Someone recently posted an article about how he's offended by non-disabled actors playing disabled characters and that those roles should only be offered to disabled people. He then compares it to black face and drag.
I felt like the comparison was a bit strange, especially for drag. Drag is a performance and not really a representation of real women and not meant to mock women. The reason why we don't normally have female characters played by men is because it normally looks silly and there are plenty of female characters who can do the role. The writer's comparison to Shakespeare's time is also a bit odd. Women were able to join the theater not because people started to find men imitating women to be offensive but because society became more liberal after the Restoration and there was room for women on stage.
The comparison to blackface was also a bit weird. Normally when a non-disabled actor performs a disabled character it is not to mock people with disabilities. The comparison with Asian characters performed by white people probably works though.
I think probably the best comparison is with straight actors playing gay people. The difference is that gay people can also play straight characters while disabled people would normally have a harder time playing non-disabled characters. I certainly don't have a problem with straight people playing gay characters because many excellent performances have come out of it, like Sean Penn playing Harvey Milk and Michael Douglas as Liberace but I do wonder why it seems like 9/10 times gay characters are played by straight people.
Anyway, I can understand his point coming from a desire to create more roles for disabled people but I don't find non-disabled actors playing disabled roles offensive on its own. Is it wrong?
Link to the article
http://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/disabled-roles-disabled-performers
I felt like the comparison was a bit strange, especially for drag. Drag is a performance and not really a representation of real women and not meant to mock women. The reason why we don't normally have female characters played by men is because it normally looks silly and there are plenty of female characters who can do the role. The writer's comparison to Shakespeare's time is also a bit odd. Women were able to join the theater not because people started to find men imitating women to be offensive but because society became more liberal after the Restoration and there was room for women on stage.
The comparison to blackface was also a bit weird. Normally when a non-disabled actor performs a disabled character it is not to mock people with disabilities. The comparison with Asian characters performed by white people probably works though.
I think probably the best comparison is with straight actors playing gay people. The difference is that gay people can also play straight characters while disabled people would normally have a harder time playing non-disabled characters. I certainly don't have a problem with straight people playing gay characters because many excellent performances have come out of it, like Sean Penn playing Harvey Milk and Michael Douglas as Liberace but I do wonder why it seems like 9/10 times gay characters are played by straight people.
Anyway, I can understand his point coming from a desire to create more roles for disabled people but I don't find non-disabled actors playing disabled roles offensive on its own. Is it wrong?
Link to the article
http://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/disabled-roles-disabled-performers