The Problems with Mr. Glass in Shyamalan's Unbreakable

[1upsuper]

There will be full spoilers for M. Night Shyamalan's 2000 film Unbreakable in this thread. You have been warned. I have not included any spoilers for the second two films in the series.

I have intended to make this thread for a while, and given the release of Glass (and at the risk of raining on this forum's parade), I think it's time to discuss Mr. Glass in Unbreakable.

I have Mr. Glass's disability, which is the brittle bone condition called Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

Shyamalan's portrayal of Osteogenesis Imperfecta via Mr. Glass is deeply flawed in many ways, from the cursory details of the condition to more fundamental aspects of living with the disability. Ultimately, Mr. Glass in Unbreakable is an offensive depiction of OI that advances harmful views about disabled folks and the effects of disability on their mental state and world view. I hope to prove this below.

I first saw Unbreakable a few years ago after a decade of people responding to my condition with "Oh, like in Unbreakable?" I went in with an open mind. Mr. Glass's retreat into comics as a kid was pretty relatable to begin with. As a kid I found my escape in video games. Power fantasy and escapism can be very appealing when you are even more physically limited than your peers. But things take a turn when Mr. Glass grows up. At one point in the movie, he describes the different types of OI, and explains that the severity increases as the types advance in number. This is factually incorrect. It's ultimately not a big deal and has little consequence, but any surface-level research into the disability will reveal some general characteristics of the typing. Things only get worse from here, unfortunately.

The gist of the film is that Mr. Glass sees himself at one end of the spectrum of human ability, a man whose body is fragile and broken, and he conjectures that there must exist his opposite, a man in peak physical condition who is unbreakable. Bruce Willis proves to be the yin to Mr. Glass's yang, and Willis represents not only physical strength and ability but eventually heroism as well. He slowly discovers the extent of his own abilities and Mr. Glass, for a time, encourages this self-discovery. Ultimately, Mr. Glass fashions himself into a villain opposite the heroic Willis, and Mr. Glass turns out to be a terrorist who orchestrated a train accident in order to discover Willis and put his plan into action.

Despite Mr. Glass's agency in orchestrating Willis' heroic "origin story," Mr. Glass's disability, from his perspective, necessarily railroads him into being the broken villain archetype opposite the strong hero archetype, and the pain and suffering he endured pushed him down the path of evil which he ultimately welcomes as he becomes a true villain. I'm putting this in bold because it's important: Unbreakable visually codes its characters using a centuries-old offensive pattern found in art, literature, and other media: the physically disabled character is evil and the physically strong character is good. There is an age-old perception that evil within manifests itself without -- that physical "afflictions" must mirror an internal corruption. Unbreakable does nothing to combat this perception and actually adopts it as the crux of the entire film.

Now I recognize the value of artistic license. I do not think that every artist has an obligation to respectfully and accurately depict everything they choose to present in their art. However, Mr. Glass is the singular depiction of OI in popular media, and so his character speaks loudly. For many people that I have met in real life, he is their closest frame of reference for understanding my condition. And that frustrates me. I would never want people to entertain the idea that this disability, as hard and as excruciating and as painful as it can be, can warp the perceptions of folks who have it into becoming sociopaths, or that the trauma of living with it leads to damaging self-images and apathy towards others. Not only is that intuitively wrong, but it also is disrespectful towards the people like myself who deal with the condition and don't crumble under the weight of the trauma but grow stronger and better not only despite it, but sometimes even because of it.

If disabled people featured more frequently in film (let alone more people with OI) I would be much more comfortable with Mr. Glass. If there were more depictions of OI in popular media, Mr. Glass might actually read differently retroactively -- his character would become A man with OI who turned evil, rather than THE man with OI who became evil. His character necessarily speaks for an entire demographic as a result of being the only voice with OI, fictional or not, in popular media. As the sole fictional representation, his character has a lot of power in shaping perception. When everyone is on equal footing and educated in the topic at hand, artistic (mis)representation becomes more acceptable. We are not there yet. Because there are precious few portrayals of disabled folks in film, games, etc., it is disappointing when one such portrayal is ill-informed or in this case, hurtful.

What are your thoughts? Let me know if you agree or disagree. I'm aware that this is a heaping pile of nofunallowed.jpg but in recent years I have stopped apologizing for and hiding my disability and I have become more vocal about pointing out the issues I see with how the world treats and depicts people like me.

Reductive tl;dr: Imagine for a moment that you have a rare condition that comes with a lot of challenges. Now imagine that the big mainstream portrayal of your disability casts the disabled character as a homicidal villain who actively chose evil as a direct result of his disability. Not too pleasant.

 

[Bor Gullet]

I remember people had similar issues with Split and it's portrayal of mental illness.

 

[A Strong Latte]

There was a bit like this in split re: abuse victims that actually I thought was kind of offensive too- almost to the point of ruining the whole movie. This is ruling out all the stuff with Dissociative identity disorder which i feel like was kind of appropiating a disorder for a superpower. I think M Night has a bit of a taste issue sometimes.

 

[Zolbrod]

If it helps, Mr. Glass in Unbreakable is NOT the only character in fiction to ever have OI.
Joker in Mass Effect has it too, and he's a respectful depiction of it, I feel.

