I don't understand this controversy. They're actors. They act. Their entire job is literally pretending to be someone they aren't. Should there have been backlash that Tom Hanks played Forrest...
I don't understand this controversy. They're actors. They act. Their entire job is literally pretending to be someone they aren't.
Should there have been backlash that Tom Hanks played Forrest Gump instead of casting someone who was mentally handicapped? How about that Eddie Redmayne played Stephen Hawking, when the role could have gone to someone who actually had ALS? Benedict Cumberpatch for playing a gay man, even though he's straight?
I don't think the issue is people acting as something they aren't, but minorities being passed over for acting roles. It's a form of workplace discrimination. When the roll is a character of the...
I don't think the issue is people acting as something they aren't, but minorities being passed over for acting roles. It's a form of workplace discrimination. When the roll is a character of the same minority group as the actors being passed over it adds insult to injury.
As the article says:
According to the foundation's own research, 20% of the US population have a disability, yet feature in only 2% of on-screen television roles, and of these, 95% are played by non-disabled actors.
They certainly don't appear as often in media as they are in society. We don't necessarily need to cast disabled actors to fix this, but rather write disabled roles. For the other part of the...
They certainly don't appear as often in media as they are in society. We don't necessarily need to cast disabled actors to fix this, but rather write disabled roles.
For the other part of the equation, we're missing the % of professional actors/actresses that are disabled. Are they being passed over, or are there just not many disabled people in this field?
Also keep in mind we're talking about a big budget hollywood film here, which means your pool of potential leads is very small - there may not even be a single disabled person in this pool.
For a smaller film it might make more sense to take a chance on a less "tested" actor/actress, but for a multimillion dollar blockbuster you're not going to do that.
If you need someone to play a role of disabled, any professional actor would do. But you can't get a disabled actor to play a healthy person. As for casting disabled people for disabled roles -...
If you need someone to play a role of disabled, any professional actor would do. But you can't get a disabled actor to play a healthy person. As for casting disabled people for disabled roles - just doing that cuts your hiring pool twenty times, not to mention that the disabled actors would have less experience and less recognition, for the reason I already mentioned above.
I think this is one of the problems that isn't worth doing anything about.
Many roles could be adapted to add a condition without taking anything away from the story. For example, the Duffer Brothers gave Dustin Henderson in Stranger Things cleidocranial dysplasia...
Many roles could be adapted to add a condition without taking anything away from the story. For example, the Duffer Brothers gave Dustin Henderson in Stranger Things cleidocranial dysplasia because that's what Gaten Matarazzo has. Aside from a couple scenes where they talk about it, it's an incidental thing. It's not a story about cleidocranial dysplasia; it's a story with a character who happens to have cleidocranial dysplasia. Other conditions could be treated the same way.
Take leg amputees, since that's what Dwayne Johnson is being critizised for playing. There are a lot of roles that leg amputees with a good prostetic could play without the audience even noticing most of the time; and when they do it just adds a little extra variety.
Well yeah. There aren't going to be that many disabled actors for the simple reason that the parts they can play are extremely limited, mainly to characters who are not only disabled, but who have...
Well yeah. There aren't going to be that many disabled actors for the simple reason that the parts they can play are extremely limited, mainly to characters who are not only disabled, but who have the same disability that the actors do.
Agreed. However, I can't help but wonder if I'm being hypocritical because if it was an Asian role that was given to a non-Asian actor, that would bother me.
Agreed. However, I can't help but wonder if I'm being hypocritical because if it was an Asian role that was given to a non-Asian actor, that would bother me.
For me, this is something that would only bother me if it had any impact on the story. For example, having Idris Elba play Roland in the Dark Tower was, imo, a poor choice, because there were...
However, I can't help but wonder if I'm being hypocritical because if it was an Asian role that was given to a non-Asian actor, that would bother me
For me, this is something that would only bother me if it had any impact on the story. For example, having Idris Elba play Roland in the Dark Tower was, imo, a poor choice, because there were several instances in the books where race mattered. But having Scarlet Johansen play the Major in Ghost in the Shell didn't change the narrative at all, so the casting choice didn't bother me.
