Should non-disabled actors play disabled characters?

In late 2017, a film called The Upside was released in theaters, in which Bryan Cranston plays a wealthy quadriplegic man and Kevin Hart’s character is his hired carer. However, there’s one major problem with this movie: Bryan Cranston isn’t a disabled actor. This is nothing new in Hollywood. 

For the disabled community and, more specifically, disabled actors, hiring an abled actor to play a quadriplegic is just another blow. But I see why the casting choice was made. In the excited words of my mom, “It’s freaking Brian Cranston!.”

It was more logical, money-wise, to hire an actor with a name many people recognize rather than to hire a disabled actor that no one’s ever heard of.

As someone who’s been disabled my entire life, but also has a lot of knowledge of how film production works, I’m sympathetic to both parties. I’m also a Libra, the mediator of the zodiac, so I can blame my sign for not seeing everything black-and-white. 

On social media, many in the disability community demand disabled actors to play every disabled role, no if, ands, or buts. In Hollywood, actors and directors defend their decisions.

Regarding his role as a disabled man, in an article by Sky News, Cranston is quoted saying:

“As actors, we’re asked to be other people, to play other people. 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?”

Cranston, instead of battling the criticisms or disregarding them outright, exhibits a genuinely open-minded and receptive approach, demonstrating a willingness to engage in discussions. Recognizing life as a platform subject to criticism, he embraces his role as a public figure leading the movie, even when dealing with delicate topics.

In his statements to Sky News, Bryan Cranston candidly acknowledges the pressing need for more opportunities for disabled actors in the entertainment industry. Despite this awareness, he also admits that his decision to take on the role in "The Upside" was driven by business considerations. As an actor, he embraced the opportunity to portray a character distinct from himself, even if that character happened to be quadriplegic.

Though I’m not saying he’s entirely correct, Cranston’s comment brings up a point about what the very essence of acting is: pretending to be someone you’re not.

Considering it was more acceptable for actors to play other genders, sexualities, and even other races, in the past, people didn’t really think twice when it came to non-disabled actors playing disabled characters. Presently, however, there are lines actors can’t cross when choosing roles.

Maybe authenticity isn’t the best word to describe what the disabled community wants when it comes to portraying characters with disabilities. Perhaps a better word is accuracy. 

Naturally, someone who has experienced the same things as their character are going to have the most accurate portrayal. At the same time though, an abled actor can do a lot of research into what living with the character’s particular disability is like and combine that information with the personality of the character in order to fulfill the role with as much accuracy as possible. 

Yet, there are the minor things that disabled people experience that can bring the role to its fullest potential.

A sighted actor doesn’t have the years of navigation by touch skills that blind people have. Sign language users are more fluent than those who learn it just for a role.

Paralyzed bodies move differently than non-paralyzed bodies. And so on and so forth. In addition, disabled actors will most likely have a deeper understanding of some of their character’s emotions if they’ve experienced the same troubles and victories in their own lives.

A lot of people complained that an actor with the disability should’ve been hired, but the only way that would work would’ve been to hire several actors at the various stages of progression, who all happen to look the same as a young Steven Hawking. 

Yeah, that’s a pretty tall order. There’s the magic of CGI, but that’s often very time consuming, difficult, and expensive to use for a character who’s going to be on-screen for the entire duration of a film. non-disabled actors playing disabled roles.

Another case I see for hiring an abled actor for a disabled character is when the disability, in particular, would be difficult to work with. Inaccessibility of sets aside, because that’s a whole spiel in itself, some disabilities go beyond physical limitations. 

Many people have conditions that give them chronic fatigue, aka “Spoonies”. Because of that, they might only be able to work on set for a couple hours before needing to rest. This might be okay for a more minor role, but main actors can spend ten hours or more working.

Do I think that every single disabled role absolutely must go to an actor with a matching disability? Eh… Not exactly. Put your pitchforks down! Let me explain.

If a character in a film or television show isn’t initially disabled in the beginning, but is later on, then I think that’s acceptable in most cases.

Some films require the character to undergo a disability as an integral part of the storyline. To maintain continuity, the 'before' scenes, or instances where the impairment is 'cured,' necessitate a non-disabled actor. 

For instance, in "The Theory of Everything," Eddie Redmayne portrays Stephen Hawking before his Motor Neurone Disease diagnosis, while in "All I See is You" (2016), Blake Lively portrays Gina, who regains her sight after a surgical operation. This approach ensures seamless storytelling and enables the filming of scenes where the character is not disabled.

Another example would be if there’s a film about a character with chronic fatigue syndrome, then this would be an incident where it would be better to hire someone who has longer stamina. In addition, a film set might be sensory overload for some people who are on the autism spectrum. 

Rather than have a person be in an overwhelming situation just because they have the exact same form of neurodivergence, it would be better to have someone who’s better at coping or won’t get overwhelmed at all.

Judith Drake, an actor and director, proposes a counterargument to this, arguing that using CGI, prosthetics, filming techniques, and the actor's physicality to create the 'disabled' characterization. In this scenario, the same techniques could potentially be employed to portray the disabled actor without the impairment.

Another alternative would involve casting multiple actors for the same role, a practice commonly adopted in the industry to depict a character's aging, often from childhood. As an example, the award-winning Netflix drama "The Crown" implemented this approach in its 2020 series, where older actors were chosen to replace main roles, such as Olivia Colman taking over from Claire Foy in the leading role of Queen Elizabeth II.

Non-disabled actors playing disabled roles is an issue that the disability community has had enough of. It often feels like it’s us vs. Hollywood. However, instead of attacking filmmakers every time it happens, I think it’s important to evaluate the plausibility of hiring an actor with that exact condition. 

At the same time, disabled actors need to be hired more instead of choosing big names because they’re guaranteed money (psst, filmmakers! I bet you’d get a lot of publicity if you hired disabled actors in your movies.).

Rather than having a big divide between disabled people and filmmakers, there needs to be an open discussion, because I feel like there’d be a lot for all of us to learn if there was.