Can someone tell me exactly why this is wrong?

[NWRed]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55361273

Members of Hollywood's deaf community are boycotting CBS's new mini-series The Stand, based on Stephen King's novel, after a hearing actor was selected to play a deaf character.

I thought the whole point about quality acting was the ability to accurately portray a character, not just have certain characteristics.

Is Rain Man now offensive becaue Dustin Hoffman doesn't actually have autism? Is Edward Scissorhands wrong because Johnny Depp doesn't have scissors for hands?

I understand there's an argument that it is denying the role to a deaf actor, but the people casting a film or tv series will only have one criteria, that the actor gives them the best performance on screen, if that was a deaf actor then they'd have the job, and the argument implies that a hearing actor shouldn't be considered simply because he doesn't have a hearing impairment, not due to the quality of his performance. Does this extend to a partially hearing impaired actor portraying a totally deaf character, or a bisexual person portraying a homosexual person.

Seriously, what is going on here, why is it offensive to have an actor portray something that they aren't, I thought that was the point.

 

[Wumminator]

I would try and explain but it would just fall on deaf ears.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Tis da future man.

No more Gypsy Brad Pitts.

 

[dwd]

What?

 

[BenitoSTARR]

I would try and explain but it would just fall on deaf ears.

Wouldn’t hear the end of it!

 

[Champ]

To be fair they can shout as loud as they like about it, no one will listen.

 

[Solius]

I guess people would say that deaf actors struggle for major roles as it is, and when one finally comes around they’re ignored for it. I have no idea of the process that went into selecting the actor so can’t say for sure they that interviewed every possible candidate.

 

[NWRed]

I guess people would say that deaf actors struggle for major roles as it is, and when one finally comes around they’re ignored for it.

Yes but limiting the talent pool like that means the shows are less likely to be successful so deaf people aren't represented in successful shows. Like I said the argument appears to be that a hearing actor shouldn't have been considered, but selecting people for role on any criteria other than talent seems a recipe for failure to me, that goes in any field not just acting.

I remember a time when actors were praised for their portrayal of disabled characters, why is it now wrong?

 

[Olly Gunnar Solskjær]

If you're a deaf actor you're going to be limited to just deaf roles, which would be very very limited by itself. Then if you learn that they didn't even bother to have one deaf actor audition for a deaf character, which they didn't in this case, I can see why some would react this way.

 

[Zlatan 7]

The word be?

 

[Bubz27]

If you're a deaf actor you're going to be limited to just deaf roles, which would be very very limited by itself. Then if you learn that they didn't even bother to have one deaf actor audition for a deaf character, which they didn't in this case, I can see why some would react this way.

Why can't the deaf actors just act as a hearing person?

 

[Solius]

Yes but limiting the talent pool like that means the shows are less likely to be successful so deaf people aren't represented in successful shows. Like I said the argument appears to be that a hearing actor shouldn't have been considered, but selecting people for role on any criteria other than talent seems a recipe for failure to me, that goes in any field not just acting.

I remember a time when actors were praised for their portrayal of disabled characters, why is it now wrong?

I wouldn’t say it is now wrong. It is not retrospectively wrong for those actors to have played those roles. It’s more that people are now more conscious of the limited roles disabled actors can play. An actor confined to a wheelchair can only play a character confined to a wheelchair. Their pool is small enough as it is. An able bodied person may now have a smaller chance of playing someone in a wheelchair but that’s a small trade off. They can still play a plethora of able bodied characters.

 

[NWRed]

If you're a deaf actor you're going to be limited to just deaf roles, which would be very very limited by itself. Then if you learn that they didn't even bother to have one deaf actor audition for a deaf character, which they didn't in this case, I can see why some would react this way.

Just because they didn't call in a deaf actor to audition it doesn't mean they didn't consider deaf actors, merely that they had other priorities when casting the role. They'd have to have been genuine idiots not to consider a deaf actor who matched all their criteria.

It seems to be a common theme in recent years about casting decisions regarding certain roles. Some of the criticism I understand, like James Cordon and his portrayal of a homosexual (although to be honest just being James Cordon is enough) being because it wasn't very good, but I don't get this idea that you have to be something to be able to portray it on screen. How many great performances and hence films would we have been denied if this had always been the case.

 

[Olly Gunnar Solskjær]

Why can't the deaf actors just act as a hearing person?

They're probably just being too stubborn or something.

 

[NWRed]

I wouldn’t say it is now wrong. It is not retrospectively wrong for those actors to have played those roles. It’s more that people are now more conscious of the limited roles disabled actors can play. An actor confined to a wheelchair can only play a character confined to a wheelchair. Their pool is small enough as it is. An able bodied person may now have a smaller chance of playing someone in a wheelchair but that’s a small trade off. They can still play a plethora of able bodied characters.

Shouldn't it be based on merit? If a great actor is in a wheelchair then they'd get the role, if a shite actor is in a wheelchair should they get the role despite the fact they're shite?

 

[Olly Gunnar Solskjær]

Just because they didn't call in a deaf actor to audition it doesn't mean they didn't consider deaf actors, merely that they had other priorities when casting the role. They'd have to have been genuine idiots not to consider a deaf actor who matched all their criteria.

