Content warning: contains commentary to depictions of disability that some people may find offensive (duh)
6.00 p.m.: And thank you to everyone follow me except the Sia superfan on Twitter who’s been stalking me, straw-manned me at least twice, and paid no regard to the fact I might know something about this subject.
So, here’s the low-down of what I’ve learned:
- Sia’s film isn’t quite as bad as I was only expecting, but only because my expectations were rock bottom after her fucking awful trailer.
- The obvious problem which everybody is rightly calling out is the excessive amount of “cripping up” done to depict a character. I don’t agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to produced something that some people find offensive (if you did no-one could produce anything), but it is good practice to avoid causing offence if it’s not necessary. Sia failed miserably there.
- The less obvious problem is that the character of Music is relentlessly portrayed as incapable of everything and anything. And yes, there are some people whose conditions are that bad. But Sia said the point of the film was to show autism is a gift. What gift? She might have intended to depict that, but I didn’t pick that up and I don’t see how anyone else could.
- The other thing that might have saved the film was getting to know Music beyond the disability. But that didn’t happen. The character was barely developed in the second half of the film at all, and that was the biggest missed opportunity to redeem the film.
- One thing that counts in the film’s favour is Kate Hudson’s portrayal as Zu. If you cut Music out of the film completely – and let’s face it, that depiction isn’t going to be missed by anyone – we could probably have had an okay film about an ex-alcoholic struggling with rehabilitation.
- To be honest, however, I think the root problem is that Sia is completely out of her depth. You really need to know what you’re doing to pull off something this outlandish, and this is more like a Tom Hooper take on Cats than a David Lynch take on a detective series. Sia may well have intended to put positive features of Music’s character into the script, but that just doesn’t come across at all.
- The worst problem, however, are the people rallying around her. The film comes uncomfortably close to saying all autistic people are incapable of anything and they’re a burden on society and all carers are martyrs – but the more her fans double down on defending the film, the closer they get to the ideology of Autism Speaks, even though they say they have nothing to do with it. I’m pretty easy going, but for once, this worries me.
So I’m signing off. Thank again for joining me on this marathon. Let me know if you want to buy the film. I paid £8. I’ll burn it on to DVD. And then snap it in half.
5.00 p.m.: So, I’m going to finish a curveball now and draw a parallel with Paul Verhoeven’s notoriously bad film Showgirls. Paul Verhoeven said that this film was a commentary on the exploitation of women in the showbiz industry. And everybody said “yeah, right” (it didn’t help that was historically the same excuse used by every porno to get past the censors), and it was unsurprisingly massacred by the critics. But there is one notable thing about the aftermath: Verhoeven maintains the purpose of the film was to depict the exploitation to show what was wrong with it, but – crucially – he threw his hands up and admitted he got it wrong. It may not have been his intention to be regarded as a porn flick, but it was, and it was his fault it came to that. And people respected him for taking responsibility
I think Sia would do well to do the same here. For all her flaws and inability to take criticism, I do believe her intentions were honourable. It’s probably too late to redeem herself now – she does not have a back catalogue of film successes to fall back on, and I think she’s already dug herself into too deep a hole to climb out of. But the best chance I think she has would be to say “I wanted to give the message the autism is a gift, but that was not the way it came across. I take responsibility for that, I will learn from these mistakes, and do better next time.” Sia’s film career is probably doomed no matter what – she’s proved herself to be a liability to anyone working with her – but this might just be enough to be allowed another chance.
4.00 p.m.: So, are there any bits of Music that could have been made into a decent film? I suppose the one thing that the film got right early on is Music’s comfort in routines and her obsessions with certain subjects (in this case dogs) at the exclusion of everything else. Her grandmother understands these routines and things work out. Then she dies and no-one else knows how to do this. I could work this that. Then we could have Zu thrown in as replacement carer (probably with a better explanation for her wanting out but being forced in) and learns to love it. And then Music’s skills with music turn out to be brilliant. This is exactly the copy-paste of the plot of Rain Man I was railing against yesterday, but it would have been an improvement. Although it would have looked like a massive vanity trip if the definition of brilliant music is what Sia writes.
Sorry, that’s the best I can salvage out of this. For a story that conveys the theme of an extraordinary gift for music at the expense of seeing life the same as everyone else, watch the vastly superior Haunting Julia.
