Blog

Playing Dumb

Playing Dumb

Why is Hollywood so quick to turn to A-listers to portray disabled characters over those with actual afflictions?

Related reviews and interviews

Around this time last year, in a BBC movie called Dustbin Baby, 14 year-old Lizzy Clark became the first Aspergers sufferer to play a fictional character with the same condition. The BBC said that rather than employing an able-bodied actress to play the role of Poppy, they casted Clark because she offered a “unique take” on the role.

Speaking to the Guardian at the time, Clark said, “Audiences think they are getting an authentic portrayal of a mentally disabled person, but they’re not. It’s not like putting on a different accent or learning what it was like to be raised in a different era. You can’t understand what it is like to have a mental disability unless you’ve really lived with it. When non-disabled people try to portray us, they tend to fall back on stereotypes that have done our community so much harm in the past.”

With the help of her mother Nicola Clark, Lizzy has gone on to launch Don’t Play Me, Pay Me, a campaign I was reminded of last night when watching the new Hollywood schmaltz-fest Extraordinary Measures. Based on true events, the film depicts the lengths John Crowley (Brendan Fraser), a father of two Pompe suffering children, will go to in order to find a potential cure. Pompe disease, by the way, is a recessive metabolic disorder which wastes away the victim’s muscles. It is a genetic condition which occurs in around one in 30,000 births, and until recently was considered incurable.

Patrick and Megan, the two children in the film, are played by Meredith Droeger and Diego Valezquez.  Both have previous minor television credits and are starring in their first movie here. Both are very aesthetic and very obviously able-bodied actors. Both spend the entire film in wheelchairs with breathing tubes inserted in their necks.

In the production notes, the filmmakers are careful to specify that the Crowley family, who’s real-life story the film is based, were involved in each step of the film’s development, from script level through to being invited on the set. In one scene, the real Crowley children are afforded a fleeting presence in the background of one shot. Pompe disease apparently makes one’s tongue swell up and impacts on a sufferer’s ability to smile, such an impact it has on muscle control.

I don’t take anything away from either Droeger or Valezquez. This is a good project to be involved and may well launch their careers as child actors. They’ve taken their chance and done what is asked of them. But I cannot help but feel, when we see pictures of the film’s premiere in which Droeger, all fresh faced, bouncing around with Harrison Ford with the world at her feet, that the film industry is guilty of a grave injustice to a large and mostly silent minority of disabled people.

Sean Penn in I Am Sam, Leonardo DiCaprio in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, Jamie Foxx in The Soloist. Some pretty big players have been particularly guilty of some acting with a capital A. They’ve succeeded in over-simplified, self-indulgent and thoroughly condescending depictions of disabled people, and they tend to get nominated for an Oscar. In Tropic Thunder, of course, the practice was dealt a pretty brutal satire blow by Ben Stiller in his depiction of Simple Jack. Although uncomfortable watching, it’s possibly the single worthwhile contribution Stiller has ever made to serious cinema.

Unfortunately, Hollywood has a track record of doing this, although in the 1930s it was a different minority: why get a black man to star in a film when you can just black-up a white man. The Jazz Singer, justifiably regarded as a classic for its pioneering use of lip-synch sound technology, is now an excruciatingly embarrassing watch thanks to Al Jolson’s ‘blackface’ routine.

Extraordinary Measures is one of a litany of examples of Hollywood masquerading as a progressive institution whilst propping up a debilitating form of social conservatism. Maybe I’m attempting to fight a losing battle. After all, one of my favourite movies is called Psycho…

Tom Seymour

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments (21)

  • Ridiculous. You can’t understand what it is like to be attacked by sharks unless you’ve really lived with it, so should they not have cast Robert Shaw in Jaws?

    The argument is that sometimes the portrayals are stereotypical and crass, but that's just down to bad acting, direction and research. Sometimes portrayals of journalists are stereotypical and crass too – should we call for journalists to only be portrayed by real–life journalists?

    Getting people like Clark to advise film-makers is certainly a good idea, but to me it seems incredibly negative and condescending to only consider casting disabled actors for their disabilities rather than whether they're the right actor to portray the character in question. It sends out a message that all disabled people are the same. How's that for stereotyping?

    Written by Daniel on February 1st, 2010 at 11:57

  • I agree with Daniel – by the same token you could argue why don't real policemen play policeman characters? Why don't real abused people play abused characters? I'd wager there must be more facets to the disabled character in the film than their disability – which a real trained actor is required to portray.

