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.
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.