Breaking Bad star defends playing disabled character

[jolldan]

Breaking Bad star defends disabled role

(Apologies if there is already a topic for this wasn't sure quite what topic it would fit in, thought it would make for an interesting topic since this seems to be an ongoing debate in the entertainment world)

Bryan Cranston has defended playing a disabled character in his latest film, saying his casting as a man with quadriplegia was "a business decision."

In The Upside, the US actor plays a wheelchair-using billionaire who hires a former criminal, played by comedian Kevin Hart, to be his live-in carer.

"As actors we're asked to play other people," said the Breaking Bad star.

Cranston said the subject was "worthy for debate" and there should be "more opportunities" for disabled actors.

Yet he maintained he was entitled to play characters whose attributes and abilities differed from his own.

"If I, as a straight, older person, and I'm wealthy, I'm very fortunate, does that mean I can't play a person who is not wealthy, does that mean I can't play a homosexual?" he mused.

"I don't know, where does the restriction apply, where is the line for that?" he told the Press Association.

Jake Gyllenhaal and Dwayne Johnson are among others who have faced criticism for playing disabled characters.

Gyllenhaal's 2017 film Stronger, about a man who lost both legs in the Boston Marathon bombings, was criticised for not casting a disabled actor in the role.

Last year, meanwhile, Johnson was censured for calling for more disabled actors on screen while also playing a man with a prosthetic leg in action film Skyscraper.

Cranston's comments come in the wake of ongoing debate over whether it is appropriate for straight actors to play gay or transgender roles or for white actors to play characters associated with ethnic minorities.

Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, Jack Whitehall and Ed Skrein are among those who have faced criticism for accepting certain roles. Some have gone on to withdraw from projects following a backlash.

Last month Darren Criss said he would no longer accept LGBT scripts because he did not want to be "another straight boy taking a gay man's role".

The Glee actor played a gay serial killer in American Crime Story: The Assassination of Gianni Versace - a performance that won him an Emmy in December and a Golden Globe on Sunday.

Hart, meanwhile, believes there are always positives to discussions about diversity and inclusion.

"I think having a conversation started is always a good thing," he said.

"In this particular case, bringing awareness to the fact that hey, we would love to see more disabled people given the opportunities to participate in the entertainment world, and potentially grow."

The comedian turned actor faced renewed criticism himself recently for comments he made in 2010 about his fears that his son might grow up gay.

Britain's Ben Whishaw expressed similar sentiments to Cranston's on Sunday after winning a Golden Globe for playing a gay man in A Very English Scandal.

"I really believe that actors can embody and portray anything and we shouldn't be defined only by what we are," said the openly gay actor.

"On the other hand, I think there needs to be greater equality," he continued. "I would like to see more gay actors playing straight roles.

"It should be an even playing field for everybody. That would be my ideal."

 

[MaceB]

I'll give my take...

I'm not as opposed to an actor playing a disabled person as I am, say...Scarlett Johansson playing a transgender woman. I guess my reasoning for the difference is pretty anecdotal... I just know that there are lot of eager transgender women out there, hungry to get into acting. I haven't heard the same fervor over the disabled community, but I could very well be wrong.

It's not that I have a moral issue with Cranston playing a disabled person. It's that a) it takes away from disabled actors who could play the role and b) the movie becomes less effective because regardless of how good an actor he may be, he's still Bryan Cranston to me. The movie would be better served by having an unknown actor who actually is disabled. This would give the movie authenticity and depth.

So it's not so much Cranston that I'm frustrated with... it's the creative team and the Hollywood system... which prioritizes star power over making compelling stories.

I don't think there's a problem with representing a disabled or transgender person. As Cranston says... that's his job to take on the persona of others. No problem with that at all. It's the acting community and the work that suffers, but there's no ethics broken here IMO. Just win-at-all costs capitalism run amok decisions at the top.

 

[Dr Lee]

as a disabled guy....I'm not bothered in the slightest. Acting is about performing... it's about being something you are not.

If you can only take roles that you are... then that pigeon holes people into certain roles. Gay actors can only play gay characters, ETC.

Cranston & The Rock playing disabled characters shows the studios that you can have successful movies with a disabled lead character.... and thus that opens them up to doing more movies with disabled characters and thus opens up the chances for Disabled actors

 

[Donner]

This does strike me as somewhat ironic given that one of the stars of Breaking Bad is Walter Jr. and the actor who plays him actually has cerebral palsy.

 

[Schlosser85]

Actors should be allowed to play whatever character they’re convincing as.

 

[AResistor]

saying his casting as a man with quadriplegia was "a business decision."

There it is in a nutshell.

If this was an indie movie, okay - hey - then I'll say in these regards you can make a strong point.

However, in a film such as this it's clear the producers had only one thing in mind with casting: what are the biggest star names we can get that will fit these roles and draw in box office?

A newcomer wouldn't exactly bring in money. Bryan does. Which is what the studio wanted. Just look at the other names: Nicole Kidman and Kevin Hart (he wasn't really controversial when he was originally cast). All names.

As cold as it is to say - film is a business and with films like these name actors matter since that's what drives the box office.

Also this \/ lays it out perfectly. The more films with disabled characters, the more chances a disabled actor has to become a name actor - the more chances disabled actors can star in higher profile films.

If it's a supporting role, that doesn't call for a name to bring in box office, then yeah - if possible that should always go towards bringing more minorities into the fold. I would say it's a duty at disabled actors first in those roles since there's nothing to lose and everything to gain if a match gets discovered.

That opens them up to doing more movies with disabled characters and thus opens up the chances for Disabled actors

There isn't as much a lack in actors playing roles as much as there is roles to begin with. That's what needs to change: films need to become more diverse.

Saying all of this as someone with aspergers - I don't consider myself handicapped, but I think the debate surrounding asperger characters (see 'Atypical') would likely fall in or close to this branch of the debate.

 

[Prettyricky]

Isnt the whole point of acting make believe pretending to be a character of some kind To tell the audience a story?

 

[MaceB]

Yeah it is, and there's nothing wrong with acting disabled. All folks are saying is that it's a shame, because there are a lot of people ready, able, and willing to play this role who also have a disability. The movie preaches equality and support for the disabled, yet it turns down an ocean of perfectly good actors for someone who has star power who can put butts in seats.

And that's fine... we shouldn't expect anything else, honestly. Money is money. But it is a shame. That's all.

 

[Pennywise]

As someone with Cerebral Palsy, this doesn't bother me. Would be nice if there were more disabled actors in the industry, though.

 

[writer0327]

Let the best actor/actress have the job. Sometimes I think representation is great, but movies are businesses and sometimes you can't even get a film made without the right people involved.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

Adam Pearson a UK based actor/journalist has been quite vocal about this issue on social media. He has neurofibromatosis (NF1) which means he has a facial deformity/disfigurement (apologies if the former in inappropriate term) and has a lot experience and knowledge on the matter. He lays out his argument pretty well in this TalkRadio segment. Although he's previously argued against 'cripping up' (practice of an 'able-bodied' actor putting on a disability) such as in this Guardian video, he also says he's not against non-disabled actors going for these roles... so his position on that aspect to me is a little unclear. Cripping up is not comparable to blackface as the former is usually done with respect to capture an aspect of a character in the performance whilst the latter is rooted in racism and is a de-humanising depiction of black people. He does make very valid points though about representation and a lack of opportunities for disabled actors to play themselves and any other meaningful roles. They do often get typecast as the snarky know-it-all lab assistant in a wheelchair or 'inspirational' token figure who's applauded for doing everyday things rather than be treated normally. I think the solution is to write regular and bigger roles, even leading roles for disabled actors where the disability isn't always integral to their character but merely incidental. Whilst I don't like preferential treatment, they could consider policies where disabled actors are sought out and auditioned first for a disabled character. That way, at least you can say 'the best actor got the part'. I also think the people behind the camera such as the casting directors/producers etc need to be more diverse. I do definitely sympathise with the frustration of disabled actors as a minority who don't get to see themselves often played by people who haven't had their lived experience. Mat Fraser a UK actor/performance artist/musician etc who has Phocomelia also wrote an interesting article for The Stage.

My contention though with this issue is it inevitably leads to calls for typecasting and locking out roles for certain groups (basically CIS white straight 'able-bodied' men and sometimes women) to 'make way' for minorities to have a more prominent role. Which then leads to draconian measures such as some sort of quota system. This won't foster harmony which is the purpose of equality but merely forment resentment as some people will unfairly be prevented from going for roles others can, yet others can play all of their roles. Which is intrinsically unfair and discriminatory regardless of 'power imbalances' or perceived oppression. We already see this with such things as the Hamilton stage show or Sophie Okonedo as Margaret of Anjou in the BBC's The Hollow Crown. And going back to what Mat Fraser said in the article about only allowing non-disabled actors to play disabled parts when there's a 'level playing field'...well once that restriction is in place and you've achieved equal footing, there'd be no incentive to lift that restriction. So it's effectively a power grab, regardless of well-meaning intentions.

