Aspies For Freedom

Well unless you've actually watched it, I'm a bit stumped as to how you can already judge it because of what you *think* it will portray us as?  :?

You can tell yourself you're not biased all you like, but the post starting this thread is not that of a person who is merely pointing out a programme dealing with a character who has AS. It has a very negative tone to it and is clearly focussing on negative implications of the programme!

If you were familiar with the programme at all, or had at least bothered to check on its format and content, you might have noticed that the boy with AS is the defendant of the main character of the series. A character who, within this series, manages to, against all odds, show that things are not as they appear at first, and prove his clients' innocence.

Note, the boy is accused of having killed his mother. That is what it seems to look like. It doesn't say he did kill his mother. At all. The mere fact that the boy is his defendant is a pretty big clue that, however well or badly ITV tackle the subject of AS, he is not going to be guilty, and thus not portrayed as such.

In fact, if you read the Radio Times description of this very episode, it sounds very much like they will portray the Aspie kid as sympathetic, honest and innocent (and he gets to tell a cruel callous character involved in the case that it appears in fact to be him who has problems understanding human emotions, not himself).

The series isn't known for it's plausibility and accuracy and ITV do seem to go OTT with the dramatics in their trailers, but by all means the mere fact that the Aspie is the defendant in this episode means that whatever else they do with the character, he won't be the guilty party.

No offense, but have you even bothered to check any actual descriptions of this show, or are working on assumptions (that it is a one-off court drama or dramatisation, where the defendant is bound to be guilty, that it's about how bad Aspies are etc. etc.) here?

"The Brief" is NOT a one-off drama. It is NOT a crime drama, it is a series from the point of view of the defending barrister, and the cases he tackles are usually ones that he solves.

Yes, the prosecution are saying that the Aspie killed his Mum. But this series is not about the prosecution, the prosecution are the "bad guys" in this show.

If it was a murder drama or anything else in that direction then fair enough, but the whole point of this series is that the 'Brief' of its title usually cracks his cases and manages to prove their innocence. The audience is meant to be on his side, and on that of the defendant - since the Aspie is the defendant, take a guess at who's going to be portrayed as the bad guy? (The answer is NOT the Aspie - he's the guy the audience are meant to sympathise with, the guy whose innocence the whole episode revolves around)

If you are familiar with Matlock or similar programmes, you'll perhaps understand the format of this? (I.e. person who is accused & who is the brief's defendant is NOT guilty, the whole point of the series is that he solves the cases and proves their innocence/uncovers the truth)

Ergo, the fact that this weeks' case involves a boy with AS means that, just by following the relatively simple logic of this show's format, the series will NOT portray the Aspie as a cruel murderer (as someone who's been framed and used perhaps, but must definitely NOT as a cruel murderer).

The prosecution will try to show him as such, but the whole focus of this programme, the side that the audience is supposed to sympathise with, is on the defendant's side.

Yes, I know you didn't say he was guilty, but you still seem to think that the show is implying as such. It is not - the mere fact that this show deals with cases that the main character 'solves' [i.e. they are innocent in most cases, or at least things are not as they seem, people were framed, tricked etc.] should be a bit of a clue there.

Within the fictional world of this series, the 'team' the show is focussing on is the defendant's side, i.e. those who believe (& have to prove) that he/she is innocent. The evidence in this case appears to be circumstantial, we're not talking US-style sensationalist court action, we're talking small-scale, UK cases.

The whole point of those fictional cases in the series is that the person is innocent and the main character of the show uncovers the truth and gets them off.

Ergo, whatever ITV did with AS (whether the portrayal is accurate or not), the young man will not under any circumstances be portrayed as guilty, as a cruel, violent murderer by this fictional programme.

He may be shown as too naive for some people's liking of how AS is portrayed, too much of a victim, but by the simple logic of this particular show, he will not turn out to be bad, violent, vicious or evil.

Radio Times description - does this sound like the potential 'demonisation' and distortion of AS the thread starter got all hyped up about?

