4. Albrecht (1999) states that disability humor is powerful precisely because it evokes strong emotional reactions that mixes laughter with empathy, surprise, and even discomfort to shift social perceptions. The Peanut Butter Falcon stirs warmth admiration and hope but also self reflection. Audiences feel the joy in Zak’s triumphs, tenderness for the friendship he has with Tyler, and the guilt when they recognize the biases within themselves muttered in other characters patronizing behavior. Berger (2012) says that authentic disability humor transforms societal expectations by fostering empathic understanding of issues that are otherwise difficult to address directly. The film does this by the viewers leaving not with pity but admiring his determination and humor. This allows the audience to realize that disability is not tragedy, but a variation on human experiences. Nina G (2018) takes this concept further by stating when disabled characters command the stage or screen, they make political statements of visibility and normalcy. The Peanut Butter Falcon performance achieves this. Zak is funny, self-possessed, and emotional. This embodies Nina’s notion that representing disabled people as complete people reshapes the mainstream culture. The films emotional resonance and blend of humor, empathy, and joy fulfill the ideas about humors transformative power. Audiences laugh, cry and rethink disability not as a limitation but as another way of living meaningfully and confidently in the world.

These messages are what Gibbons (2016) describe as “compulsory youthfulness,” or “the social mandate to maintain the ideals of youthfulness in regards to ability, memory, health, appearance, activity, energy, sexuality, and social roles throughout the life course, including later life” (p. 75). Both films shape dementia as a loss of daily life and independence, which creates emotional turmoil that takes away from one’s identity.

Away from Her does have some memorable moments that characterize Fiona, but it mostly describes Grant’s emotional state and show that these films are to have a profound impact on the audience showing the lens of emotional stress.

Prompt #4: What They Had and Away from Her continually highlight ageist and ableist tropes, although each film shows these tropes on various levels that creates more complexity. One trope that is continually highlighted is framing older women as vulnerable. As Julie Sprankles shares, “All too often, older women are depicted as a vulnerable subset of society in need of protection and routine assistance from others.” In the film What They Had they show the main character Ruth and her struggle with her memory fading that makes it difficult for her to make decisions without constantly being questioned by her family members. This creates assumptions between her family members that they need more people to watch her so they she does not get lost. This highlights the cultural narrative that older women living with the condition of dementia cannot make decisions for themselves and must have continual watching.Continually, Away from Her creates more emotional stress that brings about stereotypes that older woman are distant. The film creates a term called “tut-tutting” describing the world as judging and describes Fiona’s detachment from the care facility.

These films highlight what scholars have continually described as a missing component in literature. “However, despite robust collections of scholarship that analyze disability in film and aging in film, there have been limited scholarly explorations of how representations of aging and disability intersect, with Chivers’ (2011) work being a notable exception” (Page 1). These films demonstrate disability having to do with memory loss showing overlap. This conducts ableist and ageist tropes and highlights loss.

Lastly, Away from Her calls to attention these tropes through the lens of Fiona and her quiet rebellion. Her cognitive function of entering the facility and her emotional connection with another resident show a desire. The film however cuts it short to dominance narratives about cognitive disability.

~Prompt #2: Both films have similarities and difference in how they use disability as a source of comedy. Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon both put the perspective that they are trying to create an environment of adding more friendliness to the films instead of mocking. The films goals are to not make the disabled character seem like an inspiration but to make it more about equality. According to Ronald J. Berger, “Disability as a comedic trope goes back to the slapstick days of the silent film era, and it has been a staple ever since.” Although Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon drift away from the problematic tropes of disability they use humor to pull apart stereotypes. Ronald J. Berger states, “According to film historian Martin Norden, a common theme in the slapstick comedies of the silent film era was the ‘disability scam artist,’ an able-bodied character impersonating a disabled person.” These portrays show the idea of laughter and the approach that they films are trying to reach to the audience which is empathy. The humor usually grows from human situations instead of just disability. Gary L. Al Brecht notes that “In comedy, ordinary people caught in familiar situations amuse through an exaggeration by an imbalanced or farcical character.” The film Champions the imbalance evolves around the coach's arrogance not the players with disabilities. The film The Peanut Butter Falcon, stems humor from Zak’s deviance of social norms, not taunting his uniqueness. One difference that stood out was the tone. Champions is more about humor and group relationships to identify teamwork as The Peanut Butter Falcon uses more heartfelt humor that depicts individuality. Both of these films identifying what Nina G is trying to persuade: “Comedians with disabilities have been around since before stand-up comedy even existed.” The films create a setting for the actors to bring laughter while being self-confident highlighting that disability comedy can be empowering.