When it comes to stuff like LGBT or handicap, though, those can be acted out. As long as the portrayal is fine and respectful, I don't care if the person portraying it is actually what they're acting.
For me it's also a bit about authenticity, which may be why Johansson playing the Major in Ghost in the Shell did bother me. On that note, I would also prefer not to have some weird added...
For me, this is something that would only bother me if it had any impact on the story.
For me it's also a bit about authenticity, which may be why Johansson playing the Major in Ghost in the Shell did bother me. On that note, I would also prefer not to have some weird added background story to justify casting someone that otherwise shouldn't have been so that they now make sense in the story.
I'll agree with you here. If you need to add unnecessary exposition to explain your casting choice, maybe it was a poor decision
I would also prefer not to have some weird added background story to justify casting someone that otherwise shouldn't have been so that they now make sense in the story.
I'll agree with you here. If you need to add unnecessary exposition to explain your casting choice, maybe it was a poor decision
For me the problem in Ghost In The Shell was focused on Johansson's casting when the real shame was that nearly the entire rest of the cast was also white for a story set in Japan. Sure, at a...
For me the problem in Ghost In The Shell was focused on Johansson's casting when the real shame was that nearly the entire rest of the cast was also white for a story set in Japan. Sure, at a superficial level you can say "look at Japan's birth rate; they're going to have to import so many immigrants to keep their society from facing horrible cuts to productivity and the size of their govenrment." But it's one hell of an ask to assume that all those immigrants would be white and would impact the story as much as this crew did.
Scar-Jo's casting was a choice that indicated the values of the team making the movie, and it bled into so many other casting decisions in the movie that it was difficult to ignore. If it were just Scar-Jo, it probably wouldn't have been nearly as big a problem to me. But that it was so pervasive in the casting decisions really undermined my ability to forgive it.
This is a really good point. I didn't see the movie, because honestly, it looked terrible. But it's on Netflix, and I thought I would check it out, and no joke, had to look up where it was taking...
This is a really good point.
I didn't see the movie, because honestly, it looked terrible. But it's on Netflix, and I thought I would check it out, and no joke, had to look up where it was taking place because of the casting.
And to be honestly, I'm not sure if I would be more okay if they moved the entire story to North America, like they did for Death Note.
Problem with low effort comments is that they bump the threads same as actual discussion do. When I see a thread I'm participating in hit the top of the feed again, I expect something was added to...
Problem with low effort comments is that they bump the threads same as actual discussion do. When I see a thread I'm participating in hit the top of the feed again, I expect something was added to the conversation.
It isn't moral high grounding, your comment is literally low-effort and has been said 1000s of times across the internet in some variety. It's low effort and added nothing.
It isn't moral high grounding, your comment is literally low-effort and has been said 1000s of times across the internet in some variety.
I think "offensive" is the wrong word, but I dislike the practice. There are plenty of disabled actors who can't get disabled parts because abled folks usually play them. And very rarely are...
I think "offensive" is the wrong word, but I dislike the practice. There are plenty of disabled actors who can't get disabled parts because abled folks usually play them. And very rarely are disabled actors cast for a character that is written as abled but doesn't have to be for the sake of the plot. So... saying we're cool with the way things currently are means we're cool with not having disabled people visible in our entertainment. (And for a demographic that has historically been pushed out of public view by medical practices, laws, and social practices... That's not great.)
There's a lot to be gained by actually casting disabled people in these roles. I haven't been able to see it yet, but the Deaf character in "A Quiet Place" was played by Millicent Simmonds who is Deaf and signs ASL. You can't fake that sort of fluency, especially in a language that is very different from the ones used by speaking folks (different syntax, meaning from facial expressions and spatial relationships, etc).*
I might have touched on this on another post here on tildes (maybe the disability in Avatar/Korra one?), but I think the problem extends further back than casting. I don't think that casting a paralyzed actor in "Me Before You" could have changed its deeply harmful elements, for example. It would still be a story about a man who (spoilers) goes through with assisted suicide because he thinks life isn't worth living with a disability.
Is that an authentic story? Maybe for some people. But when so few stories feature disabled characters it's honestly pretty damaging. Caretakers murder their loved ones because they can't bear to see them suffer. Disabled lives are considered lesser by individuals and by policies even today, such as denying transplants to intellectually disabled patients. So in that context a story about a guy who decides death is preferable to being disabled, even after falling in love and finding some joy, is deeply concerning. And having an actor who uses a wheelchair in that role wouldn't have made a difference.
*Edit: at least some Deaf folks don't consider themselves disabled, but some do. For the purposes of this type of conversation, I think it makes sense to include them.
I agree with almost everything that you've brought forward and said here, and I think you've been insightful and the examples you give are compelling. There is one quibble I will make when it...
I agree with almost everything that you've brought forward and said here, and I think you've been insightful and the examples you give are compelling. There is one quibble I will make when it comes to marketing movies: while many audiences won't react that strongly to a main protagonist in an action film having a prosthetic leg, many audiences will respond strongly to who is portraying that character (in this case, the Rock).
It's totally fair to say, look, if the movie studio wants to put its money where its mouth is, it'll give an actor who is actually disabled the chance to make people fall in love with him too. But that is a huge financial gamble for what is clearly being billed as a summer blockbuster like we have in this case. Will as many people come out for the movie that has a lesser known but genuinely disabled actor leading the action film as they would Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson? Almost certainly not. Will that make the difference on whether the movie is a success at the box office? Hard to say, but the negative publicity certainly can make them queasy.
A lot of this debate is moot for me because I never planned on watching this film anyway. The makers of this movie don't get any money from me because of the absolutely absurd physics involved in their promotion material (and that ridiculousness continued into the trailers), that makes the movie way too unbelievable for me on the best of days. I had written it off months ago. This sort of perspective added on top of things isn't going to shift that calculus much. But if they had done their homework with these questions of physics, it's likely that they would probably also care more about the sorts of details we're talking about here and I would be in a much tougher position.
It's about at this point that I have to confess an undying love for Scarlett Johansson, one that extends far enough to a problematic appreciation for her work in the new Ghost In The Shell, which I thought was "fine." I mean, the people who should have been showing up the entire story ethnicity-wise weren't, and that was a problem that foretold shaky problems elsewhere in the film, but she did okay given the shitty structure around her. I see Ghost In The Shell as the necessary subtext for her resignation from this new role, and I appreciate it (though the film casting team picking her in the first place worries me a bit, for a lot of what I touched on already: I see this as indicating problems with what the movie creators value and that usually spins off into other parts of the film). She's been through this exact rodeo before and decided she'd rather not again. So in some sense, there's some individual-level progress.
Yeah, I get the marketing aspect. To be honest, I wouldn't expect a movie like this to hire an unknown actor, disabled or not. It's just not gonna fly with the money people. But the issue for me...
Yeah, I get the marketing aspect. To be honest, I wouldn't expect a movie like this to hire an unknown actor, disabled or not. It's just not gonna fly with the money people. But the issue for me is that disabled actors are never going to get to the point of being known well enough to be cast in larger films if they keep getting passed over for abled actors, whatever the budget.
That said, I also get why some disabled folks are upset about this casting decision in particular. I have nothing against The Rock, but playing a disabled character and using that as an opportunity to say "hey, we should hire more disabled people" is kind of weird? Like, I can see it as a "starting the conversation" thing, but... it's very much a mixed message.
If I could wave a magic wand to start things changing, I'd probably approach the problem from several different angles. Obviously more disabled roles is a good start. Then there's actually casting disabled actors in those disabled roles and in ones that were originally written for an abled person but their disability doesn't conflict with the plot. There's often no reason why "girl #3 in mall" couldn't be walking with a rollator, or the main character's sister couldn't use an arm prosthetic, or the main character couldn't wear hearing aids.* You don't even have to mention these things; not every story with a disabled person has to be about disability.
And until disabled actors get an equal shot at beginning roles and rising in the ranks, I think it's worth pointing out these examples with bigger roles, even if there are reasons for it.
*I'm focusing on visual signifiers of disability since film is a visual medium, which is vaguely amusing to me since my own disability is invisible/non-apparent... Also, a lot of non-apparent chronic illnesses are so pervasive that they would have to be written into the story, and I can't imagine someone with my symptoms managing a day on set. So I accept that it's complicated.
As I mentioned in another comment, Dustin on Stranger Things is a good example of this. It's not a story about cleidocranial dysplasia; it's a story with a character who happens to have...
As I mentioned in another comment, Dustin on Stranger Things is a good example of this. It's not a story about cleidocranial dysplasia; it's a story with a character who happens to have cleidocranial dysplasia, because that's what the actor has.
It was pretty long ago, so I don't think I can easily find it, but I remember that. I think you made a really insightful point about needing more representation in production (writing) itself to...
I might have touched on this on another post here on tildes (maybe the disability in Avatar/Korra one?)
It was pretty long ago, so I don't think I can easily find it, but I remember that. I think you made a really insightful point about needing more representation in production (writing) itself to have better stories. So that, characters are not defined by their disabilities, but can still be reasonably impacted by them.
I do definitely agree that there's so little out there, especially if we're not looking for an entire story revolving around someone's disability.
And very rarely are disabled actors cast for a character that is written as abled but doesn't have to be for the sake of the plot.
I do believe casting in general can be more open-minded. I'm not sure how it works, but I'm guessing if you're disabled, you really only get called to audition for disabled roles.
Edit: If I wasn't paraphrazing you, I'm sorry. Please correct me.
I personally would love to see more diversity in general in Hollywood. However, I don't believe we need to restrict specific roles to specific people in this fashion. And for the record,...
I personally would love to see more diversity in general in Hollywood. However, I don't believe we need to restrict specific roles to specific people in this fashion.
And for the record, Skyscraper is a movie I would see because The Rock is in it.
This post makes me wistful. I understand both sides, and there are plenty of issues and feels... but looking at the situation, we've come so far from where we used to be in one generation... I...
This post makes me wistful. I understand both sides, and there are plenty of issues and feels... but looking at the situation, we've come so far from where we used to be in one generation...
I mean, we have a Polynesian African American as an A list actor willing to promote (judged in whatever awkward or inappropriate way) all sorts of diversity. Not even primarily black diversity. But acknowledging impairment and trying to put a word in.
I feel bad that an earnest attempt is being slapped down. What about, "okay, that wasn't thought out really well but kudos for trying to raise awareness?" A decade ago they wouldn't necessarily have acknowledged that he was part Samoan. A couple of decades ago there were very very few A list roles for African American actors, let alone Asian, Polynesian, or whatever else. Not even mentioning the previous generation with Laurence Olivier in blackface for Othello.
I'm not discounting this as a minor issue. Disability rights? We're still a long way off. I don't want to talk about my mental health issue interactions at a previous work place. But look at how far we've come across the board - it makes me have hope for the future.
This is positive and I do think it's worth reminding ourselves that we are moving forward. Personally, I believe one of the reasons I don't have an issue with this casting is because in many ways,...
This is positive and I do think it's worth reminding ourselves that we are moving forward.
Personally, I believe one of the reasons I don't have an issue with this casting is because in many ways, Johnson has already build up a lot of "good faith credit". And, already mentioned by @BuckeyeSundae, Johansson's casting wouldn't have been as big an issue if it weren't for Ghost in the Shell.
I do feel for the actors, and believe they take an unfair share of the blame.
Though this case specifically doesn't bother me, I wouldn't call it manufactured outrage, and definitely not unimportant. There is a real issue of diverse representation in movies.
Though this case specifically doesn't bother me, I wouldn't call it manufactured outrage, and definitely not unimportant.
There is a real issue of diverse representation in movies.
I can only speak for myself, and as I've already stated - no, I don't find it so. However, do I believe there is an issue of good representation of disability in Hollywood, and that though maybe...
But is it offensive?
I can only speak for myself, and as I've already stated - no, I don't find it so. However, do I believe there is an issue of good representation of disability in Hollywood, and that though maybe not out right offensive, is problematic? Yes, I do, and more specifically, I believe it's worth discussion.
I recognize that people have feelings that I may or may not agree with and/or understand, but it doesn't make their feelings any less valid. In order to foster good discussion, we have to be careful not to be dismissive, which honestly, I find your comments in this topic to be. Maybe this is not your intention, but comments such as:
There was no controversy when Stronger came out. The whole point of acting is to be someone you're not, to put on a performance and immerse someone in the experience. While I think that him being...
There was no controversy when Stronger came out. The whole point of acting is to be someone you're not, to put on a performance and immerse someone in the experience.
While I think that him being an amputee was only to make the story more interesting, I don't think it's fair to be offended by it. It's not like he was playing someone with a mental disability, which could be seen as mockery. He lost a leg.
There was; the same organization quoted in this article spoke out about the casting in Stronger, and it was discussed in online disability communities. Pretty much any widely-known film with an...
There was no controversy when Stronger came out. The whole point of acting is to be someone you're not, to put on a performance and immerse someone in the experience.
There was; the same organization quoted in this article spoke out about the casting in Stronger, and it was discussed in online disability communities. Pretty much any widely-known film with an abled actor cast in a disabled role has some discussion about it, some more than others.
I presume CGI would be involved, or a body double with CGI. They removed an actor's legs with CGI for the majority of the film, so practically speaking I don't imagine the opposite would be more...
I presume CGI would be involved, or a body double with CGI. They removed an actor's legs with CGI for the majority of the film, so practically speaking I don't imagine the opposite would be more difficult or costly, especially for just a scene or two. Films have used CGI in lots of instances where actors' abilities temporarily don't match characters' abilities, from figure skating to web slinging around New York.
A genuine question: why does adding CGI legs seem more offensive than removing legs with CGI?
I guess you're right, I just didn't think about how it's done when they remove the legs, but putting something that's not there makes me think about it. Poorly done CGI could take you out of the...
I guess you're right, I just didn't think about how it's done when they remove the legs, but putting something that's not there makes me think about it. Poorly done CGI could take you out of the experience, and that never seems to be the case when it's an amputee. Having to manipulate a person that can't walk would be a lot more difficult than removing it when they're not supposed to be able to.
Though, web-slinging around New York isn't a disability of the actors, rather just impossible, so there's not really a morality question behind that.
I don't understand this controversy. They're actors. They act. Their entire job is literally pretending to be someone they aren't.
Should there have been backlash that Tom Hanks played Forrest Gump instead of casting someone who was mentally handicapped? How about that Eddie Redmayne played Stephen Hawking, when the role could have gone to someone who actually had ALS? Benedict Cumberpatch for playing a gay man, even though he's straight?
I don't think the issue is people acting as something they aren't, but minorities being passed over for acting roles. It's a form of workplace discrimination. When the roll is a character of the same minority group as the actors being passed over it adds insult to injury.
As the article says:
They certainly don't appear as often in media as they are in society. We don't necessarily need to cast disabled actors to fix this, but rather write disabled roles.
For the other part of the equation, we're missing the % of professional actors/actresses that are disabled. Are they being passed over, or are there just not many disabled people in this field?
Also keep in mind we're talking about a big budget hollywood film here, which means your pool of potential leads is very small - there may not even be a single disabled person in this pool.
For a smaller film it might make more sense to take a chance on a less "tested" actor/actress, but for a multimillion dollar blockbuster you're not going to do that.
If you need someone to play a role of disabled, any professional actor would do. But you can't get a disabled actor to play a healthy person. As for casting disabled people for disabled roles - just doing that cuts your hiring pool twenty times, not to mention that the disabled actors would have less experience and less recognition, for the reason I already mentioned above.
I think this is one of the problems that isn't worth doing anything about.
Many roles could be adapted to add a condition without taking anything away from the story. For example, the Duffer Brothers gave Dustin Henderson in Stranger Things cleidocranial dysplasia because that's what Gaten Matarazzo has. Aside from a couple scenes where they talk about it, it's an incidental thing. It's not a story about cleidocranial dysplasia; it's a story with a character who happens to have cleidocranial dysplasia. Other conditions could be treated the same way.
Take leg amputees, since that's what Dwayne Johnson is being critizised for playing. There are a lot of roles that leg amputees with a good prostetic could play without the audience even noticing most of the time; and when they do it just adds a little extra variety.
Directors aren't going to re-write a part for a disabled actor unless it's a big-name actor that they really want in their movie.
Well yeah. There aren't going to be that many disabled actors for the simple reason that the parts they can play are extremely limited, mainly to characters who are not only disabled, but who have the same disability that the actors do.
See my reply to @ACCount0
Agreed. However, I can't help but wonder if I'm being hypocritical because if it was an Asian role that was given to a non-Asian actor, that would bother me.
For me, this is something that would only bother me if it had any impact on the story. For example, having Idris Elba play Roland in the Dark Tower was, imo, a poor choice, because there were several instances in the books where race mattered. But having Scarlet Johansen play the Major in Ghost in the Shell didn't change the narrative at all, so the casting choice didn't bother me.
When it comes to stuff like LGBT or handicap, though, those can be acted out. As long as the portrayal is fine and respectful, I don't care if the person portraying it is actually what they're acting.
For me it's also a bit about authenticity, which may be why Johansson playing the Major in Ghost in the Shell did bother me. On that note, I would also prefer not to have some weird added background story to justify casting someone that otherwise shouldn't have been so that they now make sense in the story.
I'll agree with you here. If you need to add unnecessary exposition to explain your casting choice, maybe it was a poor decision
For me the problem in Ghost In The Shell was focused on Johansson's casting when the real shame was that nearly the entire rest of the cast was also white for a story set in Japan. Sure, at a superficial level you can say "look at Japan's birth rate; they're going to have to import so many immigrants to keep their society from facing horrible cuts to productivity and the size of their govenrment." But it's one hell of an ask to assume that all those immigrants would be white and would impact the story as much as this crew did.
Scar-Jo's casting was a choice that indicated the values of the team making the movie, and it bled into so many other casting decisions in the movie that it was difficult to ignore. If it were just Scar-Jo, it probably wouldn't have been nearly as big a problem to me. But that it was so pervasive in the casting decisions really undermined my ability to forgive it.
This is a really good point.
I didn't see the movie, because honestly, it looked terrible. But it's on Netflix, and I thought I would check it out, and no joke, had to look up where it was taking place because of the casting.
And to be honestly, I'm not sure if I would be more okay if they moved the entire story to North America, like they did for Death Note.
But mah progressive values!
Leave this sort of low-effort, meme/joke comment back on Reddit, please.
Oh drop the moral high ground act. It was a simple joke.
It wasn't a moral high-grounding, just a request, one that I would also make. There are better places for simple jokes than here.
Problem with low effort comments is that they bump the threads same as actual discussion do. When I see a thread I'm participating in hit the top of the feed again, I expect something was added to the conversation.
It isn't moral high grounding, your comment is literally low-effort and has been said 1000s of times across the internet in some variety.
It's low effort and added nothing.
I think "offensive" is the wrong word, but I dislike the practice. There are plenty of disabled actors who can't get disabled parts because abled folks usually play them. And very rarely are disabled actors cast for a character that is written as abled but doesn't have to be for the sake of the plot. So... saying we're cool with the way things currently are means we're cool with not having disabled people visible in our entertainment. (And for a demographic that has historically been pushed out of public view by medical practices, laws, and social practices... That's not great.)
There's a lot to be gained by actually casting disabled people in these roles. I haven't been able to see it yet, but the Deaf character in "A Quiet Place" was played by Millicent Simmonds who is Deaf and signs ASL. You can't fake that sort of fluency, especially in a language that is very different from the ones used by speaking folks (different syntax, meaning from facial expressions and spatial relationships, etc).*
I might have touched on this on another post here on tildes (maybe the disability in Avatar/Korra one?), but I think the problem extends further back than casting. I don't think that casting a paralyzed actor in "Me Before You" could have changed its deeply harmful elements, for example. It would still be a story about a man who (spoilers) goes through with assisted suicide because he thinks life isn't worth living with a disability.
Is that an authentic story? Maybe for some people. But when so few stories feature disabled characters it's honestly pretty damaging. Caretakers murder their loved ones because they can't bear to see them suffer. Disabled lives are considered lesser by individuals and by policies even today, such as denying transplants to intellectually disabled patients. So in that context a story about a guy who decides death is preferable to being disabled, even after falling in love and finding some joy, is deeply concerning. And having an actor who uses a wheelchair in that role wouldn't have made a difference.
*Edit: at least some Deaf folks don't consider themselves disabled, but some do. For the purposes of this type of conversation, I think it makes sense to include them.
I agree with almost everything that you've brought forward and said here, and I think you've been insightful and the examples you give are compelling. There is one quibble I will make when it comes to marketing movies: while many audiences won't react that strongly to a main protagonist in an action film having a prosthetic leg, many audiences will respond strongly to who is portraying that character (in this case, the Rock).
It's totally fair to say, look, if the movie studio wants to put its money where its mouth is, it'll give an actor who is actually disabled the chance to make people fall in love with him too. But that is a huge financial gamble for what is clearly being billed as a summer blockbuster like we have in this case. Will as many people come out for the movie that has a lesser known but genuinely disabled actor leading the action film as they would Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson? Almost certainly not. Will that make the difference on whether the movie is a success at the box office? Hard to say, but the negative publicity certainly can make them queasy.
A lot of this debate is moot for me because I never planned on watching this film anyway. The makers of this movie don't get any money from me because of the absolutely absurd physics involved in their promotion material (and that ridiculousness continued into the trailers), that makes the movie way too unbelievable for me on the best of days. I had written it off months ago. This sort of perspective added on top of things isn't going to shift that calculus much. But if they had done their homework with these questions of physics, it's likely that they would probably also care more about the sorts of details we're talking about here and I would be in a much tougher position.
It's about at this point that I have to confess an undying love for Scarlett Johansson, one that extends far enough to a problematic appreciation for her work in the new Ghost In The Shell, which I thought was "fine." I mean, the people who should have been showing up the entire story ethnicity-wise weren't, and that was a problem that foretold shaky problems elsewhere in the film, but she did okay given the shitty structure around her. I see Ghost In The Shell as the necessary subtext for her resignation from this new role, and I appreciate it (though the film casting team picking her in the first place worries me a bit, for a lot of what I touched on already: I see this as indicating problems with what the movie creators value and that usually spins off into other parts of the film). She's been through this exact rodeo before and decided she'd rather not again. So in some sense, there's some individual-level progress.
Yeah, I get the marketing aspect. To be honest, I wouldn't expect a movie like this to hire an unknown actor, disabled or not. It's just not gonna fly with the money people. But the issue for me is that disabled actors are never going to get to the point of being known well enough to be cast in larger films if they keep getting passed over for abled actors, whatever the budget.
That said, I also get why some disabled folks are upset about this casting decision in particular. I have nothing against The Rock, but playing a disabled character and using that as an opportunity to say "hey, we should hire more disabled people" is kind of weird? Like, I can see it as a "starting the conversation" thing, but... it's very much a mixed message.
If I could wave a magic wand to start things changing, I'd probably approach the problem from several different angles. Obviously more disabled roles is a good start. Then there's actually casting disabled actors in those disabled roles and in ones that were originally written for an abled person but their disability doesn't conflict with the plot. There's often no reason why "girl #3 in mall" couldn't be walking with a rollator, or the main character's sister couldn't use an arm prosthetic, or the main character couldn't wear hearing aids.* You don't even have to mention these things; not every story with a disabled person has to be about disability.
And until disabled actors get an equal shot at beginning roles and rising in the ranks, I think it's worth pointing out these examples with bigger roles, even if there are reasons for it.
*I'm focusing on visual signifiers of disability since film is a visual medium, which is vaguely amusing to me since my own disability is invisible/non-apparent... Also, a lot of non-apparent chronic illnesses are so pervasive that they would have to be written into the story, and I can't imagine someone with my symptoms managing a day on set. So I accept that it's complicated.
As I mentioned in another comment, Dustin on Stranger Things is a good example of this. It's not a story about cleidocranial dysplasia; it's a story with a character who happens to have cleidocranial dysplasia, because that's what the actor has.
It was pretty long ago, so I don't think I can easily find it, but I remember that. I think you made a really insightful point about needing more representation in production (writing) itself to have better stories. So that, characters are not defined by their disabilities, but can still be reasonably impacted by them.
I do definitely agree that there's so little out there, especially if we're not looking for an entire story revolving around someone's disability.
I do believe casting in general can be more open-minded. I'm not sure how it works, but I'm guessing if you're disabled, you really only get called to audition for disabled roles.
Edit: If I wasn't paraphrazing you, I'm sorry. Please correct me.
I personally would love to see more diversity in general in Hollywood. However, I don't believe we need to restrict specific roles to specific people in this fashion.
And for the record, Skyscraper is a movie I would see because The Rock is in it.
I have moviepass and I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Seriously some fun action in that movie. Don't go for the plot.
That's all I want :P
The one thing we can all unanimously agree on in this thread :D
This post makes me wistful. I understand both sides, and there are plenty of issues and feels... but looking at the situation, we've come so far from where we used to be in one generation...
I mean, we have a Polynesian African American as an A list actor willing to promote (judged in whatever awkward or inappropriate way) all sorts of diversity. Not even primarily black diversity. But acknowledging impairment and trying to put a word in.
I feel bad that an earnest attempt is being slapped down. What about, "okay, that wasn't thought out really well but kudos for trying to raise awareness?" A decade ago they wouldn't necessarily have acknowledged that he was part Samoan. A couple of decades ago there were very very few A list roles for African American actors, let alone Asian, Polynesian, or whatever else. Not even mentioning the previous generation with Laurence Olivier in blackface for Othello.
I'm not discounting this as a minor issue. Disability rights? We're still a long way off. I don't want to talk about my mental health issue interactions at a previous work place. But look at how far we've come across the board - it makes me have hope for the future.
This is positive and I do think it's worth reminding ourselves that we are moving forward.
Personally, I believe one of the reasons I don't have an issue with this casting is because in many ways, Johnson has already build up a lot of "good faith credit". And, already mentioned by @BuckeyeSundae, Johansson's casting wouldn't have been as big an issue if it weren't for Ghost in the Shell.
I do feel for the actors, and believe they take an unfair share of the blame.
No... enough of this manufactured outrage of things that aren't important.
Though this case specifically doesn't bother me, I wouldn't call it manufactured outrage, and definitely not unimportant.
There is a real issue of diverse representation in movies.
But is it offensive? No, it's not. He is an actor and he is acting. If you're truly "offended" by this, I simply don't believe you.
I can only speak for myself, and as I've already stated - no, I don't find it so. However, do I believe there is an issue of good representation of disability in Hollywood, and that though maybe not out right offensive, is problematic? Yes, I do, and more specifically, I believe it's worth discussion.
I recognize that people have feelings that I may or may not agree with and/or understand, but it doesn't make their feelings any less valid. In order to foster good discussion, we have to be careful not to be dismissive, which honestly, I find your comments in this topic to be. Maybe this is not your intention, but comments such as:
works to shut down conversation.
There was no controversy when Stronger came out. The whole point of acting is to be someone you're not, to put on a performance and immerse someone in the experience.
While I think that him being an amputee was only to make the story more interesting, I don't think it's fair to be offended by it. It's not like he was playing someone with a mental disability, which could be seen as mockery. He lost a leg.
There was; the same organization quoted in this article spoke out about the casting in Stronger, and it was discussed in online disability communities. Pretty much any widely-known film with an abled actor cast in a disabled role has some discussion about it, some more than others.
I guess I missed it, but how would they have done the before scene if they did use a disabled actor?
CGI legs? That seems more offensive to me.
I presume CGI would be involved, or a body double with CGI. They removed an actor's legs with CGI for the majority of the film, so practically speaking I don't imagine the opposite would be more difficult or costly, especially for just a scene or two. Films have used CGI in lots of instances where actors' abilities temporarily don't match characters' abilities, from figure skating to web slinging around New York.
A genuine question: why does adding CGI legs seem more offensive than removing legs with CGI?
I guess you're right, I just didn't think about how it's done when they remove the legs, but putting something that's not there makes me think about it. Poorly done CGI could take you out of the experience, and that never seems to be the case when it's an amputee. Having to manipulate a person that can't walk would be a lot more difficult than removing it when they're not supposed to be able to.
Though, web-slinging around New York isn't a disability of the actors, rather just impossible, so there's not really a morality question behind that.