If anything, it seems to poke fun at NT preconceptions of what Aspies are like, and show that AS does not in fact mean "lack of affect" and "inability to read people" [a programme that has an Aspie cunningly make such observations about others can not be accused of portraying us as unable to read other people, emotions etc.!].

So why join them? Why can't you just LEAVE "the public" to make up their own minds, rather than make assumptions on what everyone is going to think?

It appears the show will deal exactly with confronting such prejudice, because the young lad is victimised by precisely that kind of misguided attitude, and the programme deals with overturning these stereotypes and prejudices. That's the whole point!

Would you rather that stereotype (of AS = callous etc.) be sweeped under the carpet, or would you not agree that at the very least, it is worth trying to show that such stereotypes [as perhaps held by the prosecution in this case] do not reflect the truth?

It really does sound like, whether or not they did so successfully, the producers of this show have set out to address precisely the types of negative views against AS that people here complain about. So why not give it a chance before jumping to conclusions?

Seriously, if every programme that attempts to tackle prejudice against Aspies (rather than just going on about how great we are, and sweeping anything negative plain under the carpet) gets this kind of reaction, I wouldn't be surprised if they just stopped bothering to show positive aspects and to educate the public.

Hey, by all means they may have messed this up, but it seems to be one of the first programmes that dares to tackle Anti-Aspie prejudice so why not AT LEAST give them a chance, rather than get worked up with expectations of how this is going to portray us as violent etc?

I will do, I just hope the reception doesn't mess up again. In my experience ITV have been 50/50 with how factual and well-researched their dramas have been in the past.

I've read some interviews with Alan Davies on this a while back, and I must admit that my first thought at that time was "Oh, what mess are they going to make of AS this time?" (because he just said something like "We deal with a lot of interesting subjects, we even tackle Asperger's Syndrome" - there was no mention of what sotryline or how they would deal with it, so it came across in a kind of "Look, we too are jumping on the 'let's feature AS in the show, it's what everyone is talking about' bandwagon" way).

But what I have actually read about the episode itself so far does sound like, regardless of how well it has been executed, the intention is to overturn some of these stereotypes and to show how ridiculous some of the misconceptions about AS are, which sounds very positive.

The reviews also commend the actor portraying the Aspie although I do not know how familiar those reviewers are with AS.

EnglishLulu, there is no reason to become so rude and aggressive. You are not doing yourself any favours by reacting in such a fashion when someone points out flaws in your conclusions, which, being based solely on jumping to conclusions from seeing a brief trailer, are already anything but "solid" or "factual".

Since you are misconstruing what I addressed clearly to Amy as "arguments" against yourself, your post made no sense as a response to mine. In the post that you quoted from there, I wasn't talking to you, I was addressing Amy and some of the points she made!

And who the heck do you think you are if you start a thread, which contains a misleading representation of a programme based on your own overreaction, and then dare harrass people in PMs and publically to try and stop them from pointing out errors in your interpretations and your presentations of this programme?

If you start a thread and provide only partial information on the subject, you neither have the right to force others to agree with your conclusions, nor should you expect everyone else, who happens to have more background information about the subject in question, to just shut up and leave you to represent YOUR version of the subject, regardless of how incomplete your version may be!

If you want a place where you can provide solely YOUR version of things, and write only the bits YOU approve of, with nobody able to interject or correct you, then write it on a website or a similar platform where you're the only one allowed to have a say!  :roll:

What a dreadful programme....  the message was clear...  that autistic people could be very dangerous indeed and without intending any harm might even kill someone.

This is not good.  

Stella

In the end, despite all the shew of social concern (finalizing with a public appeal to NAS &c) this programme made of us a source of emotive, sensational material, a thing with all the false contrasts and conflicts of NT drama - that is to say the form of discussion was inherently false.

Stella

Not quite everyone - I completely agree with your sentiment (including the ITV comment...notusuallymy favourite channel, plus our reception of anything but BBC is less than perfect) and analysis. Although I missed the green room inconcsistency because our reception of ITV is pants and due to it being digital, there were a few "jumps" so some small scenes were skipped. That must have been one of them.

