Thursday, October 22, 2009
Are the Disabled the Last Thought in the Diversity Business?
Backstage: "Despite the presence of disabled characters on such TV shows as Fox's 'Glee' and 'Brothers' and AMC's 'Breaking Bad,' wheelchair-bound and other physically or mentally challenged actors on television—as well as film and stage—continue to be anomalous. Advocates for the disabled in the entertainment industry assert that the disabled are the last thought in the diversity business, though there are 56 million people (an estimated 20 percent of the population) with disabilities in this country. In addition to the relative invisibility and misrepresentation of the disabled in the media, advocates say the practice of hiring able-bodied actors to portray the disabled is by no means a thing of the past."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
While there are times where having a disabled character played by a non-disabled actor is probably unavoidable, when major roles that are based around the character being disabled go to fully able bodied actors, it just seems a little bit unfair. I know that this is a very big stretch, and not totally the same, but there is a reason that things like black face don't exist any more, I mean besides being incredibly offensive. While I'm sure that a non-disabled actor playing a disabled role is not anywhere near as insulting as some might like the general public to believe, it does seem like that industry that has generally tried to be accepting of everyone tries a little bit to exclude the disabled.
While I agree that it must be tough for an actor with a disability to get jobs, the idea of creating more roles is ridiculous. I feel that if there is going to be a character with a disability, it should be a choice made by the director. If the director didn't make that choice, then the director shouldn't have to cast that actor. I don't think directors should have to meet a "quota". I agree however about how people with disabilities are portrayed in movies and shows, and it saddens me. Maybe eventually it will become commonplace for actors with disabilities to be cast alongside non-disabled actors.
I agree with both Charley and Ariel. I think it would be absurd to force directors and writers to add more disabled people to the cast to "meet a quota." At the same time, I agree that having non-disabled actors play disabled roles is just plain wrong. BUT, I don't think there has to be a disabled role to cast a disabled actor. All the roles for disabled people are, as the article said, either heroes or victims. People don't write roles for people of different races this way, so why write for the disabled this way? Just because someone is in a wheelchair doesn't mean they are somehow less or more than human.
So there is a major problem with this. Diversifying a cast just for the sake of diversifying a cast and bringing in wider audiences, or as protection against being called racist is ridiculous. If there is true need to actually have a character with some sort of disability then you move on to the next step.
There is a sort of metaphor between casting able-bodied actors in the roles of wheelchair bound characters, and the black-facing of actors back in the day to portray black characters. The visual element was the one that was deemed the most important and as long as the person looked the part all was golden.
With disabled characters though there are all kinds of skills and little things that are incredibly difficult to act if you do not have that disability yourself. For example I can tell from someone's sign language whether they are deaf or not. It's subtle but it exists. In the reverse my interpreters can tell from my voice that I'm deaf. It may not be obvious but there are those who can tell. So if the role is intended to be as realistic as possible then perhaps the best course of action is to actually hire said person.
Then of course there is the problem of abominations. Legally I am allowed by law to have an interpreter at all crew calls at the expense of my employer. The reality is, that would be dangerous and expensive. Then if you actually hired a deaf and blind actress for the "Miracle Worker" exactly how viable do you think that production will be? It would be a communication disaster and much of the artistic value would have to be sacrificed in the interest of making cues clear to the deaf/blind actress.
So it really should be determined on a case to case basis. The kid in glee, really should be wheelchair bound, but the deaf character on broadway needs to speak, so there you have it.
And to the disabled people of the country. Get over it.
While I totally support the idea of using people with disabilities to play characters with disabilities, that's a logistical nightmare. There just aren't that many parts out there written about the physically handicapped, and there just aren't that many physically handicapped actors. From an actor standpoint, theatre schools aren't exactly farming handicapped actors, as a rule. Not to mention, an actor with an obvious physical handicap can only play those few parts that are written as a handicapped character without changing the creators intent just to include the handicapped.
While I think this is most definitely a sensitive issue, and even in the examples given, it is only a generalization as each specific situation must be evaluated separately. However, I do not think that it is necessary for a disabled person to play someone with that disability. That is similar to saying that you need a larger person to play a larger person (which is not done in commercial theatre as body padding exists). As I side note, I believe the Equity handbook contains rules to this effect.
Also, I think that safety must be taken into consideration when casting. There is never any reason to put someone at risk, just to remain PC.
Post a Comment