 

[Doggg]

I don't think Shyamalan was trying to use his disability to sort of heighten his villainy; it was more about the contrast between being physically disabled and mentally gifted and how he's still incredibly powerful and dangerous. In that sense, he's kind of like a Professor X figure or Lex Luthor (when compared to Superman).

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

I definitely understand and sympathize, but the idea that society constantly shitting on someone because they're different turning them to extremism is all too true. Some of the worst people I've met have been at my job, a mental health ward for teens who have suffered unspeakable trauma. Most of them are monsters, and they're that way because society made them that way. The hardest part of my job outside of the literal beatings I've recieved is reminding myself daily that these people aren't 100% responsible for who they are.

I think there could be more of a message that the so-called normal people failed these villains. More nuance to it.

 

[Pendas]

I don't think Shyamalan was trying to use his disability to sort of heighten his villainy; it was more about the contrast between being physically disabled and mentally gifted and how he's still incredibly powerful and dangerous. In that sense, he's kind of like a Professor X figure or Lex Luthor (when compared to Superman).

Click to shrink...

^ This. I don't think Shamalamadingding set out to make an accurate portrayal of that particular disease... I think the basic symptoms of the disease just so happened to fit the quota of the message he was trying to convey, so he chose it.

 

[1upsuper]

If it helps, Mr. Glass in Unbreakable is NOT the only character in fiction to ever have OI.
Joker in Mass Effect has it too, and he's a respectful depiction of it, I feel.

Click to shrink...

I've heard about Joker but I've never played Mass Effect. I'm not really interested in the series but I've contemplated trying it just to see Joker.

I definitely understand and sympathize, but the idea that society constantly shitting on someone because they're different turning them to extremism is all too true. Some of the worst people I've met have been at my job, a mental health ward for teens who have suffered unspeakable trauma. Most of them are monsters, and they're that way because society made them that way. The hardest part of my job outside of the literal beatings I've recieved is reminding myself daily that these people aren't 100% responsible for who they are.

I think there could be more of a message that the so-called normal people failed these villains. More nuance to it.

Click to shrink...

This is a salient point and you make a good argument. But I think that using an unknown disability to make this very real point about society comes with some of the pitfalls I discussed above. I think there were better ways to make that point.

I don't think Shyamalan was trying to use his disability to sort of heighten his villainy; it was more about the contrast between being physically disabled and mentally gifted and how he's still incredibly powerful and dangerous. In that sense, he's kind of like a Professor X figure or Lex Luthor (when compared to Superman).

Click to shrink...

^ This. I don't think Shamalamadingding set out to make an accurate portrayal of that particular disease... I think the basic symptoms of the disease just so happened to fit the quota of the message he was trying to convey, so he chose it.

Click to shrink...

I understand this perspective but it doesn't invalidate any of the arguments that I made. Shyamalan's intent means very little when you have a film (that is becoming popular again) that speaks for itself and provides the depictions that it does.

 

[Enduin]

Thanks for sharing this. I can definitely see and understand your frustrations with Glass's portrayal and concern with this, though I never would have thought about otherwise.

You should definitely check out Mass Effect, it's a great series and Joker is a really solid character throughout.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

shyamalan is pretty tone deaf in regards to impairments of any kind

 

[Deleted member 21339]

I've heard about Joker but I've never played Mass Effect. I'm not really interested in the series but I've contemplated trying it just to see Joker.

This is a salient point and you make a good argument. But I think that using an unknown disability to make this very real point about society comes with some of the pitfalls I discussed above. I think there were better ways to make that point.


I understand this perspective but it doesn't invalidate any of the arguments that I made. Shyamalan's intent means very little when you have a film (that is becoming popular again) that speaks for itself and provides the depictions that it does.

Click to shrink...

I doubt most people remember the exact medical diagnosis Mr. Glass suffers from, though. They just know he's brittle and the hero is like man of steel.

 

[Airegin]

If it helps, Mr. Glass in Unbreakable is NOT the only character in fiction to ever have OI.
Joker in Mass Effect has it too, and he's a respectful depiction of it, I feel.

Click to shrink...

Neither of these characters look even a little like someone with OI apart from being in a wheelchair.

 

[BluePigGanon]

I understand how you'd be unhappy with that character. For what it's worth, I think it was a simple as Shyamalan having a story idea of: the archnemesis is the opposite of the hero, so if the hero is invulnerable, then he needs a hyper-vulnerable nemesis. And he just went from there.

I also used to work in a prosthetic lab and a lot of people who suffer serious injuries or have debilitating conditions react to/deal with that in really, really dysfunctional ways. Suffering can metastasize in people. Watching Unbreakable, that's what I chalked it up as.

 

[1upsuper]

I doubt most people remember the exact medical diagnosis Mr. Glass suffers from, though. They just know he's brittle and the hero is like man of steel.

Click to shrink...

Sure. But I don't think you need to remember the name to start internalizing assumptions about people with brittle bones.

Neither of these characters look even a little like someone with OI apart from being in a wheelchair.

Click to shrink...

To be fair, while there's a classic OI "look", there are a lot of people who look pretty typical.

I also used to work in a prosthetic lab and a lot of people who suffer serious injuries or have debilitating conditions react to/deal with that in really, really dysfunctional ways. Suffering can metastasize in people. Watching Unbreakable, that's what I chalked it up as.

Click to shrink...

That's very true, but I think that's a point that an uninformed public could run wild with if not carefully introduced and could be potentially damaging for public perception of disabled folks as generally "broken."

