“The Tallest Dwarf” screens at SXSW 2025′ (Photo by Gabriella Garcia-Pardo).
“The Tallest Dwarf” was a 92 minute documentary helmed by Julie Forrest Wyman, who directed and produced. Debra Schaffner wrote and edited the film, and many Little People populate the scenes as Julie and other members of the group bond and talk about their feelings towards being far shorter than average. The Octopus Project provided the original score.
Julie has a burning desire to find out if she may be a dwarf, but, as we learn, there are many different types of dwarfs. It will take genetic testing to really confirm if she has Achondroplasia or some other form of what I hesitate to call a disease, because the Little People in this movie do not view their condition as “a disease.” As Julie says, “It’s really hard to feel like your body is wrong.”
Julie talks at length with her father, Forrest Paul Wyman and her mother, Genevieve MaGuffin, about her desire to find out if she is really and truly a dwarf. There is no history of dwarfism in the: family that anyone can point to, but 80% of dwarfs are born to average-sized parents. The dramatic tension (if any) throughout the film is contingent upon Julie waiting to receive the results of the genetic testing she decides to undergo. She does have a FGFR3 mutation, as it turns out.
There’s really not much tension in this “reveal.” After all, the title of the piece is “The Tallest Dwarf.” It is highly unlikely that the Director, in today’s society, would be using that term if it were not supported by science. Otherwise, as with another SXSW short film, “The Beguiling,” about white people pretending to be Indians, she’d face intense criticism for pretending to be something she’s not. Julie can “pass” in society, as she is a tall dwarf but testing reveals the presence of the gene that causes dwarfism.
PERSONAL STORIES
Julie shares old home movies of herself growing up. She is tall, by dwarfism standards, and only her arms and legs appear short. She has kept a journal throughout her adolescence and, at age 12, while praising her thick hair and her hands, she knows she is “different” and wants longer legs and also hopes to lose weight. She finds herself always “struggling to accept the body I have.” She (repeatedly) vows to go from 140 pounds to 120 pounds.
That constant struggle to make her body conform to what the world considers “normal” and is something that most of us can relate to, whether we are short, tall or of average height. The trans debate in society today would be another example of people of all genders struggling with acceptance. The sexual orientation dilemma that many face seems a part of everyday life that we have seen play out forever in films. Weight is another area that is germane. The idea of being accepted in society is universal.
Mark, of the Little People of America.
As a good-looking Little Person named Mark says, “I do not suffer from dwarfism. I suffer from the mistreatment imposed on me by my dwarfism.” Little People express their feeling that this mistreatment is the biggest threat to their happiness. Mark is, in fact, an actor, and says that he chose acting as a career “to control how people thought of me.” He seems resigned, but frustrated, by the fact that almost any movie he has ever had a role in denied him a close-up. He was generally shot wide to reveal his stature. But, says Mark, “When you’re doing a Dr. Pepper commercial and you are dressed as an elf and you only have one line, it really doesn’t matter.”
It is now fairly apparent that repression of many sorts is becoming the rule of the day in the United States in 2025. Any form of compassion towards anyone who is “different” is in short supply in the United States in 2025. What happened to the Golden Rule and the religious notion of loving one another? It is down for the count. All of the documentaries about those on the fringes of society made me wonder: Whatever happened to the Golden Rule and respecting and caring for one’s fellow man? [Removed from original review.]
DWARFISM FACTS
How short do you have to be to be considered a dwarf/Little Person? Answer: 4’ 10”
We see Julie and her father measuring from their chin to the top of their heads and from their ribs to their middle fingers. That is a tenth of the entire body and, yes, they are both “off” about 10%.
What is the term for those whose body parts are proportionate? Answer: Pituitary dwarfs. This particular form of dwarfism scientists found a way to fix (if that is the right term). Dr .Herbert Evans and Dr. Eberly Sheridan in 1935 and Dr. Theodore T. Zuck in 1933 spoke of pituitary dwarfs as “specimens that needed to be fixed.” And they were able to do so, via scientific advances. Julie refers to this discovery as “the canary in the coal mine.” [ ITALICIZED DATA REMOVED BY REQUEST. Difficult to find the citations to justify changing the name Dr. Eberly Sheridan (from the film) to Dr. Shelton, as instructed. Still searching to find the origin of these somewhat unusual names used in the piece as viewed, which may or may not be “wrong”].