 

[Erik20]

I think when it comes to sexuality, they should just get the best actor. Straight people can play gay characters, and vice versa. It shouldn't matter at all. For example, I didn't like what they did with that recent Batwoman casting. Imagine the outrage if people would say an actor for a certain role "has" to be straight...

It's a bit different with disabilities in my opinion. Disabled actors probably don't get a lot of opportunities, they can't just play any role. However, I also don't think disabled characters always automatically should be played by disabled actors... perhaps it just depends on who is available and who is the best actor for the part

 

[AResistor]

Imagine the outrage if people would say an actor for a certain role "has" to be straight...

Uh... Hollywood does do this - like all the time, they just don’t say it. This is why so many actors are still in the closet.

Matt Bomer was literally the casting department’s first choice to play Superman, but WB said “nope, we can’t have a gay actor play Superman.”

So yeah, it does happen - all the time. Your example would be one of the rare times where the casting norm is actually reversed.

Lgbtq roles though shouldn’t require someone to be lgbtq since this bars closeted actors trying to pass as straight due to the closeted nature of Hollywood.

 

[Mani-Man]

Like i said in the other Thread, im pretty much in the middle of this.

I do think talent should be in terms of acting the first choice when someone gets a role, but i also think that for some roles there should be more chances to those who fit the character better.

A disabled actor already has a lot of Disadvantages what kind of Role they can play due to their physical or mental "handicaps", so a part of me does think that when it comes to such Roles then the people who fit into this category should have an advantage.

But i dont know, its a situation where i see both sides of the argument.

 

[MilkmanDan]

I get that when it's the main character, they go for established actors/stars. Take Skyscraper with The Rock for example. It was never going to star some unknown amputee because The Rock's star power was the only reason anyone saw that movie.

I suppose the best way to add diversity and opportunities for disabled actors would be to cast more of them in roles where their disability is irrelevant to the story. Sadly it currently feels like disabled actors get cast almost exclusively when the disability itself is a plotpoint. Which I think happens to minorities in general to some degree. Richard Donner has often told the story about how when someone first suggested Danny Glover for Murtaugh in Lethal Weapon, his initial reaction was "But he's black!" And it's not like Donner was being intentionally racist or anything. It's just hadn't occured to him that the character could be black because the script didn't say anything about him being black.

 

[kaypain]

Wouldnt that bring issues of typecasting?

 

[8ulk87]

It boggles my mind how some people do not understand that actors are meant to pretend to be someone they are not.

Anyone should be able to pretend to be anything. ITS CALLED ACTING.

 

[Dark Raven]

I don't see why he can't play a disabled character. This is getting ridiculous now that people are criticising actors playing other roles. Perhaps they should only get someone who is trained as an astronaut to be in a space film, or someone actually alive and an adult in WWII to play in a war film.

They should never have hired RDJ for Tony Stark, because he didn't really have a hole in his chest and shrapnel heading towards his heart.

Better also make sure any murderers on film are murderers in real life too. That's obviously what made Anthony Hopkins unbelievable as Hannibal Lecter.

It boggles my mind how some people do not understand that actors are meant to pretend to be someone they are not.

Anyone should be able to pretend to be anything. ITS CALLED ACTING.

Now this just proves my point I've said numerous times before that whenever anyone writes the phrase "It's called acting", they always capitalise it. Can't write that phrase without doing that!

 

[MadVillainy]

I mean I get why a disabled person wouldn't like this. Especially one that's an actor.

I'll put it like this: You know if you're a disabled actor that you're not going to be cast as Wonder Woman in a live action movie. You'll never jump from a car with The Rock. You might not even be cast as Sandra Bullock's love interest.
You don't get anywhere near the opportunities as able bodied actors. And I'm sure you get why.

So when the few roles, especially a lead like in The Upside, that you can use a disabled actor is given to an able bodied person I can get why that's frustrating. It takes away one of their few chances to fulfill their dream of being a major actor or an actor period.
Especially when it's not a role like Lt. Dan or Jason Street where you need to show the person before and after the accident.
And this is after so much of your life people tell you what you can't do. And now not being able to act in a show or film is just another thing on that list.

