But some time within the last century, the prospect of watching performers with rare traits in sideshows turned from an awe-inspiring experience to something associated with exploitation and fear.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Theatre Artists With Disabilities Are Ready, Willing, and, Yes, Able
But some time within the last century, the prospect of watching performers with rare traits in sideshows turned from an awe-inspiring experience to something associated with exploitation and fear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Absolutely yes. I'm so happy that an article like this is bringing light to just another one of the entertainment industries issues. I understand that there are a lot of unnecessary risks involved in casting a disabled person, especially with the amount of safety regulations in theatre. However, life isn't a sea of able-bodied and able-minded people. If theatre would like to capture the essence of the world perspective when it tells a story, disabled people are just as much a part as anyone else. The fear surrounding using disabled people as a way to exploit is also very real, but can also be so easily avoided by just working tastefully with how the work is addressed and how disabled performers are involved in telling that story. It reminds me in some ways of a performance of "Tribes" I saw at Steppenwolf, where the main actor was actually deaf. It remains in my mind as one of the most beautiful and touching performances i've ever seen, because the actor was actually incredible at being involved in the story and was more engaging the actors on stage partly because of the fact that he had to push himself that much harder.
It is interesting that for the article even mentioned it I was drawing parallels between this and all the conversations going on right now about racial and gender diversity in our industry. This is just another example of how theater should thrive to truly reflect the world that it exists in. The absolute simplest solution would be for the theater industry to shed all predjudices and always hire whoever happens to be best for the role/job. Obviously there are certain characters for whom their race or whether or not they are disabled is essential to the story, but there are a whole slew of characters for whom we just make assumptions. For instance, the character of Don John is never specifically said not to be disabled but I always imagine him as an able bodied man. To see an amazing performance by a woman in a wheelchair would open our eyes to what is possible, and how representation in theater should work.
I think there are a lot of reasons why actors with disabilities end up not being cast, and most of them can be avoided. One major one this article doesn’t really mention is that not all theaters are accessible. Then there is the issue of the people casting the show having a set image of what a character looks like, and what that character needs to be able to do in order to play that role. There aren’t really that many roles where the actor absolutely cannot be blind/deaf/ use a wheelchair or other mobility aid. It is just that people are stuck in a mental image that doesn’t include that, which of course leads to a cycle where people don’t portray people with disabilities in non-disability specific roles, leading people to not include disabilities in their mental image of theater, and starting the process all over again. Another part of the problem is that people have gotten so used to characters with disabilities being exclusively in narratives about disability, or as the article puts it “the usual tropes of inspiration or overcoming adversity.” I think many people don’t consider that a character can have a disability without that being integral to, or even mentioned in, the plot. There is this excessive pity for people with disabilities, and that leads to a perception that the main conflict of their narratives must center around that disability. Having a disability is a major factor in a person’s life, but it isn’t the only factor. It doesn’t have to come up every time they do anything. Because of this, it makes sense to cast actors with disabilities in roles that aren’t ability specific.
I saw OSF’s production of Much Ado About Nothing, and I can say without a doubt that Linton was excellent as Don John, and her being in a wheelchair didn’t detract from her performance in any way. Looking back on it, there was a lot of really interesting blocking that wouldn’t have been possibly without her wheelchair, but while I watching the show, I wasn’t actively thinking about the fact she was in a wheelchair. Obviously I noticed it, but it was just another aspect of the story.
What it comes down to is that having actors with disabilities only playing characters that are specified as disabled as according to the script is just silly. It defines disabled people by their disability and ignores the fact that people with disabilities exist in many roles in society, and can play many roles in society. Theater provides a way to tell people’s stories both to create characters that people can relate to and portraying characters complexly in order to make the audience better able to understand the lives of people who are different from them. Pushing people with disabilities into a very small sub-type of roles is a waste of the power of theater.
