Can someone tell me exactly why this is wrong?

[entropy]

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.

My dude, if you want to tell stories related to disabilities. Cast disabled actors, they know more about it than anyone else(Eddie Redmayne and Hillary Swank included).

 

[NWRed]

My dude, if you want to tell stories related to disabilities. Cast disabled actors, they know more about it than anyone else(Eddie Redmayne and Hillary Swank included).

Why does a story containing a disabled person have to be related to disability? Thinking that has to be the case would, to me at least, be the biggest offense possible.

You also ignored my argument why an actor portraying a disabled person isn't fetishization.

 

[NWRed]

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.

I really struggle to understand why people make arguments like this. Before the advent of modern civilisation almost any physical disability would have resulted in death at the hands of a predator, recent (in the context of the human species) advances in technology such as spectacles, hearing aids, wheelchairs etc are massively enabling. That doesn't mean there isn't still progress to be made, that will always be the case, but claiming modern society disables people just seems bizarre.

 

[entropy]

Why does a story containing a disabled person have to be related to disability? Thinking that has to be the case would, to me at least, be the biggest offense possible.

It doesn’t have to be. But the examples I mentioned are all narratives driven by disability being a central theme to the story.

 

[entropy]

IMO, the most common trope in such stories is that, of a disabled person who absolutely needs to be saved from their condition. Or they are someone who is uniquely gifted or possesses supernatural abilities. All of which is just lazy writing and perpetuates terrible stereotypes about disabilities.

 

[Moby]

My dude, if you want to tell stories related to disabilities. Cast disabled actors, they know more about it than anyone else(Eddie Redmayne and Hillary Swank included).

How would a disabled actor in a wheelchair play the initial part of that movie portraying Hawking's early life before he got the illness?

 

[NWRed]

IMO, the most common trope in such stories is that, of a disabled person who absolutely needs to be saved from their condition. Or they are someone who is uniquely gifted or possesses supernatural abilities. All of which is just lazy writing and perpetuates terrible stereotypes about disabilities.

Along with romance stories, stories involving these themes are by far the most common, they aren't specific to disability, it's because these stories are more interesting than a person, disabled or not, waking up, going to work, coming home, having a meal and going to bed with feck all else happening.

 

[NWRed]

IMO, the most common trope in such stories is that, of a disabled person who absolutely needs to be saved from their condition. Or they are someone who is uniquely gifted or possesses supernatural abilities. All of which is just lazy writing and perpetuates terrible stereotypes about disabilities.

My dude, if you want to tell stories related to disabilities. Cast disabled actors, they know more about it than anyone else(Eddie Redmayne and Hillary Swank included).

On the topic of Eddie Redmaybe and The Theory of Everything, it is about a disabled person who is uniquely gifted yet you don't seem to have a problem with his life being portrayed on screen (apparently a common trope) but with the actor who portrayed him on screen, is it a problem that his experience has been elevated above other disabled people (and geniuses) by being portrayed on film?

Stephen Hawking isn't really defined as a disabled person, but a genius of the highest order who has advanced the scientific knowledge of humankind. Can only a genius accurately portray him on screen?

 

[entropy]

Along with romance stories, stories involving these themes are by far the most common, they aren't specific to disability, it's because these stories are more interesting than a person, disabled or not, waking up, going to work, coming home, having a meal and going to bed with feck all else happening.

I am sure there are stories that aren't centered around disability. Glee, has a storyline that cast a disabled actor. The issue, however, is stories that perpetuate terrible tropes. Like some of the ones I mentioned.

 

[Green_Red]

It's completely over the top to complain about this. Where there deaf actors that applied for the role that were disregarded because they were deaf? Because that would be discrimination. If none applied and only non deaf actors applied what was the director supposed to do?

 

[NWRed]

I am sure there are stories that aren't centered around disability. Glee, has a storyline that cast a disabled actor. The issue, however, is stories that perpetuate terrible tropes. Like some of the ones I mentioned.