3.30 p.m.: Now, observant followers will have noticed that I’ve not really said anything critical about the Sia-haters lately, so it’s time to put this right. The big rallying cry behind the outrage behind the outrage was casting a non-autistic actor as an autistic character, rather fitting into the current trend that only X actors should X characters. I was hinting this way before, but having now seen the film, I think that this focus in not only naive, it is also dangerous.
I currently have a Sia Superfan stalking my Twitter timeline who noted I said Kate Hudson played her role well and pointed out she’s not a recovering alcoholic but Zu is, as if this completely demolishes the argument I never made. But it is true that neither Hudson nor Ziegler have the characteristic than defines their character. So what’s the difference? Well, I’d have thought that was obvious. The character of Zu was written relatively well (or at least was after Hudson rescued it), and stretched way beyond her status of alcoholic. The character of Music, on the other hand, was written badly, and had no development beyond being autistic. And I don’t see how Ziegler could have rescued the part.
So, if Ziegler couldn’t save it, what makes you think an actor with autism could? Sia has already employed thirteen neuroatypical people and that didn’t stop her – either she ignored them or she found a load of yes-men. it would have been very easy to find an actor with autism to go along with whatever god-awful depiction she was set on doing. Tokenism is currently the universal get-out clause in the arts, and so far the arts world has not wised up to this. It should do.
However, whilst my opinion on casting an autistic actor is entirely meh, Sia’s reason for not casting one is a terrible reason. The fact that the promotional material for Music calls Ziegler a Sia protege (and one that rose to fame through her music videos) sounds like this is what she wanted all along. Irrespective, Sia’s reasoning is that she tried casting one autistic actor, whose condition was pronounced enough to not be able to cope with bright lights – and then gave up. I can categorically assure you there are plenty of people on the spectrum who can act and can managed bright lights, such as myself. Sia’s reasoning comes across as “I told you so” and verges dangerously into the territory than anyone anywhere on the autistic spectrum is useless at everything – something I have strong opinions on having been on the receiving end. Maybe Sia can explain herself further, but the reason as it stands is not good enough by a long way.
10.45 a.m.: Question 4: Is the film as fucking awful as the trailer suggests?
Okay, this wasn’t quite as bad I expected. The combination of the god-awful trailer and Sia’s online temper tantrums set my expectations at rock-bottom, but in the end a good performance from Kate Hudson saved the film from no redeeming features at all. To be honest, the strongest bits of the film were the bits without Music in. In fact, if I’d been asked how to turn this around, I might have said cut Music from the film completely. She adds nothing to the film and the adds nothing to the conversation on autism. Focus instead of a recovering alcoholic trying to learn to do the right thing. Sia’s music can be the experimental element that makes it different. Oh well, too late now.
But I stand by what I said last night: Sia is not a good writer and she is out of her depth. You really have to know what you’re doing to take a gamble this outlandish, and the massive public and critical backlash suggests otherwise. Sia even struggles with the basics: implausible plot points are left unresolved and (apart from Hudson’s work saving Zu) the characterisation is poor, or in Music’s case, non-existent. She might have been able to make a name for herself in film adding a soundtrack to a different film. It’s too late now.
10.15 a.m.: Question 3: Do I now think this is harmful (very high bar)?
I’m stopping short of harmful, but I am calling it concerning.
There is an age-old saying of “See the person, not the disability”, and it’s a good one. That is not the case here. Whilst Zu and Edo have back-stories developed in depth, Music’s has nothing developed about her character beyond her disability. She is portrayed throughout the film as a burden to her carers, with no redeeming features. The promised message that autism is a gift never arrives. The moment of redemption where Zu finds she loves Music rings hollow without any development of this relationship.
One small but irritating detail to me personally is her depiction of everybody Music meets being kind and supportive, as if everyone who interacts with a mental deserves a medal. Take it from me, that is most definitely not the case. Far from having infinite patience at times when a normal human being would lose their temper, in the real world people harbour and act on stupid prejudices over the most trivial matters.
I previously said this film, for all its faults, will be harmless on the ground it will die on its arse within a week of release. Well, it is indeed dying on its arse, but now I’m not so sure about it being harmless. Sia may have distanced herself from Autism Speaks, but she’s uncomfortably close to their ideology: they also portray autistic people as a burden, are uncomfortably tolerant of techniques such as restraint, and think they know better than the thousands of autistic people saying otherwise. And, worryingly, there’s a set of people who are rallying around this film as an endorsement of this mindset. It’s not clear how many of these people already believed this and how many of these people are Sia fans doubling down with her, but it’s too many for comfort.
