Comment is free | The Guardian: “If you do a film about the Holocaust, you’re guaranteed an Oscar,” goes the famous Kate Winslet joke in Extras. The same can be said for an actor doing a film about disability. Unless you’re a disabled actor, that is. Then you’re lucky to even get the part.
7 comments:
This is a really great article beaches it points out all the major issues of actors portraying characters without disabilities when they themselves do not have the disability. They even pointed out both sides of the argument by acknowledging that, in movies like The Theory of Everything, it would be almost impossible to have the same actor play Stephen Hawking both before and after the onset of his illness. But there are many other movies where it would be entirely possible to get an actor with the same or similar disability as the character they play. It would even add an even greater layer to their performance because they have actually gone through what the character is going through instead of just reading about what people with that disability have gone through. And I would even argue that the type of disability does not have to even be the same because people with disabilities all go through many kinds of hardships and so can draw on that to make their performance better. After all, the non-disabled public love watching people go through hardships so why not let people who have actually gone though it show what it is like. I think the biggest problem with non-disabled actors portraying a disabled character and then going on the red carpet completely fine is that it makes it seem like you can have a disability and then magically it will go away, which is not the case. Like the article said, disabilities are part of people’s identities.
To be honest, this issue had never even crossed my mine before this article and I think that is part of the problem and perhaps a reason for that is because we see race and disability as two different things, when perhaps they are not so different. This article cites many examples of popular actors portraying disabled people. They are right when they say that a person with the actual disability would have been a better choice, and I don’t know if that’s exactly true. An actor’s job is to become someone they are not. This whole issue I think comes down to how far should an actor go for one role. Where do we draw that line? But I question that I had while reading the article was what about supporting roles, not lead roles. Would a large Hollywood movie cast someone with a disability in a non-major role? So then why should that change for major roles?
I found this article to be really enlightening. The comparison between "blacking up" and "cripping up" is something I had never thought about before and I can see how it might be offensive or disappointing to the minority being represented. As Monica says, this is a difficult movie to consider hiring a disabled actor for since it shows Hawking before and after his diagnosis. I also imagine, from a management perspective, that it would be very difficult to a) find and hire a disabled person able to give the same quality of performance as the actors in the pool of physically able people (which is larger and therefore more likely to have better performers) and b) make arrangements for the disabled actor to be able to work in the same way as the other actors.
My general view here is that while I see how this may be upsetting to members of the disabled community, I also see the reasons for not hiring a disabled actor.
And really, doesn't it come down to who performs it best? As Ben says, that is the actor's job.
I think the article is genuine in it's concern, and makes some excellent points, but is ultimately unconcerned with the practical realities of making films. In the case of "The Theory of Everything," the article itself makes the point that I think ultimately loses them the argument: "On a practical level too, perhaps hiring a non-disabled actor is easier. The ability to walk allows Redmayne to portray Hawking before being diagnosed with motor neuron disease." It would be impossible to show the journeys that take place in these films with an actor who, for example, was already suffering in the throes of motor neuron disease. If a film was to be made simply about a disabled person in their natural lives, that would be a different issue, and one that I would wholeheartedly support. However, as unfortunate as it is, this is a sad fact about making films. I am pleased to see more people with disabilities finding work on the screen, most recently in the television show "American Horror Story." In this show, the actors play, using their disabilities to their advantage instead of hiding them. I hope to see more of this in the future.
Ultimately I don't condemn actors for playing those with disabilities, or insist that only those with disabilities should play those with disabilities. Actor's job is to portray other people, and unlike the historical practice of blackface, their purpose is not to mock, degrade or deride those who are living with disabilities. Rather, it is just a different story to tell, and directors will cast people that can fulfill their creative desires. I certainly hope we can see more representation of disabled actors in the future.
I had honestly never thought of this concept before it was blatantly pointed out to me. It is interesting to suggest that disabled people should portray disabled people, but there are a few downsides that I could foresee: Like it said in the article, you cannot have an already disabled actor slowly degenerate from healthy to disabled. This is more often the case than not in movies if the main character becomes a cripple. If that is the case, I have no objection to a non-disabled actor portray a character. But if the character is disabled throughout the entire film, then by all means the actor can, and should, be disabled. Not only could they bring a real perspective to the performance, but it’s would allow more people to succeed in their career. I honesty prefer performances which have unknown actors and actors who have some sort of connection to their character. It produces better work in my opinion, and I would absolutely love to see more disabled actors portray disabled characters.