It seems to be a common theme in recent years about casting decisions regarding certain roles. Some of the criticism I understand, like James Cordon and his portrayal of a homosexual (although to be honest just being James Cordon is enough) being because it wasn't very good, but I don't get this idea that you have to be something to be able to portray it on screen. How many great performances and hence films would we have been denied if this had always been the case.

Solius has basically said what I would say in his above post, so I won't send you on two simultaneous conversations and just repeating the same thing.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

 

[Solius]

Shouldn't it be based on merit? If a great actor is in a wheelchair then they'd get the role, if a shite actor is in a wheelchair should they get the role despite the fact they're shite?

Of course, any role always should be. I am sure there are plenty of good deaf actors out there. Do we know for sure they interviewed many for it?

 

[jojojo]

My nephew is deaf and he's an actor. There aren't that many (speaking or major) roles that he can audition for. If you can't find a deaf actor to play the deaf character, maybe you need a hearing actor. But maybe you should try and find a deaf actor first.

If you watch a hearing actor play a (non stereotypical) deaf character, they usually aren't that convincing. The signing looks stilted or awkward, if they speak they don't sound quite right, the lipreading dynamic isn't quite right. Acting is acting, but that doesn't mean it doesn't benefit from a bit of realism to draw on.

But yeah, there are some disabilities that probably do make successful character acting too hard. The lack of roles for deaf or blind actors, may mean they aren't ready for a lead role on the odd occasion when one comes up. Then yes, you may want to cast another actor, perhaps with someone who does have the condition portrayed as technical advisor.

Did they audition any deaf actors?

 

[Olly Gunnar Solskjær]

Did they audition any deaf actors?

Apparently not

But the protest letter said "not one deaf professional actor was called in to audition for the role", and "the decision was made without respect to and for deaf professionals".

 

[NWRed]

Of course, any role always should be. I am sure there are plenty of good deaf actors out there. Do we know for sure they interviewed many for it?

I don't know the specifics of this tv show, and the casting may be simply been done on shallow characteristics like looks, but I was speaking more to the general point. I just don't agree that certain roles should be reserved only for actors that have specific characteristics of the characters, I think it limits the ability of writers and directors to get their vision onto the screen and means certain types of roles have a much more limited talent pool and so are less likely to be in successful projects, and surely that is detrimental to the people with those characteristics.

 

[Solius]

I don't know the specifics of this tv show, and the casting may be simply been done on shallow characteristics like looks, but I was speaking more to the general point. I just don't agree that certain roles should be reserved only for actors that have specific characteristics of the characters, I think it limits the ability of writers and directors to get their vision onto the screen and means certain types of roles have a much more limited talent pool and so are less likely to be in successful projects, and surely that is detrimental to the people with those characteristics.

Up to you how you feel about it mate. We’re just answering the question.

Personally I think there is a balance that needs to be found, as yes the whole point of acting is to pretend you are something you are not. However if this is at the detriment of disabled actors who already have a limited range of jobs then it’s not the worst thing in the world if an able bodied actor is overlooked now and then, as long as the chosen actor is capable enough.

 

[NWRed]

Up to you how you feel about it mate. We’re just answering the question.

Personally I think there is a balance that needs to be found, as yes the whole point of acting is to pretend you are something you are not. However if this is at the detriment of disabled actors who already have a limited range of jobs then it’s not the worst thing in the world if an able bodied actor is overlooked now and then, as long as the chosen actor is capable enough.

I was just wondering if there was a different argument that hadn't considered other than denying deaf/disabled actors jobs.

I agree with your view in general, if the best actor for a diabled role is in a wheelchair or deaf or whatever disability the character has, then great, and in certain roles it makes sense that being deaf or disabled (or any other defining characteristic) might help in creating a sense of reality, it just seems to me that people get offended before even seeing the end product i.e. they find the fact that the role was given to hearing actor offensive rather than watching something and complaining that the acting was poor.

 

[Jippy]

I was just wondering if there was a different argument that hadn't considered other than denying deaf/disabled actors jobs.

I agree with your view in general, if the best actor for the job is in a wheelchair, then great, and in certain roles it makes sense that being deaf or disabled (or any other defining characteristic) might help in creating a sense of reality, it just seems to me that people get offended before even seeing the end product i.e. they find the fact that the role was given to hearing actor offensive rather than watching something and complaining that the acting was poor.

The protest sends a loud and clear message.

 

[Vidyoyo]

I was just wondering if there was a different argument that hadn't considered other than denying deaf/disabled actors jobs.

I agree with your view in general, if the best actor for the job is in a wheelchair, then great, and in certain roles it makes sense that being deaf or disabled (or any other defining characteristic) might help in creating a sense of reality, it just seems to me that people get offended before even seeing the end product i.e. they find the fact that the role was given to hearing actor offensive rather than watching something and complaining that the acting was poor.

