, ridiculous race. But when you grow up with a developmental disability (anywhere from ADHD to autism), curing becomes ‘looking like your peers’ and has nothing at all to do with how you actually function. When you grow up in the nineties, this becomes growing up like role models on tv. (Laugh all you want, what we see on television while we grow up matters and shapes how we form our personalities as adults.)

 

A significant gap shows up when you realize you’re not even close to where they are, on television.

When in real life there’s nothing to say but ‘you’re not adequate at all,’ and everywhere else you turn, including media, you see ‘everyone else is better,’ it really, really matters when autistic characters, or could-be-read as autistic characters show up on the scene. Sherlock’s diagnosis has been mentioned but not officially declared on screen, I don’t think Abed’s is either, and Sheldon could be a few different things

. Sometimes labels actually do matter. Benedict Cumberbatch has mentioned that he plays Sherlock as ‘slightly autistic,’ Dan Harmon is autistic, and the writers of TBBT make Sheldon unmistakeably neurodivergent while saying that he’s not autistic.  But here’s the thing: their depictions matter. The race is exhausting. It leads to depression and the inability to do anything, much less act like I’m not autistic. It is usually acting and overcompensating. Social scripts. Smiles. And I’m a goldfish, so climbing a tree doesn’t work very well. So why did I compete in the Olympics of Passing as Non-Autistic for most of my life? Well, easy answer – it’s really not your choice when a. You’re a child and b. The mental health system is involved. 

And autistic characters being portrayed in a positive light wasn’t exactly a thing when I was growing up. Not in the spotlight. Not so obviously. Explicitly put out there. And all of those characters are. Sherlock is so autistic most people watch the show and wonder how anyone draws any other conclusions. Sheldon could possibly have OCD, but he has a stim room and he…generally is an autistic person. I’ve not heard one person debate about Abed but I won’t be as nice about it if they do so now that Dan Harmon is fired.

As an autistic adult I still don’t do a good job of passing, (and if you want a job, you have to try,) so it’s comforting that there’s a popular depiction or three of adults like me who have friends and (for the most part) jobs. It’s a message to myself both that I’m okay and I will be okay.

Again, let me say…to you it means that tv show character is ‘retarded.’

One of my pastor’s kids has downs syndrome. I get excited sometimes, and flap/clap. In these times, I read as Fully Autistic Person. (And that’s honestly okay.) One day, someone told me ‘you remind me of James (which, on this blog, is his name.)’  They smiled at me and expected it to go over well.  ‘Because he has Downs Syndrome?’ was my immediate reply because, frankly, I’m not an idiot. I know the stereotypes of people with developmental disabilities.

Both him and I are affected by the discrimination those stereotypes bring about. I’m not going to laugh, play along, or let it go. You can say I’m oversensitive (which was said) or I don’t get the joke (which was also said). I’m not a child. It’s really not a good joke to choose on a developmentally disabled person acquainted with advocacy and politics of disability. I get the joke. It’s not cool or funny.

Sometimes the traits of an autistic person and a person with downs syndrome (person first language is different with both camps- ask the person with the disability first and go with what they say) look the same. Jokes meant to use DD people as the butt and to basically say ‘you look retarded’ aren’t going to go over without me being critical of it. I’m not going to laugh along. I’m going to call you out even if it hurts your feelings and makes you look awkward. The politics of looking retarded and what it means in life are so much deeper than you can understand.

‘BUT I DO.’ Then you wouldn’t joke about it when I commit the crime of being autistic in public.

If you want to be an Ally, you need to go deeper. You need to give up your pride, because this isn’t about you. When an autistic person says a tv show character is autistic, don’t argue with them because ‘autism isn’t like that.’ Have a think about whether you or them knows more about autism. Don’t make ‘you’re retarded’ jokes. Don’t use downs syndrome as a stand-in for ‘retarded’ because it’s not PC to use retarded anymore. You’re not fooling anyone.
‘I can do what I want, PC police!’
Yes. You really can. I’m just telling you, because most people with disabilities you pull this crap with are going to leave you behind if you don’t change.

While talking about abortion (an exhortation, a plea, a notice)

This is written to people on both sides. This is written to people on the powerfully anti side who post on Facebook about the genocide, the violence, and the blood. This is written to the powerfully pro side who post on Facebook about the but-what-if-i-get-a-disabled-child and the, in general, horrible way to treat disabled people when you bring potentially disabled kids (let’s be clear, ALL kids fall into this category) into the discussion.  For once, you both have got something in common.

 

You’ve both forgotten about the parties affected. And before you run to comment sections sqwaking ‘IT’S ABOUT THE UNBORN CHILDREN’ I’m talking about the women you sit in church with, some of whom who have undoubtedly had one or contemplated it.  Some of you are making women feel so uncomfortable that your witness as a Christian is suffering. (Some of you are men, too.) I’m not saying ‘so never talk about your beliefs on abortion’ or ‘only say this.’ I’m saying it wouldn’t hurt to have some sensitivity to the people who, you know, the issue could have potentially affected.