 

[Deleted member 4494]

Great OP, and despite having a knee-jerk reaction upon reading the thread title you've ultimately convinced me of your point. It is super easy to tell people they shouldn't be offended by a thing -- and I wasn't by this -- but I feel like I both understand the point OP has made and the context by which its being made.

A reminder for people who will certainly go down this route: You can go see Glass and enjoy it. You can enjoy the character, too. But you can still criticize this kind of thing, as OP has, and hope for better representations in the future.

 

[BluePigGanon]

That's very true, but I think that's a point that an uninformed public could run wild with if not carefully introduced and is potentially damaging for public perception of disabled folks as generally "broken."

Click to shrink...

For sure. Personally... I think we glaze over trauma in fiction. Trauma is traumatic. People get broken by things. While absolutely I would worry people would assume EVERYONE who has suffered difficulties is now damaged, I think I find the idea that people who have suffered have risen above and are these enlightened beings now equally offensive - and disrespectful for people who HAVE managed to deal with that sort of adversity, like presumably you have.

 

[1upsuper]

Great OP, and despite having a knee-jerk reaction upon reading the thread title you've ultimately convinced me of your point. It is super easy to tell people they shouldn't be offended by a thing -- and I wasn't by this -- but I feel like I both understand the point OP has made and the context by which its being made.

A reminder for people who will certainly go down this route: You can go see Glass and enjoy it. You can enjoy the character, too. But you can still criticize this kind of thing, as OP has, and hope for better representations in the future.

Click to shrink...

Thanks! I'm glad to hear it. And yeah, I still found Unbreakable and Split fun movies. I would never blame anyone for liking them or for being excited about Glass. At the same time and at the risk of seeming like a wet blanket, I wanted to introduce some ideas that aren't necessarily obvious but are nevertheless important, IMO.

For sure. Personally... I think we glaze over trauma in fiction. Trauma is traumatic. People get broken by things. While absolutely I would worry people would assume EVERYONE who has suffered difficulties is now damaged, I think I find the idea that people who have suffered have risen above and are these enlightened beings now equally offensive - and disrespectful for people who HAVE managed to deal with that sort of adversity, like presumably you have.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely. You make a good point. Tons of characters in film just brush off trauma that would absolutely shake them and understandably so. The ability to cope or overcome is not reducible to being of sounder mind or stronger spirit than those who "succumb", and such perceptions are equally damaging.

 

[Deleted member 13798]

I don't think Shyamalan was trying to use his disability to sort of heighten his villainy; it was more about the contrast between being physically disabled and mentally gifted and how he's still incredibly powerful and dangerous. In that sense, he's kind of like a Professor X figure or Lex Luthor (when compared to Superman).

Click to shrink...

I think this is exactly yet, it's something of an old depiction in comics, and he was just carrying that over.

He's the counterpoints of a hero, he's a genius but easily broken, where is a hero is fairly instinctually clever but otherwise average in intelligence but Unbreakable.

 

[Strat]

I'm sorry, OP. Thank you for bringing your perspective to the table, it's incredibly informative and helps to see the depiction in the movie from a valuable perspective. It's unfortunate that it's so poor and that idiots like me can't pick it out for how potentially harmful it could be. I don't know M. Night's original concept or intent behind the character, but it sounds like he didn't do his research, which honestly isn't that surprising.

 

[Bad_Boy]

I think he was just going for the most extreme ends of a spectrum... so far that the line crossed farther than man is capable of.

What bruce willis was able to lift was physically impossible with his stature. You think pro heavy lifters were offended? I wouldnt take it too serious.

 

[1upsuper]

I'm sorry, OP. Thank you for bringing your perspective to the table, it's incredibly informative and helps to see the depiction in the movie from a valuable perspective. It's unfortunate that it's so poor and that idiots like me can't pick it out for how potentially harmful it could be. I don't know M. Night's original concept or intent behind the character, but it sounds like he didn't do his research, which honestly isn't that surprising.

Click to shrink...

Glad to hear it. But don't be so hard on yourself. If this were obviously and intuitively problematic it would either A) never have happened or B) not needed a thread, since everyone would understand already.

I think he was just going for the most extreme ends of a spectrum... so far that the line crossed farther than man is capable of.

What bruce willis was able to lift was physically impossible with his stature. You think pro heavy lifters were offended? I wouldnt take it too serious.

Click to shrink...

There's a lot to unpack here. I'm not sure how to read your first part other than "Bruce Willis was really good at being strong and Mr. Glass was really good at being disabled" so I'm just gonna move onto the second part. Please do not 1. suggest that I should not be offended at a problematic piece of media and 2. make the false equivalency between someone lifting something super heavy (super strength is a socially acceptable aspect of super hero fiction and weight lifters are not discriminated against the same way that disabled people are, plus they are afforded mass media representation) and someone being a distasteful depiction of a disability. Context is key, and unrealistic depictions only work when everyone is aware they are unrealistic -- people will understand that Bruce Willis is stronger than other humans, but not everyone will understand that Mr. Glass is an unrealistic depiction of OI, and that is where problems arise. The fact that weight lifters aren't offended does not mean that I cannot be for something completely unrelated to Bruce Willis' super strength. Bruce Willis's super strength is not equivalent to Mr. Glass's disability because heroes are beloved and disabled people are largely invisible in mainstream media, or otherwise frequently poorly depicted.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

I think you are right. I saw the McKellen version of Richard III around the same time in which he plays a character whose body reflects his evil nature, and remember thinking it was a similarly outdated, even medieval trope. I didn't realize Shyamalan was representing a real condition, though.