What you perceived to be 'terrible tropes' are actually just interesting stories, like the example of Stephen Hawking.

 

[entropy]

What you perceived to be 'terrible tropes' are actually just interesting stories, like the example of Stephen Hawking.

Not according to someone who is disabled. You should really read that article. Davis is incredible and knows what he is talking about.

 

[entropy]

https://slate.com/culture/2015/01/t...et-the-oscar-for-playing-stephen-hawking.html

 

[dumbo]

I really struggle to understand why people arguments like this. Before the advent of modern civilisation almost any physical disability would have resulted in death at the hands of a predator, recent (in the context of the human species) advances in technology such as spectacles, hearing aids, wheelchairs etc are massively enabling. That doesn't mean there isn't still progress to be made, that will always be the case, but claiming modern society disables people just seems bizarre.

What a weirdo thing to bring up in such a thread, even if it were true. However it's almost certainly bullshit. Prehistoric disabled people were not designated cat-food.

The modern world is still very much able body-oriented. Most two storey buildings would tell you that.

 

[NWRed]

https://slate.com/culture/2015/01/t...et-the-oscar-for-playing-stephen-hawking.html

It's crap like that I'm talking about - " There is a collective “Phew” as people see it was all an illusion. Society’s fear and loathing around disability, it seems, can be magically transcended." what utter tripe, it's someone, either disabled or not, projecting their inner thoughts and feelings onto society in general.

 

[entropy]

 

[entropy]

It's crap like that I'm talking about - " There is a collective “Phew” as people see it was all an illusion. Society’s fear and loathing around disability, it seems, can be magically transcended." what utter tripe, it's someone, either disabled or not, projecting their inner thoughts and feelings onto society in general.

WHAT??????

 

[Cheimoon]

About the merit point: I agree that you want to give roles to people that can actually act. But this process where a studio/director doesn't particularly consider the demographic that's being portrayed for the role (in this case deaf actors) is not limited to Hollywood; its top to bottom. If a deaf person isn't getting opportunities at the lower levels, they don't get the chance to hone their skills in a proper setting, gain experience, and build up a CV. How, then, are they supposed to compete on merit at the higher levels of the profession?

And this isn't limited to deaf actors, or to acting. It's everywhere in society, and related to many disabilities, and indeed also to race, sex, and gender. This isn't just going to fix itself, or certainty not in a reasonable timeframe; so it requires raising consciousness of the issue followed by affirmative action. That's why, regardless of whatever reservations we might have about this particular protest (maybe there really weren't deaf actors for this particular role available), it's vital, especially at such a visible level (see, we're talking about it over here!), if they want to get this issue on the map. Nothing gets fixed by not speaking up.

I don't know where to draw the line (surely we don't need blond actors to portray blond people), and I don't know how many deaf actors they should consider and turn down on reasonable grounds before it's OK to select a non-deaf actor to portray a deaf person. But certainly deafness is a 'qualifiying' condition, and not considering any deaf actors isn't right. So good on them to speak out, I'd say.

 

[NWRed]

What a weirdo thing to bring up in such a thread, even if it were true. However it's almost certainly bullshit. Prehistoric disabled people were not designated cat-food.

The modern world is still very much able body-oriented. Most two storey buildings would tell you that.

What are you talking about? Prehistoric disabled people would most certainly have been vulnerable to predatory animals and other hominids.

Making efficient use of space by building more than single story offices and homes isn't disabling anyone, just as building theme park rides with height restrictions isn't disabling those not tall enough to use them.

 

[NWRed]

WHAT??????

You agree with that?

This is the start of that article:

There is a scene in The Theory of Everything in which Stephen Hawking sits on a stage. He is almost immobile in his wheelchair; Eddie Redmayne, the actor playing him, is at the bottom of his descent into disability. Hawking sees a woman in his audience drop her pen, and the film shifts into a fantasy sequence: Redmayne rises from the wheelchair, straightens the limbs he’s been twisting and twitching in his portrayal of Hawking, and walks over to pick up the pen. He hands it to the woman, smiling flirtatiously, suddenly free of his disability and once again a handsome movie star. Then he returns to the wheelchair and resumes his imitation of the effects of ALS, and the film’s action continues.


