The Amputee as Victim of Film Depictions, Fear

I am an amputee. I accept the fact that people who come equipped with 10 fingers and 10 toes normally are initially surprised by (me) and are then filled with curiosity and sometimes pity. Curiosity allows me to communicate that what appears to be a handicap is mostly an inconvenience that I have learned to work around. Those who watch are frequently amazed by what I can do. Pity makes me uncomfortable, so I deal with it on a situation to situation basis.

What I can not deal with is irrational fear.

Suddenly I am feared, because of the slant of the advertising for the movie “Night Games.” The visual message is that the hook is dangerous and that amputees are threatening people. That message can not be avoided by simply boycotting the film. It is apparent in theater previews of “Night Games” and in the newspaper ads. As an example, this morning’s LA Times carried a full page ad in the Calendar section: a baseball impaled upon a sharp, shiny hook, a simple, effective, chilling visual image.

This is not the first time that movies have made me an object of fear. I was a child when “Peter Pan” hit the big screen. While the story was read by parents to their children, I had no problems. But Disney’s personification of that tale left me with the nickname “Captain Hook” for more years than I care to remember.

I was dating when “Charade” hit the screen. George Montgomery’s excellent acting had a chilling effect on my friends. Other films and TV dramas have reinforced the image of the person with the imperfect body having a damaged mind as well. I have never found a way to bridge that barrier of emotional, instinctive fear.

The reality is that Ted Bundy, Randy Kraft, Charles Manson, Joseph Wesbecker, etc., had the standard number of arms and legs and were not disfigured or deformed. What justification does the entertainment industry have for creating this false image? I am a victim, not a villain.

All the legislation for the rights of the handicapped are not nearly as powerful as a subliminal, emotional message of threat, and fear. The fact that emotionally based learning is stronger than intellectual learning has been verified recently in research on brain functions, which makes the negative message of this image even more persistent and damaging. Furthermore, that message is distributed across the country through film, press and, I assume, for generations into the future via video.

I read that 2,500 babies are born with missing limbs each year. Anyone may become an amputee through accident, disease, mayhem or acts of war. Why should victims be feared? Why should children look at me with terror, when their normal reaction should be curiosity?

The government says I have the rights to equal access, and protection from discrimination at the job. But the government cannot grant me the right to be accepted for myself and my abilities when such strong counter messages permeate the entertainment industry. Past depictions of the handicapped have lacked sensitivity and painted negative images, but that message was contained within the film, not plastered where its insensitive and damaging implications are unavoidable. That makes this movie’s advertising the most flagrant insult yet.

AMY M. DAVIS

Anaheim