Most worryingly, someone high up in one autism charity (lost the quote, not sure who) seems to think this is okay, to the delight of the Sia superfans who promoted this and ignored everyone who said the opposite. This is a box-office disaster where the majority of people will neither watch the film nor take in the message, but that won’t necessarily stop a minority making things worse for some people.
09.45 a.m.: Question 2: Did I personally find this offensive (high bar)?
To be honest, no.
Before, I was too busy recoiling from the garish trailer. Now, I’m just busy feeling baffled over what the film was supposed to achieve.
I said opinions are going to range from outraged to unimpressed. Put me in the unimpressed list.
09.15 a.m.: Question 1: Should Sia have reasonably known this would offend people?
I’ve long maintained that artists should be allowed to offend if it’s necessary to the art, but it is a good idea to avoid needless offence. There was absolutely no need for the excessive emphasis on cripping up, and the story could have worked without. It might have been justified by the context if this was meant to create an immediate impression that was subverted later. Music might has been discovered to have some incredible talent. Zu might have got to know Music as something more than the disability. Neither of those things happened.
So based on the best knowledge I have of the subject and my absence of any ideological leaning, I think I can safely say most people on the autistic spectrum are going to have a problem with this, with opinions ranging from unimpressed to outraged. Sia said she worked with thirteen neurotypical people, and one must wonder how none of them managed to point out this was a bad idea. The answer, I suspect, is that she didn’t listen. Either that or she’s good at picking yes-men.
8.45 a.m.: Back.
Well, Sia was right about one thing. You do need to see the film before making a judgement. I’d assumed this was going to be a lazy copy-paste of Rain Man (with added tactlessnes and garishness). Instead it’s- … well, I don’t know.
Ah well, let’s stick to the task and go back to my four questions from 4.45 p.m. yesterday.
12.15 a.m.: Finally. I suppose I should get my thoughts together and give some overall impressions. But not now. I can’t take any more. It’s past midnight and I want to go to bed. Goodnight.
1h 46m 37s: Not out of the woods yet. There’s an Easter Egg in the End Credits. Apparently that Dougal from Magic Roundabout I saw earlier is called “The encourager”. Fuck knows what that’s supposed to mean.
1h 40m 50s: Oh Jesus, now they’ve wheeled out happy-clappy kids dancing against a rainbow background. Sia did this specifically to annoy me. There’s no other explanation.
1h 39m 40s: And Music gets a dog. Cue another bizarre dance. Cue end credits. Thanks God that’s-
Oh fuck, there’s eight minutes to go. Do I have to sit through eight minutes of this?
1h 39m 00s: And now Kate Hudson can make fried eggs in a smiley face, like Gran did at the beginning. Wotevs.
1h 38m 30s: Oh, this is the moment of redemption. Edo plays the song that Zu sings and Music joins in singing. Good-oh.
1h 36m 30s: So this is the moment of redemption. Zu was going to leave Music in care but has changed her mind. Which might have worked as an ended had Zu and Music’s relationship been developed over the latter half of the film. But Music’s character hasn’t been fleshed out at all.
As for how Sia believes autism is a gift, I still have no idea beyond Edo’s line “She sees things differently”.
1h 17m 25s: All right, this is something I wasn’t expecting but … Music has barely featured in the last half hour. The story has mostly centred around Zu engaging in small-time drug dealing and hoping Music doesn’t get in the way.
I will give credit where it is due: Kate Hudson’s performance has been consistently good, and she has managed to flesh out a believable character in a film whose main plot points are lacking in believability. But I’m struggling to see what Music’s role is in this film any more. Sia says the message she wants to give is that autism is a gift. So far, it has only been presented as a burden. 30 minutes left for Music’s moment of redemption, casino-themed or otherwise.
1h 00m 22s: I’m calling it. The fundamental problem here is that Sia is completely out of her depth.