MORAL DILEMMAS
Julie Forrest Wyman, Director of “The Tallest Dwarf” screening at SXSW 2025. (Photo by Luz Galliardo).
While almost all of the members of the Little People of America group feel that they are “a marginalized community”, they seem to agree that science providing a relief from spinal stenosis and bowed legs is a good thing. Mention is made of the research in the 70s at the University California in San Francisco into growth hormones, using cadaver pituitary glands. The FDA fast-tracked synthetic growth hormones and Genentech, between 1989 and 1994, began a dwarf measuring program in conjunction with this research. [*On July 29, 1994, Dr. Wimu and Dr. John Wasmuth at the University of California in Irvine discovered the gene for dwarfism. DATA REMOVED BY REQUEST.]
This brought on a heavy-duty moral discussion, including, “What should we test for and who(m) should we test?’
Eighty percent of dwarfs are born to normal-sized parents (changed to average-sized by request). Those parents are seen wrestling with the difficult question of what to do about their child’s lack of height.
Some patients underwent as many as 14 operations, like the 3’ 10” Chan, who chose to undergo the repetitive surgeries to lengthen her legs. This choice is left up to the individuals and the families to wrestle with. Some seem to want to remain the way they were born. Some would do anything to be taller because—let’s face it—there are a lot of things that are more difficult when you are very short, such as driving a car.
There is a heated debate about accepting money from pharmaceutical companies, which some of the members of the Little People of America obviously consider an organization that wants to exterminate them.
CONCLUSION
This one contained a lot of food for thought, and a lot of information on a subject about which I knew very little, going in.
Good luck to the Little People of America and to all the rest of us in America in 2025.
******
WHAT I SHOULD HAVE LEARNED AFTER 55 YEARS OF REVIEWING:
I’ve been reviewing since the 70s. (as I explained to the Public Relations representative who hounded relentlessly for over 3 weeks). I sent a lengthy response to her first e-mail and asked what was “wrong” that she objected to in the review (seen above). There was one typo, I was told, a surname, which we fixed. There were numerous word changes that she objected to, including the use of the term “dwarf” despite the fact that the director entitled the piece “The Tallest Dwarf.”
It was just never going to “please” this person, who completely ignored the contents of my lengthy response, explaining how a young girl sitting behind me at the showing of “On Swift Horses” learned of the documentary from me and immediately began reading the review with an intention to attend, if possible. The general chaos that any film festival represents: pretty much ignored and dismissed. And, yes, I gave her enough details for more than the cursory “When are you going to change this?” barrage that continued unabated.
Here is a partial list of the “changes Anne requested:
- Updating to current language embraced & used by the community, For example:
- changing dwarf to little person
- changing dwarfs to dwarfism
- deleting THEIR CONDITION
- Dwarf is a term that is reclaimed by many little people – but also that is seen as problematic by others. In this case Julie (the director) is reclaiming this term in her title
- replace normal-sized with Average Height
- Correcting spelling. For example:
- it is Dr. Shelton not Dr. Sheridan (*from the doc; unable to be determined as “wrong”, so far).
- Clarifying attribution. For example:
- removing a quote from Julie tied to a medical diagnosis in the review but NOT linked to a medical diagnosis in the film
- Julie’s mother is linked to an IMDB page linking the filmmaker
- Mark is not a spokesperson for Little People of America
- removed a quote attributed to Dr. Zuck when it was Julie’s quote
- remove quote on growth hormones attributed to LPA who does not comment on growth hormones in the film – OR clarify who mentions it
- Remove reference to Dr. Wimo who is not mentioned in the film
- Clarifying facts. For example:
- changing THE to MOST
- removing statement that there was no dwarfism in Julie’s family but Julie clearly inherited her dwarfism from her father
- removing Hypoplasia as that is the incorrect medical term
- Changing the statement that Mark has always been denied a close up vs. that it is “less common” for him to get a close up)
SXSW Alamo Drafthouse Theater on Lamar.