It's for The Stand

 

[entropy]

Besides the reasons, folks have already mentioned here. Casting a non-disabled person in the role of a disabled person only serves to perpetuate tropes related to disabilities. In other words, it is nothing but the fetishization of a disability by someone who has never experienced it. Movies such as Rain Man, My Left Foot, Avatar are all good examples of this. Lennard Davis wrote about this and addresses this specific issue and why it is such a huge problem. Actors such as Ali Stroker, Madison Ferris are more well-known actors who have been cast in disabled roles. But the representation of disabled actors is nowhere close to where it should be. IMO, disabled actors should be allowed to play whatever role they want including non-disabled roles. But for any of that to happen we need to stop rewarding dipshits like Eddie Redmayne pretending to be Stephen Hawking.

 

[Wibble]

Why can't the deaf actors just act as a hearing person?

Please tell me that you are joking.

 

[Solius]

Please tell me that you are joking.

He is.

 

[Bubz27]

Please tell me that you are joking.

Of course I am.

 

[NWRed]

Besides the reasons, folks have already mentioned here. Casting a non-disabled person in the role of a disabled person only serves to perpetuate tropes related to disabilities. In other words, it is nothing but the fetishization of a disability by someone who has never experienced it. Movies such as Rain Man, My Left Foot, Avatar are all good examples of this. Lennard Davis wrote about this and addresses this specific issue and why it is such a huge problem. Actors such as Ali Stroker, Madison Ferris are more well-known actors who have been cast in disabled roles. But the representation of disabled actors is nowhere close to where it should be. IMO, disabled actors should be allowed to play whatever role they want including non-disabled roles. But for any of that to happen we need to stop rewarding dipshits like Eddie Redmayne pretending to be Stephen Hawking.

I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense, if the acting is bad then the portrayal would be perpetuating tropes and as such derserving of criticism however that just isn't the case when the criticism comes before seeing the result. The article you linked just seems to be someone with a chip on their shoulder interpretting other people's motives in a way to fit a narrative they wish to weave.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

I’ve heard it all now

 

[neverdie]

Besides the reasons, folks have already mentioned here. Casting a non-disabled person in the role of a disabled person only serves to perpetuate tropes related to disabilities. In other words, it is nothing but the fetishization of a disability by someone who has never experienced it. Movies such as Rain Man, My Left Foot, Avatar are all good examples of this. Lennard Davis wrote about this and addresses this specific issue and why it is such a huge problem. Actors such as Ali Stroker, Madison Ferris are more well-known actors who have been cast in disabled roles. But the representation of disabled actors is nowhere close to where it should be. IMO, disabled actors should be allowed to play whatever role they want including non-disabled roles. But for any of that to happen we need to stop rewarding dipshits like Eddie Redmayne pretending to be Stephen Hawking.

The problem here is acting is acting. Getting to a stage where you need to have characteristics of the character in real life is essentially saying that you aren't acting or that you can only act within the very narrow realm which you can be said to faithfully represent. It's a nonsense and completely antithetical to the notion of acting.

 

[AkaAkuma]

I read an interesting response while reading about the sia autism debate.

disabiity is seen as an internal affliction by the person concerned. But an opposite view point is the modern world disables them by not presenting a world that supports each disability.

 

[Wibble]

Of course I am.

Thank feck. So hard to tell these days when reality is often making parody irrelevant.

 

[dumbo]

There is nothing wrong with it: Anyone should be free to boycott any product or service, particularly if they feel that the product or service has come at the expense of marginalised groups, such as actors with disabilities who historically and presently suffer under the lack of representation. Not to mention misrepresentation.

The merit point is total bullshit. The underrepresentation of merited performers goes hand in hand with the poor representation of non-white, non able-bodied actors.

In terms of acting I reckon anyone can, and should be allowed to, play anyone if handled skillful enough. But until we reach some sort of parity of opportunity then I support any action that seeks to tear down these oppressive discriminatory systems.

 

[entropy]

I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense, if the acting is bad then the portrayal would be perpetuating tropes and as such derserving of criticism however that just isn't the case when the criticism comes before seeing the result. The article you linked just seems to be someone with a chip on their shoulder interpretting other people's motives in a way to fit a narrative they wish to weave.

It is fetishization because, at the end of the day, neither Eddie Redmayne nor Hillary Swank(million dollar baby) is disabled. They are able-bodied people who aren’t confined to a wheelchair. By putting on makeup, mimicking gestures, pretending to be physically challenged, they are fantasizing about what a disabled life could be.

 

[NWRed]

It is fetishization because, at the end of the day, neither Eddie Redmayne nor Hillary Swank(million dollar baby) is disabled. They are able-bodied people who aren’t confined to a wheelchair. By putting on makeup, mimicking gestures, pretending to be physically challenged, they are fantasizing about what a disabled life could be.

It's called acting.

 

[entropy]

If it is just acting, then why not cast disabled actors? why allow an abled bodied person to fantasize about what disability could be.

 

[NWRed]

If it is just acting, then why not cast disabled actors? why allow an abled bodied person to fantasize about what disability could be.

You appear to be attributing motives to people with no justification, portraying a character for the purpose of telling a story isn't fantasising. They aren't dressing up in their homes at the weekend to fulfill some personal need.

 

[VeevaVee]

Why do attractive people keep getting cast as ugly people? The likes of @esmufc07 must feel under-represented