Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted (edited)

I was reading the weekly synopses of the introduction to the character of Stuart Chandler and it got me thinking.  I don't want to use the term "offensive" because I did not feel that way.  However, in retrospect, it was not just politically incorrect, but also poorly written and acted. 

 

First, it seems like a choice that Stuart's "mental problems" were always obtuse.  Was he psychotic?  Well, there were no hallucinations or delusions.  Did he have Autism?  Well, he maintained romantic relationships with two women, which would suggest that he did not have delays in socialization, and he did not display any restrictive interests or repetitive movements.  Was he intellectually deficient?  Well he seemed capable of taking care of his adaptive skills such as cooking and cleaning himself.  The lack of diagnosis seemed to be in the service of not having to advocate for any specific disease, but it left many open questions.

 

Second, his portrayal as being cute and immature was disrespectful of people with brain injuries.  Most men with brain injuries do not indicate their level of impairment by wearing crewneck sweaters.  And men with structural damage to their cortex don't speak like little boys or want to play with toys.  Writing and acting the character of Stuart as lovable because he seemed younger than his age was problematic.  Could he consent to a sexual relationship with Marion given his level of functioning?  Who knew, because it was so ill defined.

 

As I recall AMC got accolades for the portrayal of Stuart and fans enjoyed his romances with Cindy and Marion.  But, given my own experiences knowing people with head injuries, Autism, and chronic mental illness, it was just grossly out of touch.  AMC tried again with the characters of Lily Montgomery and Jonathan Lavery but the acting in both cases was atrocious.  Jonathan's miraculous recovery from a brain injury was worse than when soaps have people spontaneously walk after paralysis, or see after temporary blindness, because Jonathan inexplicably had to act as if he was still delayed in order to maintain his relationship, and then was found out when Jackson heard him speak "normally."  On what planet would that be considered sensitive or tasteful story telling?

 

I guess we should applaud the efforts to show intellectual diversity.  However, when the only stories for people with disabilities are either about being abused or trying to find love, writers have missed the opportunity to mine the real dramas in the lives of people with neurological differences and their families.

 

Edited by j swift
  • Replies 10.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members
Posted

Well I definitely applaud them. Yes, they could have done much much better at least with one of them storylines. But the messages were never lost on me. I was more than touched by Stuart and Lily. @j swift what did you feel about Spike storyline? I remember being so happy they were giving that to one of Erica’s grandchildren. 
 

Stuart portrayal was like a combination of many different types of disorders imo. He represented to me a lot of the fredo Corleone’s of the world. He was so relatable, I saw so many people I knew in him.  I saw some of myself in Stuart, he inspired me, gave me hope too. I’m sure Agnes could have done a better job at giving him a clear illness, I’m fine with the way things played out though. I have a cousin who is kinda special needs(not sure if that’s the right term, my apologies if it isn’t) and he has went on to have many relationships and have children. I don’t believe he’s capable of taking care of himself or the children, but he has them.

 

I do agree with you, about these missed opportunities, especially with Lily and Jonathan. Do you think every social issue or Character driven storyline is soapy enough, to be told?!

 

 

Are you guys excited to hear Wisner Washam new interview? 

 

  • Members
Posted

No mental illness is that clear cut -- always exceptions and grey areas. Remember, people who have mental illnesses are people too. Stuart is a lot like my Aunt Mel. Like her, he is simple and childish but is able to take care of herself on a basic level. She could never learn how to drive and her relationship with 'symbols' is off. For example, the lady is, always has been, in poverty. Yet, once she accidentally dropped a 20 dollar bill on the sidewalk and my Aunt Debbye, who has back problems, told her about it. Aunt Mel said, "Oh, I'll just get it later". Aunt Debbye grabbed it, hurting her back a bit, and tried to explain to her 60 year old sister the significance of the bill but she simply couldn't grasp it (Now, Mel lives with her).

 

I also know that Mel had been married and had a boyfriend for about 15 years. But, can she ever drive? No. Could she raise a child, MAYBE with a lot of support. I know she's very artistic as well, like Stuart.

 

Regarding Stuart, his early psychotic tenancies were a result of being gaslit by Adam and Joanne (his first wife).

 

Nothing distasteful about the situation with Stuart. However, I do find your rigid and black/white view of mental handicap HIGHLY offensive and crass. Please, remember that people with disabilities have personalities too.

  • Members
Posted

I can't say for certain if this is indeed the full list but it appears that she only had one role as a writer, and one role as a consultant. 

 

All My Children

  • Script Writer (1989–1992)
  • Story Consultant (1986–1989)
  • Actress: Daisy Cortlandt (1979–1989, 1994, 1995, 2010)

