ampd wrote:humanrefutation wrote:tydett wrote:
The obvious answer is to hire people who have those disabilities to portray they characters - but studios just want to pretend they care about these people enough to market a show with a representation of them rather than actually demonstrate that care.
Oh, absolutely. And this is not unique to depictions of people with disabilities. It happens to people of various ethnic groups as well. They have to do better.
I think this is a more complicated subject than it gets credit for most of the time.
A show could easily be patronizing, stereotypical, and poorly written even if its actors with disabilities all actually have those disabilities when they aren't acting. There are many examples that already exist in cinema of characters that were well written and portrayed excellently by actors that didn't share their characters disabilities off screen. We're talking about art, and it's easy to conceive of a hypothetical where an actor without a particular disability might do a better job portraying a character with one than an actor with that same disability, because it's acting and they're playing characters, often fictional ones, not (usually) themselves, and simply sharing some characteristics with a fictional character doesn't necessarily make you a better choice to act as that character in a movie. This is why we (usually) don't see NASCAR drivers playing the lead in movies about racing, because acting in a movie and racing a car are different skills.
For the past 50+ years Hollywood has basically drawn the line at blackface, and in recent times people have rightfully pointed out that this prohibition doesn't seem to extend to other racial and ethnic groups, the controversy over Scarlett Johansson playing the lead in Ghost in the Shell, a pretty explicitly Japanese character being an example.
The reason for this is pretty obvious, which is to say that casting actors for parts in movies has been pretty much done on the basis of whether casting that actor for a particular part will upend the audience's ability to stay immersed in the movie. White actors in blackface ruins the suspension of disbelief, but often different ethnic groups playing characters of different races doesn't. Or to use an uncontroversial example, we don't mind when a blonde dies her hair brunette to play a dark haired character.
In general I think the actor who will play a character best aught to get the part. If having similar real life characteristics to the character they intend to play allows them to bring some insight or other qualities to their performance that renders them better at the job than their potential competitors without that real life experience, they should get the part. If not, then they shouldn't, and for the same reason we wouldn't necessarily say that a real life police officer would have been better in "Die Hard" than Bruce Willis.
I don't pretend to have an easy answer as to where the boundary between fairness and exploitation is, and I do think there have been plenty of examples in the past of Hollywood absolutely disrespecting people in many ways, but I don't think simply requiring actors to match their characters ostensible phenotypic characteristics 1:1 will necessarily produce the outcome you seem to want.
A couple points:
1. I do not believe that someone could faithfully depict someone of a different ethnic identity or disability without having the personal experience that underlines that identity. You can certainly attempt to offer a faithful depiction, but you're ultimately going to rely on stereotypes of that identity rather than the nuance that comes with the lived experience.
You might consider that simply a part of "acting." And you'd be right to a degree. But while acting as a fictional character or depicting a historical figure only implicates that specific individual, depicting an identity has broader implications for societal perceptions of people of that identity group. When Will Ferrell plays Ricky Bobby, people aren't going to judge all race car drivers based on Will Ferrell. When Daniel-Day Lewis portrays Lincoln, people are not going to judge all white people based on his depiction of Lincoln. But we have tangible evidence that society draws conclusions and fosters biases about people of certain underprivileged identities based on their depictions on camera. Yes, writing is a significant part of that narrative. However, using people who depict identities based on stereotypes only enables them to be considered the norm by society at large.
2. But even if you don't find that concerning for whatever disheartening reason, the consequence of using individuals who don't have the lived experience of the identity they're portraying is that you're blocking those people with that lived experience from having opportunities to present their authentic experiences on camera. In essence, you're allowing an individual to exploit the lived experience of a particular identity group for their personal gain at the expense of that group. I can't tell you how many times I've seen non-Arabs portray Arab individuals in the media. Or non-East Asians portray East Asian characters. I can't help but think of the individuals who are within those identity groups who are denied those jobs. You can't tell me that there are not qualified people in those identity groups who can do the jobs well. The problem is that the studios are more interested in revenue from using major celebrities (Scarlett Johannson, Emma Stone) than authenticity.
