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.

Seriously, cariadlet?

Repulsive is as repulsive does, I suppose.

shorty6768

Flowerpot your ignorance is deafening.
Could you be more specific on the item(s) that I do not know?

Replace the words ‘disabled actor’ with ‘black actor’ and ‘abled actor’ with ‘white actor’
Why? What does that achieve? Are you saying I am ignorant because I am discussing the subject matter of this thread?

& rather than ‘minimise facial anomaly so it’s mainstream friendly’
Have you got the right poster? Who said those words? Has What have they got to do with me? Have the filmmakers said this is what they did? Because, if you read my post above, I have repeated what the Director and the Author said specifically about the facial difference between Auggie and the film version. I'll repeat it here again for you. They said they tried to get it as close as possible to Auggie, but since the condition means the lack of a bone, and since it wouldn't be possible to then hear what was being spoken, they couldn't do it. Now, it's clear that's not going to be the twisted, nasty motivation you would prefer, and you have your own narrative of why things are the way they are, and other people's motivations, but the reality is what it is, and of course I can't help you parking your false narrative and accepting reality, that's going to have to be something you do all by yourself.

It’s really not that difficult
What isn't? You haven't actually made any point here.

unless you’re of course denying the oppression, stigma, discrimination, prejudice, abuse, & gross underrepresentation that disabled people suffer at the hands of abled people.
So your premise is that anybody who thinks an abled actor can play a disabled character in an piece of entertainment and art of the movie form denies the suffering etc of disabled people at the hands of abled people? How do you get from A to Z there?

Marymaymay
Flowerpot You’ve totally missed all the points here

Really? Which specific points have I missed?

Sorry, a bit off topic, but someone upthread mentioned Switched at Birth as an example of not using someone with a disability to play a person with that disability, in this case a deaf person.

That show has a huge number of deaf characters, and they are all played by deaf actors, every single one, apart from the lead, but she does have Ménière’s disease so has experience of hearing loss the deaf community.

It’s a fantastic show, which highlights on the issues that deaf people face, without it being the main focus point for every plot line.
Admittedly the whole switched at birth plot line (and many others) are a bit far fetched, but as a show that normalises living with deafness and intergrates hearing and deaf characters, it is to be applauded.
It has inspired me to enrol on a BSL course actually.

"with some coaching could do it"

Ah, well I'm off to get some coaching and then make my millions in Hollywood!

I think you're looking to be offended OP. They are an actor. The film is excellent and the acting too.

NamasteNiki that's the little girl I saw the documentaries about. I just checked and she's about 14 now and has had 45 operations.

LouiseBrooks
Aw bless her.

Should there be more representative actors in movies yes.

Should movies only be made if they have representative actors. Absolutely not. There are these things call documentaries that are good when you dont want to see actors act.

I can understand why you would want to be outraged about this, but I think you are misdirecting it.

The fact they are making the film is a good thing. The practicalities of casting a TC child were considered by the producers and casting agents and it wasn’t possible to do it.

There is $20million being invested.

The reality of TC would mean it would be extremely difficult to sustain and perform for a feature film, whether you wanted to or not. You basically just wouldn’t be very good at it.

I say this all as the aunt of a young man who happens to have TC.

Also Treacher Collins has varying degrees of severity. In the documentary, the young girl Juliana was rare as she had a very severe form.

However Juliana's family adopted another child with Treacher Collins from Ukraine and as you can see, her disability isnt as severe.

The child in the film having an appearance that is not too severely disfigured is not downplaying the condition. Many children aren't severely disfigured as indicated by the attached picture.

It is downplaying Namaste when the book describes a different appearance. Can’t dig it out now because my daughter is sleeping but his physical appearance is most defniately not what the book describes.

Actually, It’s more than downplaying, it’s the disability equivalent of the photoshopping of Lupita Nyong’o’s hair that happened recently.

It’s saying ‘yeah, you’re kinda cool and we can see how we can make money out of you but actually if we make you just a little bit more like us (because you’re a little bit too black/disabled) we see how we can make a little bit more money.

Good article on the issue here. It's well balanced with some people with facial differences reacting positively to the movie and others really very upset about it.

Marymaymay so your solution is to cast a child like Juliana Wetmore? The child in the documentary i posted.

Her disability is so severe, she can't eat is tube fed, breathes through a tracheotomy, can't hear, cant speak, her eyes dont close so she needs her eyes need taking care of.

Your solution for this film to be acceptable is to disrupt the life and routine of a child with considerable special needs in the name of authentic entertainment?

Newsflash.....the film is an adaptation of the book. Most film adaptations have lots of changes.

Do you remember how Tom Cruise isn’t 9 feet tall and can still play jack reacher

Marymaymay

Have you not read other posts here (e.g. including mine!) which repeat what the Directors and the Author have specifically stated about the difference in the physical appearance of Auggie's character and Auggie in RL?

It is downplaying Namaste when the book describes a different appearance.
No, the downplaying is a false narrative which you have chosen to project onto the makers of the film. Entirely made up in your head. What there is in reality is merely a difference in appearance. Why don't you then begin with this reality and then find out why that exists, rather than make up your version of what you think is behind it all?

Actually, It’s more than downplaying, it’s the disability equivalent of the photoshopping of Lupita Nyong’o’s hair that happened recently.
No, there you go again. All that is in your head.

It’s saying ‘yeah, you’re kinda cool and we can see how we can make money out of you but actually if we make you just a little bit more like us (because you’re a little bit too black/disabled) we see how we can make a little bit more money.
OMG, there you go again. Can't you see what you're doing? You have fabricated an offence-causing stance, you desperately want it to be true because the reality is not the way you want it to be. So instead of choosing to accept it and understand that they couldn't make Auggie's character look like Auggie exactly because of the lack of bone required and the prosthetics would have meant nobody could have heard the actor's words you ignore all that and hang on desperately to your belief that it's all a deliberate vendetta against TC to make more money!