I think the movies Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon are examples of “disability humor,” not “disabling humor.” Berger (2012) explains that “disabling humor” makes fun of disabled people, while “disability humor” helps others understand disability in a more positive way. “It is essentially the difference between laughing at them and laughing with them” (para. 4). In both of these movies, most of the humor comes from the characters with disabilities themselves and does not come from non-disabled characters making fun of them (however, in The Peanut Butter Falcon for example, the character that Zak was wrestling was making fun of him but that was just mean and not humor, at least in my opinion). The characters with disabilities in these movies make jokes, they all have a personality, and they are an important part of the plot. They are not side characters that simply add a little something to the story or are portrayed as scary, or even someone who needs to be cured. Instead, the characters are treated like full people, not just people with disabilities. In Champions, the athletes are shown as confident, funny, caring, and all have things they love to do. In The Peanut Butter Falcon, Zak is shown as funny and adventurous. His disability is part of him, but it does not define who he is. I do believe that both movies are great steps in terms of disability representation. However, you could argue that in Champions that disabled characters were used to make the coach a better person.

Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon are unique because they cast actors with down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities. What is the impact of these casting choices on the audience? What messages about disability are communicated by these casting choices? Through casting and other strategies, how do the films humanize disabled characters (like Zak)? 

Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon stand out because they cast actors with Down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities. This kind of casting has an impact on audiences, for example, it breaks away from the common Hollywood habit of giving disabled roles to non-disabled actors. Instead, these movies give real opportunities to people with disabilities, allowing them to be seen, have a voice, and represent their community on screen. This helps audiences see people with disabilities as talented and capable, not as stereotypes or used as a side character to be pitied or just inspirational. As Shanley (2019) explains, true representation of people with disabilities in movies has been very limited. When actors with disabilities are given a chance, it can change how society views them. For example, actor Barbanell shared that before being in a movie, people often stared at him in fear, but afterward, they treated him with more kindness and respect (Shanley, 2019, para. 9). Nina G (2018) also discussed disabled comedians showing that people with disabilities can joke about everyday things like dating and relationships just like anyone else (as we seen a lot in the movie Champions). Characters like Zak in The Peanut Butter Falcon are humanized because the film shows his dreams, independence, and personality. He makes his own choices (after escaping the nursing home) and wants to do things on his own terms, reminding audiences that people with disabilities are individuals with hopes, dreams, and can make decisions by themselves like everyone else.

5. I think that it is really special that Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon cast people with actual disabilities. This is just something that you do not typically see, you almost get a better grasp on the point of the movie. Just like a quote stated in the article “Damn It, That’s Huge”: Actors With Down Syndrome Are Finding More Work in Hollywood, “In order to effectively tell this story, you needed to do it with someone who actually has Down syndrome. Otherwise, it would have defeated the purpose of the movie.” But I guess the question would be, is it wrong to make these movies comedies? I say that because of what the article by Nina G stated: “Comedians with disabilities have been around since before stand-up comedy even existed. During the medieval and Renaissance eras, it was the job of “the fool,” or court jester, to entertain and reflect public opinion back to the king through humor.” This makes me think, are people just laughing because the characters are disabled, or did they actually say something that is funny? So yes, I do believe that this is a huge step for disabled characters in Hollywood, but I just hope that people are taking it the right way. It would be so unfortunate if this huge step forward would just turn into a huge leap back because people are laughing at the disabled character rather than with the disabled character.

The Peanut Butter Falcon uses humor to show disability in a more real and lighter way. Zak, who has Down syndrome, is outgoing, funny and bold, and the movie gives people the chance to laugh with him rather than at him or even just feel awkward. The film views Zak from his honesty and confidence, rather than from his disability. This makes him feel like a real person instead of someone to view as a side character with disability. The film also brings attention to how society limits people with disabilities, like how Zak is stuck in a nursing home just because there’s nowhere else for him to go. His escape is original and funny while also being heartwarming since he is getting out of an unfair, bad situation. The humor helps him connect with others and find belonging. By using an actor with Down syndrome, the movie shows true representation and reminds the audience that disability and humor can exist together in a powerful way.