    Written by @whatkatiedoes on February 1st, 2010 at 12:31

  • "It seems incredibly negative and condescending to only consider casting disabled actors for their disabilities rather than whether they're the right actor to portray the character in question. "

    Not sure whether I actually advocated this in the article. I'm not an actor, but I think we can agree its easier to understand what its like to be a journalist than have autism.

    By my reckoning, disabled people are maybe the largest and most under-represented minority in Britain. I appreciate that disability in itself is a very broad term, but its a subject that needs to be tackled head-on, in all its varied and nuanced forms, and currently this isn't really happening.

    Its an incredibly complex and difficult subject to approach and depict successfully, I've got no illusions about that. But in my opinion we have had a series of plain bad films that attempt to talk about disability but fail to do so in any meaningful way. And for some reason they tend to get covered in accolades.

    In addition, as Lizzy Clark and a number of other disabled actors/activists are continually saying, there are many disabled actors who are consistently overlooked in favour of able-bodied actors who can't on any level fundamentally understand what its like to live in a wheelchair or have autism. These people are worth listening to, not least because we may start getting a few fresh perspectives. The recent 104 Films offering The Magic Hour is a good example of this.

    I don't know what the answer is or what the best way forward is, I'm happy to admit that. I'd be very interested to hear other people's opinions?

    Written by Tom on February 1st, 2010 at 13:38

  • With 235 disabled equity members the time has come for "playing" disabled to stop. No-one is saying cast actors with disabilities regardless of talent . Instead we are saying call disabled actors to audition, then decide. Portraying a disability is the same as blacking up. It is insulting and derisory. We at the "Don't Play me, Pay me" campaign agree totally with the sentiments expressed by Tom Seymor and just wished more journalists had his bredth of vision. Then possibly this assumption that playing disabled is the same as being disabled would cease. Nicky Clark

    Written by Nicky Clark on February 1st, 2010 at 13:39

  • I don't think anyone has ever suggested that playing disabled is the same as being disabled.

    There's a lot of grey area in the debate, and while I agree that there needs to be more care given to how disabled characters are portrayed, I don't completely agree with what you're calling for. You say it's time for "playing" disabled to stop, but what if none of those few 235 actors are appropriate for the role? Is it then okay to cast a non-disabled actor as a last resort? Or should the production be shut down altogether? That would result in far fewer disabled characters appearing on our screens, and then the issues would become hidden. Not a good result.

    Rather than an all-out end to actors being allowed to "act" disabled, I think there needs to be more input and guidance from representatives of the disabled community, to make sure the performances avoid misrepresenation (which I believe they did with the recent Ian Dury biopic). I think what I'm suggesting is more along the lines of "Don't Just Play Me, Talk To Me First"!

    Written by Daniel on February 1st, 2010 at 14:13

  • Surely it depends on the specific demands of the specific role and the story. One of the two main characters in the Korean film Oasis, for example, has severe cerebral palsy, and is unable to talk without slurring her words, or to move about without a wheelchair or someone to carry her. She was played by an actress with no such disability, for the simple reason that the character has several prolonged dream sequences in which she walks, dances and talks like a ‘normal’ person. There is no doubt more than one way for a director to work around this difficulty, but it is not hard to see why he opted to cast someone without disability in the role.

    I’m not trying in any way to be polemical here – just to suggest that when it comes to the fictive arts, things are not always so clearcut as reality.
    Another problematic example worth considering here might be Lars von Trier’s provocative The Idiots – although I’m not sure I want to go there myself.

    Surely a distinction should be made, though, between arguing that disabled actors deserve better representation in disabled roles, and suggesting that good non-disabled actors are simply incapable of playing disabled roles. I would certainly agree with the former, but I’m less convinced of the latter position.

    Written by Anton Bitel on February 1st, 2010 at 14:27

  • I agree The Idiots is a hornet's nest we should probably steer well clear of here. I'm unsure whether von Trier makes anything sincerely.

    I don't think you're being polemical at all. As someone interested in cinema and its relation to reality, I agree with the assertion. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly would be another example of a film that would never have been made were it not for the use of an able-bodied actor, and Mathieu Almaric is a very talented actor.

