Paid Members BomberPat Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cod Eye said: I just don't understand this. I'm physically disabled(pretty badly these days), and through support groups/charities I have met and become friends with loads of people with various levels of disabilities, ranging from some with so-called "invisible" disabilities to those that have had to change nearly every aspect of their lives. I honestly don't think any of us would be offended by a non-disabled actor playing the part of a disabled person. The key would be how much research they put into the role, and how much accuracy and respect they put into the role. There was a disabled actor interviewed on Newsnight about the Elephant Man role, who basically said, "if we can't get cast in roles like this, what chance have we got or getting cast anywhere else?" Which is a fair criticism, but again, it becomes more about how the film industry treats disabled actors rather than impacting on the consumer, so it's a harder sell as an "issue" to the public, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Cod Eye Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, BomberPat said: There was a disabled actor interviewed on Newsnight about the Elephant Man role, who basically said, "if we can't get cast in roles like this, what chance have we got or getting cast anywhere else?" Which is a fair criticism, but again, it becomes more about how the film industry treats disabled actors rather than impacting on the consumer, so it's a harder sell as an "issue" to the public, I suppose. It still comes down to who is the best person for the job. Again, speaking from my own viewpoint I would be pissed off if I was discriminated against for having a disability but by the same token, I wouldn't want a job/role due to my disability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 18 minutes ago, Cod Eye said: It still comes down to who is the best person for the job. Again, speaking from my own viewpoint I would be pissed off if I was discriminated against for having a disability but by the same token, I wouldn't want a job/role due to my disability. Yeah, but the point people are making is that there isn't a shortage of disabled actors and actresses good enough to play the role, who would be the best people for the job, and that the non-disabled actors being cast in those roles aren't the best people for the job. Same with trans roles. There are literally thousands of actors trying to make their way in the industry, many of whom have trained extensively; I find it very difficult to believe that these castings couldn't be filled with people whose experiences match the role. It puts me in mind also of when Blair's government introduced women-only shortlists, leading to the "Blair Babes" explosion in female MP numbers. People back then were saying things like "But that's just tokenism! What about choosing the best people for the job?" As if every single white male MP in parliament was the best person for his job, as if there weren't enough talented women for the same job, as if all the women who were chosen had to have been mediocre but were just chosen because they were female, and as if somehow it's more acceptable to risk having mediocre white males as MPs over mediocre females. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Cod Eye Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Yeah, but the point people are making is that there isn't a shortage of disabled actors and actresses good enough to play the role, who would be the best people for the job, and that the non-disabled actors being cast in those roles aren't the best people for the job. Same with trans roles. There are literally thousands of actors trying to make their way in the industry, many of whom have trained extensively; I find it very difficult to believe that these castings couldn't be filled with people whose experiences match the role. It puts me in mind also of when Blair's government introduced women-only shortlists, leading to the "Blair Babes" explosion in female MP numbers. People back then were saying things like "But that's just tokenism! What about choosing the best people for the job?" As if every single white male MP in parliament was the best person for his job, as if there weren't enough talented women for the same job, as if all the women who were chosen had to have been mediocre but were just chosen because they were female, and as if somehow it's more acceptable to risk having mediocre white males as MPs over mediocre females. I suppose you look at every role/actor in isolation. There will be that many variables that sometimes it isn't possible to cast a disabled actor in certain roles. I don't know, the shooting schedule may be too much for someone disabled. I still think roles should be given purely on merit though. If a role is down to two actors, one able-bodied and one disabled, then the best actor should be given the role. Something else to take into consideration. back when "Freaks" was made back in 1932 using real disabled people as the circus "freaks", people were up in arms that the film was trying to make money off the star's afflictions. In this day and age, where there is always somebody looking to be offended, I could honestly see a similar reaction from certain parts of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Scott Malbranque Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 The problem is the vast majority