To cut between a gritty inner-city neighbourhood and this outlandish multi-coloured expressive dance pop videos you are really producing something as out-there as Twin Peaks or Cats. But Twin Peaks was great success and Cats was a laughing stock (or at least the film version was). To pull something like this off, not only do you really need to know what you’re doing as a writer and director and you need to be an expert on predicting what wild gamble is going to work with the public. David Lynch succeeded, Tom Hooper failed. And whilst there are threads of this film that may yet amount to something, Sia is no David Lynch.
The difference is that whilst Cats backfired and became a laughing stock, Music backfired and became a laughing stock and alienated a lot of people in the process. I guess what we’re down to now is whether this film could have worked, or whether the whole concept is unworkable. 47 minutes to salvage something.
0h 51m 48s: Another dance sequence, this time in a purple play-doh house. Or something. I’m not even asking any more.
0h 45m 13s: Actually, scratch what I said about the last scene being controversial. I’ve seen that scene.
Although I’ve been trying to avoid reviews, it’s been pretty much impossible to avoid the furore over a scene where Music is retrained during a meltdown. Cue outrage from a lot of actual autistic people who said they could have been suffocated from doing this.
It’s not clear exactly what Sia is trying to depict here. The most charitable interpretation I can give is that Edo is someone Music trusts and this is something that calms her. But that’s still too similar to the old-style straight-jacket restraint that people used to think was a good idea and – it would seem – some people still do.
Were it not for the fact this film is dying on its arse, that could have been taken as the message that any kind of restraint is okay. Sia says she used research and advice every step of the way – in that case we must question who the fuck thought this scene was a good idea?
0h 43m 37s: Ah, now we’re on to the scene featured in the trailer which caused a bit of aggro. Edo is explaining all of Music’s character traits – something that was criticised as the disabled character not having her own voice. That’s not completely fair – Music is a nonspeaking autistic person, so her explaining how she is isn’t an option.
However, the rule that is not being followed here is “Show, don’t tell”. In Rain Man, Charlie learnt all of Raymond’s traits the hard way. I’ve not yet seen anything about Music that could have told us what Edo said. To be fair, I don’t see how Sia could have done this – this is far more abstract than Rain Man is. But I suspect she’s embarked on something unworkable – at least, unworkable for her.
Still 0h 40m 38s: Have I understood this correctly? Zu is filling a paddling pool for the stock new-carer-has-first-bit-of-fun-with-the-disabled scene, and suddenly they’ll all dancing in a pink foam cube bit dressed as Teletubbies whilst some giant cow udders prance around.
Fuck me, I’m not drunk enough for this.
0h 40m 38s: What the fuck is this?
0h 33m 54s: Also struggling with Zu’s motivation here. The equivalent character in Rain Man is Charlie Babbit, and in the story the motivation is clear: he’s associating with his autistic brother Raymond because if he doesn’t get on his good side very soon his car business goes down the pan.
Best I can manage with Zu is that she wants to use her gran’s flat to crash out for a month whilst she does drug dealing, and is indifferent to her autistic half-sister living there. But it’s a weak explanation. Still one hour thirteen minutes to explain it better, but there’s quite a lot of unanswered questions piling up.
0h 24m 21s: Okay, I think I’m pinning down one of the problems here: From what I’ve seen so far, Sia is not that good a writer. We’ve just has the bit where Kate/Zu is out of her depth because she can’t match Music’s routines, and now Leslie/Ebo has come along and got things under control. If he knows how to handle this, why didn’t he come along last night to check Zu was coping?
0h 19m 09s: No, it’s not finished. Now Music is dancing with someone dressed as Dougal from the Magic Roundabout whilst dancing through a candyfloss tunnel. Seriously, what the fuck?
0h 18m 08s: And we’ve just had another of those bizarre music sequences, except this time it’s not in Laser Quest but a giant montage of dog books.
0h 17m 01s: And, of course, Gran has ignored all of the caring neighbours who would make sure Music was look after and entrusted her to her other alcoholic druggie thieving granddaughter. Which, like, totally makes sense.
0h 15m 24s: Getting confused now. So Kate Hudson meets her landlord who she previously tried to nick a telly off five months ago whilst drunk and high – and he has absolutely no problem leaving her with her vulnerable half-sister?
0h 12m 30s: Cut to shaven head Kate Hudson who’s dozed off at her alcoholics anonymous session. Gets a call her gran’s died. Want a key-fob but has to earn it.