Every able-bodied actor who plays a disabled character performs a version of this scene, but they usually do it after the film has ended. Disabled writer Christopher Shinn, paraphrasing disabled writer John Belluso, explained this ritual in the Atlantic last year:

John Belluso had a theory about why actors who play disabled characters often win Oscars: It is reassuring for the audience to see an actor like Daniel Day-Lewis, after so convincingly portraying disability in My Left Foot, get up from his seat in the auditorium and walk to the stage to accept his award. There is a collective “Phew” as people see it was all an illusion. Society’s fear and loathing around disability, it seems, can be magically transcended.

The Theory of Everything is the embodiment of this idea. It is so keen to pander to able-bodied audience members’ disgust at disability, and to soothe the guilt they feel because of it, that it actually pauses to allow that “collective ‘Phew’ ” to occur during the film. James Marsh’s movie exists for two purposes: to make able-bodied people feel good about themselves and to win Oscars. It is succeeding in the first aim and may soon succeed in the second. Redmayne is nominated for Best Actor at this year’s Academy Awards and, having just won one of the two equivalent awards at the Golden Globes (where there are separate awards for performances in dramas and performances in comedies and musicals), is one of the two favorites to win.

To think that scene is included in The Theory of Everything because of the audiences unease at being confronted with the reality of disability is just twisted.

 

[Cheimoon]

You agree with that?

I think it's a strong article. Among other things, it is very well articulated how any non-standard conditions are always presented in a special light. (There won't be a random person in a wheelchair just living their life; it always has to mean something.)

But yeah, I was a bit less sure about page 47 and thereabouts, the point about the audience being more at ease seeing a non-disabled person play a disabled person, since they know it isn't real. I felt the author jumped into that point a bit out of nothing and didn't properly support it (unlike elsewhere); he just assumes it and takes it from there. I'm not sure film is experienced that way, as it assumes a double conceit: people watching a film know it's not real, it's just a film - and on top of that, they also need to know the actors don't experience this story in real life either. That seems an unnecessary assumption to me. Given the strength of the rest of the article, I would think he probably had more arguments underpinning this point; but I'd like to see them to be convinced.

 

[entropy]

You agree with that?

Why else would I post it?

 

[dumbo]

What are you talking about? Prehistoric disabled people would most certainly have been vulnerable to predatory animals and other hominids.

Making efficient use of space by building more than single story offices and homes isn't disabling anyone, just as building theme park rides with height restrictions isn't disabling those not tall enough to use them.

And that's not what you said. You said:

Before the advent of modern civilisation almost any physical disability would have resulted in death at the hands of a predator

I say bullshit.

 

[NWRed]

I think it's a strong article. Among other things, it is very well articulated how any non-standard conditions are always presented in a special light. (There won't be a random person in a wheelchair just living their life; it always has to mean something.)

But yeah, I was a bit less sure about page 47 and thereabouts, the point about the audience being more at ease seeing a non-disabled person play a disabled person, since they know it isn't real. I felt the author jumped into that point a bit out of nothing and didn't properly support it (unlike elsewhere); he just assumes it and takes it from there. I'm not sure film is experienced that way, as it assumes a double conceit: people watching a film know it's not real, it's just a film - and on top of that, they also need to know the actors don't experience this story in real life either. That seems an unnecessary assumption to me. Given the strength of the rest of the article, I would think he probably had more arguments underpinning this point; but I'd like to see them to be convinced.

Generally it's called a straw man argument.

Why else would I post it?

OK, well I've said what I think about it.

This has gone way off on a tangent and I don't think there's much of point in continuing it tbh.

And that's not what you said. You said:

I say bullshit.