I was a bit skeptical of the article before reading it, but it actually brings up a lot of good points. I’m not totally sure about comparing “cripping up” to an actor donning blackface, and I think it’s a bit extreme, but it works for lack of a better metaphor. I’m not trying to defend the casting choices, but I think there are reasons for having a crippled character portrayed by a non-crippled actor. Mostly, there’s just a lot more actors out there who aren’t crippled. If you’re looking for an actor that looks like Stephen Hawking, for example, it would be pretty difficult to find someone who’s crippled, looks like Stephen Hawking, and can act. Opening up the range of casting choices to people who are and aren’t crippled gives the director the opportunity to get someone who perfectly fits their vision. I saw “The Cripple of Inishmaan” this summer, and Radcliffe did an incredible job playing a crippled character. His character actually auditions for a movie about a crippled person, and Radcliffe says something along the lines of “they’d rather have an actor who can act like a cripple than a cripple who can’t act.” I think that the author of the article sees these casting choices as following that logic, but I don’t think that’s the case. There are people who are crippled and can act, but that doesn’t mean they fit into a director’s vision. Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be really cool if a crippled person played a crippled person in the movie, but it is the choice of the director. Also, there are definite concerns, depending on the disability, to casting a crippled person. There are more rules and laws that lower budget productions might not be able to afford to comply to. Also, I think in some instances casting a crippled person could be seen as taking advantage of them. Looking at “Rain Man”, which the article also used as an example, I think that Dustin Hoffman was a great choice and that it’s probably better that he was cast than someone who is actually autistic. In movies where characters have autism, Down syndrome, or any other sort of mental disability casting them could be taking advantage of them. They might not even be aware of everything that’s happening, and it wouldn’t be fair to them. If there’s someone with a disability like that who has overcome it and is able to act that’s great, but it’s a very sensitive area and in some cases casting someone with one of those disabilities could be just as offensive to some as not casting them is to the author of the article. There’s a delicate line, and we should be sensitive to both sides of the argument. I’m not trying to take a side on the issue; I just think that these are important things to keep in mind when discussing this matter.
Non-disabled actors playing a disability in a show or film has never really stood out to me as an issue to me before. While I now see how this pattern can be controversial and upsetting for some people I don’t know that fully abled actors playing these roles in place of actors with disabilities is really the problem. Yes, in some ways having non-disabled actors play these roles can be compared to “blacking up” but at the same time it’s not such a clear issue where blatant prejudice is the only controlling factor. When a Caucasian actor plays an African American role, unless it’s a intentional stylistic choice, it can be seen as a choice of negligence in which the color of one’s skin is the only deciding factor keeping another perfectly capable actor from portraying a role that he/she would have greater connection with. When an actor without a disability portrays a character with a disability the choice may not necessarily be one of negligence but perhaps one of consideration.
Yes, a disabled actor will have more to relate to when portraying a disabled character, and more should be given the opportunities to do so given their lack of representation in the entertainment industry, however I do see why this isn’t the norm, since disabled actors playing roles with the same or similar disabilities might viewed by audiences as opportunistic manipulation of disabled individuals. The actor may have lived through similar experiences and might be just reliving them on stage, which could be both painful for the performer to embody and for the audience to watch. I’m not saying disabled actors shouldn’t be given these roles, but perhaps there’s a greater reason why at this time our current society isn’t as accepting of it. Look at the munchkins in the famous movie the Wizard of Oz, many nowadays look at those roles as being horribly inconsiderate, as we find our selves amused by the little rambunctious people and somehow forgetting that those little people are actually real PEOPLE.
In some ways the use of non-disabled actors to play disabled roles is more considerate to those with disabilities because we’re not making a spectacle out of the difficulties in their lives that they have to deal with everyday, but are instead using a non-disabled counterpart to allow us to view a disability in a way that makes it more relatable for the greater population. Yes I’d love to see more disabled actors come into view and enjoy the opportunities they deserve, like Peter Dinklage found as Tyrion Lannister on HBO’s Game of Thrones, but I also understand why that casting choice isn’t always made in our current society. Rather than being upset over non-disabled actors portraying disabilities I think we should applaud them for trying to shed light on others lives, and better understand/be considerate of the disabled by helping us better relate to them. The real trouble is when we think an actor playing a disability automatically deserves an academy award for doing so. A strong performance is a strong performance no matter the role, we should not give acclaim to those who simply play a role they have less connection too, but rather give praise to a good performance that creates a strong character and engages the audience in a rich story. The two are very different.
Post a Comment