    On a level, if I had to assume a position, I don't think I'm opposed per se to able-bodied actors playing disabled actors. In saying that, I can't think of a single example where I felt it was done particularly well and can think of plenty where it has been done horrifically badly. And I doubt anyone could deny the debilitating under-representation of disabled actors in the industry

    I think what bothers me as much as anything is not the paucity of sensitive acting, or directors resorting to the comfort-zone of cloying sentimentality, but the accepting reaction to these films. As an example, I thought Sean Penn's semi-angelic performance in I Am Sam (Tagline: All You Need is Love) borders on the parodic. He was nominated for an absolute shed-load of awards, including best actor at the Oscars, and his performance was broadly well-received.

    Maybe it is a failure of criticism. We should be raging.

    Written by Tom on February 1st, 2010 at 15:09

  • I have no better idea what it’s like to be von Trier than what it’s like to be autistic, but I do know that, whether sincerely intended or otherwise, his films tend to have a profound effect on me as a viewer, and that’s pretty much all I ask of a filmmaker.

    Getting back to the original question (“Why is Hollywood so quick to turn to A-listers to portray disabled characters over those with actual afflictions?”), might it not be for the simple reason that viewers (taken as a collective) are more likely to pay to see a film on any subject if it has A-listers in the lead roles? That is why they are called A-listers…

    There has been a lot of discussion here of ‘playing dumb’, but I am curious as to whether feelings are so strong about ‘playing blind’ – and if not, why not? The only reason that I single blindness out is that it is the disability that most affects one’s status as a viewer – but it is also a disability to which we all can have rather immediate access…

    Written by Anton Bitel on February 1st, 2010 at 22:53

  • I agree, that there is a trend for heart warming narratives involving people with disabilites. Without wishing to incite any kind of knee jerk reaction, I do feel that there is a deeper, perhaps darker, side to these human characters, deeper thoughts and emotions, that we do not get to see (note: not meaning Leatherfaces, or Sloths). This, however, is a staple of Hollywood contrivance in general, we can't argue that they will play the safety card whenever possible, in ALL genres.

    It would take some serious auter dedication to produce something that doesn't conform to this; to portray someone with disabilities (outside of documentary) as being anything other than harmless angels would incite a real rage more overwhelming than any hypothetical rage against the Penn's and Hanks' and their Hollywood ilk.

    Still, I do agree the patronising has to stop, though I think it goes further than cinema, it really seems to be a social misconception of the issues. Perhaps more documentaries are needed…not panorama specials, or channel 4 'shocks', mind. More verite, less forced.

    This is a great topic by the way.

    Written by Harris on February 2nd, 2010 at 00:26

  • I really think the issue is of playing roles that there is no real access to. How do you play someone with sever Cerebal Palsy or with high level Aspergers, or Autism? Blindness is no less a severe disability, but, like you say, far more accessable to all, and really I think if an actor can get into the role of portraying a character from a different cultural background, then we can assume they are able to become emotionally involved with a blind character, as with deaf. It is the lack of full communication and extensive character studying of people less accesible disabilites that is the root of this problem.

    Written by Harris on February 2nd, 2010 at 00:36

  • Could someone with Autism be expected to perform as a different character to themselves for the entire duration of a production shoot? I have to admit to a certain level of ignorance on that issue, though my understanding of the condition would have me believe they may not be able to (and I'm not learning from Rain Man). Apsergers is different, at least at the lower levels, though emotional connection may still be an issue, and as such I revert to my words above, that the most suitable film genre for people with disabilites to be portrayed in would be cinema verite/documentary

    Written by Harris on February 2nd, 2010 at 00:38

  • Precisely the reason for the campaign. Ignorance. The limitations placed on the performer with disabilities resonates with the assumption that no black performer had the capability to play Othello. As to Asperger's syndrome and the emotional connection. that I'm afraid is very typical of the nonsense which disabled performers experience. If indeed they are even called to audition. I think to some extent, it depends on the disability in question. Imagine Robert De Niro donning prosthetics to play a character with Downs Syndrome? No neither can I. The determination that some disabilities are off limits and others aren't. This demonstrates that audiences are deemed to be intelligent enough to discriminate authenticity and require it. in some cases. I think if you equate it to race and ethnicity and then review some of these comments you will realise that disablism is an all pervading aspect of modern. It's just not viewed as such by many, many people unless of course you're disabled.

