Jump to content

All My Children Tribute Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

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? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 definitely think it's time to write off Nina for good. I think her killing Drew might actually be a good idea. She could completely lose it after losing both Sasha and Willow and she ends up murdering Drew and eventually she gets caught and sent away to prison for a long time. 
    • I hope it's okay to post this here(as in from DC)  
    • Quick question - did Christie and Leann share any scenes together in the '80s before Leann left the show?
    • This is the perfect way to encapsulate the situation. So many morally-reprehensible stories were foisted on the show and its characters in ATWT's dwindling years. Rape should never be used as a cheap plot device or in a way that degrades the victim. Jack's sexual assault was another heinous example of how nasty the the show's tone had become. The fact that people like Hogan Sheffer, Ron Carlivati, Jean Passanante, Charles Pratt, Dena Higley, etc., somehow end up winning awards for their material, decimates the credibility and integrity of the awards, IMHO. Soaps used to have a solid moral core and did not originally wallow in the gutter, rolling around in filth and depravity just to be cool, hip, campy, or whatever else modern-day PTB aim for. Thank you. Cruelty, degradation and misogyny are not components which lend themselves to successful soaps, which have always been predicated on warmth, family bonds, and providing a comforting haven for their audience. The genre has been crippled because the cynical and ignorant executives in charge understand neither the shows nor what the audience wants to see.
    • Beverlee was on a whole other level from Kim. It's not like they were in competition with each other. I get the feeling that Kim had a slight problem with the super-professional, serious cast members who just wanted everyone to be prepared and do the work, as she seems to like having fun on set. (She's made a few cracks about Chris Bernau being like that). Bev was definitely one of those. But they didn't work together that much. Yeah, they made her manic and also much weaker. She always had a vulnerability, but wanting to kill herself over that guy? No way. Not only that, he didn't leave her! She insisted he marry Maeve. When they did the tribute to Bert/Charita, the compilation of scenes with her showed how much the cast had been almost totally turned over in a relatively short period of time. Nearly every shot was of her by herself because most people she had worked with had been fired, left or been replaced. I assume they couldn't show her with people who hadn't been replaced, like Don Stewart, Elvera Roussel, or Robert Newman because they would have had to pay them for using their clips. It's dreadful to watch. Like she had no connection to the current show.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • A little too much focus on Chad and Cat today but I enjoyed the episode. I have a feeling that Jennifer’s gonna get dumped on though, even though I think that her anger is completely understandable and justified. And honestly, Ron is finally gone; Abigail can come back now.  But, welcome back, Anna! It was nice seeing Carrie have scenes with her mother. Christie Clark and Leann Hunley have never really had that many scenes together and to see them have them now is really nice. I’m glad that both of them were there to comfort Marlena too. Their words were definitely the thing that Marlena needed to hear. Btw, with all this talk of Noah, does it mean that he’s gonna be introduced soon? Amy, revealing that John changed her flat tire many years ago seemed a little random though. I would rather she have said something about how everybody in Salem knows of John Black because of how he was always such a hero. But at the same time, her story also showed what a great guy John was.  I liked Kate’s scenes with Philip too, and her promise to get back at Xander for what he did. And since we didn’t see JPL in the bed, did he need some time off or something? And yeah, everything involving ‘One Stormy Night’ still seems very Ron-like to me.
    • The second photo featuring the late John Spencer is from the Law & Order episode, "Prescription For Death", which was the (second) pilot/first episode all the way back in 1990! He played the father of a daughter that had gone to the ER for a mere sore throat but ended up dead because the doctor on call was drunk and had given her medication that she had an adverse reaction to, after receiving some other medication. So, he will always have that great distinction in addition to The West Wing. (The first pilot, "Everybody's Favorite Bagman", was filmed in 1988! The show was offered to CBS, but they passed. In syndication, it is oddly placed as the sixth episode of Season 1. And Roy Thinnes played DA Alfred Wentworth there. When NBC picked up the show two years later, Thinnes declined to return, and that's how we got Steven Hill's DA Adam Schiff.)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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