IN FOCUS: Cripping Cinema and Media Studies
IN FOCUS: Cripping Cinema and Media Studies Introduction by ROBERT MCRUER, editor n 1985, the historian Paul Longmore identifi ed the conver- gence of disability and media as one long process of “screening stereotypes.”1 Attentive to the ways disabled people were con- sistently represented in fi lm, in particular, as either angry and evil villains or inspirational fi gures for able-bodied characters and Iviewers, Longmore initiated what might be understood as a “crip” tradition of critiquing, from within disability culture, the impover- ished representations that dominant fi lmic and media forms have bequeathed us. Disabled villains like Captain Hook or Magneto are generally defeated and eliminated at fi lm’s end, whereas inspirational fi gures tend either to “overcome” their disability or to end up dead after dutifully changing for the better the lives of everyone around them. Neither fi lmic tendency, of course, could off er more than a two-dimensional engagement with disability, although Longmore did note the promise for a more textured engagement with disability that attended other visual forms, including television and even advertising. Crip theory has emerged over the past few decades as a critical project, closely allied with queer theory, that centers atypical bod- ies, minds, and behaviors while interrogating that which can never be contained or described neatly by an entirely historical and limited abled-disabled binary. As a noun or adjective, “crip” is of course a fl amboyant reclamation, one that disabled activists, artists, and theorists have long used to signify solidarity and resistance far in excess of the mobility impairment seemingly invoked by stigma- tizing and pitying uses of “cripple.”2 As a verb, as I have suggested 1 Paul Longmore, “Screening Stereotypes: Images of Disabled People,” Social Policy 16 (Summer 1985): 31.
[Show full text]