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I keep forgetting a huge chunk of that year was written by scabs. You're probably right, because by the time the strike was over, they were likely planning an exit for Alan's character as it must have been obvious by then that Bernau was not going to return. If he was still there, it's also doubtful they would have approached MZ and MG about coming back. Wild.
    • And to think the original plan was for David and Lesley to have an affair.  Not only would that have made no sense - Lesley wasn't THAT stupid, lol - but it also would've ruined her and GH.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Week ending March 5 1978 Second season shows are tested CBS finishes first week in March with stronger than usual 1 9.5, but not enough to beat ABC The prime -time ratings pattern continued to hold steady for the week ended March 5, and attention increasingly turns to second season entries as the networks probe one another's weaknesses or cover their own. As usual, ABC -TV won the week, scoring a 20.5 average rating. But CBS -TV was closer than usual with a 19.5 average garnered with the help of several strong specials and movies in addition to some of its dependable series regulars. NBC followed its habit of plummeting when its "évent "entries failed. In this case it was the miniseries, Loose Change, which scored only 24 and 22 shares on Monday and Tuesday, leaving the network with a 16.9 average rating for the week. Looking at new series and new time slots, ABC's Six Million Dollar Man on Monday (8 -9 p.m. NYT) continued to falter with a 22 share, while What's Happening, in its new slot on Saturday (8 -9 p.m.), also remained shaky with a 23 share. Starsky and Hutch is still healthy with a 38 share in its new slot following Charlie's Angels on Wednesday, and How the West Was Won also had a 38 on Sunday (8 -9 p.m.). Against West CBS's Rhoda and On Our Own came in poorly for the second week in a row of face to face competition, with each pulling 25 shares after a 41 share lead in from 60 Minutes. ABC's special two -hour presentation of the upcoming series tryout, Having Babies, scored a 27 share on Friday (9 -11 p.m.) against strong competition from both the other networks (the movie "Ski Lift to Death" on CBS and Rockford Files and Quincy on NBC). For CBS, its new Monday night leadoffs, Good Times and Baby I'm Back, scored so -so 27 and 28 shares respectively. But the second half of the night had its best performance since the new line -up came in- M *A*S *Hwith a 45, One Day at a Time with a 41 and Lou Grant with a 36. Celebrity Challenge of the Sexes and Shields and Yarnell showed no signs of reviving on Tuesday, with 16 shares each, but the new Tuesday movie slot held up with a 41 share from Clint Eastwood's "Magnum Force." The network's entire Saturday line up continued to limp in, as Bob Newhart Tony Randall, The Jeffersons, Maude and Kojak all scored sub 30 shares (with the exception of Newhart's 29, in fact, all scored sub -25 shares). NBC premiered its new Chuck Barris Rah Rah Show on Tuesday (8 -9 p.m.),when it pulled a 24 share. The second episode of Quark had a 27, three points down from its premiere. There might be the temptation to conclude that the 29 share turned in by the National Love, Sex and Marriage Test on Sunday (9:30 -10 p.m.) proves the appetite for "sophisticated" subject matter is not insatiable after all, except that its competition was not only CBS's strong comedy block but also ABC's rerun of "The Way We Were," which pulled a 35 share. Of NBC's other midseason entries -CPO Sharkey, Black Sheep Squadron, James at 16 and Class of '65 -CPO Sharkey turned in the highest score of the week, a 27.   *NBC were in dire straits at this point relying on movies and specials which could hit or bomb in equal measure.  Fred Silverman had his work cut out for him when he arrived that Summer. He favored sitcoms and series as the schedule's foundation and NBC had no sitcoms to build on and few solid series. He also had a big backlog of specials/mini series that had been committed to air. Also NBC had a long standing relationship with Universal so he was forced to work with that studio. He struggled to get quality producers on board as they were either tied into deals with ABC/CBS or were wary of having their shows on the 3rd rated network. He still felt variety had a place on the schedule however and that lead to duds like Susan Anton, The Big Show and Pink Lady and Jeff.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I spent years hoping we would get an oral history like the OLTL book, but it’s too late now with so many having passed away.
    • It’s also strange that it was Monica! I just don’t think of her as the staring off into space type of woman! I watched a bunch of other clips and stuff from random 1978 and 1979 episodes. I’m so used to seeing movement from Monty’s era, especially the early part, that this really is a cool relic. Pretty soon you have scenes start at the new nurses station, the elevators opening and doctors walking to the desk to get their messages from Jessie or Bobbie. People often walk towards doors while taking coats on or off, many Webber house scenes start or end with someone walking up the stairs. This episode is even more static than some of the way earlier ones I have seen, where you would have Steve or Jessie at least going from the old school nurses desk to the medicine room, Steve’s office, etc. That bland dialogue is very much like what they have now. The show picks up a lot of personality. Knowing what we know about David Hamilton and how that really started to get the ball rolling as far as viewers you really see just how vital Lesley and especially Laura were to get things moving for them. They focused on the right characters to get fast results. The show now could learn a thing or two from this.
    • It won't allow me to watch it via the link; I am only able to watch it with the app.
    • Just finished the Goldfinch. Read it in 4-5 days... and it's a huuuuge book. Well... I would rate the first 500 pages a solid 10 out of 10... but then the next 300 were kind of a letdown... so the overall impression is something like - 7/10. It's just very hard to give something a full 10 after reading A little life.  Still... loved it immensely and would probably re-read it in the future. There is a movie adaptation... starring Nicole Kidman... that I haven't seen. 
    • I realize I harp on this, but I think he spending is relevant.  She's not just buying new wigs. She's building a mansion, she's funding a sports complex, she's paying for operations for people she doesn't know, she's caring for Peaches, she's buying apartments. We saw ?her get ONE check for ONE million dollars. That's it. I may be wrong, but I thought they said she'd get a payment every 6 months. Regardless, she could not rule the roost on $1M, and the show is not doing a good job there. Pretending that doesn't matter? I can't do that.  All they had to do was add a couple lines about payouts and payments.  In other news, I would love to know just how much Anita was putting into that trust as well as what investment got her what has to be an incredible return.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy