To think (professional) able bodied actors shouldn't be given roles of characters with disabilities

[manicinsomniac]

Or not unless no disabled actor is available who can play the role (as might be the case with a severe disability or amateur acting).

This video: www.facebook.com/disabilityonthemighty/videos/1395870050538459/
has been doing the rounds among my thespian type friends on facebook and I think it makes a lot of sense.
(in summary it says that 20% of people are disabled but only 2% of characters on tv have disabilities and 95% of those roles go to able bodied actors leaving very few opportunities for disabled actors. It compares old practices of casting white actors to play black characters and says that able bodied actors playing disabled characters should be equally avoided nowadays).

It's getting a lot of positive attention but some people are saying that there's no point in acting if we only get to play characters like ourselves and that some actors have given brilliant portrayals of disabled characters (Leo di Caprio in What's Eating Gilbert Grape comes up a lot).

I do agree with that point but I think there are enough challenging roles out there for talented able bodied actors without taking the few roles available to disabled actors. I don't think they should be allowed to have the roles unless the casting director/director has tried and failed to cast a suitable disabled actor. AIBU?

"I think it depends on the disability"

I agree.
A character with disabilities like my son's couldn't be portrayed by someone with disabilities like my son's.

"This is a problem that stems largely from the lack of focus on drama and music in state schools and the under representation of BAME actors in good drama schools (and in music academies)."

I totally agree with this

I completely agree, by the way, that it was lazy and disrespectful of Glee not to cast an actor who actually used a wheelchair. It was the perfect role in an ensemble to showcase the talent of an actor with a disability (who will have a much harder time in the industry for so many other reasons). The actor who played the character was nothing really special in terms of profile or ability (singing or acting) that could not have been found in a wheelchair user with a wide enough search.

On the other hand, there are other circumstances (as others have alluded to) where it really may not be possible to cast an actor with the appropriate disability. We lack disabled actors with a sufficient profile and training to carry many leading roles. This will only get better with more investment in training a more diverse range of actors.

Samcro (and others) - in Glee there were several scenes where Artie danced so presumably they knew that it was going to be part of the story. He also had to sing a lot throughout it so possibly he was the best person for it. It is also possible that they just wanted him regardless. Not sure we will ever know.

It would certainly be wrong to not consider someone with the specific disability for a the role but I am not sure just because they are the best disabled actor as opposed to the best actor overall that they should be cast. I have heard in some organisations HR will say things like we need to employ more black people/women/men etc but I also disagree with this as it should be the best person for the job regardless.

The film about the little boy recently with the facial disfigurement nearly cast a child with the same condition but there were questions regarding his health and with huge budget productions plus the health of a child at stake they wouldn't necessarily go down that route. I can understand that but they were still slated about it.

I think other posters have hit the nail on the head regarding the availability of disabled actors. There potentially aren't enough people perusing acting at the moment (or not being given opportunities) to ensure high quality actors can be cast. I do think it is starting to become more common but until there are a higher number of disabled actors it won't happen.

It is the same with black actors or football managers. If you have a minority group in country then you will not have an equal number of other groups and the minority group doing a certain job. I do not understand why people do not understand this. I live somewhere where there are very few black people. DCs school of 500 has about 5 or 6 black people in, maybe 20 including Asian children etc, they don't not take people due to that, it is just in proportion to the cohort of population. If 25 children won a prize at prize giving then it is likely that only 1 or 2, if that, would win a prize, not half of them, but the way the issue in general is discussed this would be deemed as wrong.

A matching disability to the role doesn't mean they are the right actor for the role though.
This.
As others have mentioned, "My Left Foot" done by anyone other than Daniel Day-Lewis would definitely not have been a patch on him.
I haven't seen the Stephen Hawking filmwith Eddie Redmayne but, Stephen Hawking has, supposedly, motor neurone disease (in fact if he had the usual variety he would have been dead in under 2 years so he clearly has a weird variant) - an actual usual motor neurone sufferer is unlikely to want to act in a film - having had their diagnosis they will be aware they have very, very little time left to them and they will be deteriorating fast - I should think months of filming would be well beyond them. (I work as a secretary to a neurologist and have been working in this field for over 20 years).

A quick Google comes up with loads of articles slamming Glee who say they auditioned any actors for all the roles but they said they picked the best actors for singing/acting/charisma etc. We can't prove that isn't the case.