First, it was “change this to that.” That was done. One typo was fixed; [trying to find the support for that change has proven difficult; believe the name came from the film itself]. The names of the 1933 and 1935 doctors were so unusual and unique that one would expect them to be able to be found in the literature, but, so far, no. Therefore, whether there IS no Dr. Eberly Sheridan (etc.) is something that, like many claims, has yet to be supported by fact. Since it came from careful watching of the film’s screener, it seems unwise to meekly accept the “change” as an error, but, in an attempt to please Anne we did. Searching for support regarding these surnames has proven difficult,—and is it really important, since the entire italicized portion was subsequently removed? The review on a bigger blog was very “stripped down,” so it did not appear there, anyway.
The review was a fair, objective reporting of the issues faced by the Little People of America; in no way would it be considered a “bad” review. It was sensitive to the predicament that Little People face and sympathetic to their plight.
No mention of the “draggy parts” of the documentary was made, although there was cause for making such a negative point. Some editing to make it shorter would have improved the documentary, but that is very often the case. So, there was no mention of that in the original review(s). The review was far “meatier” than others, because research had been done to add to the audience’s understanding. Objections were made to giving this dwarfism background, which seemed, then and now, odd.
No mention was made of the frequent shots taken from an angle that was very unflattering to the director and the others (see picture at the top of the page). None of us would look great if shot from behind, but the shots were frequent. But, as it was a Little People project with many contributing to the filming, the focus was on the issues, not the cinematography. Those issues were presented in a fair and unslanted fashion, usually using direct quotes from the dialogue. If anything, the review was very sympathetic to Little People.
NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED
In fact, in the original appearance of the review at SXSW, the times that the documentary was going to be shown were included, in the hopes of boosting attendance at the venue, which was somewhat off-the-beaten path. This only happened in two reviews submitted. It was an attempt to be helpful to the documentary. Also offered was placing the review up earlier than its stated embargo.
Rather than appreciating this additional information (included in only one other review), the “change this to that” orders kept coming. An offer was made to put the review up early (original premier date was March 10th ) with the thought that more people might attend, as happened with “Retirement Plan” from Irish Director John Kelly in the animated short category (a category he won. John wrote twice to say he felt the early review was a factor in their win in the category of Animated Short.)
THIRD TIME IS NOT A CHARM
Red Carpet, Paramount Theater, March 7th.
I’ve had 3 instances (in 55 years) where a representative made herself or himself unbearable by trying to pressure a reviewer (i.e., me) to present a certain point-of-view or slant. The first time was eleven years ago in Chicago. The documentary dealt with Honor Killings in the U.S.. I’ve honestly tried to block the entire incident from my mind and do not remember if it was “The Price of Honor,” or another. It taught me that it is unwise to respond to pushy people who want a total rewrite. A group of Canadian women (all attorneys) were bound and determined to dictate the point-of-view of the piece. Many things that seemed immaterial to the basic opinion of the piece (a piece which was sympathetic) were changed at their request.
But the commands kept coming.
I finally just took it down, BUT the Canadian attorneys resurrected it in PDF format and kept at it.
That went on for a very long time (just like this episode). I made a note never to deal with that agency again in any way, shape or form.
I also made a mental note that it never pays to respond. It leads nowhere. The only “changes” should be fixing factual errors, and, aside from one typo, there weren’t a lot of “factual errors.” [I’m still not certain that the surname change is “right,” but most of the paragraph was “axed” anyway, so it became immaterial.] I will need to write this down before I get into the fray of a large film festival again.
We fixed and fixed and fixed, but nothing was going to make Anne happy. I recognized this immediately and suggested taking it down from the second blog right away, just as I had taken it down from my blog immediately..
But, just as democracy dies in darkness, free speech is not something to surrender without a fight.
Reviewers should not cave simply because the person wanting the changes becomes more and more demanding and persistent. I did not tell Anne how to do her job, but she certainly tried to tell me how to do mine. If alienating reviewers when you are a Public Relations person is the goal, it seems counter-productive. Is this the best line of work for someone with a tendency to verbally bite you in the ankle (figuratively speaking) and do so over and over again? A nice, neutral review with good data should be considered a win by a P.R. team, since it was in no way negative towards the film and even designed in such a way to try to increase attendance (offer to run it earlier) by inserting the run times of the film.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
In light of the bullying going on nationwide these days, something about removing the entire mention of this (“B-“) documentary does not set well. We still have freedom of speech—don’t we? We might not have it much longer if we cave to every demanding person who feels they have the right to dictate our opinion. [Funny: I got thank you notes from 4 other representatives or their clients, including the Swedish Ambassador representative for “The Home,” John Kelly for “Retirement Plan” and “We Bury the Dead” director Zak Hilditch and The Beguiling team.]
