Friday, October 30, 2009
Should Able-Bodied Actors Play Disabled Characters?
Jezebel: "An advocacy group is protesting the casting of Abigail Breslin as Helen Keller in a Broadway's upcoming revival of The Miracle Worker, arguing that a deaf or blind actress should have gotten the chance to play the part."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
A role like Helen Keller is a wonderful opportunity for a deaf or disabled actress to come upon, but I'd imagine those actresses are few and far between. Perhaps this particular able bodied actress brought an element to the character that other auditionees did not. The focus should be placed on the acting ability first, able bodied vs. disabled secondary. On the flip side, perhaps some might consider this casting choice equivalent to a white actor in black face, simply not being authentic. The primary focus of casting should be for the good of the production, not on bringing recognition to a particular group of people.
I disagree with both arguments. I do not think producers should cast roles with big stars just to sell tickets, and I don't think a part should be given to a disabled person just because the character is disabled. I think parts should be given out to the best actresses and actors. No other factors should play a part. Give the brunette the role of Annie, and the not so visually impared the role of Hellen; as long as they are the best people for the part.
On a side note, I do think that actors and actresses draw crouds to a point, but for me and a lot of other people out there, a good story is so much more important. I guess Aristotle and mr both agree that plot is most important.
While all should be fair in casting, that is not how the world works. I would love to see lead roles given to the best person for the job, but reality is the producers need sot sell tickets. Regardless of whether this is right or wrong, it is what happens. I think the only way to start getting disable actors more roles is for it to become unacceptable; however, I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon. Maybe one day shows won't be looking for the big bucks of having star names in their shoe, but for the best person for the role.
I think this is pretty ridiculous. The part should go to whoever is going to best benefit the overall show. Period. A deaf or blind actress should not get the part simply because of their disability. If they are the best talent for the job, then great, that works out perfectly. But casting based solely on a disability is absurd. Personally, if I were in that situation, being a blind or deaf actress, I would NOT want the part simply because of my disability. I would want it because the director thought I was talented, and the most qualified person for the job. Not because of my impairments.
even though a lot of productions need to choose their cast based on the how famous their lead actresses or actors are, i think that a great and original way to bring publicity, attention and acclaim to a production could also be by diversifying the cast in a way that is not often done such as hiring deaf or blind actresses. of course, actors should always be cast based on their talent but fame doesnt exaclty ensure better acting
This is one of those times when people get mad just because they have nothing else to be angry over. Its like people who say Lord of the Rings is racist because there are no black characters. It's ridiculous. It's called acting for a reason - its not real. I can appreciate a blind or deaf person being disabled in a production, but the show is not being discriminatory because it does not cast someone disabled. At the end of the day, the most talents actor should be chosen. This has nothing to do whether or not the person is actually disabled. I like to also add the original production of the Elephant Man starred a completely normal man who had to pretend to be disfigured. No one was upset that a real disfigured person wasn't casted. It's the exact same situation. End of story, cast the best actor. It shouldn't be a pity casting or one out of duty.
Once and for all: YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE DISABLED TO PLAY A DISABLED CHARACTER! Can you imagine a production of the "Miracle Worker" where the lead was actually blind AND deaf? I understand that these groups want an actor who is one or the other, but in all fairness, if you really want to be artistically accurate (as the argument states) then you should have a blind and deaf actress. Now how many deaf and blind actresses do you know who went through training as an actress? How about deaf actors? Blind actors? If you are going to argue that for an artistically viable play then you need someone who can act, not be the real thing. To use a metaphor you can't just stick an African-American actor on stage to play an African-American character and expect the performance to be stunning because they are both African-American.
I'm in favor of better actors over accuracy. There is of course the rare case in which the two desires meet but in all honestly it's rarely going to happen.
It's not a personal insult at all. It's a theatrical production and they cast who is best for their production, wether that means star power, money or skill. No one seems to complain that hollywood only casts pretty people. And how many TV shows/movies have 25 year-olds playing high schoolers. That's not real at all, but no one complains that they should cast GENUINE high schoolers for the roles. So why should we complain now? That is just the world of entertainment.
Get over it.
