The Accountant
This review was originally written as a response to an anonymous ask on my Tumblr about the quality of the film, modified and rewritten slightly to fit its format here
Ultimately, I think The Accountant tells a decent story. I've watched this movie a few times and while I wouldn't list it as A Favorite of mine, I also enjoy watching it when I happen to come across it. A bare bones answer to the question "Did the writers do their research?" - Yes, I think they did. "Is it a good movie?" - I mean, I've watched it more than once, and I'm not someone who will sit through things I don't like. I think it does a decent enough job with its autistic character if you like the genre. The Accountant is a thriller that centers violence, which is why I think a lot of people do not like it, but that's The Story it's telling. If that kind of genre bothers you, you probably wouldn't enjoy this movie. WARNING though, because the film does have scenes with bright flashing lights that may trigger photosensitive viewers.
The main character is autistic, and the movie does not shy away from this but also doesn't necessarily Dwell on it. It's brought up multiple times, but I don't think it's ever especially Emphasized? I would say it's treated like any other character trait. Chris's ability with math may be a savant-like skill, but mileage on this may vary with regards to whether this bothers you (and also if the script itself ever defines it like this? I think the synopsis does, but I can't remember if it's mentioned on screen).
He's blunk and terse in social situations, but not outwardly/exaggeratedly rude or mean to others. While it feels fairly obvious he's discomfited by small talk, he makes an effort to navigate it in an effort to avoid being rude or offensive to others - the tone of this feels more "I want to avoid causing unnecessary conflict/hurt feelings" rather than "I have to Act Normal to get people to like me". Chris is very solitary and seems to like this, although he does have a few people he gets along with well. He has a flat affect and a monotone -- although there are moments when he's more excited/relaxed and has more facial/tone variation. He seems to split pretty evenly on making (or faking) eye-contact and looking in fully other directions in conversations. He also stims most notably with a repetitive phrase he uses to center/calm himself down. The actor portrays these traits in a way I would deem realistic -- it's not exaggerated or caricature-like/offensive, although I'm almost certain the actor himself is not autistic (which may or may not be an issue for you).
I can't tell if Chris's interactions with Dana are meant to be interpreted as somewhat romantic in nature? I think she comes close to kissing him once, but he gets distracted and the moment passes. He seems to Like Her without necessarily being Interested In Her (at least to my interpretation). He does go out of his way to defend her -- apparently out of character for him to some degree -- but I can't tell how much of this is meant to be Romantic Undertones and how much is simply his indignance in the face of perceived Injustice / the fact that they get along. Honestly, I kind of interpret Dana as autistic as well, and kind of view their interactions through that lens, but I can't speak to the story's intent in this. This is worth noting only in as much as I wanted to mention autistic Dana lol -- I don't feel any particular way about relationships, so don't feel particularly compelled to comment on whether the inclusion or exclusion of romantic interests for autistic characters is Good or Bad.
The movie also features a sporadically featured character whose role is more or less to be The Spokesperson About Autism -- the one who makes the most effort to actually Define it in film to the audience. This is the man who runs the institute where Chris almost got an education as a child, who speaks to Chris's parents during that brief visit and makes another brief reappearance at the end. He very explicitly states that Autism is not some Scary Disorder that's Stealing Children (I believe both conversations center parents who speak derisively about having an autistic child and say they'd like to believe there's a Normal Kid inside their autistic one, and he explicitly dismisses this notion/attitude -- "Your son's not less than, he's different"). He also says that attempting to force autistic children to meet NT standards is not going to work -- you have to work with them where they're at and accommodate them there sufficiently, which is true and a very Healthy way to approach raising autistic children. I would consider this the most Easily Noted way the film shows how/what its writers researched -- I would say Largely Positive.
This character does mention learning eye-contact/nonverbal cues when talking about child-Chris's potential education, but I don't know if I consider this an Inherent Flaw, but also acknowledge that's Personal Interpretation. Worth noting that another character in this same scene is proof that they aren't Forcing compliance or NT-standard communication (an aide is attempting to put another autistic child in shoes, and when she refuses by kicking them off and wiggling around in protest, the aide stops and says "Okay, no shoes today" and takes the shoes and leaves), and a similiar conversation at the end of the movie - set in the Present - does not include any mention of learning how to mask, and instead explicitly focuses on the importance of NT people learning how to effectively communicate with / understand autistic people rather than trying to force the inverse.
Chris does at one point define himself as "high-functioning", but I'm not sure whether the movie itself believes in this dichotomy. The guy who runs the institute -- the movie's literal Autism Spokesperson -- does not seem to use or approve of them. Another autistic character in the film is not labeled in this way at any point and is in fact a clear subversion of this kind of dichotomy as well. Chris did not learn about Autism from someone who Actually Knows About autism, he learned about it from his dad who Primarily seemed to focus on teaching Chris how to mask/fight. Is this Good Rep? IDK - it's likely an NT viewer wouldn't pick up on this distinction, so I can't say for sure whether this is a Flaw or not.
