Again, the Punch & Judy department of Warner Brothers throws a faked disability, a faux handicap, at us, in their Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) movie, and again, we consider it, just as we considered the attempts in Kingsman, or, Home of the Brave (2006), or, maybe in the ill-fated attempt for cinema titled "Hancock". Hell, they even may get an Oscar for this faux arm disability centered charade!
And, yes, I do review movies (that I come across) that feature (possibly faked or real) arm amputees. Why, and from what angle? See, society shapes our perceptions of arm amputees, and while that may bypass your butt stone cold, I have to directly deal with the fall-out of that. With arm amputees being a real rarity in our society (link), the average person on the street will have had exposure to a lot more "on-screen" amputees -real or, mostly, fake - than actual encounters. Before meeting me as the single encounter, the average person on the street may have subliminally absorbed 3-4 movie arm amputees. So media matter in that they directly impact my own social experience. Clearly, that does not impact you at all - but may I add that it was you that came here to begin with, and, did you consider this blog's title? Also, I suffer from synaesthetic pain which directly affects how I feel also while watching such a movie.
So I am not asking so much whether a particular fairy tale, being told as a movie or so, is consistent in itself and represents a standalone piece of art, as such and regardless of the time and culture it was made in. Instead, I want to know with what type of stereotype you will leave the cinema. After all, these movies all build on stereotypes.
And in my everyday encounters, media stereotype priming may provide a somewhat dominant aspect in how the real life encounter starts.
It is a decisive aspect, really, and quite honestly, one has no control over that, neither you as the mostly un-reflected movie consumer, nor me, as the person that can only watch and see and not give any comment to prevent the unavoidable communication ship wreck from happening. A real minority of people may seem to have no relevant preconceived notions, such as maybe 1/400 or so - but by and large, everyone and their grandmother thinks the same idiotic stuff like, hooks are evil (and just why that is so totally fucked up can be read here), ""bionic" arms are cool" (and just why that then is so fucked up can be seen here, where it is explained that you fail the Voight Kampff test right then and there), and more.
And as we are visually being told in this movie about Mad Max and Furiosa, the female arm amputee is abandoned in the end, by Max, who walks out staring at her, without any further ado, with the handicap visually increasing and getting bigger in the camera focus - then, that is supposed to be cool, just because.. it is a movie that sends a message that we need, .. because it is "Mad Max", ... because it is Charlize Theron playing in it, ... or why? Of course you are free to interpret all kinds of stuff into this movie - I just looked at it and discussed what there is to see.
With such messages being told by mass media to the masses, it is a totally open question just "how cool" that really is, given that among all amputees, the suicide rate of arm amputees seems to be highest. Of course, "Houston, we have a problem". We have no lobby, as arm amputees, all we seem to be on that scale is clay type material for idiotic story writers. And while each and every other Hollywood blockhead character somehow stumbles into a "happy" ending, here for some reason, there cannot be any "happy" ending? A comprehensively "cited" "one armed dove hunt" as very clear indicator of what cultural aspects are the movie's center piece? A strong visual focus on simulating a disability with an amputated arm, while other aspects - red eyes in traveling in sand storm deserts - are entirely neglected?
With stereotypes being traded as such, this warrants a closer look.
So, what do they do there? Is this movie any good on a social and emotional level? And, before glorifying it just because [link][link] (they even write "watch Furiosa punch Max in the face, with her nubbins" which she really doesn't; she punches him with her hand while sticking the nubbins out in the air) - why not actually *use* our eyes, to look, to ogle, to view, and (in a more strict sense) "watch" it? It is so much a visual and so not much a verbal movie, so we (including you) really have to switch on our eyesies. Not assume, or make up, or invent. Just watch. What is there to be actually seen, what do they really show? Is this empowering or what does it really say, in graphic language?
Prosthetic arm - details, features
The prosthetic arm in Mad Max: Fury Road in essence contains a glorified claw.
It is notable that the usage of hooks and other non-human looks previously were used as elements of evil, and of non-humaneness [link]. The repeated medial distortion did have a serious impact as it deterred thousands of arm amputees from accepting a functional prosthetic hook and spawned a whole industry of rubber puppetry dubbed "bionic" hands [link] that cost our health and accident insurances hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would be alright were these hands even halfway "useful". But far from it, and not a word of apology of any of these media clowns.
Now here, a prosthetic arm is presented that hangs off the digitally edited screen appearance of Charlize Theron who appears to not contain a physical handicap herself.
This arm here was called "Dayna's arm" simply because Charlize Theron's stunt double, Dayna Grant, was wearing it for the shootings.