Yes, it is a bit of a shame that the programme brought up possible connections between AS and manslaughter, however in some people, that conneciton is already there (from media reports etc.) and bythe way it portrayed Dan and the wayhe worked, the way things happened, there was no indication that this was aboutmaking him  the cuplrit.

On the contrary, it seemed to do its very best to dispel such myths and to show that much of what may appear violent or rude in Aspies is nothing of the sort, and in fact has a logical explanation and can be avoided by some very simple measures, and consideration for our needs.

We have to remember that the very, very vast majority of people characterised as murder suspects and murderers in TV dramas are NTs. Anyone on here who complains about "how dare they" should take a good look at their reactions to other TV shows, you know, the ones where the murderer (not just person responsible for accidental death) is an NT.

Unless they get raving about "how dare they portray my NT neighbours, relatives or friends as potential murderers" every single time an NT turns out to be the murderer in a TV show, they're nothing but great big hypocrites, really

Back to the programme- Overall, I did feel it was well researched. Yes, they could have explained some things better but we have to remember that this is not a documentary.

Admittedly, as woodpeace pointed out, there was a bit too much of everything thrown in. It might have helped if Dan had not had quite such a "mix" of stereotypical features (the visual aspects I found very nicely done, as this seems to be something that often gets ignored), all mixed together (visual, sound AND touch sensitivity).

Perhaps briefly featuring another character with AS, one who has different features, might have avoided the portrayal as a slightly "lumped together" collection of most (not all, the obsessive interest aspect wasn't really highlighted, which I felt was actually nice as this is very stereotypical of AS) AS- and Autism- typical symptoms and traits.

For a programme where AS is just a "side issue" (as opposed to a permanent theme to a series, like OCD in "Monk"), it was refreshingly spot-on in many things, and not just the cliche stuff like the fire alarm.

I had to chuckle at the first scene with the earphones - how many times has that happened to me! (Why would a DEAF person listen to music, LOL!)

And I just LOVED the way they managed to emulate the effect of sensory overload (when his vision fragments, when he's in the green room). That was spot-on.

The only other time I saw anything on TV that emulates how I feel and experience things when stressed out was in "Mr Monk goes to NY"(or something like that).  

This programme had a delayed bad effect on me. I've felt really upset about it all day. And angry too.

The NAS help-line advertisement at the end may well appear to NTs to give the wretched fiction a credibility which it did not deserve. Having ruthlessly milked our estate for a sensationalist plot, they then shew social concern at the end. How very NT.

Stella

PS I wonder if a complaint to the NAS might have more effect than complaining to ITV. Perhaps both should be done.

The portrayal of a young woman with AS in Holby City was very good, IMHO. She was in labour, but the doctors wrote off her AS traits (obsessive reading up on pregnancy etc.) as "being a nervous young Mum" and when there were complications, they didn't understand why she was so distressed, and she freaked out when they shoved a mask on her face.

While I don't think it is realistic to expect an Ob Gyn surgeon to be able to diagnose AS (as they were kind of implying in the episode, a la "You should have noticed she had AS"), I found it a very balanced portrayal as it emphasised more our different needs, and also it showed that we can get married, have children and appear "normal" (i.e. not only blatantly eccentric people are Aspies).

If you had seen the programme [Holby City episode with the Aspie woman] in question (as far as I am aware, a former member of this forum, who has since passed away, was involved in ensuring the protrayal was accurate) you simply would not be making such claims.

The emphasis lay very squarely on the doctor being too narrow-minded and busy to bother observing the patient properly, and his lack of understanding causing her unnecessary distress and harm.

The doctor in question is a character who has got in trouble before and since for being too preoccupied with his private life, and endangering patients in the process.

I believe he's being written out of the series altogether now as there's only so many cases of professional misconduct they can let him get away with before viewers start losing trust in the NHS as a result of watching the programme - seriously, if I ever have to go to hospital I'll have everyone take a breathalyser test before they come near me

Since Ryuujin mentioned having seen only 3 programmes featuring Aspies, and all were crime programmes, simple logic would lead to the conclusion that the answer to that is "No". (I wouldn't call Holby a 'serious' medical show but it sure isn't a crime show/drama either)

Thanks, I didn't remember the username she wrote under on here