The inclusiveness of theater, especially as pertaining to those with disabilities, is something I've been interested in for a while. A children's theater in my town has specific performances for children with cognitive and physical disabilities in which they can get on stage, talk to the characters, and experience the show in a way that's most accessible for them. Learning about shows like that one has made me think about what can be done as far as making theater more accessible to the audience, but this article also made me think about the issue of accessibility for the actors. The biggest takeaway for me was the section about the content of shows with disabled characters and how they generally fall into the inspirational category. I loved how there is now an initiative to branch out and write plays in which disabled characters aren't just there for the "empathetic tourism" as the article described, but are real people and can explore every kind of theme. I loved the examples of casting actors with disabilities in all shows no matter what the original script said: for example, Don John in Much Ado in which the actress's disability effected her character but wasn't her character's sole defining quality. This kind of attitude, which allows us to accept all people as fellow human beings and not a separate category of person, is the first step to a more inclusive world.
At my high school, before I was doing theater, we did a production of a Midsummer Night's Dream as most high schools do, and the king of the fairies, in this production was played by this guy Kevin, and he was in a motorized wheelchair. I wasn't too sure about the casting when I first head it. It wasn't that I was skeptical of his ability, I just wasn't sure how it was going to go. It turned out beautifully. Kevin is amazing at delivering his lines and his wheelchair was beautifully decorated to appear like a throne that could float around. The concept was beautiful and it was something that probably would never have been thought of unless someone with a disability was already in the casting pool. I agree with this article, that more people with disabilities need to be cast, and not necessarily playing people with disabilities. Because Kevin was in a wheelchair, it gave him an etherial and otherworldly quality that could not be as easily achieved by a non-disabled person. directors need to see that there is so much potential in this casting pool. Once that is discovered, the inclusivity of productions will be a lot greater.
Yes a thousand times over. It is fantastic to see this recent shift in commercial theater towards including actors and audience members with disabilities. People with disabilities need to be seen in multiple roles in society and we, as a culture, need to recognize that a disability does not define a person. Hiring actors with disabilities can only help increase public awareness. For example, Deaf West's production of Spring Awakening exposes audiences to the Deaf Community and draws attention to the fact that Deaf theater exists (the National Theatre of the Deaf was founded in the 1960's. Due to the nature of ASL, Deaf performances are not typically accessible to hearing populations. Deaf poetry and theatre doesn't really go over well into English). Spinning of that last parenthetical comment, too many people have little to no exposure to ASL or view the language as just a translation of English (It's not English. There's a different grammatical structure. ASL is its own language. Signed Exact English, SEE, is ASL signs set to an English grammatical structure. Learn). In summary, theatre allows audiences to see people with disabilities in normal roles. Exposure is a great thing (and I need to stop ranting about Deaf Culture).
As a side comment (to a comment) the theatre insustry really could afford to be more accessible to people with disabilities. It is great to see casting be more open. And the welcoming of audiences with disabilities (namely the recent autism-friendly performances) are amazing. But the tech spaces could be substantially better. I don't think I've ever seen someone with a substantial hearing or visual impairment working backstage and I only know one person with a physical disability who did high school tech. I think the next step in making theater more open to all people should be developing tech spaces that accommodate people with disabilities.
With one in five Americans identifying as having a disability, I think it's a shame there aren't more opportunities for actors with a disability in theater. Yes this can be a somewhat confusing issue, because no one wants to be exploitative or inconsiderate of an actor and put them in a role where someone might think they are being used unfairly or being taken advantage of, but automatically discrediting 20% of America's population as potential actors just seems incredibly short-sighted. Despite this very valid concern to not want to offend, whether or not you have a disability shouldn't be a factor in whether you are cast in a show, the same way race shouldn't. If the majority of professional theaters could adopt a colorblind casting philosophy why can't they do the same with disabilities? I have no doubt there are some great disabled actors out there who just need the right role. People like Peter Dinklage who shines in his role as Tyrion Lanaster in Game of Thrones. There are great disabled actors out there the theater just needs to open up and invite them in.
One of the most life-changing theatrical productions I have ever been involved in came at a very difficult time in the lives of all those involved, and included a disabled performer. His name was Abraham, and Abraham had buckets of talent to spare (and still does). His disability? Though I don't know the specifics, I do believe he lost the use of his legs at a very young age, and so he was confined to a wheel chair 24/7. When the time came to cast all of us freshman and sophomore theatre students in the department's annual underclassmen showcases (of which there were four), I don't really know where I expected our faculty to place Abraham.