2 Personally I didn’t see too many differences between the two films when it came to how they depicted comedy within mental disability. I feel the main differences came from the raunchier explicit comments within Champions and that in Peanut Butter Falcon, there was really only focus on Zak which is not a bad thing but the more extensive detail and differences in how each character with disability was and lived was a more eye-opening detail that I thought fit very well. As for the similarities, they were both two peas in a pod. It showed the disabled characters as people who have their own pleasures and struggles but did it in a very bright, upbringing way. It was good to see the way the characters thought and how they overcame struggles while almost always having a smile on their faces. As someone who does not interact with people with disabilities often it was something that caught me off guard with certain topics. It was almost comforting to be able to relate to the characters figuring things out on their own and seeing how they became better people and more open rather than more ignorant or irritable.

5. The impact of these casting choices on the audience are that we actually get to see these actors play roles of people with disability which is a very rare thing to see. These films actually humanize disabled characters by showing their emotions and giving Zak a full range of emotions. The Peanut Butter Falcon lets Zack be the main character and wrote the movie for him. So, when other production companies wanted to switch him out for someone who isn’t disabled it was dehumanizing until the directors basically said no it wouldn’t make sense to have the movie starring him (Shanley, 2019, para. 2). It is nice to see two films humanize people with disabilities instead of seeing them as some type of “animal” to stare at or even laugh at. I think it is a great idea to have down syndrome as long as they don’t try to force them into a feel-good type of role, or an inspirational type of role. There are some scenes where they kind of dehumanize the characters like when coach asked what is he supposed to call the players if he can’t call them the “r-word”.

The impact of the casting choices in Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon on the audience is they are able to see people with disabilities are more abled than society tends think.  By using actors/actresses with down syndrome and intellectual disabilities in these two movies it makes both films more realistic. It also more accurately portrays the characters disabilities. I feel these real-life actors/actresses engage the audience and helps them better understand both the challenges and rewards people with disabilities face on a daily basis. While it takes those actors a little longer to learn their lines and may create more challenges for the directors the end result is totally worth it. It is an important message to the audience that people with down syndrome and intellectual disabilities are capable of anything they set their minds to.  Both films humanize the characters by showing they have feelings, senses of humor, dreams, and relationships just like those that are abled. They also can laugh and find humor with themselves just like everyone else. All of these things were evident in both films. For example, in Champions the kids want to win their basketball games just like any other kids on a basketball team would. In The Peanut Butter Falcon, Zak dreams of being a professional wrestler, a dream many other teenagers/children have.

Prompt #2: Albrecht (1999) notes that disability humor is powerful because it evokes strong emotions. What strong emotions does Champions and/or The Peanut Butter Falcon for the audience and what does the audience take away from the film(s) as a result?

The film Champions evokes several strong emotions ranging from laughter to sympathy and empathy for not only the characters with disabilities but also their caretakers and families.  Some of the funniest scenes were interactions between Coach Marcus and the players.  The coach is caught off guard by the out of the norm behaviors of his team members.  One example that was very funny was when the team was introducing themselves to Coach Marcus and Johnny said, “I’m your homey with an extra chromey.”  This scene ties into Albrecht (1999)’s notion that we need to be able to laugh at ourselves even if we have disabilities (P. 67). The team is able to find humor in themselves and their sometimes odd behavior like when one of the players kept shooting baskets backwards.  Being able to laugh at ourselves helps put others at ease a point Albrecht makes in his article.  The movie also shows how hard having a family member with a disability can be emotionally.  This is seen through Alex helping her mom raise Johnny.  Alex is ultra protective of her brother, and this was a challenge with her relationship with Coach Marcus.  Trusting others will care about the family member with a disability is hard because they don’t want that person to get too attached to others, so they don’t get hurt.  Champions ties together both humor and tragedy as Albrecht references: “…humor in the context of theater is important because it helps explain the symbolism and interplay between the comic and tragic forces in the lives of persons with disabilities” (P.69).  This film really shows what it is like to live with a disability but also creates empathy for the families of those with disabilities.