The way Chris's sensory issues are handled is pretty sketch, though. His dad did not believe in accommodating Chris in any way -- this is often portrayed by the film plainly as child abuse -- and taught him to deliberately overstimulate himself with bright, flashing lights and loud music while doing DPT with a leg roller in an attempt to desensitize him, because "The real world is not sensory-friendly". I'm not Entirely sure whether the movie wants us to believe this works well or not -- there are two notable scenes where Chris does this, one where he reaches his timer goal and one where he winds up melting down instead, so I'm not certain what exactly the audience takeaway of the concept is meant to be. Ultimately though, I don't think Chris's father is framed by the film as a Good Dad even though Chris loves him and believed him to be one. This might just be interpretation over Intention though -- I have not sought out any BTS info for this movie to determine precisely what the writers intended with Chris's father's character.
There are several scenes that feature Chris as a child having violent/disruptive meltdowns -- there can be mixed feelings about this in autistic audiences. Some people might find these scenes to be voyeuristic / a negative trait that they're uncomfortable with. Chris's mom leaves because she cannot handle his meltdowns and Also because she resents Chris's father for not letting Chris stay at the institute. Chris's father helps him through these meltdowns via repeating a nursery rhyme and hugging him to his chest for the pressure (it Could arguably be read as restraining, but Chris is never Pinned Down to the Ground outside of an arrest scene, so I would consider it more DPT than 'abusive restraint', but opinions on this could vary). Personally, I feel it's inauthentic to try avoiding the issues of meltdowns when it comes to portraying autism in media -- they're a fact of life. My opinion on seeing NT actors portray them, though, tends to vary. I would consider this a personal preference thing again -- what are you willing to view/tolerate? Chris's meltdowns are, I believe, framed as wholly separate for his skill in violent acts such as shooting guns or close quarters combat, though -- they aren't conflated or linked. Chris's violence is, I think, wholly attributed to the way his father raised him, nto something tied to his being autistic; Chris has an NT brother who shares the same use/level of violence.
Chris is a morally grey character though -- he does good things, he does bad things, and the movie does not shy away from either, and some people take issue with this. (BTW; I feel the phrase "take issue with" can sometimes be interpreted as somewhat passive aggressive, so I'll clarify here that I do not at all mean to deride these opinions or mock people who hold it, I'm simply using it to point out where I have seen critique aimed). Ultimately, this character is a feature of the Story and its Genre, not in its attempt to Represent Autism -- I think I've seen people critique this movie by saying things like "it's acting like he's a killer because he's autistic, as if all low-empathy people are killers, and that's Bad Representation because NT people will see it and think that's what defines autism", but this rings false to me on a variety of levels.
For one, Chris is not shown to have particularly low empathy. Even if he was low-empathy, Chris is shown to care deeply about a variety of other characters (these ARE two different traits, btw; 'empathy' and 'caring about other people' are not intrinsically linked) -- so there's no basis to the claim that his Autism is what singles him out from other people as a reason he does or does not kill. Again, Chris's ability/willingness to fight is framed almost entirely as a result of the way his father raised him, not as having anything to do with him being autistic.
It's also, as I said, the GENRE.
One major reason I don't like categorizing things by "Good" or "Bad" Representation is because "Representation" does not necessarily align with Telling A Story. If, in order to be Good Representation, a character Must be Morally Good, then this severely limits the amount of stories one can tell, which I would find dissatisfactory as someone who enjoys tragedies/horrors/complicated stories involving complicated/morally-gray characters. It also makes it borderline impossible to create Realistic characters -- no one person is always Morally Good, no matter their intentions, and every living being has Flaws. This is what I mean when I say Good/Bad Representation is largely a conversation of Preferences and not any kind of immutable fact -- I like it when I can see characters I relate to in the kinds of stories I like to watch. Other people might try to claim that trying to include autistic characters in these stories at all is inherently Bad Representation because they're stories about "Bad People". Preference all the way down.
(NOT TO MENTION that the notion of what Traits make up 'good rep' and which are 'bad rep' is completely subjective, which I've talked about before. If someone says the film is Bad Rep because Chris is "too blunt/un-emotive and that's a Stereotype", I'm fundamentally going to disagree because I am a person who is blunt and has a flat-affect, and so I would consider the inclusion of those traits (provided they aren't being actively Mocked by the material) good representation. It's always going to be a subjective conversation to some degree, there are no universally objective ways to rank/discuss this topic.)
Ultimately, I don't know how to end this because I kind of did my TL;DR in the first paragraph lol. I wouldn't call The Accountant revolutionary representation and probably wouldn't ever say "oh THIS is the film you want to watch in order to understand autism", becuase it's not really a film About autism. It's about a guy who works as an accountant for regular people AND for criminals and who is extremely good at using weaponry/CQC to defend himself / seek revenge when he wants it. This guy also happens to be autistic. That's about the long and the short of it, I think lol