There's a character on 30 Rock with it as well. One of Jack Donaghey's girlfriends. I don't remember it all that well, but it is kinda played for laughs as well, IIRC.

Edit: I guess it is called Avian Bone Syndrome, so maybe it's not quite the same.

 

[1upsuper]

I think you are right. I saw the McKellen version of Richard III around the same time in which he plays a character whose body reflects his evil nature, and remember thinking it was a similarly outdated, even medieval trope. I didn't realize Shyamalan was representing a real condition, though.

There's a character on 30 Rock with it as well. One of Jack Donaghey's girlfriends. I don't remember it all that well, but it is kinda played for laughs as well, IIRC.

Edit: I guess it is called Avian Bone Syndrome, so maybe it's not quite the same.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, Richard III is the perennial example of the interior/exterior corruption. I love the play but I obviously dislike that trope. I don't watch 30 Rock but I don't really like hearing they play a brittle bone condition for laughs.

 

[AntoneM]

1upsuper Thank you for your thoughts on this movie. I had never considered it from your point of view and others who share the same point of view.

I guess I always though it of being kind of innocent or natural that Mr. Glass, considering his love of comics, would try to find his counterpoint in the world; then it was revealed that he committed at least one atrocity to find such a person. I never thought how that would impact people who lived with the same condition.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Glad to hear it. But don't be so hard on yourself. If this were obviously and intuitively problematic it would either A) never have happened or B) not needed a thread, since everyone would understand already.

There's a lot to unpack here. I'm not sure how to read your first part other than "Bruce Willis was really good at being strong and Mr. Glass was really good at being disabled" so I'm just gonna move onto the second part. Please do not 1. suggest that I should not be offended at a problematic piece of media and 2. make the false equivalency between someone lifting something super heavy (super strength is a socially acceptable aspect of super hero fiction and weight lifters are not discriminated against the same way that disabled people are, plus they are afforded mass media representation) and someone being a distasteful depiction of a disability. Context is key, and unrealistic depictions only work when everyone is aware they are unrealistic -- people will understand that Bruce Willis is stronger than other humans, but not everyone will understand that Mr. Glass is an unrealistic depiction of OI, and that is where problems arise. The fact that weight lifters aren't offended does not mean that I cannot be for something completely unrelated to Bruce Willis' super strength. Bruce Willis's super strength is not equivalent to Mr. Glass's disability because heroes are beloved and disabled people are largely invisible in mainstream media, or otherwise frequently poorly depicted.

Click to shrink...

The big thing i think you are missing is that david dunn was more than just strong. He was basically a super hero. And mr glass was more than just disabled. He was on a super villain level of intelligence. He planned out so many mass murders without getting caught that had to take a genius level of thought. Think joker. If people didnt understand that mr. Glass wasnt just any regular disabled guy they missed a big point in the movie about how the villian and hero always have something in common. I dont think mr. Glass as a weak person in that regard. Hes a force that can match the strength of david dunn and tame the beast from split. As exaggerated as his disability was i never viewed mr glass as weak.

If you are looking at these movies being social interpretations of how they make disabled people look bad i dont agree. They are realistic yet unrealistic movies. I was using the weight lifting thing as an analogy on how david dunn is not phsyically realistic for his strength but no one should be getting upset over it. Just how mr. Glass is unrealistic for his situation.

I can understand why this movie hits home, but its a fictional movie. Just have fun with it.

 

[TheKeipatzy]

The big thing i think you are missing is that david dunn was more than just strong. He was basically a super hero. And mr glass was more than just disabled. He was on a super villain level of intelligence. He planned out so many mass murders without getting caught that had to take a genius level of thought. Think joker. If people didnt understand that mr. Glass wasnt just any regular disabled guy they missed a big point in the movie about how the villian and hero always have something in common. I dont think mr. Glass as a weak person in that regard. Hes a force that can match the strength of david dunn and tame the beast from split. As exaggerated as his disability was i never viewed mr glass as weak.

If you are looking at these movies being social interpretations of how they make disabled people look bad i dont agree. They are realistic yet unrealistic movies. I was using the weight lifting thing as an analogy on how david dunn is not phsyically realistic for his strength but no one should be getting upset over it. Just how mr. Glass is unrealistic for his situation.

I can understand why this movie hits home, but its a fictional movie. Just have fun with it.

Click to shrink...

Wow...

"It's just a game, bro!"
"Don't be so sensitive"

No, people can be sensitive and spell out their problems they have. That's the point of this topic in the first place.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Wow...

"It's just a game, bro!"
"Don't be so sensitive"

No, people can be sensitive and spell out their problems they have. That's the point of this topic in the first place.

Click to shrink...

I never said dont be sensitive. I even said i could understand why it hits home. But at the end of the day its a fictional movie. The only thing weak about Mr. Glass were his bones. The big reveal as him causing all those terrorist events shows his intelligence should be feared.

David dunn isnt just afraid of water. The shit is his kryptonite. But he ripped a door off a car to save someone. This movie isnt realistic when you break it down. But when you break it down its just the anatomy of any comic book.

