This raises very interesting questions about the ghettoisation of art.
Ones art should always express something of oneself but should not be
pigeonholed and sidelined.
No-one should play a disabled part merely because there body fits, but
because they can act.
In a short video I made, I am not really acting, The events of the day are
fictional but the settings and the sentiments are real. I do not set out to
portray a person with Asperger's on his last day on erth, but I suppose the
hints are there for those who know.
I got a colleague to play a samaratan, and afterwards he said that he
thought his performance was wooden and stilted, and I said yes, that was
exactly what I wanted. I accuse him on video of reading a script, which of
course is exactly what he was doing since that is the way these people
appear to me.
For the sake of authenticity of performance should classical literature
always be played in the native tongue? or is each act a re-interpretation?
By reversing roles, and playing Iago as a black man, and maybe othello with
a disability would not that be making some sort of statement independant of
whatever shakespere intended?
Or try Richard third with Richard as a physically perfect specimin amongst a
cast of impaired people and see what the audinece would make of that.
But of course these are stereotypes and far removed from historical reality
whereas Toulouse Lautrec was someone far more modern and familiar.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Colette Conroy
> Sent: 05 September 2001 10:17
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Moulin Rouge - without Crips?
>
>
> Larry introduced Bernhardt - a very interesting subject here. She
> did play a
> number of travesti roles, notably Hamlet. Critics hated her performance,
> calling it 'shrill'. She defended her right to play male roles by saying
> that she was playing the characters' minds rather than their
> bodies. In her
> posthumously published guide to acting, she claims that only the
> physically
> perfect should pursue a career in acting, carefully avoiding any reference
> to the fact that she had no intention of letting her own
> impairment keep her
> from acting.
>
> In reply to Maria, I agree that there isn't really any argument for saying
> that disabled people shouldn't play other disabled people. There is,
> however, a problem with impairment-specific casting in realistic drama. If
> it is decided that the actor's body should 'match' the body that is
> described in the script, then writers get to implement their own views of
> impairment and disability. Also, if disabled actors are always cast as
> disabled characters as a matter of policy, then there is no logical reason
> why non-disabled characters should not be played by non-disabled actors in
> the interests of realism. This runs against the interests of disabled
> performers.
>
> There is a question also about which characters can be said to be
> disabled.
> If Hamlet (sorry to keep using this example) is played by a
> disabled actor,
> then isn't the Hamlet of that performance also disabled?
>
> Colette.
>
>
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|