I completely agree with Tiff, if there is a disabled actor able and talented enough to play the part, they should be chosen. Other than that the person/actor that helps the overall production should get the part. I understand that it is a touchy subject but I don't think its fair to cast out any actor based on their actual life and not on their acting skills
I agree completely with Mr. Epstein. In the world of theater, you need what is best, whether that mean in terms of star power or ability. As Ms. Weston states, the abilityto play the role of Helen Keller for a blind or deaf person would be a true honor. But what is the likely hood of that occuring? I mean, the theater company is looking for the bes way to get the production they desire. And the fat of the matter is, if a disabled actor were to play the part, there would be several obstacles the company would have to overcome. While there are disabled actors who culd play the role extremely well, it is not was the prtoduction or the company necessarily desires.
Once again it becomes clear that Broadway is about selling tickets. This does not mean however that they are doing some evil deed. Actresses and actors should be cast for their artistic merit, but star power should be a limited concern. Great shows outlast their talent pool to become famous in their own right. Everyone knows Sarah Brightman but audiences continue to flock to Phantom for the show not the star.
It is not news that Hollywood and Broadway pick actors with big names to ensure that a production will be financially successful. Many times these big names are picked over actors that are more talented and more well suited for a role. I do not believe the situation described in this article is any different, wether an actor has a disability or not has little to do with the casting. They simply wanted someone who would draw a large audience, this is the reality of the the business.
i agree with Jon that producers should not just cast big names or disabled people to just sell tickets. I think they should cast parts based of of who is the most talented and who will overall contribute more to the show. I think that if they hired a deaf blind actress just because she was disabled like the character not only would that be a disaster waiting to happen, but it would detract from the show and just wouldn't be safe and of corse hollywood casts people based off of appearance and that will never change. That is show business.
You know that if they casted a disabled person as Helen that they would be getting crap about it too. They'd be calling it prejudice then.
I'm confused as to how this has become an issue NOW? It's not like it hasn't happened before.
It's a great opportunity for an actress to do, though. Even if the actress isn't disabled, maybe she could learn something about disabled people and use this as a great opportunity. Maybe the creative team can make an effort to reach out to the disabled community as a form of research, and maybe some proceeds could go to some organization. That'll make them be quiet.
I think that in this case, this play is so focused on telling the story of a disabled young girl that it would be a good thing to consider a disabled actress to play the role. Choosing a well-known actress purely for financial reasons seems very superficial to me. If they had argued that they needed this particular actress for a different reason, I would be more sympathetic and understanding towards the producers.
While I understand that it might be more difficult to accommodate a deaf or blind actress, I think it would also be completely worth it. As for the directors excuse for casting Abigail Breslin as opposed to a disabled actress, well, it's bull. Yes, having her name on the playbill will bring people to the show, but there are other ways to fill seats too. Even if we leave ALL of those other ways aside, they could cast more famous actors in the SUPPORTING roles as opposed to the lead. Look at movies like Stardust, which by the way, was successful. The lead actor was a virtual unknown, but all the supporting roles were incredibly famous people. If the whole cast were famous, it wouldn't have been as good a movie. The same could be said for this show. Cast a famous family for Hellen Keller, and have her tutor be a famous actor.
I'm really torn on this issue...I think people are making it way more complicated than it is, what with the big names and the prejudice and all these different stereotypes coming into play. Can't we just simplify it a bit and say it's an opportunity of a lifetime for miss Abigail here?
Well of course not, but it was a thought. Okay here...I know I'm going to get a ton of shit for this, but doesn't anyone else think that having a blind girl play the part of Helen Keller would take away most of the initial awe that IS playing Helen Keller? An actor's job should be to stretch herself, in this case, to huge heights and transform herself. Playing the part of someone who is blind would be a fantastic opportunity...and I think people rave about Helen Keller performances because it's so hard to put yourself into that state of mind (I'm thinking back to that movie, The Miracle Worker, I think...) But that's not to say I would be opposed to a disabled girl playing the part. I'm just saying I'm not sure why this is a huge issue. And for those of you who brought up the race issue...it was actually a mistake for me to comment on this post because I could launch a 24 hour discussion over it. So I'll just end it here.
It's called acting. If she can play blind and deaf then she's a good enough actress to deserve the role. Enough said. I doubt she's taking a role away from a deaf and blind actress her age who's dream is to star on Broadway and who's parents are planning on doing all the work and spending the many hours they would need to spend in New York.
Post a Comment