• Both of these movies fall into the comedy genre. It is important to compare how they use disability to highlight the comedy by humanizing humor, emphasizing relationships between nondisabled and disabled individuals, and changing the status quo of disabled characters. In the movies Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon, humor is noted among the characters in their inner circles. Comparable to Champions, which shows every player's personality in how they play sports and handle real life, the film offers a unique perspective. "Comedy begins with characters in difficult but assuming circumstances that are happily resolved at the end" (Albrecht, pg 3). The perspective Gary Albrecht gives us is shown in the second movie, with Zak in an old home and ending on the road to Florida. The humor in The Peanut Butter Falcon comes from Zack's humor and his relationship with Tyler, which keeps him determined to achieve his dreams and have a family. Both movies show how disabled people can reach their dreams, but sometimes the journey to getting there is enough, almost more than the destination. The development of the relationship between the disabled and nondisabled characters, Coach Marcus and Darius, in the movie Champions, results in Darius forgiving Marcus for his actions and deciding to play for him in the championship game. Similar to in The Peanut Butter Falcon, Tyler takes Zak along on his journey, helping him achieve his dream of wrestling and forming a friendship that Zack owes his life to. Like the relationship Coach Marus gives to his team, he devotes himself to every game and decides to stay, just as Tyler stayed. Lastly, the stereotype was challenged by showing that the friends' team was the underdog in their championship game, and even Coach Marus thought so. However, they came together as a team and mounted a comeback, just falling short of winning. After his rough beating, Zak is motivated by Tyler's compassion and rises to perform an impressive move to end it. The differences highlighted are the source of comedy used. The comedy is ensemble-based and situational, featuring uncomfortable coaching moments, misunderstandings in practice, and team bonding. Compared to The Peanut Butter Falcon, the humor is character-driven and buddy comedy. Zak's straightforwardness and refusal to be taken care of often lead to shared life experiences with Tyler.

How did Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon use comedy and humor to represent disability in different ways? What issue(s) related to disability* did the movies make the audience aware of, and how specifically did they accomplish this?

The Peanut Butter Falcon and Champions both use humor in different ways, with distinct storylines, to show disability in a new Hollywood light. Both movies used different tones, comedic purposes, and story structures. Most of the comedy arises from interactions between the coach and the team, particularly from his flawed assumptions and the team's unexpected talent, witty responses, such as sexual hints in their personal lives. Along with team bonding, humor, practice scenes, locker room banter, and pre game pep talks, the use of comedy to make disability part of everyday interactions. As Gary Albrecht writes, "in comedy, ordinary people who are caught in familiar situations assume through exaggerations by imbalances or fictional characters" (Albrecht, pg. 2). Compared to The Peanut Butter Falcon Zak and Tyler are not in familar the character-driven humor based on Zak's witty personality and banter with Tyler, the show creates a best friend relationship to build trust, mutual love, and dedication to one another. The movie Champions addresses stereotypes and the underdog mentality, particularly in the team's dynamics and in Coach Marus's status as an underdog due to his coaching experience. Inclusion and belonging were also portrayed by showing disabled characters joking, competing, and teasing like anyone else. The film normalizes their presence in sports and society, which isn't normalized in everyday life if you're not consistently around it. Along with The Peanut Butter Falcon, humor underscores Zak's insistence on making his own choices. He jokes, bargains, and sometimes misleads others to get what he wants. The emerging inspiration trope serves as both a takeaway and a representation of Zak, which isn't reduced to a lesson for others. His jokes and personality make him a completely reasonable person, not a symbol or an object incapable of making his own decisions. Lastly, considering what the audience takes away from the two movies, in Champions, the comedic takeaway shifts from the team to the love between Marcus and Alex. Even though the team did not win, they were worth sticking around for, and they provided a valuable reason for Marcus to stay. Similar to the ending in The Peanut Butter Falcon, a family and roots were formed with Eleanor, Zak, and Tyler, and they all stick together to go to Florida with Tyler.

  Both Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon use humor to humanize disability, challenge stereotypes, and engage audiences emotionally. Rather than relying on laughter that isolates these films employ what Ronald Berger calls “disability humor,” which “is essentially the difference between laughing at them or laughing with them, and whether nondisabled characters or ableist attitudes and practices are positioned to be the source of humor in situations with disabled characters” (Berger, para. 4). In a society where disabled individuals are often represented through pity, tragedy, or inspiration narratives, these films offer a refreshing shift. Humor is used as a tool to empower disabled characters, challenge social assumptions, and invite the audience into a shared human experience.