On the pro-side, realize exactly who you’re alienating when you talk about selective abortion. There are conversations among DD people about selective abortion, about being the kid your parents didn’t want, that you don’t belong on, and you shouldn’t hijack. No more ‘but my reason for abortion only in the case of downs syndrome is totally cool’ in the middle of a conversation about how people with Downs are considered less than human and there is a 98 percent abortion rate.  Not your place. Not your avenue for pro-choice rhetoric. Not your platform to convince us that you aren’t superhuman so you can’t handle a Really Hard Kid, because normal kids are cake.

Anti Side- I’ve probably un-added you from Facebook during the Roe v. Wade hype because you kept posting things that weren’t factually accurate (obama is funding abortions!!! out of my personal paycheck!!! come get your free abortion!!!) or that were terribly triggering and yes, by that I do mean the bad kind of triggering.

I’m usually really pro talking about your beliefs passionately. See my post about guns and how it being offensive shouldn’t mean we just stop talking.

But this time everyone seems to have lost focus on who we’re talking about. Abortion is controversial enough and personal enough that we forget that it isn’t an Out There issue. It’s a pervasive, personal, In Here issue.

So is gun control! I mean, on the day of the Newton shooting, one of the people most offended by me was a mom who owned multiple assault rifles and had a mentally ill teenager who had access to them. She thought that it was morally depraved to dare talk about gun control ‘right now.’

But now we have  about one school shooting a week, so most of us (not just the radicals) agree that the time for resting on our laurels and assumptions about crazy people and guns is past and actively starting to talk about how to change things has begun.

Abortion is no exception (either side of the aisle.) So please. Do. Talk about it. But…

Anti side-

If you’re a Christian, and specifically if you’re a dude, think about the people you’re affecting, and how what you’re posting helps the women around you. Remember it’s not an Out There issue – it’s totally in here, in your church, even if you live in a state without an abortion clinic.

Pro-side- stop using people with disabilities as your pawns! No, seriously. Like, stop. Either you give us a voice (an actual voice) in the discussion and not just one  that agrees that parenting kids with downs and autism is soooo difficult you have to be a superhuman to not drown them in a bathtub, or stop talking about disabilities and abortion at all.

Cinemalphabet – P is for Perks of Being a Wallflower

There are two types of books. On one side is the type of books you’d like to share with people. You post about them on Facebook. You buy your friends copies, eager that they will become fans of the books too. And then there are those secret, special books. The ones that speak to something in your heart so deeply that you want to keep it close to you and somehow you hope that no one ever really knows the story, because they couldn’t know it like you know it. You’re not opposed to other people liking it, it’s just…it’s yours.

This is Perks for me. I discovered it in 2006, hiding in the Young Adult section of the library.  I read it…and loved it. And then I read it again, and again, and again, and now I’ve read it close to 20 times. It became a lot more than a book for me. I’d discuss it with people, but rub my eyebrows in frustration when they somehow missed the whole sexual abuse subplot. (Typically people have to read it twice in order to get it, but it happened.)

And then it happened, the event in every book fan’s life that should be a joyous event- the news came around that it was being turned into a movie. I really didn’t know how to feel, to be honest. I loved this book so much…would they be loyal? Would they, you know, get it? i knew Stephen Chbosky was in charge so it would be okay but then…he picked Emma Watson for Sam and that is…frankly not who I saw as Sam.

(Don’t worry, this isn’t one of those reviews where I bemoan how it wasn’t Just Like The Book. No, it wasn’t Exactly Like It, but it was pretty close to perfect. I’ll go through the Not Good Enoughs, though.)

Logan Lerman was always going to be a perfect Charlie, so I was kept in relative peace, with the side comment of ‘Emma, please do not ruin Sam.’ It was going to be a big deal if she ruined Sam.

Somewhere along the way I seem to have forgotten that I don’t own Sam, and it’s not up to me to figure out who Sam looks like. It’s always difficult, as a reader, to remember who owns the characters. (Not us, fandoms. Sorry.)

And I went to Perks in the theater with a friend who had never read the book and did not know what it was about, which made me nervous. (It was fine. Close friend. Choosing a friend to watch Perks of Being a Wallflower with is a lot like choosing a husband.)

And it…I came out of the theater both laughing and crying and thinking yes…it’s perfect. And it was. It caught the awkward beauty of Charlie, of growing up, of dealing with horrible things too early. It was…okay it wasn’t entirely perfect. But we’ll talk about that later. First…

The Perfect -

The first thing you have to understand about Perks is that it is a book about abuse. Several types of abuse. More than that, a culture of abuse within a family and how to break the chain through generations. Yes, it is definitely about abuse and not about mental illness. No, this isn’t an issue up for interpretation. It is what the book was about. And it’s key to understanding this book. I gave this book to a former editor once, and he gave me I Am Charlotte Simmons because he wanted to teach me something about writing – I still don’t know what that was supposed to teach me, but then I didn’t finish the book. And he never finished Perks. He got halfway through it before quitting because Charlie is just….whiny and awkward. It’s the same complaint people have about Holden from Catcher in the Rye. I could write essays on this issue alone as a fan of both books but this is a movie review so in short- yes. Yes. Charlie is a whiny high school freshman. The friend who I went to the movie with remarked that she found herself at several points in the movie thinking, ‘stop being stupid. Is that LSD you’re taking? Really?’ and then was confronted with the fact that there’s more to people’s decisions than their…well..decisions. He is a whiny high school freshman but keep going, if you’re reading the book right now and thinking ‘so much whining, he just needs to grow up’. You’re selling yourself short if you stop reading now.

I was worried the movie would lie, would not insert the sexual abuse in favor of something more easily digestible, especially for a movie aimed at teenagers. And that would have ruined it and made this not a good movie review. But they didn’t lie. It was there. In ways that might make you uncomfortable, whether or not it has happened to you. It was the best feeling in the world after explaining to people that yes, Charlie really was abused to see it onscreen, not being beaten around. Just explicitly told in every way. The abuse, the flashback, the things that lead up to a flashback. The things that happen after. It’s refreshing to have something to see- and the book is useful in the same way- to not feel crazy when these things happen to you. It’s also useful to point people to. It’s explicit, without being intentionally triggering, and it doesn’t lie about what happened. So often in the lives of sexual abuse survivors (or, in more broad terms, other abuse) truth is the most powerful thing because lying about it, brushing it under the rug, is the way you survive until you can’t anymore. Yeah, you survive, but you can’t grow and thrive. So..it means a lot that the movie version of the story is on the thrive side and told the truth.

Perks is written in letters, and many of the things mentioned in these letters come out beautifully in the movie (say, Sam’s boyfriend and the way he takes pictures and why it’s bad.) These are important things, and they are done beautifully. Moments that weren’t necessarily in the book (but not necessarily not in the book because we have to remember it was composed in letters) like Charlie shovelling snow high on LSD and Sam taking care of him. Not everything about the movie is perfect and I have to be fair and dissect both sides.

The Not Perfects

I’m not taking issue with casting. I mean, Ezra Miller isn’t Book!Patrick. Book!Patrick wasn’t effeminate, but Chbosky has said that when he met Ezra over Skype he knew that was his Patrick so…okay. I’ll let it go. Plus, Ezra was a wonderful Patrick even if he wasn’t Book!Patrick. And I don’t have issue with much. Really, to be honest, just one thing.

Charlie’s dad was….he just wasn’t like he was in the book. I have a lot of conflicted feelings over the fact that he was just….a really good dad. And that’s good, but Book!Dad really wasn’t a good dad. There was a chapter in which Charlie said strongly that his dad would never beat him but goes on in quick succession to describe, without awareness, three separate incidents of physical abuse. It seems one of the reasons might have been the fact that he was the type of abusive that often gets doubted- no, he was just tough, or whatever excuse people want to explain away. I’m okay with not seeing those types of articles because the majority of people won’t read the book but will watch the movie. But it did take away a good portion of what the book was about.

 

So I’m not going to tell you to see this movie. It’s a secret thing and it means a lot and it seems to mean a significant amount to everyone I know who has read it. In a lot of ways the movie seems to have been made just for readers of the book.  But in the same way, go see it. It’s beautiful.

To People Searching Are Autistic People More Likely To Murder and Ending Up Here

To Autistic People:

You are not too much to handle. You are not a burden. You are not a problem to be solved. You are not scary. You are not a monster. You are okay. You are okay. You are okay. You deserve better than being sent to scary places where people do scary things to you. You deserve so much better. You ARE NOT too much. You are not more likely to commit a murder. There isn’t a bad seed in you caused by your autism. You are not bad. You are not a burden. You are not a curse. You are not a punishment given to your parents because they did not obey God. The world is better that you’re here, okay? You are not Chris Krumm, and you are not Adam Lanza.

To Parents:

Your child is not a terrifying demon, a problem to be fixed. His life and his emotions are not items on a checklist to get back to normal, to what a child ‘should’ be like. Your child will not be fixed by more control, more institutions, more blog posts about how you are afraid of them. Adam Lanza’s mother taught him to shoot a gun, taught him to love guns. Showed him the route to the school. You are not in the same situation. He is not a problem, he is a child. He is not a ticking time bomb, he is a child.  People like your children are far more likely to have violence committed against them than do it themselves.

He is not trapped inside of his brain and it is not your job to force him out whether he likes it or not. He is a child, not a problem, no matter what his occupational difficulties. He is a child, he is a child, he is a child, he is a child.

You are not Adam Lanza’s mother based on the sole statement of him being autistic or mentally ill.

 

Precisely Because Its Offensive, Keep Talking.

Gun rights are right next to abortion in terms of ‘things you just don’t talk about because it’s offensive either way’ and usually, it’s true, I don’t like putting forth effort to offend people. But today is unusual and I’m proposing an exception to the rule, because 20 children (and seven adults) were killed this morning by a 20 year old with a glock, a sig sauer, and a bushmaster. They were killed in an elementary school. People all over my facebook feed pleaded with everyone to ‘not talk about gun control today,’ but I have to urge you to do just the opposite. Talk about it. Let’s talk aggressively about how guns are accessible and which ones exactly are accessible and how in the knife incident in China today no one was killed, because it takes longer to kill people with knives than assault rifles. Let’s talk about members of the public having combat weapons. Let’s talk about trusting parents to decide what responsible gun ownership is. No, really. Let’s talk. A lot. Let’s get angry and offended, because 20 children didn’t have to die like this. And by that I’m not being sentimental. I’m saying an autistic 20 year old man didn’t have to have access to a collection of made-for-combat weapons. The school cameras didn’t have to fail, the security system didn’t have to fail, and he never had to enter the school without signing in at the front desk.

He could have, his access to weapons being restricted, used a weapon that isn’t designed for combat, to very quickly take out multiple enemies. He could have killed maybe one, two people had he used a baseball bat or a bow. Maybe no children would’ve died.

I’ve had the maybes since December’s last school murder because I knew the killer. The Daily Mail reported that Chris Krumm told a friend that his dad deserved to be castrated. Instead of, you now, thinking about how messed up that was, the friend just shrugged him off and now our community is shaken up- two professors and a 25 year old are dead.  I kept asking myself what if, even after being dissuaded from it. People told me I can’t live in a land of what-ifs, and that’s true, except for the fact that IF someone had talked to Chris prior to the incident, it’s disturbingly likely that we’d still have Jim and Heidi. But we don’t. So I moved on, with a new vow in my heart for advocacy for autistic people.

And obviously a lot of things went wrong today. But 20 people under the age of ten died. Twenty children. Children. Which meant, of course, that it was Gun Rights Day. A person bragged on one of my Facebook statuses that one of her children is mentally ill and has a picture of her shooting what looks similar to a Bushmaster as a cover photo. Another responded to statistics about gun control with ‘But in Israel, teachers are armed’ as if this would all be better if we put our children in less of a school and more of a police state. Several people argued that freedom and guns are just awesome and the reason we are free. (Primitive rifles that took about a half an hour to load, not Glocks, to be sure, but what am I saying? What’s the difference between that and a gun that can kill people in less than a second?) Because today, when 27 people died, was the optimal day to froth at the mouth about the glory of guns.

I don’t know any autistic people who weren’t shaken up today. CNN has decided to take the ‘autistic people have no empathy’ route, which is exactly what we were afraid of. Because we all prayed not again when we heard, and it happened again. It was one of us again. It was this community I clung to today, all of us weeping, burning in anger, and looking for a solution. And all of us are talking about it, and have lost friends because of it. But today? I don’t so much care. 20 children didn’t have to die today. They didn’t die because, you know, bad things happen. This was ridiculously preventable.

So this is a challenge: Don’t shut up, even when you are bullied and intimidated. Even when your friends are sending you mean messages and making storms on your Facebook statuses. Making people uncomfortable today isn’t a crime. If anything, America shouldn’t be comfortable about the state of their children and the ease with which you can buy a gun and use it to kill. Let’s not forget about this in three weeks. Let’s make sure this gets talked about, dealt with. Let’s keep taking to our Facebook newsfeeds with discussion about this, no matter who it offends. Let’s not let it become obscure by the new year, because we need to talk about guns. We need to talk. Let’s not let another school get shot up, another group of children die, before we do something about this.

20 children are, at the time of this being published, still laying on the ground of their classrooms, dead, because the police need to identify the bodies and continue the investigation. Let’s go beyond reposting graphics saying we’re praying for Connecticut. Let’s go beyond ‘what’s wrong with the world?’ Let’s make this a national issue. Let’s not shut up about it.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/adam-lanza-is-recalled-as-a-rambunctious-kid-with-family-problems/2012/12/14/795ad0fe-4641-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html?tid=sum_facebook_washingtonpost

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ct-school-shooter-made-combat-weapon-article-1.1220431

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/12/connecticut_school_shooting_semi_automatic_weapons_and_other_high_speed.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1