M. Night even wanted to market it as a super hero movie. I wouldnt look down on anyone with Mr.
Glass's (very unrealistic) disability anymore than i would look someone with captain hook's amputee disability. Who is claimed to have ocd, a lack of empathy and highly anti social because of his disability. These fictional characters are... fictional. A real disability shouldnt generalize real people in the same regard.

 

[1upsuper]

The big thing i think you are missing is that david dunn was more than just strong. He was basically a super hero. And mr glass was more than just disabled. He was on a super villain level of intelligence. He planned out so many mass murders without getting caught that had to take a genius level of thought. Think joker. If people didnt understand that mr. Glass wasnt just any regular disabled guy they missed a big point in the movie about how the villian and hero always have something in common. I dont think mr. Glass as a weak person in that regard. Hes a force that can match the strength of david dunn and tame the beast from split. As exaggerated as his disability was i never viewed mr glass as weak.

If you are looking at these movies being social interpretations of how they make disabled people look bad i dont agree. They are realistic yet unrealistic movies. I was using the weight lifting thing as an analogy on how david dunn is not phsyically realistic for his strength but no one should be getting upset over it. Just how mr. Glass is unrealistic for his situation.

I can understand why this movie hits home, but its a fictional movie. Just have fun with it.

Click to shrink...

I get what you're saying. Within the movie's own logic it makes sense. It just becomes more complicated with those elements of realism. I think that introducing the real disability of OI was a mistake because it wasn't handled properly, as I hopefully explained in my opening post. On another level though I think the premise is potentially harmful from the start, because while there are no superheroes in real life (and fictional ones are very positively perceived and idolized), there are people on what Shyamalan's film considers the opposite end of the spectrum, disabled folks. I take umbrage with pitting superhero against disabled man as the classic battle of good versus evil.

 

[ByteCulture]

There was a bit like this in split re: abuse victims that actually I thought was kind of offensive too- almost to the point of ruining the whole movie. This is ruling out all the stuff with Dissociative identity disorder which i feel like was kind of appropiating a disorder for a superpower. I think M Night has a bit of a taste issue sometimes.

Click to shrink...

The bad guy is abusive to his victims and someone doesnt like him? Well.. i guess the bad guy was well done here.

 

[derFeef]

Neither of these characters look even a little like someone with OI apart from being in a wheelchair.

Click to shrink...

There are different types of OI. A friend of mine has it and his physique is fairly normal apart from him limping all the time because of fractures in his spine etc.

 

[Bad_Boy]

I get what you're saying. Within the movie's own logic it makes sense. It just becomes more complicated with those elements of realism. I think that introducing the real disability of OI was a mistake because it wasn't handled properly, as I hopefully explained in my opening post. On another level though I think the premise is potentially harmful from the start, because while there are no superheroes in real life (and fictional ones are very positively perceived and idolized), there are people on what Shyamalan's film considers the opposite end of the spectrum, disabled folks. I take umbrage with pitting superhero against disabled man as the classic battle of good versus evil.

Click to shrink...

To me i think both were super. Just one was evil so it made him the villian. He justified his mass murders by trying to find the hero. He actually wanted david to become great. Ironically. Without the villian there is no hero.

Villians are idolized all the time too. Joker, again for example. It just depends on the story in context. And perspective.

For the record Mr. Glass was my favorite character out of the three and not for his disability. But by his ability to articulate things i never thought about. To this day his character changed the way i think about what makes great arch rivals in comics and fictional movies. Hell even real life enemies like trump and mueller can have a comic book connection if you apply mr. Glass's rules.

Dont let this movie get you down. Anyone who generalizes you because of a fictional character unrealistically depicting your disability needs help.

Anyways kudos to you for speaking on it.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

I don't think Shyamalan was trying to use his disability to sort of heighten his villainy; it was more about the contrast between being physically disabled and mentally gifted and how he's still incredibly powerful and dangerous. In that sense, he's kind of like a Professor X figure or Lex Luthor (when compared to Superman).

Click to shrink...

At the same time, the dude calls himself Mr Glass. His villainous persona is intrinsicly tied to his condition. Going with your x-men comparison, they didn't call Prof. X "Wheels" or something like that. He's a hero, so he's known as "professor." Glass is a villain, so his alter-ego calls to attention his condition.

It's for sure a definite framing.

 

[1upsuper]

To me i think both were super. Just one was evil so it made him the villian. He justified his mass murders by trying to find the hero. He actually wanted david to become great. Ironically. Without the villian there is no hero.

Villians are idolized all the time too. Joker, again for example. It just depends on the story in context. And perspective.

For the record Mr. Glass was my favorite character out of the three and not for his disability. But by his ability to articulate things i never thought about. To this day his character changed the way i think about what makes great arch rivals in comics and fictional movies. Hell even real life enemies like trump and mueller can have a comic book connection if you apply mr. Glass's rules.

Dont let this movie get you down. Anyone who generalizes you because of a fictional character unrealistically depicting your disability needs help.

Anyways kudos to you for speaking on it.

Click to shrink...

Thanks, I appreciate you contributing your perspective. There are different ways of looking at this for sure, some more sympathetic to the film and what it's trying to do than others. I've obviously got skin in the game so I wanted more from the movie.