 In Champions, comedy arises largely from the interactions between Marcus, a self-centered basketball coach, and the team of players with intellectual disabilities he is assigned to train. Early scenes feature Marcus’s frustration and ignorance, creating humorous situations as he attempts to “fix” the team according to his narrow understanding of competence. However, the audience laughs not at the players, but at Marcus’s arrogance. Gary Albrecht explains that “disability humor… raises a hidden paradox that makes people feel uncomfortable. What is so funny about having a disability when others think that it is a tragedy?” (p. 67). This is central to Champions, the humor evokes empathy while challenging the audience to reconsider biased stereotypes about ability and intelligence. As Marcus begins to appreciate the individuality of his team, the comedy becomes inclusive. The players’ wit and sarcasm turn the joke back on Marcus, highlighting that their humor is a reflection of personality, not disability.

 Similarly, The Peanut Butter Falcon relies on humor rooted in friendship and human connection. Zak, a young man with Down syndrome, escapes his care facility to pursue his dream of becoming a professional wrestler, forming a close bond with Tyler, a drifter. The film’s comedy arises naturally from their interactions and adventures, rather than from Zak’s disability. For example, Zak proudly proclaims his wrestling name—“The Peanut Butter Falcon”, giving off laughter that is affectionate and inclusive. Albrecht’s observation that humor can “serve as a bridge over awkwardness” perfectly applies here, as the audience laughs with Zak and Tyler, not at Zak. Berger reinforces this by noting that disability humor allows people to see that impairment does not erase humanity, it redefines it. Zak’s personality, determination, and humor define his character, not his Down syndrome, illustrating how comedy can be used to understand disabled characters rather than stereotype them.

 Both films also encourage audiences to reflect on their emotional responses. Albrecht  argues that “Disability humor is powerful for it elicits strong emotions such as anger and fear and often produces reactions against the instigators of cruel jokes” (p. 67). In Champions, humor initially highlights Marcus’s discomfort and biases but gradually fosters admiration and empathy for the team. In The Peanut Butter Falcon, humor opens the door to deeper emotional engagement, making audiences laugh, cry, and cheer for Zak’s success. Berger’s explanation that laughter can shift social hierarchies is shown in both films, humor equalizes interactions between disabled and non-disabled characters, fostering shared understanding.

 Ultimately, Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon succeed because they use humor to humanize rather than objectify. Albrecht notes that the power of disability humor lies in its emotional truth, and both films shows this principle. Audiences leave not only entertained, but also more aware of biases and more empathetic toward people with disabilities. Through laughter that is shared rather than at the expense of characters, both films illustrate that comedy can be a tool for social insight and connection, transforming the true understanding of disability in a meaningful way.

Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon are unique because they cast actors with down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities. What is the impact of these casting choices on the audience? What messages about disability are communicated by these casting choices? Through casting and other strategies, how do the films humanize disabled characters (like Zak)? 

Casting actors with Down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities in Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon represents a major step toward authentic and true representation in Hollywood. Historically, non-disabled actors have often been cast in disabled roles, reducing disability to imitation and reinforcing stereotypes. These films reject that convention, casting performers such as Madison Tevlin, Kevin Iannucci, Joshua Felder, and Zack Gottsagen to portray characters who share their lived experiences. The Hollywood Reporter observes, “More casting directors and industry organizations are realizing that there are roles for talent with intellectual disabilities, a group that faces a "shockingly high" unemployment rate.” (Shanley, para. 3). By employing disabled actors, both films achieve authenticity, allowing performances to be shaped by genuine personality and lived experience rather than imposed stereotypes.

 In Champions, the basketball team’s performances are infused with individuality, humor, and natural interaction. The players’ wit are central to the film’s narrative, demonstrating Berger’s idea that disability humor allows people to see that impairment does not erase humanity, it redefines it. The authenticity of the actors ensures that comedy and drama alike feel grounded and emotionally deep. Viewers are invited to see the characters as complex individuals with humor, flaws, and intelligence rather than as objects of pity or inspiration.

 The Peanut Butter Falcon explains this approach through Zak. Shanley's portrayal is humorous, determined, and fully human, making Zak a leading character whose disability is neither exaggerated nor downplayed. By casting Gottsagen, the filmmakers allow audiences to witness a genuine perspective on living with Down syndrome, reinforcing Albrecht’s observation that humor can bridge discomfort and normalize difference. This authenticity extends to the relationships Zak forms on screen, demonstrating that disabled individuals can exist in stories as fully realized people.