of the cinema going public. Kaitlyn and Troy on their cinema date don't care about equality and ethics. If Ryan Gosling is in a movie playing someone with club foot and no thumbs who's overcome the odds to become a drummer, then an awful lot of the time, they're going to pick that over a flick starring an actor with a genuine disability. Now, I'm not talking about militant movie buffs. I'm talking about the casual cinema going populace who make up a lot of the numbers and money that the studios are looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Cod Eye said: I suppose you look at every role/actor in isolation. There will be that many variables that sometimes it isn't possible to cast a disabled actor in certain roles. I don't know, the shooting schedule may be too much for someone disabled. I still think roles should be given purely on merit though. If a role is down to two actors, one able-bodied and one disabled, then the best actor should be given the role. Something else to take into consideration. back when "Freaks" was made back in 1932 using real disabled people as the circus "freaks", people were up in arms that the film was trying to make money off the star's afflictions. In this day and age, where there is always somebody looking to be offended, I could honestly see a similar reaction from certain parts of society. I agree, but that's the point - the reason why people are up in arms is because they don't feel actors from underrepresented demographics are being given roles based on merit, or that they're even being considered on merit. I take your point about the logistics, but I'd argue that's half of what the labour union movement has been about in fighting for the rights of disabled people: that their places of work should try to help accommodate them to give them the opportunity to contribute. The "Freaks" scenario, I don't know, but I would imagine that, as long as these people were being paid and treated with respect, there wouldn't have been a problem. As to the thing about "there is always somebody looking to be offended", perhaps, but then again, there are probably even more people looking to offend, or not give a damn that they offend. People don't go to the trouble and heart-ache of starting political campaigns over a vague sense of pique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Cod Eye Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Carbomb said: I agree, but that's the point - the reason why people are up in arms is because they don't feel actors from underrepresented demographics are being given roles based on merit, or that they're even being considered on merit. I take your point about the logistics, but I'd argue that's half of what the labour union movement has been about in fighting for the rights of disabled people: that their places of work should try to help accommodate them to give them the opportunity to contribute. The "Freaks" scenario, I don't know, but I would imagine that, as long as these people were being paid and treated with respect, there wouldn't have been a problem. As to the thing about "there is always somebody looking to be offended", perhaps, but then again, there are probably even more people looking to offend, or not give a damn that they offend. People don't go to the trouble and heart-ache of starting political campaigns over a vague sense of pique. To be fair, I suppose the fact we're even talking about this shows the progress we have made where it comes to minority groups like disabled people. The amount of discrimination I have experienced in my work since developing mine 10 years ago has been shocking. Hopefully these attitudes filter down to those of us in "normal" jobs too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 15 minutes ago, Cod Eye said: To be fair, I suppose the fact we're even talking about this shows the progress we have made where it comes to minority groups like disabled people. The amount of discrimination I have experienced in my work since developing mine 10 years ago has been shocking. Hopefully these attitudes filter down to those of us in "normal" jobs too... A big part of that is Thatcher decimating the unions and destroying the militant labour movement culture, and then successive governments perpetuating that destruction. My mum's a long-serving trade union lawyer who's dealt with hundreds, if not thousands, of discrimination cases for over forty years, and you wouldn't believe just how often it happens. It's also incredibly depressing to know just how many people simply don't know that they have rights, and have let the Tories get away with rolling them back for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Chest Rockwell said: It's 2018, dickhead pigs can be any race! wasn't the original comics in black and white as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 31, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted August 31, 2018 57 minutes ago, Scott Malbranque said: The problem is the vast majority of the cinema going public. Kaitlyn and Troy on their cinema date don't care about equality and ethics. If Ryan Gosling is in a movie playing someone with club foot and no thumbs who's overcome the odds to become a drummer, then an awful lot of the time, they're going to pick that over a flick starring an actor with a genuine disability. Now, I'm not talking about militant movie buffs. I'm talking about the casual cinema going populace who make up a lot of the