How does Franklin defy stereotypes about the handicapped being a burden? Explain that to me. Is his being handicapped the only thing that keeps him out of the stereotype of whiny loser that is used exactly the same in lesser, basic slashers? If not, what else is it?
You’re claiming that I’m missing something but you’re overlooking the obvious. Blind men seeing a snake and a tree but not the elephant they’re obviously looking at.
You’re claiming that I’m missing something but you’re overlooking the obvious. Blind men seeing a snake and a tree but not the elephant they’re obviously looking at.
I don't know why you think youve got some absolute ace in the hole when you call Franklin a stereotype. Is he reinforcing the commonly held belief that handicapped people are annoying and whiny? That's not one I've heard. Are they generally interested it the process of making headcheese? Or is it simply because the characters treat him as a burden, which as the movie goes on, it becomes more clear they are the ones treating him poorly. And maybe this is why he is being so difficult and uncompiant and unhappy.
But for the sake of the argument, let's just say you've harnessed this clear and present elephant of yours, and Franklin exhibits all the standard and lazy trademarks of a person in a wheelchair. Now, my point is that the power of a negative stereotypes is fairly dependant on their being little else in the character beyond the stereotype. As a result, the audience is going to absorb someone like frankin as nothing but a collection of cheap and harmful characteristics. This can be intentional or unintentional on part of the director or actor, but the end result is the worst traits of a marginalized group are reinforced. Not good.
Because you reject franklin as being a character of any worth, I get that you might view the result of his depiction as nothing but a stereotype. I think you're wrong, but fair enough.
But when me, or any of the other number of posters here who have made it clear they see more in Franklin than this, that we empathize with him, that this empathy is derived by the actors characterization and Hooper's direction, the result of this is we aren't left with just a stereotype. He's not a stereotype because he is more than that collection of simplified traits. He's a full blooded character, arguably the most clearly observed in the whole fillm.
Your interpetation of this character isn't law. You don't like him. You don't empathize with him. You just see some poor articulation of a man in a wheelchair. Okay. I used to hate him too. Until I didnt.
And now where we stand is at least two or three other people have articulated fairly clearly why the character matters to them in the movie as well. Why they don't view him as some one dimensional irritant. Why he adds dimension to the movie. Why he doesn't undo the moments of horror. That they don't cheer when he dies. That they don't think he is some kind of speed bump on the way to representation of handicapped people.
And yet, franklin is still so clearly just this one thing to you, you reject any other possible way of viewing this. And I guess that's fine to. But sort of annoying. If you'd allow me to use a glaringly bad example to articulate (and mostly annoy you a little back) this is sort of like an argument I had with my aunt where she said she doesn't like tv shows with stereotypes of black people selling drugs, and no matter how much I talked about, yes, that's a stereotype, but these characters in the ****ing Wire are more than the sum of their parts, she just kept waving me away because she thought she had that one all sussed out on her own
So yeah, you're just like my aunt. Do you wear a beret that smells like cat piss too?
So basically, you can have your Edwige Fenech. Go be bored with her while I have Franklin all to myself to marvel over this wonderful headcheese I just made.
Last edited by crumbsroom; 05-23-22 at 06:50 PM.