As it turn out, Abraham and I both ended up working on "A Grand Night for Singing", the Roger's & Hammerstein musical review which certainly hadn't been my first choice as a costume designer. Our director was very clear from the beginning that the show would involve every company member equally, that this was a collaborative effort, and that no one at any point would be considered the "lead" or the "star." And everyone would have to work equally hard to rise to its challenges, no matter what they thought they could or couldn't do.
This included boys in wheelchairs.
So was anyone surprised when Abraham performed all his choreography alongside the rest of the company with utter precision? Did anyone question his capabilities, or give him extra sympathy as a disabled performer, or gasp as he waltzed amid the whisking hems of ballgowns?
On the contrary, not a soul in the house blinked an eye.
To me, this signifies the importance of including disabled artists in the theatre as nothing more and nothing less than just that: artists. Human beings looking to create for the betterment of their world.
Let us not qualify these performers' abilities with what inhibits them. Let us not make use of their talent only for the thing which they must overcome. To showcase disabled performers strictly as disabled characters is a disservice to them as artists. If we wish to challenge enabled actors to disabled roles, we must also challenge the disabled to the physically uninhibited character. Such an endeavor should not be a triumph; rather, it should be the norm. We must allow performers of all capacities to practice multiple applications of empathy, because we as artists know that empathy works both ways.
So the next time I have the opportunity to work with a disabled performer, I hope that once again, all I think going into the production is how lucky I am to get to work with this person. This artist. I hope that the triumph I feel at working with them will have nothing to do with the thing that inhibits them, and everything to do with the talent we can unlock in each other as collaborative artists. In the scheme of "A Grand Night for Singing", the things which inhibited all of us involved became afterthoughts once we realized how much the show healed our creativity. It's no wonder we as artists never saw any reason for concern in a waltzing wheelchair.
There have been a lot of articles about diversity in theater lately, and it's good to see that disabled artists and characters are included in this larger conversation about how to bring more varied and inclusive stories to the American stage, and how to make theater companies work with artists from diverse backgrounds. Although I've always been a supporter of this, I had no idea that 1 in 5 Americans have a disability of some sort. I think that definitely stresses the importance of portraying disabled narratives that offer complex roles to disabled performers - there's definitely a sense in the article that a lot of disabled actors yearn to play characters that are not necessarily inspirational or uplifting, but simply people whose stories go beyond their disability. I support colorblind casting, and similarly I think that casting disabled actors in roles that are not explicitly defined as disabled is another way to open hearts and minds.
Kind of a side note, I love seeing disabled characters in movies that will reach large audiences as well. I watched "How to train your dragon 2" last night, and the main character and his dragon are both disabled! It might not seem like a big deal, but for children with missing limbs or other physical disabilities it must be so important to see that character be just like a regular hero, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he's an amputee. Similarly, Furiosa's character in Mad Max is arguably the "strongest" figure, and she is also an amputee. But her story isn't about her missing arm, because her disability is not the feature that defines her. Steps in the right direction!
I was really surprised by this article. Specifically, I was surprised in a new way - I had never even considered or been angry about the fact that disabled people never play disabled characters. When I read about the Deaf version of Spring Awakening a few months ago, all I really thought was, "Cool! Nice interpretation." Now I realize how powerful that representation can be. I feel like in our society, it's impolite to talk about people with disabilities because of a fear of being seen as mocking or patronizing. People have a very hard time talking about disabilities even just in casual conversation. By opening up the theatre world to people who actually HAVE disabilities, this allows them to lead the discussion. But, if you cast able bodied actors as disabled ones, that is taking the discussion out of disabled people's hands. No discussion of an issue should not involve the people it's about.
I agree with much of what this article is saying. Disabled actors should be able to get roles in both disability specific and regular roles. Having someone disabled plat a certain role can really bring a new light and point of view to a play. It can also make disability less unusual in everyday life. As the article says, 1 in 5 Americans have a disability of some sort. It is time that disabilities become normal, in the theatre and out.
Post a Comment