Actor Bryan Cranston plays a quadriplegic in the new film The Upside and some are not happy about it, claiming that it's wrong for an "able-bodied" (I hate that term) actor to play the part over a disabled one. While I can empathize with disabled actors and feel they should receive more opportunities than they do, I feel the critiques leveled toward Cranston are misguided.
It may sound overly simplistic, but actors act. That's what they do. Those who receive the most acclaim are the actors who can master starkly different characters in an array of genres. Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, and Daniel Day-Lewis are all prime examples of this. Actors who consistently attempt to expand their horizons by going out of their comfort zones for parts tend to be the most widely respected. Those who are typecast for a single character or part, while they may be successful at the box office, they're often parodied by comics and shut out at awards ceremonies. What will impress audiences and critics more, a 100% healthy individual playing the part of someone who's mentally-handicapped or a mentally-handicapped person playing someone who's mentally-handicapped? What is acting if an actor is typecast, not even based on his or her abilities, but based on his or her physical condition? How can that even be gratifying - to receive a job offer, not because the director was impressed by a performance you gave in a film, but because you're in a wheelchair? If I were an actor and I received an offer for a film, I excitedly said, "Oh, did you see and enjoy my performance in X?," and he/she came back with, "No, but you have epilepsy, right?," I'd be offended. I've often kept my health problems hidden because I don't want to be defined by them; I want to be seen and defined in spite of them. What would cinema be if parts were played by those whom were defined by the part away from the camera? What point would there be to acting? "Okay, so in this scene, we have a bartender, a prostitute, someone with Parkinson's disease, and a one-armed man with an eye patch over his left eye and a Rolling Fingers moustache, so we need to go and find an actual bartender, a hooker, someone with Parkinson's, and a Captain Hook-Rollie Fingers hybrid. Get to it!"
I also think there may be some potential societal benefits to actors playing out-of-character, so to speak. Looking specifically at the Bryan Cranston role, the man is a successful, well-regarded actor. He's a professional. The guy doesn't pussyfoot around and half-ass things. So the odds are good he did his fair share of research on quadriplegia, now has a better understanding of it, and is better able to empathize with those whom suffer from it. Empathy is sorely lacking in this country and it would do a world of good for more to both possess and utilize it. Not only that, but as sad as it is for me to admit, an "able-bodied" and well-regarded actor like Bryan Cranston is much more likely to generate money at the box office, and with that, awareness to quadriplegia than a relatively unknown actor who suffers from the condition. Cranston is a likable guy, who audience members realize is not physically disabled, and that makes his on-screen portrayal of said condition easier for them to digest. An actual quadriplegic playing his part would generate a much greater frequency of discomfort, with that, lower box office numbers, and due to that, less awareness about the condition.
Disabled actors should never be discounted from a role because of their condition, but actors like Bryan Cranston should also stop being criticized for doing their jobs, attempting to expand their horizons, generating empathy for others, and bringing awareness to conditions and causes.
It may sound overly simplistic, but actors act. That's what they do. Those who receive the most acclaim are the actors who can master starkly different characters in an array of genres. Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, and Daniel Day-Lewis are all prime examples of this. Actors who consistently attempt to expand their horizons by going out of their comfort zones for parts tend to be the most widely respected. Those who are typecast for a single character or part, while they may be successful at the box office, they're often parodied by comics and shut out at awards ceremonies. What will impress audiences and critics more, a 100% healthy individual playing the part of someone who's mentally-handicapped or a mentally-handicapped person playing someone who's mentally-handicapped? What is acting if an actor is typecast, not even based on his or her abilities, but based on his or her physical condition? How can that even be gratifying - to receive a job offer, not because the director was impressed by a performance you gave in a film, but because you're in a wheelchair? If I were an actor and I received an offer for a film, I excitedly said, "Oh, did you see and enjoy my performance in X?," and he/she came back with, "No, but you have epilepsy, right?," I'd be offended. I've often kept my health problems hidden because I don't want to be defined by them; I want to be seen and defined in spite of them. What would cinema be if parts were played by those whom were defined by the part away from the camera? What point would there be to acting? "Okay, so in this scene, we have a bartender, a prostitute, someone with Parkinson's disease, and a one-armed man with an eye patch over his left eye and a Rolling Fingers moustache, so we need to go and find an actual bartender, a hooker, someone with Parkinson's, and a Captain Hook-Rollie Fingers hybrid. Get to it!"
I also think there may be some potential societal benefits to actors playing out-of-character, so to speak. Looking specifically at the Bryan Cranston role, the man is a successful, well-regarded actor. He's a professional. The guy doesn't pussyfoot around and half-ass things. So the odds are good he did his fair share of research on quadriplegia, now has a better understanding of it, and is better able to empathize with those whom suffer from it. Empathy is sorely lacking in this country and it would do a world of good for more to both possess and utilize it. Not only that, but as sad as it is for me to admit, an "able-bodied" and well-regarded actor like Bryan Cranston is much more likely to generate money at the box office, and with that, awareness to quadriplegia than a relatively unknown actor who suffers from the condition. Cranston is a likable guy, who audience members realize is not physically disabled, and that makes his on-screen portrayal of said condition easier for them to digest. An actual quadriplegic playing his part would generate a much greater frequency of discomfort, with that, lower box office numbers, and due to that, less awareness about the condition.
Disabled actors should never be discounted from a role because of their condition, but actors like Bryan Cranston should also stop being criticized for doing their jobs, attempting to expand their horizons, generating empathy for others, and bringing awareness to conditions and causes.
Comments
Post a Comment