numbers and money that the studios are looking for. Sorry, missed this. I get what you're saying, Branqensteiner, and I appreciate that you, like many on here, are one of the good guys, arguing from a genuine position of good faith, but that was the argument used for a long time to justify not making films with black or Asian leads. Basically "the market isn't there". We saw with Black Panther and the reaction to it that that no longer holds water. To be honest, it only ever held water to a certain degree, because it's actually a chicken-and-egg scenario: do studios make film and TV to pander to the market, or is that market shaped by what the studios put out? They're a part of the cultural/creative industry after all. Either way, they should be taking the lead when it comes to making that kind of film, instead of reinforcing people's ignorance. They're not obliged to, obviously, but then they shouldn't be surprised when there's a backlash. Also, bear in mind that most films have several important roles. If I were to take the example you give above, I'd say the best thing to do is to try to get someone who fits that role first, and then cast Gosling in a major supporting role, like the agent or the bassist or someone - effectively, give this disabled newcomer the rub by putting him in the ring with the main eventer, and book him to be on his level or close thereby. If they couldn't find someone good enough (which would be very unlikely), then and only then do you cast Gosling in the main. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 From The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/02/disabled-actors-bbc-elephant-man-normalised-exclusion The BBC has been widely criticised over its decision to cast a non-disabled person in its remake of The Elephant Man. The role of Joseph Merrick – who had severe physical deformities – will be played by the Stranger Things actor Charlie Heaton. Notably, actor Adam Pearson – who has neurofibromatosis type 1, a condition which was once thought to affect Merrick – has said he wasn’t even given the opportunity to audition. As Pearson told LBC, it’s part of a culture of exclusion for disabled actors. “It’s a systemic problem, not only in the BBC but industry-wide.” From Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man to Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything, it’s routine for non-disabled actors to play disabled characters, often gaining critical acclaim in the process. At best, it takes work and exposure from talented disabled actors and further adds to an arts and culture that pushes disability representation – much like race, sex and class – to the sidelines. At worst, it sees non-disabled actors mimic the characteristics of a minority group without any involvement from the community it depicts. It’s not only disabled people highlighting such problems. In July Scarlett Johansson dropped out of her role playing the crime kingpin Dante “Tex” Gill – who was born Lois Jean Gill but identified as a man – in the upcoming film Rub & Tug after what she called “ethical questions” were raised by the trans community. And disabled people have long spoken about the issues Pearson raises. Actor Jamie Beddard recently wrote in the Guardian that actors “cripping up” turns disability into a defining feature, disrupts the story and makes the audience become voyeurs of difference. It’s remarkable, then, that pointing these concerns out is still seen as contentious. Pearson’s comments have received support online from disabled and non-disabled people alike, but they have also evoked much negativity. The common criticism is that being an actor requires “acting” – as if all this time, disabled people believed Star Wars was a true-life story. If the logic of disabled people playing disabled characters is extended, these critics posit, we will soon reach a point where only surgeons can play surgeons or the next sci-fi blockbuster will require finding a cast of aliens. These are facetious claims, especially when it comes to a part such as Merrick, which has been played countless times by non-disabled actors (perhaps it might add something to yet another retelling of this story to have someone with some experiences in common play the lead). But they do serve to highlight the backlash minorities often face simply by speaking out. It can feel particularly jarring for disabled people, who have a long cultural history of being infantilised, to have some non-disabled people slowly explaining why their thinking about their own lives is muddled. Those who find it difficult to understand Pearson’s call for representation have generally been the same people – white, non-disabled men – who have spent their life in a culture that represents them everywhere, all the time. When you have grown up with the luxury of always seeing people who look like you on the cinema screen, it’s easy to dismiss concerns from those who never have – or less favourably, to respond defensively when your dominance of mainstream culture feels threatened. Diversity in fiction feels particularly important when you’re from a group that is still widely unrepresented, be it in politics, business or the media. Society is have this ready to have this conversation – and to start listening to the voices of the people affected None of this is to say that non-disabled actors should be somehow banned from ever playing disabled parts. Rather, it’s time to consider why it seems so uncomfortable