 

[Deleted member 4494]

At the same time, the dude calls himself Mr Glass. His villainous persona is intrinsicly tied to his condition. Going with your x-men comparison, they didn't call Prof. X "Wheels" or something like that. He's a hero, so he's known as "professor." Glass is a villain, so his alter-ego calls to attention his condition.

It's for sure a definite framing.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I think this is a very salient point to back up OP's thesis: Mr Glass' condition isn't incidental to his super power of intelligence; it's somehow inextricably linked to it, and juxtaposed with it: we're constantly looking towards Mr Glass' disability and thinking "His brilliance is a byproduct of his disability, but his disability is what made him channel that intelligence in an evil way." It doesn't paint a nice picture of the disability in the context of the movie, but hey, OP already said that on its own would be fine IF there were actually instances of representation for the disability where it's *not* used in that way.

The argument in form and function isn't different from any argument for representation, which is why it's a convincing argument. In a vacuum, these are probably fine movies; it's only when you step back from them that there's a larger problem. For what it's worth, the same may be true of the multiple-personality disorder of the villain in Split, and the fact they are both in the same universe, and now together, back OP up even more in this.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

Yeah, I think this is a very salient point to back up OP's thesis: Mr Glass' condition isn't incidental to his super power of intelligence; it's somehow inextricably linked to it, and juxtaposed with it: we're constantly looking towards Mr Glass' disability and thinking "His brilliance is a byproduct of his disability, but his disability is what made him channel that intelligence in an evil way." It doesn't paint a nice picture of the disability in the context of the movie, but hey, OP already said that on its own would be fine IF there were actually instances of representation for the disability where it's *not* used in that way.

The argument in form and function isn't different from any argument for representation, which is why it's a convincing argument. In a vacuum, these are probably fine movies; it's only when you step back from them that there's a larger problem. For what it's worth, the same may be true of the multiple-personality disorder of the villain in Split, and the fact they are both in the same universe, and now together, back OP up even more in this.

Click to shrink...

Right? There is actually a history in comics of characters with conditions becoming heroes despite their limitations, but rarely does their persona constantly call into attention their limitation like the name Mr. Glass does. I think back to Oracle in batman, how she went from Batwoman to Oracle and was still a hero, without crafting an entire persona that revolves around her being raped and beaten into paraplegia from the Joker.

But then again, she's a hero.

 

[phonicjoy]

At the same time, the dude calls himself Mr Glass. His villainous persona is intrinsicly tied to his condition. Going with your x-men comparison, they didn't call Prof. X "Wheels" or something like that. He's a hero, so he's known as "professor." Glass is a villain, so his alter-ego calls to attention his condition.

It's for sure a definite framing.

Click to shrink...

But it's inverted here: Glass has this condition and postulates that therefore there must be some sort of negative of himself out in the world and becomes a villain to make that a reality.

I felt weird about the movie no doubt, but I don't think it's clear cut.

And for the specifics of OP's condition, I can relate. I think anyone with any sort of issue has rarely seen any accurate description of that condition in the media. heck, that goes for anything that requires more than a cursory glance at google to understand like jobs, or certain academic fields.

 

[Spine Crawler]

I remember people had similar issues with Split and it's portrayal of mental illness.

Click to shrink...

Exactly what i was going to post

 

[Bad_Boy]

Thanks, I appreciate you contributing your perspective. There are different ways of looking at this for sure, some more sympathetic to the film and what it's trying to do than others. I've obviously got skin in the game so I wanted more from the movie.

Click to shrink...

Always good to have different opinions.

I totally see your point. Theres nothing i really disagree with, I just wouldnt take it too heavy. I'll admit I'm biased. I think what M.N.S. did was genius as a fan of comic books and movies.

Edit: theres a thing to note, in the scene where mr. Glass describes his favorite comic with jaguaro (sp?) He says that when comics go to print the hero and villans features are always exaggerated. Idk just something to think about.

 

[Burai]

At the same time, the dude calls himself Mr Glass.

Click to shrink...

At no point in Unbreakable does he call himself Mr. Glass. He references the kids teasing him with the name when he first meets Willis and when he's caught at the end he simply says "they called me Mr. Glass." as if his torment as a child justified his actions.

But he doesn't refer to himself as Mr. Glass.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

At no point in Unbreakable does he call himself Mr. Glass. He references the kids teasing him with the name when he first meets Willis and when he's caught at the end he simply says "they called me Mr. Glass." as if his torment as a child justified his actions.

But he doesn't refer to himself as Mr. Glass.

Click to shrink...

....literally every single trailer for Glass end with someone asking him what he calls himself, and he says "First name Mr. Last name Glass."



That's literally the tagline for the movie. "First name Mr. Last name Glass."

 

[subpar spatula]

....literally every single trailer for Glass end with someone asking him what he calls himself, and he says "First name Mr. Last name Glass."



That's literally the tagline for the movie. "First name Mr. Last name Glass."

Click to shrink...

That's him accepting his position in the world of super powers. It's common for for characters to embrace their weaknesses to make it their power.

 

[A Strong Latte]

The bad guy is abusive to his victims and someone doesnt like him? Well.. i guess the bad guy was well done here.

Click to shrink...

