Running head: TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION?

To Be or Not to Be, is that Really the Question?

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION? 2

Abstract

Disability representation in mainstream media is lacking the perspective of the disabled. Me

Before You is a film in where disability is portrayed in through the lenses of the medical model

as well as the personal tragedy theory of disability. This movie shows society that a quadriplegic

who has just found love, would still wish to seek assisted suicide rather than live with his

disability. The portrayal of disability throughout the film is inaccurate and misleading for

societies understanding of disability and lacks encouragement for the spread of disability culture.

Keywords: medical model, personal tragedy theory, disability culture, quadriplegic

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION? 3

Crazy, freak, ‘suffering from,’ invalid, lame, victim, wheelchair-bound… these are all

terms that have been used to describe individuals with a disability. For most of our history as a

society, a ‘flawed’ mind and/or body has been the key definition of disability (Barnes & Mercer,

2014). Many early opinions of disability were centered as an individual tragedy, which was

thought to only effected society because these individuals would ‘inevitability’ become a public

charge. Fast forward in time and monumental moments in history such as the disability rights

movement and the creation of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) have given us some

alleviation, but not enough.

We now have seen the formation of disability culture. An important aspect of that culture

is the language used in our ‘mainstream’ society. Disability culture has re-defined terms that they

saw as dehumanizing (Peters, 2000). Yet, where do most terms, references or culture come from?

The media. Studies have shown that when the media selects certain words in the place of others,

it makes those words more noteworthy, easier to remember for the viewers (Haller et al., 2006).

Disability representation in the media has been a long hard road of battles for the

disability rights movement. When the media references or portrays a person to have a disability,

they are doing more than just character building. They are showing the viewers, people who may

never have experienced knowing a person with a disability, how they interpret life with a

disability to be. The problem with this is many writers, directors, producers and so on don’t have

experience with disability themselves, they are not the best people to interpret the true meaning

of living with a disability. They instead push social norms and highlight disability as ‘other’.

Society then sees these interpretations as ‘un-natural’ or against societal norms thus bringing us

further away from a culture of acceptance.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION? 4

The movie I call into scrutiny for this paper is Me Before You, a film that was adapted

from a book published in 2012. Before even beginning my movie critique, I will mention that the

author of this book, who was also the screen-play writer, Jojo Moyes, does not have a disability.

I will not be focusing on the book, due to the stories straying slightly.

The movie starts with a look into the life of Will Traynor and what events lead to his need

to use a wheelchair as a quadriplegic. We then meet Louisa Clarke, also referred to as Lou, who

has just lost her job. The immediate and first comparison between the two is that they both have

experienced ‘tragedies’ in their life. For the viewers, we are only five minutes into the movie, but

we are told to feel pity for these two characters. Lou then finds a job as Will’s caretaker, with the

one condition that she doesn’t have to “wipe bums”. During the interview for the job, conducted

by Will’s mother, the first question she asks is if Will’s condition would bother Lou. I find it

alarming that with all that is at stake for finding a caretaker for her son, the writers chose this

question as the first to be asked. This way of thinking about disability is directly referencing the

personal tragedy theory. This theory is so intertwined with disability media presence, it’s a

dominant theory in mainstream society. This theory details that the impairment is a tragedy

inflicted on an unsuspecting person, such as Will. This ‘tragedy’ should be avoided at all costs

and most often attempts to ‘normalize’ or ‘fix’ the person is reinforced (French & Swain, 2004).

As to be expected with the above-mentioned example of the personal tragedy theory, Lou

is told she was hired to ‘cheer him up’. We then meet Will and his nurse, Nathan. In this first

exchange of Will and Lou, the viewers are given a lot of information. We see first that Will’s

family is wealthy, as indicated by his house being ‘modified’ to accommodate Will’s wheelchair

use as well as the fact he has an at-home nurse. This is an unfair depiction of a person with a

disability because we are seeing no signs of struggle to maintain his medical treatment or the
TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION? 5

financial aspect of that treatment. We don’t have to question the quality of his care, but are left

wondering, who else has access to this kind of care? This is showing us the ‘prettier side’ to the

fact that medical aspects of disability are directly related and effected by economic relations and

realities (Kafer, 2013). This wealth, along with his physical appearance, is portraying an

‘unrealistic’ example of disability.