It incredibly reductive to say things like "Well should cast real astronauts to play astronauts in movies." It's not the same thing at all

I'm not personally bothered by an abled bodied actor playing a disabled character. But I can see why someone would be

 

[MadVillainy]

Yeah it is, and there's nothing wrong with acting disabled. All folks are saying is that it's a shame, because there are a lot of people ready, able, and willing to play this role who also have a disability. The movie preaches equality and support for the disabled, yet it turns down an ocean of perfectly good actors for someone who has star power who can put butts in seats.

And that's fine... we shouldn't expect anything else, honestly. Money is money. But it is a shame. That's all.

Basically this

 

[Dark Raven]

I mean I get why a disabled person wouldn't like this. Especially one that's an actor.

I'll put it like this: You know if you're a disabled actor that you're not going to be cast as Wonder Woman in a live action movie. You'll never jump from a car with The Rock. You might not even be cast as Sandra Bullock's love interest.
You don't get anywhere near the opportunities as able bodied actors. And I'm sure you get why.

So when the few roles, especially a lead like in The Upside, that are open to disabled actors is given to an able bodied person I can get why that's frustrating. It takes away one of their few chances to fulfill their dream of being a major actor or an actor period. Especially when it's not a role like Lt. Dan or Jason Street where you need to show the person before and after the accident.And this is after so much of your life, people tell you what you can't do and now not being able to act in a show or film is just another thing.

It incredibly reductive to say things like "Well should cast real astronauts to play astronauts in movies." It's not the same thing at all

This is not the first disabled movie that has ever been made. Where were all the disabled people protesting for Born on the 4th of July, X-Men or The Theory of Everything? Or all these other movies over the years?

And if that disabled person weren't disabled, but were judged on acting ability alone, would they necessarily be the best fit for this movie?

What if someone specifically wants to see Patrick Stewart as Professor X, and not random disabled actor?

 

[MadVillainy]

This is not the first disabled movie that has ever been made. Where were all the disabled people protesting for Born on the 4th of July, X-Men or The Theory of Everything? Or all these other movies over the years?

What does that have to do with anything? They're choosing to speak up now. More people are finding their voices to speak up on certain issues.

And I've heard people complain about this before with shows like Glee and Superstore

 

[8ulk87]

I mean I get why a disabled person wouldn't like this. Especially one that's an actor.

I'll put it like this: You know if you're a disabled actor that you're not going to be cast as Wonder Woman in a live action movie. You'll never jump from a car with The Rock. You might not even be cast as Sandra Bullock's love interest.
You don't get anywhere near the opportunities as able bodied actors. And I'm sure you get why.

So when the few roles, especially a lead like in The Upside, that you can use a disabled actor is given to an able bodied person I can get why that's frustrating. It takes away one of their few chances to fulfill their dream of being a major actor or an actor period. Especially when it's not a role like Lt. Dan or Jason Street where you need to show the person before and after the accident.
And this is after so much of your life, people tell you what you can't do and now not being able to act in a show or film is just another thing on that list.

It incredibly reductive to say things like "Well should cast real astronauts to play astronauts in movies." It's not the same thing at all

I'm not personally bothered by a abled bodied actor playing a disabled character. But I can see why someone would be

Well then maybe you should understand that the movie belongs to the studio that makes it and its all about making profit because moviemaking is not a charity and studios prefer famous actors.

Noone is entitled to that role. NOONE.
And noone else other than the studio and the casting team has a say on who will get cast.
And nor should they.

You re free to critisize but you dont have an entitlement or right to dictate.

Im saying this cause some people think they are in charge of the universe.

 

[MadVillainy]

Sure

 

[MilkmanDan]

Well then maybe you should understand that the movie belongs to the studio that makes it and its all about making profit because moviemaking is not a charity and studios prefer famous actors.

Noone is entitled to that role. NOONE.
And noone else other than the studio and the casting team has a say on who will get cast.
And nor should they.

You re free to critisize but you dont have an entitlement or right to dictate.

Im saying this cause some people think they are in charge of the universe.

Like I said before, I get it when it comes to the main roles. (And obviously it makes sense to hire able-bodied actors if the character gets disabled during the course of the story.)

The problem is that it's hard for an actor with a disability to get to that point where they are considered for roles beyond "The guy in a wheelchair" or "A blind chick". Sure, there's the odd Peter Dinklage or Marlee Matlin. But I'm sure they went through a lot of stereotypical roles to get to the point where they get cast on things like Days of Future Past and West Wing where their characters aren't defined by their dwarfism and deafness respectively.