0h 10m 44s: Right, the carer was her
mother grandmother and she’s dropped dead, and far some reason Leslie Odom Jr saluted her body as it was wheeled out, and we cut to Music now in a pink Laser Quest doing an expressive dance. Whatever, let’s see if there’s an explanation for any of this.
0h 08m 51s: Is it just me, or does the entire neighbourhood consist of kindly individuals who affectionately regard their obviously autistic resident as a dear close friend?
Oh boy, where do I begin with that?
0h 07m 58s: Okay, I’ve been try to reserve judgement on this until later, but nearly eight minutes in my patience is running out. The cripping up is getting excessive now.
Obvious physical gestures such as repetitive limb movement and involuntary sound can be a sign of autism, but but there are plenty of autistic people who don’t do that. My problem is that this seems to be the default choice whenever an autistic character is depicted on stage or screen. If there’s a good reason why that is needed in the story, go ahead. If you cast an autistic actor who is like that normally, fair enough. But the rest of the time it comes across as showing off your acting ability by playing a mental.
That was my only criticism of the stage version of Rain Man which I otherwise enjoyed. Is thre a good reason to do this here? Let’s carry on and see.
0h 06m 03s: Guy on market stall hands her ten pictures of dogs he’s saved from magazines. Okay, Sia seems to be going heavily for the routine theme here.
0h 5m 33s: Music meets Leslie Odom Jr on the way out. I presume he’s a neighbour in the same block of flats.
0h 4m 56s: Now carer gives some interesting factoids to Music, such as cats not meowing to each other. All right, let’s a do a fact check, might be doing a lot of this.
Hmm, first two pages I found contradict each other. No wait, carer says “maybe I made that one up”. Okay, whatever. Move on.
0h 4m 17s: Oh wait, my bad. It’s the carer who does the smiley face.
All right. That could conceivably be a routine Music is used to. I’m letting this one go for now.
0h 4m 11s: Oh, this is the bit where Music draws the smiley face on the plate with two fried eggs.
Whatever. Let’s move on and see if there is a point to this.
0h 03m 23s: Now Maddie/Music wakes up in bed. More cripping up as she puts on her headphones.
0h 03m 17s: All right, what the fuck did I just watch? Was that bizarre dance sequence in a yellow Laser Quest maze supposed to be crip-dancing, or is this what what’s supposed to be cool hip dancing Sia-style now?
0h 02m 02s: Okay, so in this fantasy world of Music’s music, she has all of these stock autistic gestures in her dance.
Good going. Considering how many people object to non-disabled actors “cripping up”, that’s really pushing your luck, and it’s only the third minute.
Maybe there’s a context that justifies it later. Otherwise, I’d say off-hand that’s a surprisingly offensive opening.
0h 01m 08s: And suddenly we cut to Maddie/Music in a yellow outfit, which I think is supposed to be Sia’s signature style but looks a little more how people dressed in the future according to bad 1980s sci-fi shows.
0h 01m 00s: And we start with unnecessary shot of Maddie Ziegler changing.
0h 00m 42s: Okay, forty-two seconds of unnecessary studio title cards. That’s about average. Carry on.
(Yes, I’m a Cinema Sins fan.)
6.00 p.m.: Okay, here we go.
5.55 p.m.: And one thing to bear in mind before we start:
All in a Row had quite a similar controversy two years ago over the use of a puppet for an autistic child. When the play was finally shown, the consensus was that the subject material itself was fine; it was just the puppet that was an unwise decision.
There again, the critic consensus on this is that it’s worse than Cats. It will have to be a big upset to turn me around.
5.45 p.m.: Right, I will be considering four things whilst watching this. Offence is subjective and no-one gets to judge offence on behalf of other people, but I will assess following criteria:
- Should Sia have reasonably known this would offend people?
- Do I personally find this offensive (high bar)?
- Do I think this is harmful (very high bar)?
- Is this film as fucking awful as the trailer suggests (very low bar)?
5.30 p.m.: Back. Now look what you made me do.
5.00 p.m.: But first, please excuse me whilst I nip to the off-license.
There’s no way I’m watching this sober.
4.30 p.m.: Okay, here we go. Eight pounds, you bastards. Two of you buy me a drink and we’ll call it quits. (If pubs ever re-open, that is.)
An extra two pounds for HD? Are you taking the piss? I’m only doing this out of self-hatred, you want me to spend extra to be annoyed in HD?