The Girl survives because he sees the scars from her uncle violently raping her and spares her because she's a victim of child abuse like he was. Just a weird fucking way to win

 

[Keldroc]

If there's one thing consistent about Shyamalan's writing, it's that he doesn't know much about...well, anything. Calling his depictions of anything - be it bone disease, OCD behavior, grief, mental illness, religion, science, child abuse, botany, spirituality, or any other subject - "surface level," is putting it very kindly. He's a terrible writer who appears to be not particularly bright or insightful when it comes to human nature or behavior. OP's critique is insightful, interesting, and probably involved three times as much thought about the character than Shyamalan has put into him across two movies.

 

[Burai]

....literally every single trailer for Glass end with someone asking him what he calls himself, and he says "First name Mr. Last name Glass."



That's literally the tagline for the movie. "First name Mr. Last name Glass."

Click to shrink...

OK, but this thread isn't taking the new movie into account, it's only discussing his role in Unbreakable.

We also can't really understand a character's motivations from a trailer and certainly not a trailer from a man that has coined the term "Shyamalan Twist".

 

[Snormy]

Great write up OP. Thank you for taking the time and effort to write that up, I do enjoy reading and sharing different opinions of this nature.

I certainly see your point and I have had a number of conversations with others that he is a poor representation of OI as a whole. I guess when I watched the film I had checked my expectations and really didn't expect it to be very good in this regard. I had written it off as a convenient plot device and for the most part I think that is what it is.

OI is broad enough that it is hard to have someone represent the condition well for majority. Further more this only considers the disability side of things. Culture, friends, access to treatments, living conditions and other important things play a huge role in shaping a person into who they are as well as how they might cope with their condition. I knew going into the film that this was never the focus, it isn't going for an educational POV or trying to be a good window into understanding the complexities of OI so I guess these problems don't really bother me too much even if I agree with all of your points. The simplification of the types into ordered by severity supports this and I certainly don't fault them in this area. Especially since the list is still developing and can be fuzzy information depending on who/where you ask.

The case for Joker, from Mass Effect is more interesting and positive. He has OI and while he doesn't have super villain level intellect he is essentially one of if not the best human pilot in the galaxy. The focus of Joker is in his character, his wit and his skill as the pilot. The medical condition rarely comes up in a big way. In this instance OI takes a backseat to Joker's character and it doesn't really focus too much on the hardships he faced because of it, though there is a story of discrimination in choosing the pilot for the ship, it is small in the grand scheme of things and it ultimately shifts the focus on his success which was nice.

On a different take, Jodi Picoult's Handle With Care is a fictional novel that focuses on some of the difficulties one might face having a member of the family with OI. Ranging from financial difficulty due to medical needs to hardships and responsibilities of siblings and parents. I really couldn't get into this novel but I know a lot of fans of it and I appreciate the idea of focusing on the disability as well as the trials that can come with it or issues that can be compounded by it. Perhaps you might enjoy it.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

OK, but this thread isn't taking the new movie into account, it's only discussing his role in Unbreakable.

We also can't really understand a character's motivations from a trailer and certainly not a trailer from a man that has coined the term "Shyamalan Twist".

Click to shrink...

I really think that's a meaningless distinction considering the actual discussion OP is going for, which is about representation in media, not necessarily just Unbreakable. The point is the people who wrote both Unbreakable and the rest of the trilogy chose to label this dude Mr. Glass, as though that was his defining characteristic.

 

[1upsuper]

At the same time, the dude calls himself Mr Glass. His villainous persona is intrinsicly tied to his condition. Going with your x-men comparison, they didn't call Prof. X "Wheels" or something like that. He's a hero, so he's known as "professor." Glass is a villain, so his alter-ego calls to attention his condition.

It's for sure a definite framing.

Click to shrink...

Yes, while there is some debate in here, the bottom line is the character is widely known as Mr. Glass. It is important to note, as Burai did, that Mr. Glass uses the name as a final refrain, a sort of explanation for what happened. But ultimately his disability is a fundamental aspect of his super- and -villain aspects, the catalyst for his villainy and his excuse for his cruelty.

Yeah, I think this is a very salient point to back up OP's thesis: Mr Glass' condition isn't incidental to his super power of intelligence; it's somehow inextricably linked to it, and juxtaposed with it: we're constantly looking towards Mr Glass' disability and thinking "His brilliance is a byproduct of his disability, but his disability is what made him channel that intelligence in an evil way." It doesn't paint a nice picture of the disability in the context of the movie, but hey, OP already said that on its own would be fine IF there were actually instances of representation for the disability where it's *not* used in that way.

The argument in form and function isn't different from any argument for representation, which is why it's a convincing argument. In a vacuum, these are probably fine movies; it's only when you step back from them that there's a larger problem. For what it's worth, the same may be true of the multiple-personality disorder of the villain in Split, and the fact they are both in the same universe, and now together, back OP up even more in this.

Click to shrink...

100% agree with everything you said. Mr. Glass is ultimately a problem because he is the only mainstream representation of OI, and so he necessarily represents OI. Should he? Definitely not. But he does, and I don't think that's a point of contention.

If there's one thing consistent about Shyamalan's writing, it's that he doesn't know much about...well, anything. Calling his depictions of anything - be it bone disease, OCD behavior, grief, mental illness, religion, science, child abuse, botany, spirituality, or any other subject - "surface level," is putting it very kindly. He's a terrible writer who appears to be not particularly bright or insightful when it comes to human nature or behavior. OP's critique is insightful, interesting, and probably involved three times as much thought about the character than Shyamalan has put into him across two movies.

Click to shrink...