We are shown then after a montage of days passing where Will does not move, but Lou is

coming and going, and that Will, before his accident, was extremely active. Lou is cleaning his

room and sees several pictures of Will snowboarding, cliff diving and more. Will responds to

seeing her look at the pictures by saying “…you’re thinking how awful it must be to have lived

like that and end up like this” (Baden-Powell, Owen, Rosenfelt, & Sharrock, 2016). The more we

as viewers get to know Will, the more we learn of his misery of his life post-accident. We also

get to see an interaction of Will with some old friends of his, who come to visit, and their parting

words are something to the effect of “we hope your situation improves”. Outside of Will’s house,

which we have not seen him yet leave, the viewers see a scene of Lou with her boyfriend. The

boyfriend, who is depicted to be a marathon runner and extremely physically active, has a

conversation about Will and how he would ‘never want to live like that and have Lou stay with

him out of pity’. These context clues we are receiving as viewers are furthering our

understanding of Will as ‘less than’ or ‘other’. The media is giving us this extremely active

person and other able-bodied people from Will’s community showing pity and a feeling sense of

discomfort around him or regarding him. This in addition to Will’s old friends ‘hoping his

situation improves’ again is showing us disability through a personal tragedy lens.

The movie does its job of slowly building a relationship between Will and Lou. Some

insinuation from the movie is that Will becomes Lou’s cheerleader to living a more fulfilling life.
TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION? 6

He often criticizes her for not chasing dreams or seeking more from life. They compare Lou not

leaving her ‘comfort zone’ with Will not leaving his chair. This is harmful viewpoint to have for

disability culture. Just as in the beginning we see Lou’s loss of a job compared to Will’s

accident. Giving the viewers the unconscious thoughts that his disability is simply a metaphor for

Lou’s struggles.

The first time Lou see Will sick, this brings us a new lens into focus. We as the viewers

see Lou start to ask questions about ‘medical advancements’ as if Will is something to be fixed.

This lens I’m referring to is the medical model of disability. This model views atypical bodies

and minds as ‘defective’, and the proper response is to ‘treat’ the condition (Kafer, 2013).

Through the movie, we are shown the medical components to Will and his treatment through the

eyes of Nathan, his nurse. Nathan confirms that Will has been dangerously sick several times

since his accident and that he has even tried to end his life.

When Lou finds this out, she is extremely upset, but Nathan is almost understanding of

the suicide attempt. Nathan's normalizing of this horrific discovery leads us, the viewers, to

believe that even a medical professional understands Will’s desire to end his life. Shortly after

the viewers and Lou find out that Will has an ‘agreement’ with his parents to live for six more

months, then he will be going to Dignitas in Switzerland.

The slogan for Dignitas, which is a factual place, is ‘To live with dignity, to die with

dignity’. The topic of assisted suicide is more commonplace for people with terminal illnesses

and want to die before they get too ill. For society to now see that only two years into being

quadriplegic, Will has chosen to end his life is sending a damaging message. With this thought

process, it is easy to see why societies views of disability as a tragedy are so prevalent. Of

course, Lou believes she can change his mind and she embarks on a montage journey of research
TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION? 7

into activities and supports for people with his disability. The first activity she plans for Will is a

horse racetrack, which is not equipped to accommodate Will and his use of a wheelchair. During

this outing, we do get a quick shift into the lens of a political/relational model. We have not yet

seen Will out of the house, which is modified for his wheelchair. So, when we see the struggles

of his wheelchair getting stuck in the mud due to no ramps being provided or the fact that the

only indoor restaurant will not accommodate them, we see how society is disabling him.

The political relational model is described as the disability no longer belonging within the

individual, but instead exists within the environments that limit the person with impairments

(Kafer, 2013). This refreshing change of the lens only lasts briefly, as if just to scratch the

surface of this whole other and more accurate depiction of disability. All other locations visited

in the movie accommodate Will and his use of a wheelchair at a fairytale level, even the last

vacation where they are on a tropical island.