Australian Writer/Director Zak Hilditch and reviewer Connie Wilson at the SXSW screening of “We Bury the Dead.” (Photo by Jeff Peterson),
The second time a P.R representative sent demanding e-mails over a review was a Tennessee documentary entitled “The Tennessee 11.” That happened a good 10 years later. In that case, the P.R. representative didn’t like the opinion expressed, which was that bringing the eleven Tennessee people, who were on opposite sides of the gun control debate, into a room and making them try to reach some sort of legislative consensus to bring about gun control in the state yielded much heat but little light. It was true that the group was civil to one another, but they were no closer to reaching agreement than a liberal would be close to agreeing with a rabid evangelical MAGA supporter. There were other issues, but the Big One was saying that the meetings had been counter-productive. No legislation ever emerged as a result of the Tennessee Eleven and that was ostensibly the purpose of the documentary effort.
By then, I had wised up. I simply took down the piece immediately, rather than be subjected to non-stop “do this/change that” demands.
This time, the onslaught went on from March 2nd for over 3 weeks.
It has been an unrelenting series of “do this/do that” demands. Is this the best way to facilitate future reviews?
In reviewing “The Beguiling” I researched the background of “pretenders” who claim Indian blood when they have none. Research outside of what was presented in the short film was included, because it added to the audience’s understanding of the message of that (short) film. No one from that film sent me a note saying “that wasn’t in the film.” In fact, I received a very nice thank you note.
This attempt to include background information was also the case with this documentary. Much “looking up” of the background of dwarfism, who first found the gene that causes it, etc. The film’s P.R. representative complained about the inclusion of additional information—something that I look for in a good review. Over a period of nearly 3 weeks that information was removed in an attempt to honor her many requests.
It does make one wonder whether it is a P.R. firm’s job to repeatedly contact a reviewer and demand that data be removed. I’ve written 30 books. I’ve never contacted a reviewer telling them what to think about any of my books in their review(s). I’ve never tried to tell them what information can or cannot be used to support their point-of-view. It is fair game to correct misspellings but telling a reviewer in minute detail what should be included is not the way it works. The review should be sensitive and fair and this one was.
Maybe, under our current President, it WILL become how it works, as it does in Russia. But, right now, we have freedom of speech. A reviewer is supposed to give an honest appraisal of the content of the film. That was done. It was NOT a “bad” review and it was sensitive to the subjects. It was a fair and impartial discussion of the issues that were presented in the documentary. One objection was to the use of the term “dwarf.” “Dwarfism” was to be used or Little People. That change was made, despite the fact that the title of the documentary was “The Tallest Dwarf.” A handsome young man who appeared throughout the film—an actor named Mark—was NOT a spokesperson for Little People of America. Okay. He was shown articulating his opinions in front of the group constantly and certainly appeared to be a spokesperson for the group, but that was also removed, by request. Then came requests to change various wordings. Let’s just be precise about what all was asked and what was done:
Changed “dwarf” to “little person,” while respecting the film’s reclaimed use of the term in its title.
Changed “dwarfs” to “dwarfism” in relevant contexts.
Replaced “normal-sized” with “average height”
Removed the phrase “their disease.”
Corrected spelling/typo of Dr. Shelton to Dr. Sheridan
Clarified that Julie inherited her dwarfism from her father.
Removed “hypoplasia” but retained the correct term: Hypochondroplasia
Removed a quote that was attributed to a physician, rather than Julie
Unlinked Julie’s mother’s IMDB page and, instead, linked to the filmmaker
Clarified that Mark is not a spokesperson for Little People of America (although he is used extensively in the film)
Clarified or removed information on growth hormones, [which was contained in the film.]
Adjusted language to reflect that close-ups of Mark are “less common”, rather than “always denied. ( The actual dialogue that Mark speaks was taken from the documentary. If the Director later found it off-putting, maybe it should have been edited out?)
So, here is the review, with (some) changes and with the desire to utilize our right to free speech before it is taken away. Just as I said at the end of my review, “Good luck to the Little People of America and to all of us in the United States in 2025.”
.
“
What are your thoughts?