Hahah, thanks, I appreciate that.

Great write up OP. Thank you for taking the time and effort to write that up, I do enjoy reading and sharing different opinions of this nature.

I certainly see your point and I have had a number of conversations with others that he is a poor representation of OI as a whole. I guess when I watched the film I had checked my expectations and really didn't expect it to be very good in this regard. I had written it off as a convenient plot device and for the most part I think that is what it is.

OI is broad enough that it is hard to have someone represent the condition well for majority. Further more this only considers the disability side of things. Culture, friends, access to treatments, living conditions and other important things play a huge role in shaping a person into who they are as well as how they might cope with their condition. I knew going into the film that this was never the focus, it isn't going for an educational POV or trying to be a good window into understanding the complexities of OI so I guess these problems don't really bother me too much even if I agree with all of your points. The simplification of the types into ordered by severity supports this and I certainly don't fault them in this area. Especially since the list is still developing and can be fuzzy information depending on who/where you ask.

The case for Joker, from Mass Effect is more interesting and positive. He has OI and while he doesn't have super villain level intellect he is essentially one of if not the best human pilot in the galaxy. The focus of Joker is in his character, his wit and his skill as the pilot. The medical condition rarely comes up in a big way. In this instance OI takes a backseat to Joker's character and it doesn't really focus too much on the hardships he faced because of it, though there is a story of discrimination in choosing the pilot for the ship, it is small in the grand scheme of things and it ultimately shifts the focus on his success which was nice.

On a different take, Jodi Picoult's Handle With Care is a fictional novel that focuses on some of the difficulties one might face having a member of the family with OI. Ranging from financial difficulty due to medical needs to hardships and responsibilities of siblings and parents. I really couldn't get into this novel but I know a lot of fans of it and I appreciate the idea of focusing on the disability as well as the trials that can come with it or issues that can be compounded by it. Perhaps you might enjoy it.

Click to shrink...

You bring up some good points. But in this case, I'm not even asking for something as comprehensive and complex as an accurate representation of the day-to-day struggles shared by all OI people or those only experienced by some as a result of a commingling of social and economic issues as well as the physiological differences between people with OI. I just want the one singular example of OI in mainstream pop culture to not use an ancient prejudicial pattern of visual coding as its core theme -- as part of its "Shyamalan twist" no less.

I don't think it would actually be that hard to nail down some universal aspects of living with OI. I've met a lot of people with OI and part of the seemingly-universal experience is that come hell or high water you have to get yourself over the anxiety that today could be the day you break again. And if not today, then tomorrow. If not tomorrow, the next day. Everyone with OI severe enough to have experienced frequent breaks that I have spoken to has had to deal with this. Is that truly universal? Certainly not. But I think worrying about perfectly capturing the universal lived experience (or all the unique socio-economical/cultural/financial/etc. issues that each OI person experiences uniquely) is a bar the world of mass media is not ready to clear, so I'll settle for not-actively-offensive for now.

As for Handle with Care, I have had it recommended to me before. I appreciate the suggestion, but to be frank, I'm not really interested. I've lived the rough details. I've seen how hard this condition is on my family. I've dealt with the myriad financial difficulties. I have a life story that could wring tears out of a rock. I just want characters in popular media with OI who are half decent representations of it. I am glad that book exists, but I don't think I'm the audience for it from what I can tell. More people should probably read it though. Someday I intend to write about my experiences because the more voices from disabled folk the better.

You all are slowly convincing me to try Mass Effect though.

I really think that's a meaningless distinction considering the actual discussion OP is going for, which is about representation in media, not necessarily just Unbreakable. The point is the people who wrote both Unbreakable and the rest of the trilogy chose to label this dude Mr. Glass, as though that was his defining characteristic.

Click to shrink...

Yup, agreed.

 

[Deleted member 32374]

Well, no one can disagree with how you react to a character. Its on people not be so stupid as to say "Oh, like that movie unbreakable, with Mr Glass". If there was a movie with a villain who blew up a speaker factory because he had sensitive hearing and tinnitus, and I heard about it from people who see me leave earplugs everywhere, I'd a bit annoyed too.

(second though, to make the world quieter, just would need to be corrupt, get elected and change the constitution to enforce quiet hours......)

 

[1upsuper]

Well, no one can disagree with how you react to a character. Its on people not be so stupid as to say "Oh, like that movie unbreakable, with Mr Glass". If there was a movie with a villain who blew up a speaker factory because he had sensitive hearing and tinnitus, and I heard about it from people who see me leave earplugs everywhere, I'd a bit annoyed too.

(second though, to make the world quieter, just would need to be corrupt, get elected and change the constitution to enforce quiet hours......)

Click to shrink...

People will not miraculously "not be so stupid" as you put it. Education is necessary. I didn't make this thread to vent or just give my reaction. The point was to educate. Because Shyamalan certainly won't.

 

[Deleted member 32374]

People will not miraculously "not be so stupid" as you put it. Education is necessary. I didn't make this thread to vent or just give my reaction. The point was to educate.

Click to shrink...

This thread has offered the most education I've ever had on the disease from a real source. Thank you for making it. I'm going to wiki OI later on.

As far as the depiction of characters in media, disabled characters are rare as it is and somehow there is always a plotline about a "cure". Rather than living well with a disability. I agree that Unbreakable fails with this, when all is revealed at the end.