To wonder (the Movie) why the hell this is acceptable?

[scoobyloobyloo]

Why the absolute fuckity fuck is it ok in this frigging day to NOT USE AN ACTOR WHO ACTUALLY HAS THE DISABILITY THE WHOLE FECKING FILM IS ACTUALLY ABOUT????

Seriously - no one would DREAM of blacking up, or allowing a man to play a woman.

I thought this film looked incredible until I realised that at the very heart of it they were perpetuating the stereotypes they were claiming to be busting.

Instead of spending time finding a young male actor who has Treacher Collins they plucked a pretty boy actor with a few awards under his belt to mock up a disability. Bunch of cowards.

FFS.

I was watching some youtube videos about this - from this one I understand some children with TC did read for the part (video suggests that one got quite way through but needed significant surgery during film time...)..be

Sorry, to clarify, I don't have a problem with an actor playing the role but i do have a problem with the disability being minimised.

I’m on the fence to be honest. As others have said, we don’t know if they didn’t try to find an actor who was willing and able.

No one would dream of blacking up

You need to watch Tropic Thunder 😆

Last I heard Flowerpot, neither astronauts, nannies or mafia bosses were discriminated against groups protected under The Equality Act.

So... if there is no disabled actor available then the film just doesn't get made? OK!
My Left Foot
Mask
Shine (I am including mental health issues)
Blind
The Upside which already has very vocal opposition
The Theory of Everything
Ray
Forrest Gump
Scent of a Woman
What's Eating Gilbert Grape
Tim
Nell
... and many more.

Would you go as far as to say that only people with disabilities can raise awareness and/or money for a disability?

I hope not. Narrowing down the number of people allowed to discuss/ portray disabilities would be self defeating, not to mention truly patronising!

Why does it annoy you so much? Why do you think it is at the very heart of it they were perpetuating the stereotypes they were claiming to be busting ?

I can't get my head round that. They are being patronising because they are trying to highlight the condition yet they don't have that condition... but you.... ?

Bloody coward/hypocrite/choose your epithet!

Weird!

Eddie Redmayne is a slightly different kettle of fish because the nature of the story in Theory of Everything really does requires a man who can portray the change in physical condition from before the onset of symptoms. There are some stories where you could use CGI or whatever to let an actor with a disability to portray the character pre-disability but TOE isn’t really one of them.

OP, ok, you didn't say in your post anything about the Equality Act.

So that's your argument is it? You don't think anybody who might be discriminated against under the Equality Act should ever be portrayed by anybody who does not share the precise same characteristics, or combinations of characteristics, that are protected. Is that right?

Or is it that at the very heart of it they were perpetuating the stereotypes they were claiming to be busting? What does this mean? What stereotype are the film makers making here?

I'm sorry, but I'm finding your argument really difficult to follow.

It happens all the time. Leonardo diCaprio in What's Eating Gilbert Grape. Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything. Colin Firth putting on a speech impediment in The King's Speech. Jodie Foster in Nell. Jamie Foxx playing a blind Ray Charles. John Hawkes in The Sessions.
Equally, Angelina Jolie blacking up for A Mighty Heart, Johnny Depp ousting an actual Native American actor to play the role of Tonto in The Lone Ranger, the British actor in Cloud Atlas who wore eye prosthetics to look East Asian, and basically every actor who's ever played Jesus.
It's total bullshit.

There's a very funny blacking up sketch in Scrubs, too.

Curious
Interested to know in how many of those films does the actor have a facial disfigurement? I can count maybe 3?

I can see your point OP.

Has anyone seen the movie Tiptoes? It has Gary Oldman playing a character with Dwarfism. We know that they’re plenty of actors with Dwarfism out there who would like to do something other than playing the butt of jokes, there was no excuse for them to use Gary.

I think if there were more parts available for disabled actors in general, then acting might be a more viable career for disabled people. That doesn't mean that every single part that features a disabled person would be played by someone with a disability but it would increase the representation of disability on screen. I'm not sure the blacking up argument really works because skin colour is constant from birth but disability can happen to anyone at any time. Lots of disabled people were once able bodied and/or nt.

I’m sorry you don’t get it Flower

The difference is that there are particular groups who are seriously discriminated against. Mafia bosses and astronauts amongst them.

CaptainMarvelDanvers

We know that they’re plenty of actors with Dwarfism out there who would like to do something other than playing the butt of jokes

Thankfully, casting is not based on people who "would like to do something".

scoobyloobyloo

I’m sorry you don’t get it Flower
I do. I've move on and away now you have mentioned the Equality Act, and have asked you questions on that point. Are you able to answer my questions?

The difference is that there are particular groups who are seriously discriminated against. Mafia bosses and astronauts amongst them.
I know. I understood you the first time. See above.

Ah! So it is just the look of it...

Mask
Elephant Man
Phantom of the Opera
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Vanilla Sky
Man Without a Face
V for Vendetta
Sin City - oops! Sorry. Mickey Rourke does have a disfigurement, too many surgeries
Edward Scissorhands
Spawn

This is part of an interview with Julia Roberts where she explains why they didn't cast somebody with Treacher Collins:

Disability advocate Cynthia Murphy, who has Treacher Collins, says: “We feel the message behind this choice is contrary to the book Wonder.” Writer Palacio says: “I was pushing hard to cast a boy with Treacher Collins but finding one the right age, who had the right facial differences, whose parents would let him miss school for months of shooting, leaves a very small pool of people.

“One boy, Nathaniel, came close. The studio flew him to California for a screen test. But acting can be tough. You have to read the lines 30 different times, in different ways, with 100 people watching you, opposite Julia Roberts.

“Nathaniel had physical limitations, he was hard to understand sometimes and if you have a $20million movie you have to make that call. The family did become consultants on the movie, though, and during filming his dad said to me, ‘Thank God they didn’t cast Nathanie

Oops! Posted too early.

None of them! And I still don't get why it annoys you so much!

The filmmakers had a massive opportunity here to make a difference.

And they missed it.

It’s sad that they missed it and it’s sad that disability appropriation and other kinds of appropriation are still seen to be acceptable.

There’s an interesting article here for anyone wanting to know more about it.

I don’t get how you don’t get it Samphire but that’s what makes the world go round.

Have a google of disability appropriation...

Flowerpot I think you’re been deliberately obtuse.

My issue with this film is that he barely looks disfigured in the film. The whole point of the book is that the boy is massively, almost described as shockingly disfigured. Hence his huge struggles.
I wouldn't look at the actor portraying him twice. He looks fine

I'd worry it could have a negative affect on some children. If the little boy is supposed to have a moderately severe facial disfigurement, and then when his face is seen it's only a tiny bit different from the characters in the movie with no disfigurement, that could leave children who have more noticeable facial differences feeling "wow, he's getting a hard time and he looks fine. What must people think of me and my face?!"

Sorry, that was a long sentance but I hope I explained it sufficiently.