Film Review 2 - Murderball

1.) The main thesis of the movie murderball seemed to be that although society largely believes people who are "handicapped," the film demonstrates through the sport of wheelchair rugby--a very dangerous and intense sport--that society's preconceived notions about people with disabilities are absolutely false. In many cases, they can do just as much or more than "non-disabled" individuals.
2.)The main arguments toward this thesis is demonstrated at the beginning of the film when Zupan talks about being in a bar and almost getting into a fight with a guy, the guy feels bad and Zupan yells "fucking hit me, I'll hit you back" (Murderball, 2005). This is just one of the many statements Zupan and his wheelchair rugby team say that leads us to rethink our preconceived notions about people in wheelchairs. The next example is when the film goes in depth to how people in wheelchairs can have intercourse. Another argument that fortifies the thesis is the intensity of the wheelchair rugby games, these $3000 dollar gladiator wheel chairs are amazingly built. This allows the sport to be even harder contact than one would think is safe.
3.)The thesis aligns with the course goals and the discussions and thoughts we are intended to think and question in our Deviance class. For the past couple of weeks we have had ongoing debates and discussions as to how society views individuals you aren't able bodied. This film does a great job at debunking preconceptions that able bodied people think are correct. Next, the film helps kill the myth that all people in wheel chairs just really want their legs again, when the way it is portrayed by the pararugby community in the movie, that is just not the case and in many ways is offensive. They have become accustomed to who they are and many wouldn't change it.
4.) The point I found most convincing in the film wasn't ever explicitly said, but was eluded to time and time again in the movie. When people get into wheel chairs after their accident, they are incredibly hopeless for the first couple of years, but they are reinvigorated when they discover that they can still do so many things that able-bodied individuals can do; intercourse and sports to name a couple. Not to mention being entirely self sufficient.
5.) I really was awe-struck when I watched this film, and wasn't really skeptical to the points being made. I feel like the audience was getting exclusive interviews discussing their trials, journeys, and accomplishments since being labeled disabled. However, based on their responses and actions in the movie, I do disagree with labeling theory as being applicable to the film. Labeling theory states that "Treating a person as though he were generally rather than specifically deviant produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. It sets in motion several mechanisms which conspire to shape the person in the image people have of him" (Thio, Calhoun, & Conyers). While I know the book wasn't imagining disabled people as part of this equation, but people who are disabled are still viewed as deviant. Despite their cases being ascribed vs. achieved. From the movie we saw a lot of people such as Zupan, where everywhere he went people began rethinking their notions about people in wheelchairs.
6.) If I had to research one point about the film I would love to look further into the various levels of disability paraplegics have as discussed at the beginning of the film. I understand there are distinctions based on arm mobility, but it would be intriguing to delve deeper into it and see if more or less classifications are necessary for other paraplegic sports.

Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.

Rubin, Henry, writ. Murderball. Writ. Dana Shapiro, Jeff Mandel, and Keith Cavill. Thinkfilm, 2005. Film.