Marymaymay - they tried to make the character look just like Auggie. They couldn't. You wouldn't have been able to hear his words. Let go of your paranoia, let it go and enjoy the film.

flowerpot

I’ve read all the posts and yes, I still have my opinion, which is different to yours, but that’s ok.

Perhaps the downplaying is a false narrative. Perhaps not. Perhaps your narrative that it isn’t downplaying is false? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between. Your reality is not my reality. That’s ok too.

Lupita Nyong’o said the following about the photoshopping of her hair

Being featured on the cover of a magazine fulfils me as it is an opportunity to show other dark, kinky-haired people, and particularly our children, that they are beautiful just the way they are. I am disappointed that Grazia UK invited me to be on their cover and then edited out and smoothed my hair to fit their notion of what beautiful hair looks like.

“Had I been consulted, I would have explained that I cannot support or condone the omission of what is my native heritage with the intention that they appreciate that there is still a very long way to go to combat the unconscious prejudice against black women’s complexion, hairstyle and texture.”

Is that ‘all in my head’? Or straight from the person experiencing discrimination?

I haven’t fabricated an ‘offence causing’ stance. I find it offensive. You have not fabricated a ‘non offence causing’ stance. It’s your belief based on your life experiences. I’m ok with that.

We’re all human beings, trying to make sense of a pretty crazy world, it’s ok not to agree and it’s ok if not everyone thinks you’re right all the time.

Marymaymay

But it's not about your or my opinion. The Director and the Author have explicitly stated the reasons why there is a physical difference. If by some miracle they could have made the prosthetics to match his severity and allow the audience to speak, it wouldn't negatively affect audience numbers or revenue. In fact, I find the film version's physical characteristics so non-severe that it makes the shocked reaction of other characters look really odd. It would have been in their interest to make the facial characteristics more extreme from every perspective. They tried, and couldn't. I cannot for the life of me understand why you do not want to believe them.

*Lupita Nyong’o said the following about the photoshopping of her hair

Is she in the film?

Being featured on the cover of a magazine fulfils me as it is an opportunity to show other dark, kinky-haired people, and particularly our children, that they are beautiful just the way they are.

No it doesn't. It's an opportunity for a beautiful model to appear on a magazine cover.

I am disappointed that Grazia UK invited me to be on their cover and then edited out and smoothed my hair to fit their notion of what beautiful hair looks like.
They re-arrange every single cover, not only hers. I have looked at the before and after. The after looks better and practically works. This has nothing to do with her being black or her type of hair, but because taking that 'kinky' haired bunch away from her neck revealed far better her beautiful neck and balanced the image better, since the rest of her head was smooth, as is her incredible skin and cheekbones. Also, removing that hair bunch meant Grazia were able to put black writing alongside her and not chop into her neck. Models of all colours have kinky/frizzy/whatever hairstyles on covers of magazines. It's crazy of this model to talk about "notions of what beautiful hair looks like".

“Had I been consulted, I would have explained that I cannot support or condone the omission of what is my native heritage with the intention that they appreciate that there is still a very long way to go to combat the unconscious prejudice against black women’s complexion, hairstyle and texture.”

Then don't go into modelling. All images are edited to adapt to practical and artistic needs. The rest of her quote above is total baloney.

Is that ‘all in my head’? Or straight from the person experiencing discrimination?
Is what in your head? That this model said all this? No. She said it.
She is not experiencing discrimination. She believes she is experiencing discrimination.
Yes, I'd say all this nonsense of her hair bunch being edited out to omit her native heritage yada yada is in her head.

I haven’t fabricated an ‘offence causing’ stance. I find it offensive.
There. You find it offensive because you choose to find it offensive. You have fabricated that. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your repeated claims that the Director and Author deliberately 'downplayed' the physical characteristics to 'make more money'. There is evidence that they couldn't do it as you wouldn't have been able to hear the actor. You choose to ignore the evidence, and believe your fabricated reality.

audience to speak - I meant audience to hear him speak

Flowerpot

Blimey you are hard work...

You seem to find it impossible to apply the same logic to yourself as you apply to everyone else.

As well as that I agree with Bananas that you are coming across as, at best ignorant and at worst, racist and disabilist.

bananas - no previous between me and Flowerpot that I know about but not someone I would choose to engage with again!

bananasaregood

you are being extraordinarily aggressive, ableist and very dismissive of both disabled and now racial discrimination, and of disabled and black people's opinions of their own personal experiences.

Oh here we go...

Marymaymay

Blimey you are hard work..

No, I'm really easy actually, but your attempts to evade what the Director and Author have said is hard work for you. You keep transposing a nasty motivation onto the makers of this film, I point out what they've actually said, you don't want to hear that and keep pushing that they have a secret agenda.

It's obviously too much for you. We'll just leave it there then.

Flowerpot does like to find the disability threads on Mumsnet and be deliberately difficult on them I’ve noticed.

oh here we go

Seems like maybe bigotry is something that you have been called out on before maybe flowerpot?

Marymaymay
No, that's just another false assumption you've made up in your head. 'Here we go' as in the usual you're a *-ist claptrap that I have seen other posters be accused of is wheeled out yet again. Sorry to disappoint you.

As for TheHungryDonkey - I seek out disabled threads?! Wow. Donkey and I met on a thread about school uniforms when I asked a neutral question and she went mad, aggressive from the outset. It was truly astonishing. I knew then what I know now about you.. and I am not surprised at all that you are stalking me with more paranoia.

I'm running for the hills from this madness.