You quoted what I said, which says the same thing in slightly different words,

predator
noun [ C ]
uk /ˈpred.ə.tər/
us /ˈpred.ə.t̬ɚ/

an animal that hunts, kills, and eats other animals:
lions, wolves, and other predators

you misinterpreted predator to mean human that's not what I said or meant and I have clarified it.

 

[Carolina Red]

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.

All those folks in Saving Private Ryan fantasizing about being shot to bits on a French beach.

 

[2 man midfield]

If you can cast a disabled person in the role of a disabled person, then that’s great. You’re helping out someone who is basically typecast, and they can draw on a lifetime of experience. But they’d need to be a good actor in order to effectively convey what it means to live that way, otherwise you’re just asking them to sit in their chair and look disabled. It’s a bit tokenistic, so by all means audition disabled actors but if they aren’t right for the production then move on until you find someone who is, regardless of the functionality of their legs.

You can take it too far. At the end of the day it’s called acting for a reason, you have to suspend your disbelief. You agree to forget that Tom Hanks hasn’t really been stranded on an island before, and doesn’t have that experience to draw on from his real life when playing that part. That’s what makes him and other actors so good at what they do. Otherwise you might as well just watch a documentary.

 

[entropy]

Being stranded on an island isn't a disability.

 

[Wibble]

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

In the case of Steven Hawking it might be hard to find a disabled person who could play the part as he wasn't disabled at the beginning of the film.

I do think that disabled actors should be considered first for such roles though.

On the other hand James Corden playing a gay character in The Prom makes a good case for actors being able to play any character. Oh wait .....

 

[entropy]

All those folks in Saving Private Ryan fantasizing about being shot to bits on a French beach.

What does SPR have to do with disabilities?

 

[KirkDuyt]

Wholly justified, I, for one, am manning the barricades if the next James Bond isn't a real MI5 agent.

 

[altodevil]

Is there a reason why deaf people need to be able to be actors?

 

[Penna]

I think it's good that people are protesting about this, because it makes everyone else stop and think about it. We've moved on a long way from the days of famous white actors being cast as black characters - no-one raised an eyebrow when Olivier played Othello in black makeup.

 

[KirkDuyt]

I think it's good that people are protesting about this, because it makes everyone else stop and think about it. We've moved on a long way from the days of famous white actors being cast as black characters - no-one raised an eyebrow when Olivier played Othello in black makeup.

Didn't Robert Downey Jr play a black person in a much more recent movie? Tropical Thunder or something?

 

[Penna]

Didn't Robert Downey Jr play a black person in a much more recent movie? Tropical Thunder or something?

I just looked that one up, it was a comedy called Tropic Thunder. Can't see anything on Wiki about that particular issue.

Comedies may get away with more than "serious" movies. The TV series Modern Family has as two of its male characters a married gay couple, but only one of the actors is a gay man in real life. The other one (who plays the stereotypical camp character) has described himself as "gay for pay".

 

[cafecillos]

Is there a reason why deaf people need to be able to be actors?

It is actually deaf actors who want to be able to be actors.

 

[adexkola]

Bill Burr had a great bit on this

But overall I agree that the studio should have gone above and beyond in finding a deaf actor who could play the role, since they struggle to get other roles.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Don’t start.

I’m still recovering from the news that Brian from Family guy isn’t actually voiced by a dog

 

[cafecillos]

Jokes about dogs doing voiceovers in a thread about deaf people not having enough opportunities to play deaf characters. It really is sad, the society we still are.

 

[Eire Red United]

Rumour has it Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t even a robot and should never have been casted in Terminator.

 

[krautrøck]

I think it's good that people are protesting about this, because it makes everyone else stop and think about it. We've moved on a long way from the days of famous white actors being cast as black characters - no-one raised an eyebrow when Olivier played Othello in black makeup.

Personally, I think we should be faithful to the original stagings of Shakespeare et al. where ALL characters were played by men.