    Written by Nicky Clark on February 2nd, 2010 at 09:08

  • Also Casting generally needs to widen its brief. Why can't the character be disabled regardless if the part is written as such. Why can't said disability be an incidental character aspect. Life imitating art. No not in the case of disability. If that were so then 8 million plus people in this country would disappear.

    Written by Nicky Clark on February 2nd, 2010 at 09:09

  • Interesting discussion. We interviewed three actors with disabilities for Issue 15 of the mag. Would anybody like us to re-post those transcripts online? It would show a different and very relevant perspective.

    Written by Matt Bochenski on February 2nd, 2010 at 09:54

  • Good thinking. That's much more efficient.

    Written by Matt Bochenski on February 2nd, 2010 at 12:12

  • I actually live with someone with minor aspergers (his words) and from his explanation of the issue I feel as though I have a fairly level understanding. The emotional connection comment was with referrence to those who have a very high level aspergers (similar, as I was told, to autism), (I took it for granted, wrongly it seems, that low level aspergers wouldn't be too much of a hindrance in getting work, at least in getting to audition) and was really meant as a question, but I understand that my phrasing was utterly appalling and I only use tiredness as an excuse to try and eleviate from my tactless handling of the prose, and lack of basic grammatical devices.

    I totally agree that there is a major lack of disabled actors being exposed, within the media as a whole, not specifically meaning that the characters have to be disabled as a gimmick, but rather just to help show that these people do exist, and 'we' need to be more accustomed to seeing such things.

    I don't agree entirely with the racial/ethnic parallel, though I can see the logic. I understand though that some people will be biased against people with disabilites due to their ignorance, and unwillingness to change-this is a human characteristic after all.

    Also, where do you draw the line of disability? Is depression a disability? M.E? Could some with S.F perform the role of someone with S.F?

    All in all, I am entirely for the expansion and unbiased inclusion of disabled actors/characters, though I feel neither should define the other, so to speak. I would be genuinely interested to see films written/directed by people with mental disabilites, as I am fascinated by alternative ways of seeing, and do not believe that someone from outside of that could ever portray it accurately. I would be very interested to see what these people could bring to the role, and only feel disheartened by the lack of mainstream media already promoting such projects.

    (as for Lars Von Trier, don't forget his TV show The Kingdom, which actually did include two characters played by people with Down Syndrome, who could have been read to have been more in touch with alternative ways of seeing; this sits quite nicely with my mention of dedicated autuers)

    Written by Harris on February 2nd, 2010 at 15:23

  • Tom – I think your article is both naive and misguided. Producers are not always seeking "an authentic portrayal of a mentally disabled person" as Lizzy Clark says and you want your readers to believe. Unless a Producer is making a documentary about a disorder then they are most likely trying to tell a story, create entertainment and make money – that's what films like these are all about. I certainly hope you are not advocating that every movie that has a disabled person in it be made into a documentary.

    The use of actual disabled people doesn't necessarily help to move the story along and in fact can be much more distracting and costly to the production. In the case of Extraordinary Measures there were over 800 children (most with professional work experience) who auditioned for the role of the daughter with Pompe disease, Megan Crowley. If casting were to only look at Pompe girls 8 to 10 years old how many girls are available? Let's estimate: 5,000 to 10,000 people with Pompe worldwide, guess 2,000 in USA, guess 200 kids 8 to 10, leaving 100 girls 8 to 10 but there's a problem. Children 8 to 10 have been using an enzyme that gives them much more functionality than the actual Megan had when she was that age. Thus, it is impossible to find a girl with Pompe who behaves normally or has the same functionality that Megan did at that age. What should CBS Films do? Use a Pompe child anyhow and teach her to act or use an actor and tell that actor what they want done? Of course they'll use an actor.

    Moreover, the use of an actual disabled person can be distracting to the story itself and certainly more costly. If CBS Films had used a child with Pompe the child would not have been able to smile or show emotion in a way that the audience would've needed to see, would have had a hard time communicating which would've made audio recording almost impossible (meaning a lot of post-production ADR work), would have had a body that was bloated from the enlargement of organs (which tends to be more distracting to an audience looking for entertainment not a documentary) and most likely the child would not have been able to withstand the long hours of filming (which would have led to astronomical cost increases). Practically speaking it just did not make sense for CBS Films to do this. I think this illustrates why it is naive to fight for disabled actors in all disabled roles in a misguided attempt to help disabled people get more acting roles. It is simply not going to happen.