These casting decisions also challenge traditional stereotypes in Hollywood. Disabled characters are shown as capable of humor, emotion, and growth, rather than serving as inspirational props.. Berger notes that “It is essentially the difference between laughing at them or laughing with them” (para. 4). Highlighting how authentic representation reshapes audience understanding.. Both Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon shows this principle by allowing disabled characters to drive their narratives with personality, and humor. Casting disabled actors does not just improve accuracy, it enriches storytelling, creating films that are emotionally engaging and socially significant.

 Ultimately, these films show that authentic casting can transform representation in Hollywood. They send a clear message: disability is part of the human experience, not a limitation or narrative device. By allowing actors with lived experience to shape their characters, Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon foster empathy, normalize difference, and challenge societal bias. As Albrecht explains, humor and emotion are social equalizers, and these films demonstrate how representation and comedy together can redefine cultural understanding of disability. Through unique and true casting, both films create a model for future storytelling that values authenticity, humanity, and connection.

They used comedy and humor to represent disability in a different way by typically using jokes that are geared towards how non-disabled people view them. There are jokes about sex (despite being overused), jokes about capabilities, and even jokes about how non-disabled people view them. They do this make the audience aware of the ignorance that surrounds disability. While some non-disabled who are educated about disability may be laughing a bit harder, those who are not may be taking a second look at themselves. In Champions, they made the audiences aware about things like living situations, jobs, and romantic relationships. These all things that uneducated, non-disabled people think are nonexistent. A lot of the times they see disability as not being able to ever live on your own, never having a job, and especially never ever being in a romantic relationship. Champions brought this to light with their disabled humor. They wanted to bring it to the world’s attention about how these actors (and others) with disability view their experiences. (Nina G, 2018). I would say that Champions accomplished this pretty ok. They did still use stereotypes or an overuse of jokes. They made 1 character over-sexualized, 1 character a bit too “bitchy”, and another stuck on 1 way of shooting that showed that he was “unable” to learn new skills.

For Peanut Butter Falcon, I would say they did a better job at ensuring that the message is clear and there is not any harming a community. The biggest issues that Peanut Butter Falcon focused on was institutionalization and others thinking of people with intellectual disabilities as less then. The movie opens and ends with Falcon not being placed in a nursing home (starts escaping). This is showing how not everyone with a disability needs to be institutionalized. This is part of the movement “our homes, not nursing homes.” This part of the movie and movement really emphasize how people who need assistance with living, should achieve it by being with the people they love and/or want to live with. You should always get a choice with who you live with and especially who is taking care of you. Our government and society like to push institutions because they are easier, make more money, and has just been the way for years. Despite the immense amount of mistreatment, expenses, and dehumanization this people feel, our officials and medical professionals still deem this as the best and only option. Peanut Butter Falcon fights this ideology. They also fight the stereotype of people with disabilities are less than. Falcon fought hard, he ventured out on his own (and came up very clever ways on how to do it) and learned how to swim! While some may view this as funny, it is still drawing attention to the fact that people disabilities are very much capable.

2.     Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon are unique because they cast actors with down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities. What is the impact of these casting choices on the audience? What messages about disability are communicated by these casting choices? Through casting and other strategies, how do the films humanize disabled characters (like Zak)? 

This has a huge impact on the audiences. While films like Radio, I am Sam, and Me Before You have disability representation, it is WILDLY inaccurate and causes a lot of harm to the disability community. Having non-disabled actors portrayed disabled characters now rely on stereotypes, misrepresentation, and over-exaggeration. This leaves the audiences with negatively skewed ideas about what disability actually looks like. When hiring actors for a disability role, ensuring that they have that disability now eliminates all of those factors (unless the director asks the actor to enhance their disability or dehumanize them). Having accuracy is important, especially in a field where there are so much misunderstanding and harsh stereotypes. The makers of Peanut Butter Falcon knew how important this concept was. He fought hard to ensure that the character who has Down syndrome, actually has Down syndrome. He said it would defeat the purpose if there wasn’t (Patrick Shanley, 2019). This sends a message to the disabled community that there is casting opportunities out there that don’t dehumanize them, that don’t make fun of the disability, and are able to tell their experiences through accuracy. Like mentioned before, not having an actual disabled actor portray a disabled character dehumanizes them in so many ways. You should never try to portray something or someone when you have the ability and availability to get the real deal.

