Hi,
Questions about acting and performance seem to be a good way to play with
ideas about the limits of representation - questions about who may represent
whom, and what we mean by insisting upon a distinction between performance
and reality. For example, in theatre, audiences I often hear audience
members wonder whether
the individual actor who plays a disabled character is "really" disabled. I
have spoken to some people who believe that a wheelchair user who plays a
wheelchair using character is not acting, but is only 'being'. This betrays
an absolute unwillingness to engage with disabled people as artists and
creators of roles, and a tendency to see disabled performers as props or as
realistic set dressing. These are prejudices which all disabled theatre
artists grapple with.
Most audiences get a thrill from seeing the complex exchange between
different aspects of the figure on stage, between actor and character. Joe
Bloggs the actor can simultaneously be seen as a Danish Prince and a well
known actor.
There are a great many talented disabled performers, and it does seem unfair
that there are so few roles available for them. But this isn't caused by
non-disabled actors taking 'their' roles. It is caused by the entirely
arbitrary belief that any form of impairment on stage will detract from the
general reading of the role. Theatre scholars and practitioners are fond of
claiming that on stage any person or object can represent any character or
object. Although cross-gender casting is an accepted tool of theatrical
performance, it is not common for disabled performers to take roles which
are not specifically written as disabled characters. There is no reason why
Hamlet shouldn't be played by a disabled person, is there?
Colette.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Smith, Glenn" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Moulin Rouge - without Crips?
I don't think it matters that the actor or actress is disabled - surely,
like research, if non-disabled people can portray and use their own
experiences to get the audience to engage with them and their empathy, that
is fine.
That is, after all, what acting has always been about.
I'm not quite sure that seeing real pain or dramatic pain means anything
more profound...after all we see scenes of real pain with famines and war on
tv but do we respond differently ? I think not - listening to many people
they just switch off because they can't watch real people suffering or
making them have to deal with uncomfortable feelings they do not have to
deal with, or they distance themselves from what they are seeing
psychologically through the medium of the screen - which misses the point of
portraying the 'real' in the first place.
Glenn.
-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Bathurst [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 September 2001 18:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Moulin Rouge - without Crips?
Hi list
Same argument about straight actors playing gay or lesbian roles. There
seems to be a fine line between representation and parody and between
'staged' sympathy and actual sympathy. I wonder if anyone has any comments
about the Iranian film the name of which eludes me but has something to do
with drunk horses. I haven't seen it yet but it is semi-documentary in that
the characters are not played by actors. There is a boy with a disability
who plays a boy with a disability which apparently, from what I hear, shows
some of the very real pain that the boy experiences. That is, the things
you see are actual - not contrived. What sort of impact does this have on
its audience?
At 06:54 AM 4/09/2001 +1000, you wrote:
>And now it seems, Toulouse Lautrec is back in the news in Moulin Rouge -
>the musical. This time the stunted genius is played by the non-disabled
>though slightly built John Leguizamo, who accentuates our herošs lisp
>possibly to underline his disabled status. In the original 50s version TL's
>role was taken by Jose Farrer who stumped around painfully on his
knees,
>his feet tied to the back of his thighs. Therešs not so much obvious
>disability in the remake though, and the playing of a disabled artist by an
>able-bodied actor is bound reopen the debate about whether disabled actors
>should be employed to play disabled parts. What do list members think?
>
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>Michael Morgan
>2 Glenhill Park
>Glen Rd.
>Belfast
>BT11 8GB
>Tel: 028 9030 2944
>Fax: 028 9030 2973
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>________________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.
________________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.
________________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.
________________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.
|