Fuck that. SD. And now the government wants a cut of £1.33 for this self-torture.
Wait, Google is taking a long time to process this. Maybe someone is desperately to protect me from this act of self-harm.
Nope. Not escaping that easily.
I don’t have a family to share my purchases with, but if I did I would never stoop to that level of cruelty.
4.00 p.m: So, why I am doing this?
Sia has done a lot of things wrong, but there’s one count where she’s no worse than the leaders of the outrage brigade. Sia is guilty of barging in, acting like she’s doing us a favour, and getting angry when we don’t agree it’s a favour. But the ringleaders of hashtag hordes aren’t much better – they barge in think they’re doing us a favour without any interest in what we actually thing. It’s just that they don’t make it so obvious. It’s only when there’s nothing to express performative outrage over that they give themselves away, when they show complete disinterest in the subject.
True, the reactions I’ve seen from people who actually are autistic have been overwhelmingly negative, and a couple of years ago I would have taken that as read. But I have observed that self-professed champions of all minorities are experts at using the voices of minorities to validate their own. They disregard that we are not a monolith, cherry-pick the voices that suit them, and ignore the ones that don’t. Even when the majority of people they claim to speak for don’t agree with them, they are experts at platforming the minority and sidelining the majority. They can make it look that most people in a minority are offended when they’re not, or, worse, most people in a minority are not offended when they are. In extreme cases, they get quite nasty in the ways they tell off-message minorities to shut up.
As such, I’m no longer prepared to trust “this film is offensive to autistic people” from someone I don’t know. I’m not seriously expecting to be surprised – but if you are waiting to see if I give you the verdict you want before you tell other people about it, you are part of the problem.
3.30 p.m.: In the interests of fairness, I have refrained from reading anyone else’s reviews. as with play reviews, it is only fair that I do what I can to come in with an open mind. The only preconception I have is on the trailer, and that’s not a good one. But that’s on her.
What I have read up on is the wider context of the controversy. There are some criticisms where I shall reserve judgement before seeing the film. But I can reiterate the following criticisms without prejudicing the outcome:
- Most obviously: she is hopeless at taking criticism. You don’t have to agree with criticism but you shouldn’t insult the people making the criticisms – certainly not on a subject this sensitive.
- She partnered with Autism Speaks to publicised the film. That organisation is notorious for portraying autism as a burden to carers are nothing else. Sia says she didn’t know and cut links as soon as this was pointed out, but the fact she didn’t realise there was anything wrong with this doesn’t instil much confidence in the rest of her research.
- Her fanbase is absolutely toxic and their comments to Sia’s critics are just vile. I have seen no evidence that Sia’s made any attempt to stop this.
There is also the issue of casting a non-autistic character as “Music”, and I do have some thoughts on that, but I can comment on this better once I see the film.
3.00 p.m.: But first, I’d better give myself a refresher with the trailer. The first time round I managed to watch the garish thing twice before I couldn’t take it any longer. Let’s see what happens when I watch it a third time.
Okay, that was about as horrific as I remember. I think it’s the tweeness more than anything. Still, think of it as introducing yourself to small amounts of arsenic to build up resistance to larger amounts. That works, doesn’t it?
2.30 p.m.: “But who is Sia and what is this film anyway?” you might ask if you’ve somehow managed to miss this issue.
So, apparently Sia is a pop star who decided to produce her own film about autism. Nothing much was heard about this until the trailer was released, which was – to use an understatement – a little bit tactless. Cue outrage – so it appears – from everyone on the autistic spectrum. And this issue might have gone away had Sia not responded to criticisms with ill-advised remarks such as “Grrrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don’t you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.”
Well, that’s exactly what I’m going to do. Happy?
2.00 p.m.: Good afternoon and welcome to all you early joiners. For anyone who’s stumbled across for, from 6 p.m. this evening I am going to watch the notorious film Music and give my reaction to it as I’m watching it. There is a good reason why I’m doing this, but I will explain why in due course.
If you can’t wait to find out why I’m doing this, you can read my reaction when this originally came out. You needn’t re-read this now, I will be mention the relevant bits in due course. Just be aware that I’m not just singling out Sia for criticism.
Oh yeah, and content warning: this coverage will contain references to depictions of disability that some people find offensive (duh).