Thought provoking and disturbing. The documentary follows both a racist rapist and an ableist family, but doesn't ever give the microphone to the victim. Did they try? And if they did test the method (ball/hat) with him, its strange they didn't show us. Anna Stubblefield is a horrible person. Even if he hadnt had an ntellectual disability, she's his teacher and careworker. And the evidence of him having a cognitive level that's too young for consent, means this is very likely the case. But I am shocked to find people, on twitter and letteboxd, not picking up on the ableism by everyone else involved in this situation. This entire documentary ends on a note of infatilization. There is a danger shown in this doc, of going so far in theory of liberation that you end up justifying abuse - we've seen this with feminist childrens advocates too, who too easily have argued for the sexual liberation of children (or rather, for adults to have sex with them). Wether that's Foucault or John Holt. And I would also become as angry as Derricks brother, if someone non-disabled were to take advantage of my intellectually, developmentally disabled brother the way Anna does. But it's a shame that this documentary only shows her, and her supporters, as the ones treating Derrick as an actual grown, disabled adult with autonomy. Looking forward to seeing the academic discussions around this movie, especially outside of the US! would be very interesting to contrast with the mainstream response. Something along the lines of this wonderful 2015 discussion about the case: https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/an-epic-shitshow-disability-communication-and-anna-stubblefield/ I also agree with that writer. I believe Derrick was raped. I also believe this documentary is somewhat ableist (in exposing very personal matters about him, diapers, masturbation etc.). How to make a documentary about someone non-verbal and developmentally disabled without being exploitative? Not sure.