to question the fact that they currently always do. Disability is an identity, just like race or sex, and yet it is still widely acceptable for non-disabled people to be at the forefront of our depiction in the arts. That disabled actors are ignored to such a degree that they are not even given the chance to play disabled characters is testament to how normalised this exclusion is. Significant progress will come when disabled actors aren’t only given the chance to play disabled roles but to play any character who may or may not happen to have a disability – as a person, just like any other. And everyone will win when the industry widens the talent pool and hires more disabled producers, scriptwriters and directors, so that disabled people can tell their own stories. Society is ready to have this conversation – and to start listening to the voices of the people affected. For many, disability is not a costume to put on but their lives, and they deserve to be represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted September 2, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted September 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Keith Houchen said: From Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man to Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything, it’s routine for non-disabled actors to play disabled characters, often gaining critical acclaim in the process. At best, it takes work and exposure from talented disabled actors and further adds to an arts and culture that pushes disability representation – much like race, sex and class – to the sidelines. At worst, it sees non-disabled actors mimic the characteristics of a minority group without any involvement from the community it depicts. I just want to talk about this part because I have a personal connection with it. I knew a fantastic guy who was a film lecturer and unfortunately he got motor neurone disease several years ago and passed away last year. He was able to live in his house with carers until the end which meant a lot to him but he spent a lot of time in specialist hospitals as well, while he was in one of the hospitals he was visited by Eddie Redmayne who was doing research to play Stephen Hawking, they hit it off and Redmayne ended up spending a lot of time with him at hospital and at home. He studied him and based his performance on my friend, he invited him to the premier and sent a disabled access car to pick him up, unfortunately my friend wasn't well enough to attend on the night so Redmayne arranged a private screening for him and his friends instead. I'm sure my friend would've thought it would have been even more powerful than Redmayne's great performance to cast someone who was actually suffering from the disease in the role and I'm inclined to agree, the only reason it would seem bizarre is because of the lack of precedent. In this particular case though it can't be said that "it's been done without any involvment from the community it depicts" as my friend was very proud that one of the last things he did was contribute to the realism and sensitivity of an Oscar winning performance that raised awareness for the disease he was dying of. Sorry if that's an irrelevant wall of text but whenever anyone mentions that performance I remember my friend and how much class Eddie Redmayne showed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 No, don't apologise, that's beautiful and has really given Redmayne some good guy points. That's a really cool story. The opposite is, and yeah I know we should expect it, Jared Leto, who didn't give a fuck about the trans community and was too absorbed in campaigning for awards to use his platform. With regard to trans actors, I remember one saying they aren't expecting to get chosen for roles over the likes of Jennifer Lawrence, what irks them is they know they aren't even going to get in the same room as her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted September 2, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted September 2, 2018 Agreed with Keith - that's a wonderful thing to read, Nail-Eyes. Kudos to Redmayne there, for sure. The counter-argument put forward by those opposing the writer's perspective, that it's "all about the acting" and "getting the best person for the job", just emphasises a point for me: look at the sheer proportion of prominent disabled roles that have ever been played by disabled actors. Are they really saying that disabled actors good enough to play roles that match their experiences are that few and far between? Because I don't buy it. There aren't many ostensibly disabled actors that come to mind that could be considered successful in a mainstream sense. Most of them have dwarfism - Warwick Davies, Verne Troyer, and Peter Dinklage. And of those three, only Dinklage has had roles that didn't necessarily require dwarfism or were about having dwarfism - his two Marvel roles being the most notable. I'm probably wrong, but can anyone else think of any mainstream disabled actors? I know Martin Sheen could technically be said to be disabled, but it was never a severe or particularly visible disability that narrowed the range of roles he was given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted September 3, 2018 Awards Moderator Share Posted September 3, 2018 There’s Liz Carr from Silent Witness. Not quite A-List but primetime BBC level of mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.