Theatre | The Guardian: ‘I felt really depressed – and tired,” says Mat Fraser of the news that Michelle Terry, the artistic director of Shakespeare’s Globe, will play Richard III this summer. Recent years have seen increased resistance to “cripping up”: non-disabled actors mimicking impairment on stage. The role of Richard is often now played by disabled actors, including Fraser, who starred in Barrie Rutter’s 2017 production of the play for Northern Broadsides and Hull Truck.
6 comments:
I really know probably very little to nothing about acting, its methods, or its teachings. But logically it is easier to play a part that you not only resonate with, but you can accurately understand what the character might be feeling and as a result be able to mimic their movements, reactions, and expressions. That Is why I love being able to see disabled actors playing a role that they would probably have an easier time understanding than what the general public terms “able-bodied” actors. I think there is an understanding between an actor and a character that has things in common. This article says that “casting disabled actors opens up for dramatically effective performance” and I think I agree with that. While I am happy more disabled actors are reclaiming parts, I think is important to acknowledge that the theater world has a long way to go until we are actually diverse. Disabled actors shouldn’t just have to play disabled parts.
This article covered such an important topic in theatre today which I believe is not discussed enough. The debate on who can ethically play what roles is huge right now and I think that actors and characters with disabilities are often left out of the conversation. I remember when I was a junior in high school, our insane acting teacher made us do a unit called Transformers where we had to choose a person with a physical disability and learn how to become them. I Understand where she is coming from. As an actor it is really important to embody the physicality of your character, however, me and my classmates agreed that this was taking it too far. Since there are already such few roles for disabled actors and we as an audience barely see disabled actors in mainstream media, I think it is unfair and unethical for an able bodied person to take away that opportunity from them.
Even though I am not an actor I thoroughly agree that actors who are not disabled or furthermore do not have the same disability as a character cannot portray the character with the level of realism that someone who has that same disability can. Granted, if you have any disability that is even in the same category it will aid you in that role, but it still lacks the same authenticity. For a person who does not have the same disability as a character to play that character, they must either act how they think people with the disability act, which is very problematic, or ignore it and not play the character as disabled. Neither of these options works for large-scale productions because they have the budget to hire someone with that disability. However, often people hire someone with a different but similar disability which can work extremely well as long as it is done early enough to be able to modify the role to make more sense for the actor’s real disability. Overall this is a very important subject that I am really glad is getting more coverage in this way.
I saw this topic was posted in a few different articles this week so I figured it was something important. I am glad I read this because I personally did not know Richard III was a disabled character. Now that I know that it is I understand why everyone is reacting to it in the way they are. In high school I studied ASL for four years and often we talked about how in movies they will teach a hearing actor how to sing instead of just hiring a deaf actor. I have never understood that mindset and I can only imagine how frustrating it must be. When we ensure that the actors can properly represent the characters they are playing there is a more authentic performance that makes a group of people, the people the story is most likely about, feel seen and heard. I often think about the movie CODA which is about a deaf family with one hearing daughter, and the entire cast is deaf actors with the exception of the hearing daughter which made perfect sense. I have always thought that the movie was well done and a great example of how enriched a performance can be when proper representation is present.
I think that it’s really sad to see that issues like this are still happening in our industry, especially from a company as big as the globe. They are trendsetters in the industry and they should really know better. Their defense also was not great. The only worse defense would’ve been “well there are no disabled actors.” Their defense wasn’t that bad but they essentially said well every person should have the chance to play every role. Of course that is ideal, but the reality is that not every person has the opportunity to play every role. Disabled people aren’t cast (most of the time) for roles that aren’t explicitly written to be disabled. Disabled people are only cast in disabled roles (most of the time). So therefore to take a disabled role away from a disabled person is limiting what little roles they have access to. Though Richard the III is a relatively poor depiction of disability (viewing it as evil etc.) it’s a role that should still be given to disabled people.
Theater is something very genuine, It includes vulnerability and empathy. As well as skill, hard work, and creativity. In this article, Hannah Simpson writes about the importance and benefits of having authentic actors play in disabled roles. Acting is about mimicking and feeling for someone, having a disabled person play a role that could be glorified if played by a nondisabled person can be very harmful. However, acting is about playing a role, putting one's self in another's shoes, and stepping out of the box, so how can this be harmful? I feel like it definitely can be unpolitically correct. But more than that, it can make a show seem unthoughtful and is an opportunity for those who have disabilities. Simpson argues that it has gone too long since spots and roles have been taken by those who are literally faking others' impairments. I do agree with this, it feels wrong because that is a part of someone's identity. Someone acting as if this is not correct and I would like to see the difference between faking and authenticity.
Post a Comment