I think that of course discrimination does exists but we are very close to becoming a nation where everyone is so worried of upsetting someone then we will start going backwards. Do we start hiring people just because they are black/disabled/female or do we not patronise then and ensure they have the fair opportunity to apply for roles/jobs regardless and hire the best person for the job.

until there are a higher number of disabled actors it won't happen.

It's a bit of a vicious circle. I would guess that many disabled people are put off training as actors as there don't seem to be many parts available.

The problem is that people always get accused of tokenism in many circles if anyone but a white person is cast. See the Hermione moaning in the Harry Potter play. It's never taken as read that that person was the best person for the job, they just happened to be black or asian. Sometimes the only way to get people used to an idea without crying ' tokenism" is to just cast them. The Doctor Who casting call, I believe was only for women this time. So they wanted to cast a female Doctor. I hope she's great. If she is, it will cease to be an issue for future castings.

Surely the role should go to the best person?
Let's say a show where a lead character has MS, should a person be cast who has MS even if they can't act for toffee? Or should it go to the person who depicts the character better and is actually able to act?

I thought the point of acting was that the actor takes on traits and personalities that aren't their own.

Can straight people play gays & vice versa then?

You're going to end up with an awful lot of actors waiting for a role that fits their particular niche if you're not careful - "Japanese, Left Foot Amputee, Gay, Christian" could be hard to cast.....

There must be so many hugely talented, disabled actors out there. I just don't believe that there isn't a disabled actor suitable for most disabled roles. Obviously there will be a few exceptions.

As seems usual in society, disabled people can often be largely forgotten about when it comes to full participation.

I don't think you're being unreasonable at all, OP, to want more opportunities for the disabled acting community.

YANBU

I was pretty appalled when I found out that the little boy in wonder (( about a little boy with treacher Collins syndrome)) doesn't have the condition.

I'm pretty sure there's a kid out there who has TC that would have loved the role.

Yes straight people can play gays, and vice versa.

Piffle - your argument is not the same thing at all. Of course actors can play someone of a different sexuality. Same for religion and nationality, if the ethnicity fits. Because that aspect of themselves is not something that limits the number of opportunities they have in acting. An audience won't know or care if the character playing Romeo is gay, Christian or Swedish. But if Romeo is a wheelchair user or non verbal then yes, they know and it matters - because Romeo wasn't those things. (unless the role or the plot or the whole casting is changed to make that part of the character central to it of course - eg an entire Romeo and Juliet cast of wheelchair users).

Therefore, if a visible difference is something that prevents an actor getting the majority of parts then a part that requires that difference (eg Artie from Glee) should be reserved for someone with that difference unless nobody suitable can be found. It's not about authenticity to the audience in that case (we don't know unless we google); it's about fairness to actors who are barred from so many opportunities.

I agree that not all disabilities could be portrayed by actors who have them due to varying cognitive function. And I agree that people shouldn't be given a part just because they have the right disability even if they can't act.

But I still think directors and casting agents should have to consider and explore the pool of disabled actors where possible.

SchoolBus. I wasn’t responding to your post.

Should only a Jewish actor play Shylock?

There should be more imaginative casting and writing all round. Loads of white male characters could be black female, or visually impaired, or trans. And look what happens to women, post-50.

. There should be more work for talented disabled actors.

But we, the great British (and other) public are complicit in the lack. Making theatre and film is hugely expensive, and plays to market forces. As far as I know all the great theatre shows and companies that regularly feature disabled actors are subsidised.

Look at the negative reaction that met the CBeebies presenter with a difference.

The Who-ha over a female Dr.

I agree with pp's who have said the problem is also about the lack of disabled actors, and with some conditions the practicality.

It bothers me more that disabled actors/ characters only really appear when it's the storyline. Able bodied actors playing a disabled role would be less of an issue if we had disabled people playing the part of the leading man/ woman, the new neighbour in a soap etc, with the disability being as irrelevant to the plot as eye colour. I suppose I mean it should be 'here is character A' 'rather than 'Look! the disabled character also being included'

Saying that, it's only recently when black characters have been given roles where colour isn't the relevant storyline.

How would that have worked with Stephen Hawking or a role that requires a paraplegic to be walking for half the film?