During conversations Will and Lou have about where to travel, Lou asks Will of his

favorite place on Earth. He begins to tell her of this location in Paris, and Lou wishes to go there

together with him. Wills response is as follows:

…you don’t get it Clarke, I want to be in Paris as me, the old me…. If I shut my

eyes now, I know exactly how it feels to be in that little square. I remember every

sensation. I don’t want those memories erased by the struggle to fit behind the table, the

taxi drivers who refuse to take me, and my wheelchair power pack that won’t charge in a

French socket. (Baden-Powell et al., 2016)

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION? 8

This is a scene that though does focus on society as the problem, still evokes a level of pity.

Somehow making note of the political/relational model but leaving us, the viewers, in the

personal tragedy model.

The movie reaches the beginning of the end when Lou, Will, and Nathan go on Will’s

final vacation/activity. They are then at some resort on an island unspecified to the viewers,

which as mentioned has all the resources needed to accommodate Will and his use of the

wheelchair. This vacation is seen by Lou as her last effort to encourage Will to change his mind

about going to Switzerland for assisted suicide. They have a romantic vacation, and on the final

night, Will expresses that his mind has not changed. He tells Lou that he does not want her to be

‘tied’ to him or to regret her choices of being with him. Will goes on to say he and his doctors

agree his ‘condition’ will not improve, and he no longer wants to live like this. Will goes to

Switzerland to end his life.

I have a hurricane of emotions and thoughts on this conversation and what it implies.

What this movie is portraying to mainstream media and society is that love, the most powerful

force on the planet, is not enough to live if that life is with a disability. Think of the immensity of

that in the way that Will is shown to have ample means and funds to have a good quality of life.

He can afford the medical care, the medical supplies, personnel and to modify his home, yet

because he is quadriplegic, he must die.

This movie has presented an inaccurate and fairytale depiction of a quadriplegic life, yet

he does not see his life worth living. The movie ends with Lou in Paris, reading a letter he wrote

to her before he passed. In this letter he tells her things like, “live boldly, don’t settle”, “knowing

you still have possibilities is a luxury”, and “just live well, just live” (Baden-Powell et al., 2016).

To plainly say that her life still has possibilities, but his life did not. The suggestion that her life
TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION? 9

was going to be better, because of her lack of disability or her lack of him ‘holding her back’ is

what is wrong with the media's view of disability. This interpretation of a life of disability,

unlived, to be somewhat a happy ending is disturbing, to say the least.

If I were to change aspects of the movie, first and foremost I would cast an actor who is a

quadriplegic for the role of Will. I would have as many people from the disability community as

possible working on the movie to give it an accurate and true feel of disability culture. This

ultimately would change the movie altogether, but hopefully, we can see more movies of that

caliber in our society’s future. Letting ableism dictate mainstream media is outdated and we need

to expand our knowledge.

The problem is not the disability, but society's construction of ‘normalcy’ and the

problems in turn that society creates for that person (Davis, 2013). This portrayal of disability in

mainstream media does not stand alone. This movie presents a restrictive perspective of

disability identity, along with many bodies of work in the media today. There are far too many

inaccurate and misleading depictions of people with disabilities. To build a stronger society, we

need to promote a disability culture more positively and accurately.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, IS THAT REALLY THE QUESTION? 10

References

Baden-Powell, S., Owen, A., Rosenfelt, K., & Sharrock, T. (2016). Me Before You. United

Kingdom: New Line Cinema.

Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2014). Disability: A Choice of Models. Retrieved from

http://repositoriocdpd.net:8080/handle/123456789/483

Davis, L. J. (2013). Introduction: Normality, power, and culture. The disability studies reader, 4,

1-14.

French, S., & Swain, J. (2004). Whose tragedy?: Towards a personal non-tragedy view of

disability. London, UK: Sage.

Haller, B., Dorries, B., & Rahn, J. (2006). Media labeling versus the US disability community

identity: a study of shifting cultural language. Disability & Society, 21(1), 61-75.

Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press.

Peters, S. (2000). Is there a disability culture? A syncretisation of three possible world views.

Disability & Society, 15(4), 583-601.