5 There are numerous problems with both movies, but I can’t deny the importance of casting actors with the actual disabilities they are trying to represent. Especially considering the fact that it is incredibly difficult for disabled actors to get work that isn’t completely demeaning and caricaturizing of their disability like in history “In the 19th century, disabled performers were typically confined to vaudeville and circus acts, although there were intellectual comedians (or humorists) with disabilities as well” (Kuppers 2003). By opening the door for more disabled actors to show their talent and not just be ignored by Hollywood there are better employment opportunities. Disabled actors are often overlooked and ignored by Hollywood due to the prejudice surrounding down syndrome and other mental disabilities. Directors and producers that don’t understand disability have this pre-conceived notion that disabled actors are going to be difficult to work with or won’t know how to act. However, movies like Champions  and Peanut Butter Falcon  push down those barricades by showing the talent disabled actors have and showing just how equally capable they are. In movies that portray disability as well, there is now true way to tell the story without having that authentic portrayal, as Tim Zajaros in the Shanley reading stated “In order to effectively tell this story you needed to do it with someone who actually has Down syndrome. Otherwise, it would have defeated the purpose of the movie” (Zajaros). This is something that many producers and directors don’t understand, the way to get an authentic movie is to have an actor that has lived through what you’re trying to portray. If you don’t have that experience, then it is impossible to get that depiction in a healthy way. Many able-bodied actors talk about going into the “mentality” of having a disability and often talk about going to a “dark place” when getting into character. People that live with disabilities don’t see it that way, and that is not the reality. They live happy lives and are just as capable as able-bodied actors.

Champions is absolutely a strong example when it comes to the use of disabling humor, specifically with the ways in which it uses Woody Harrelson’s character as a vehicle in the beginning of the film to make a joke out of his ignorance and derogatory approach to disability. One of the major things that rubbed me the wrong way about Champions is how they approached that aspect of his character as if it is funny or humorous to behave that way, and how they make a joke out of his annoyance or cringing away from the behaviors/actions of the disabled characters when he first meets them. You could make an argument that we’re supposed to be laughing at Woody Harrelson’s aversion to the disabled characters, but I’d argue that the joke is on the disabled characters more than anything else. We are in his perspective for over 95% of the film, and so we are seeing all the characters in the same way he sees them. His inability to “handle” or “deal” with them in the beginning is supposed to be funny not because he’s unable to adapt at first, but because the group of disabled characters is meant to be seen in the way he sees them: disruptive, difficult, not very bright, and gross. The film goes on to disprove these ideas, of course, just as Woody Harrelson’s character becomes more comfortable with the group and eventually falls in love with them, but that beginning portion is loaded with problems. Take the scene where he decides to do community service at the courthouse, for example. Here, he tries to use the r-word when referring to the group of disabled basketball players. Yet again, the film makes a joke of his ignorance, like it’s funny to behave this way. To explore the significance of the r-word itself, Ronald J. Berger writes about it in his essay titled “What’s So funny About Disability?”, saying that “Retard, of course, is a term that has come into disrepute because of its derogatory use as a metaphor that demeans both the specific person and all people with intellectual disabilites…More generally, retard is part of the language that is used, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally, in ways that characterize what disability advocates and scholars call ‘ableism’” (2). This isn’t anything particularly new in terms of what we’ve been learning in class, but it felt important for me to emphasize its derogatory use and how it is used in the film. The film even seems to be aware of the fact that the r-word shouldn’t be used, as Woody Harrelson’s character himself doesn’t fully enunciate it, only alludes to it. It almost feels like the film is trying to get a certain kind of audience to identify with his character so that they, too, can see themselves in him as he changes for the better.

Another aspect of disabling humor I noticed in Champions is the film’s attempts to disprove false assumptions about people with disabilities, and that is most clear in the character who feels the need to talk about sex and having two girlfriends every time he’s on screen. In Nina G’s article on disabled comedy, she writes about how disabled performers will “openly challenge” the way that “some people view disability,” and I feel like Champions is trying to do that here with this disabled character and his sexuality (123). While I can see the good intentions behind this choice since it’s a stereotype to see disabled people as asexual, it comes off as an over-correction, veering off into hypersexuality, the complete opposite end of the spectrum. This choice completely flattens his character. He’s simply defined as the disabled guy who has threesomes and enjoys sex. Okay? There’s more to people than just that.

Prompt #5 — Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon are unique because they cast actors with down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities. What is the impact of these casting choices on the audience? What messages about disability are communicated by these casting choices? Through casting and other strategies, how do the films humanize disabled characters (like Zak)?

