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?

Are there really screeds of underemployed experienced professional actors with disabilities out there? i'd have thought that given the huge barriers they face, many would simp'y leave the profession if ever they managed to enter it in the first place.

Crossposred with Boulshire there!

117 is extremely small if you were casting a character with a disability to an actor with the same disability. In the Rocks case the actual number of amputees it would not be a pool of 117 it might not even reach double figures on the list.

I completely disagree.

I enjoyed watching Tom Burke, as an amputee in Strike.
I enjoyed Colin Firth in the Kings Speech.
Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawkings.

Of course high class actors, do a lot of research for such roles. Which is perfectly fine. Thats what Acting is.

Oblomov I didn't mean to suggest that able bodies actors aren't capable of playing the roles or aren't enjoyable to watch. I'm sure they usually are on both counts.

It's more about widening opportunity and giving a more diverse, less known group of actors a shot - especially in roles that fit their abilities and lived experience well.

I found glee infuriating because they were always proclaiming how inclusive they were and in reality it was full of dangerous stereotypes.

No. Most talented actors must get the role.
Let the best person get the job.

I think there are 2 issues

1. casting a disabled character using a disabled actor - I don't think this is always the best idea (for complex reasons about health, mental health, directing, and other stuff)

2. looking at the pool of actors picking the best irrespective of whether or not they are disabled as that character wasn't written as disabled - this I think is the ideal

I don't think we are anywhere near the 2nd. TBH I don't even think we approach that (regularly) with casting the best actor for the roles irrespective of what colour they are.

I don't think it is as simple as saying let the best actor get the role. That is the same as saying let the best person get the job regardless of colour in the 1960's deep South, or regardless of sex in 1950's UK. It ignores the fact that the other group aren't getting the same opportunity to be the best. You need to broaden access at other levels to make it a level playing field.

I knew a child with sn who was amazingly talented but would struggle to read a script for a primary school play, let alone memorise it from written form. But you could act out or sing anything and she'd have been capable of repeating it back complete with better emotion, emphasis, actions, the works.

But beyond primary school I can't imagine any club catering to that need, so even if she's capable of being the worlds most gifted actor and in demand enough to get those adjustments, she's very unlikely to get the chance to try. And I imagine it's the same for many others with disabilities, even those where no big adjustments are needed, purely because they are used to the general attitude towards disability where facilities not even providing a ramp is shrugged off as unimportant.

What about actors who have worked incredibly hard to hone their talent, should they be cast aside so someone with arguably less talent/ability but a disability that fits the role could have a go?
Is it fair? It's not the able-bodied' fault to not be disabled. Should they be punished?

wakemeupbefore - those actors can audition for the other 98% of the roles available! (well, okay 49% I suppose, given that most roles call for either a man or a woman).
But still, they're hardly deprived of opportunity compared to disabled actors (who are currently only cast in 5% of the 2% of roles that have a disability - now that's an example of depriving actors of opportunity - your example is not.)

wake nobody has said any old disabled actor should be given the role over a more suited/ talented able bodied actor. Just that imo the opportunity to get to that level where it comes to deciding between talent needs to be equal across the board.

Women and minorities haven't suddenly developed the natural ability to have academic careers or have positions of power. But it's only relatively recently they've been given the (still unequal) chance to pursue those abilities. Disability is the same imo.

I also think there are many roles where it's not an essential part of the plot for the character to be able bodied, and disabled people should be more represented in this type of role, where their disability isn't connected to the plot.

'Do you also cry that white people and men are being discriminate against by equality measures?' sic.

Yes I do. Equality should mean equality, otherwise it's just nonsense.

You can't change history. You can ensure that the mistakes made are not repeated by making 'equality' equal for all. Otherwise it's not equality.

That would be the right outlook if we were all starting from a position of equality. But we aren't. You can't erase the history of oppression because it's still affecting equality today.

For example, let's say a white man is beginning a journey at point 4 and a black woman is beginning at point 1. Treat them both equally nowadays and they should achieve the same amount of progress. But that would put the white man at point 8 and the black woman at point 4. So equal treatment hasn't actually achieved equity - because of the past. For both people to reach point 8 at the same time the black woman actually needs preferential treatment.

You can apply the same analogy to any previously or currently marginalised group.

How do you propose equality should be achieved then?

In the film industry one of the biggest problems is that many films are set in the past so unless you change the script and re write history there is less roles for oppressed groups which leaves women as supporting roles, people of colour only certain roles or non at all. Disabled rarely seen. To get minority groups to the lead actors more supporting roles need to be created as few big companies are going to risk millions on an unknown.

There’s many Deaf actors who don’t get work while hearing actors have to learn to sign for the role.

But yes I think it should just be there’s a new character in the show and not about disability.