    Sure, CBS Films could've used an actor and had the actor portray the disease more truthfully by using makeup to show the bloated body but does that really help move the story along? This was not a documentary. The purpose of the movie was to tell the story of how a man (John Crowley) risked everything to save the lives of his children. The disease itself is really secondary to the story of love and triumph over astronomical odds. This major platform brought awareness about the disease to millions of people that didn't know the disease existed but CBS Films has a responsibility to its shareholders to create entertainment that will appeal to a broad audience and of course, make money. Is this righteous or fair? No, but it is the way the world works. You could at least be honest about that.

    Written by Anonymous on February 2nd, 2010 at 20:12

  • I think you have misunderstood my position which, to be fair, has become quite a specific one as this debate has developed. If you read my reply above, you'll see I advocate the practice of able-bodied actors playing disabled actors when necessary. To state an actor suffering from Pompe sufferer must always be a genuine Pompe sufferer would, I agree, be a naively ethical position.

    On a basic level, I feel narrative cinema is a superior format to documentary (which in itself raises a whole new gamma of ethical dilemmas) and know there are practical restraints involved in making movies with disabled actors and cast. I've worked on a shoot before in which the director, writer and almost all of the cast were profoundly deaf. On another film, we had a wheelchair user. Although both enlightening experiences, the dynamic on set was fundamentally different to that of a set with all able-bodied people, and provisions had to be made.

    So I have some understanding of the realities, but this is not just a question of authenticity. I wrote the article because I feel there is a pernicious attitude involved in the way we approach disability.

    I felt Extraordinary Measures was a poor, superficial depiction of disability with a painfully obvious dedication to a sanitised, tastefully rendered cinematic world of perfect resolutions, but I'm not going to single it out for specific criticism. It's one of a litany of examples. As I state in my review (which should be on the site this week), as far as I'm aware the Crowley's were kept involved and I assume are happy with the final product, and that's probably the most important thing.

    But personally, I don't give a damn if "the use of an actual disabled person can be distracting to the story." Is that an honest assessment of the way the world works?

    We could be honest about the way world works, or we could attempt a bit of introspection and confront an issue which I feel desperately needs to be examined, so hopefully we can start to change the way we approach and portray disability, both in cinema and in general.

    I'm not a film-maker, I'm a writer, and I'm making an appeal for more films, better stories, more insight, into the issues surrounding disability, both with and without disabled actors.

    Written by Tom on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:50

  • There is a strong case to be made for this position, but one potential problem is that life and art are not so straightforwardly linked. In life, a person with a(n incidental) disability is a person with a(n incidental) disability – but in art, with all its economies, contrivances and hermetic framings, there is no such thing as 'incidental', and therefore such a person becomes, whether for good or ill, a token. In a sense, if I understand your argument, a certain kind of tokenism is exactly what you are demanding – but tokenism always has its downside too. To adopt and adapt an analogy from your earlier post, is a token black character (in an otherwise all-white film) really such an advance on the white actor who blacks up?

    Do I think that any film featuring a disabled actor must therefore necessarily be about disability? No. Do I think, however, that many viewers will perceive it that way? Yes indeed.

    Written by Anton Bitel on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:49

  • Hear hear, Tom – although I do think that the "painfully obvious dedication to a sanitised, tastefully rendered cinematic world of perfect resolutions" which you condemn in Hollywood depictions of disability is in fact to be found in Hollywood films in general (with some exceptions).

    Needless to say, many of the problems to which you allude rest not only in cinema, but in the horizon of expectations amongst the mass market of viewers that cinema often seeks to reflect (not least, in order to recoup its expenses). The revolution starts with each and every one of us, both as critics and viewers. It's what makes articles and discussions like this so important.

    Do check out Oasis if you get a chance – I think you'll like it, and South Korea's a long way from Tinseltown…

    Written by Anton Bitel on February 3rd, 2010 at 13:00

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow us on Twitter
latest comments
  • I found the story of Big Fish Games fascinating. I wanted to keep playing it just so I could see how it would...
    Chung Hernander Funny Games
  • I think the relationship between Bad Blake and Tommy Sweet is self-explanatory and has a lot of depth in the film. We...
  • I did actually mention Maya Deren's films, as well as Dali/Bunuel-Un Chien Andalou – for some reason...
    Thom Harris Art On Film
  • A fine piece if you ask me, I think it's got a good amount of depth for the length and plenty of names for...
    Thom Harris Art On Film