In Patrick Shanley’s article, “‘Damn It, That’s Huge’: Actors With Down Syndrome Are Finding More Work in Hollywood,” he quotes Tim Zajaros, one of the The Peanut Butter Falcon’s producers, saying that “in order to effectively tell this story you needed to do it with someone who actually has Down syndrome,” that it “would have defeated the purpose of the movie” otherwise. In many ways, this is absolutely true, mostly due to the fact that casting someone that actually has Down syndrome for a role like this is incredibly beneficial, not only for disability representation, but also for people’s perceptions of people with disabilities, especially those who may not have any experiences with disabled people in the past. Marginalized groups are often categorized into numerous stereotypes, and casting choices like this can help de-mystify people’s perceptions, thus humanizing people with disabilities, especially those with Down syndrome as in The Peanut Butter Falcon’s case. Casting choices like this are also signifying a positive shift in Hollywood, and as Shanley writes, “Hollywood inclusion of individuals with Down syndrome has historically been low.” This shift in casting could be a sign that people are finally opening up to the idea of allowing this group of people’s voices to be properly heard, and through their voice and perspective, not an able-bodied person’s idea of their perspective.

According to Albrecht (1999), disability humor is powerful because it evokes strong emotions laughter, empathy, and sometimes discomfort which can shift perspectives by allowing audiences to confront stereotypes in a safe space. In Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon, humor is not used to mock disability, but to invite empathy and inclusion “disability humor” that educates the audience. Both films evoke warmth, compassion, and admiration rather than pity. The humor in Champions, for example, comes from genuine character interactions how Marcus learns humility from his players not from their disabilities. Similarly, The Peanut Butter Falcon uses Zak’s joyful determination to remind viewers of human dignity and freedom. I think using humor is a better way to portray a heartwarming story as opposed to tragedy or a “kill or cure” story. I enjoyed champions far more then a story like Wonder, Me Before You, or Million Dollar Baby because I could relate far more to the characters in Champions or The Peanut Butter Falcon.

 2. Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon are unique because they cast actors with down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities. What is the impact of these casting choices on the audience? What messages about disability are communicated by these casting choices? Through casting and other strategies, how do the films humanize disabled characters (like Zak)? 

Both films are groundbreaking because they cast actors with disabilities in lead roles instead of having non-disabled actors play those roles. As Berger (2012) explains, representation by disabled actors shifts the audience’s emotional focus from seeing “disability as deficiency” to seeing disabled people as multidimensional individuals with agency. This casting rejects the “able-bodied impersonator” trope and challenges the “sweet innocent” stereotype Berger describes. Instead, characters like Zak and Johnny are capable, funny, and complex, showing the audience that disability is a part of human diversity, not a limitation.

Albrecht (1999) notes that laughter about disability can reduce fear and increase comfort by evoking empathy and recognizing shared humanity. Both Champions and The Peanut Butter Falcon humanize their disabled characters through personal stories, emotional honesty, and relationships not through pity. In Champions, the players’ teamwork and humor teach Marcus more about leadership than he expected; in The Peanut Butter Falcon, Zak’s journey becomes a metaphor for self-determination and friendship. Berger (2012) would describe this as “disability humor that enlightens,” where humor bridges differences rather than divides.

Citations

Albrecht, Gary L. “Disability Humor: What’s in a Joke?” Disability Studies Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 4, 1999, pp. 203–212.

Berger, Ronald J. “What’s So Funny about Disability?” The Society Pages, 26 Dec. 2012, https://thesocietypages.org/specials/whats-so-funny-about-disability/

Prompt 5: the movie champions is progressive for the way they hired actors with actual intellectual disabilities to play the roles in the movie. This shows that people who have intellectual disabilities are normal people, people who can hold jobs, and do anything that non-disabled people can do. Hollywood has been guilty of not including disabled actors in disabled roles for years, making the movies more palatable, at the cost of silencing actual disabled voices wanting representation. While champions hired disabled actors, it is still not an easy feat in Hollywood. In an article by Patrick Shanley, he states that, “‘The National down Syndrome society is fighting for inclusion and acceptance everyday-that includes in the entertainment industry.”’ (Shanley). This highlights how difficult it is for disabled actors to be hired in Hollywood, and in everyday jobs. In the case of Champions, they show all the disabled characters in the movie with their own lives, jobs, and pleasures outside of the non-disabled main character. It shows that disabled people are just like everyone else, and that they should be treated as everyone else.