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.

scoobyloobyloo

My point is, in my opinion, that an actor with this disability should have been cast in the main role.
Well, I got that point, obviously.

People with disabilities are massively underrepresented in every walk of life.
So you think all movies are vehicles for representation then? Is that correct?

perpetuates stereotypes by not only ‘whitewashing’ his disability (he is clearly less disfigured in the film than in the book) thereby perpetuating the stereotype of less disfigured/more attractive
But the author and director have highlighted they could not make the actor any more like Auggie because the condition means the removal of a bone, and prosthetics, whilst also making the actor's voice clear, would have been physically impossible. So your interpretation of the team deliberately trying to make the actor less disfigured - and in your mind, such translation is more attractive - doesn't exist, only in you.

but also by reinforcing the fact that disabled people are marginalised, overlooked and underrepresented.
How does a film about a disabled boy, based on a novel by a disabled boy, made in Hollywood, with leading world-famous, audience-draing actors possibly marginalise and overlook disabled people? As for underrepresentation, as I said before, movies are not representation vehicles.

for flowerpot

(There doesn't seem to be a like button)

Have you watched Speechless? That's a fantastic series. Micah Fowler is one of the few actors in the US to share a similar disability to his character. And I think the first actor in a wheelchair to play a character in a wheelchair on network television. His disabilities aren't as profound as his character JJ's, who is quadriplegic and unable to speak due to his Cerebral Palsy. But he does an amazing job on the show.

Enjoy the gin Flowerpot

Nope, I don’t think all movies should be vehicles for representation. Just this one, about a disabled boy, based on a novel by a disabled boy, made in Hollywood which missed a massive opportunity...

I have a disability. And it makes me angry when actors without disabilities play disabled characters.

And this thread is upsetting me because I’d somehow managed to forget just how horrifically disablist MN can be.

I’m sure I read in an article recently that an actor with Aspergers was finally cast as Christopher Boone in the NT Curious Incident Play.

That’s good, but it shouldn’t be something that is newsworthy. It shouldn’t be an anomaly.

Agree with Flowerpot, you are speaking lots of sense. What you said earlier is true: film is Art.

scoobyloobyloo

Nope, I don’t think all movies should be vehicles for representation. Just this one

Oh? Why just this one? What's your logic then?

Mmm.. that tastes lovely, thanks!

You’re a straight line kinda thinker aren’t you Flowerpot

lemongrass

I’m sorry it’s upset you. I shouldn’t have posted in AIBU, it kinda brings out the worst in people. But I guess talking about it is better than not talking about it...

scoobyloobyloo

You’re a straight line kinda thinker aren’t you Flowerpot
If you mean I believe arguments should be consistent and make sense, yes I am. Thank you.

Anyway, back to the subject matter. So why do you believe only this film should be a vehicle for representation scoobyloobyloo?

"Why not focus on the positives instead of, as OP is doing, vilifying those who are trying to make a difference - no matter how trite that may seem?"

Because as a person with a disability, being able to name a tiny handful of people isn't really enough to make me feel like disability on TV is a normal thing. Also, saying "you must be able to find a disabled person" is really far from "vilifying" - that's a bit unfair as I've not been abusive in the slightest.

Hungry
you’re so right...how long to wait for mainstream acceptance of disability?

As Curious posted upthread, only a few years ago, parents compained when Carrie Burnell presented on CBeebies.

Not really what I meant but I’ll throw it back to you Flowerpot...

Why shouldn’t films be vehicles for representation?

scoobyloobyloo

Not really what I meant but I’ll throw it back to you Flowerpot...

Well no, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you believe that films should be representation vehicles in this one, singular, specific case only.

Here's a reminder of what you said: Nope, I don’t think all movies should be vehicles for representation. Just this one

Why just this one scoobyloobyloo?

I was watching the bad education movie the other night and I actually googled the cast to see if the actor who was using a wheelchair was an actual wheelchair user. I was surprised to see he actually was. That surprise shows how under represented people with disabilities on TV, stage and film.

The thing is, there’s a signification proportion of the population who don’t want to see them. You only have to read some of the comments on Mumsnet to see disabled people often aren’t welcome.

Or we like to have a santised version of disability. Nothing too challenging to put one off their popcorn or affect ticket sales.

No, go on Flowerpot I want to know what you think.

As you said As for underrepresentation, as I said before, movies are not representation vehicles

Why not?

Movies are important vehicles for representation aren't they? If not why do people care so much about whitewashing? People in the public eye (and movie stars get more exposure than virtually anyone else) are role models. The more marginalised the group you are from the more that's the case as you may otherwise feel very invisible. I can totally see why people with disabilities find it frustrating that their life stories are apparently great for Oscar bait, but they are only ever played by able bodied (and often beautiful with it) actors.

If people without disabilities were not allowed to play a disabled person, then disabilities would be far less represented in film than they are now. Film's aren't documentaries.

Lots of films have been listed already that wouldn't have been able to be made if this wasn't allowed. And where would it end? Will we stop actors impersonating accents, dyeing hair ginger, playing tran-sexuals, having cancer, terminal illnesses, alzhiemers, war injuries, being bald?

Totally Hungry

And who pull out the PC Card when you question why this is...

Well said Nooka

Flowerpot I'm going to pick up two things.

My dd2 is missing her hand. She also does a certain amount of acting. When she goes to an audition, we know there is a high chance that the director will immediately discount her because of her hand. This can be either because "we can't have X character missing a hand because everyone knows from the book she's not" or because they're making assumptions what she can't do, or because they will have to think a little bit about accommodating her (eg making sure she's at the correct end in a dance where they hold hands at the end)
If they cast a two-handed child in a part that required a one-handed child then I would be irritated simply because those children have opportunities in 10 000 other movies filmed every year. This was one possibility for a child who wouldn't be considered in another.
But moreover, if they had cast a child with the condition in Wonder then maybe, just maybe, another producer might look at their film and say "hey, he was great. The child in mine doesn't have the disability, but it doesn't matter, I'd like to use him". That will normalise disability, when people who are visibly disabled are used in parts that don't require them to be disabled and the story line doesn't revolve round their disability.

The second thing is that actually dd2's disability is relatively popular for TV. The children's faces aren't effected, so they can look nice for the camera, they don't have any learning disability so they can pick up things quickly. It's an obvious disability so they can look terribly inclusive.
In this case, by making up a child to have a less extreme disability you are saying to those children that actually "we want to say don't worry it's fine, but we don't really want to see you. You aren't really nice enough to be on camera."

scoobyloobyloo

No, go on Flowerpot I want to know what you think.
You see, what normally happens in polite society is two things:

First, if you make the argument about something and express your outrage in a public forum, then it is up to you to explain the thinking behind it. We're still trying to get to the thinking behind your outrage..

Second, when you make a statement and someone questions you about it, you answer it. You don't throw it back to the person asking the question, not least until you have answered it. You see, it comes across then as if you are unable to find an answer.

Now, if that's the case, just say so scoobyloobyloo. Just say you haven't got any idea why only this film, and no other, should in your opinion be a vehicle for representation. You can't answer, you have no idea, it's just some random point of view you've plucked out of thin air. That'll be fine. At least we know where you stand.

Agree with flowerpot your outrage doesn't stand up to any examination.

It's only when you see amateur dramatics that you realise how talented professional actors actually are. A wooden non acting lead child actor would sink the whole film.