Discover Top Posts Tagged with #authentic representation

This I can totally understand. ❤️💙

#arcane #caitvi #violyn #stillfantastic #caitlyn kiramman #vi #caitlyn and vi #vi and caitlyn #love #more than a show #authentic representation #more than just wlw #they heal my soul

On the topic of able-bodied and nondisabled actors playing physically disabled folks:

The other day I learned of the movie "Unstoppable" starring Jharrel Jerome and Jennifer Lopez. (This post is spoiler-free because I haven't seen the movie.)

The movie is about Anthony Robles who is a wrestler with one leg. Jharrel plays Anthony. Jharrel has two legs.

First of all, when Jharrel was asked about this in an interview, he said (quote) "I understand the sensitivity of it. You know, I am able-bodied. I do have both my legs and there are actors I know that have one leg. And so, if it was going to be me, I knew that I didn't want to go halfway with it. I got on the mat for seven months, five days a week, three hours a day. And then right after I got off the mat, I got on crutches and I walked everywhere. I ran everywhere with them. And I became in control of them because I knew that if I didn't look like I was confident on the crutches or if I didn't look like I was confident balancing myself, then I wouldn't be Anthony Robles. And I also wouldn't pay respect to those who do go through what Anthony goes through." (end quote) He doesn't understand the sensitivity of it. He literally can't. He has 2 legs. He can't understand what it's like to have just one. And even if he did (quote unquote) "understand the sensitivity of it", he wouldn't have taken this role.

Second of all, the real Anthony was Jharrel's stunt double. They'll hire Anthony for the stunt double but won't hire an actor with one leg to play him (Jharrel himself said there are actors with one leg). Yeah, that makes sense. (Sarcasm)

Third of all, even some actual family members of Anthony's were in the movie.

They'll really do anything to not hire a physically disabled person, won't they? (Rhetorical question)

@this-is-deformimisia

After FAR too long, my film “They/Them” finally has English captions! Check it out if you haven’t already.

#short film #they/them #transgender #tw: transphobia #trans positivity #nonbinary #nonbinary writer #nonbinary director #authentic representation #I'm sorry im reposting this because I did it wrong the first time ugh

I had a realization yesterday that no one has said yet:

People pretending to be disabled in ways they are not (like able-bodied people playing wheelchair users) is a way to actually ignore our existence and encourage other people to not believe actual disabled people exist.

i didn’t mean the wheelchair as a permanent thing but it’s because they got injured so they are moving them

That's still ableist.

Still an issue for me.

If an actor doesn't use a wheelchair, their character can get hurt in a way that doesn't require them to use a wheelchair.

The only way it's not ableist and I do support it is, if the disability is meant to be temporary, hire an ambulatory wheelchair user.

Honestly, this question just boils down to "can able-bodied and nondisabled folks play physically disabled folks"? Folks (in general, not specifically you anon) just keep trying to come up with ableist excuses as "got-yas" to continue excluding physically disabled folks.

Spoilers for the show "Glee"

if a character in a movie/show got injured in their leg or something and had to use a wheelchair because of the injury, is that ableist?

By definition, assuming that actor is not a wheelchair user, yes, it is ableist.

Is it a problem? That depends on who you ask. Some disabled people do not have a problem with able-bodied and nondisabled people playing physically disabled characters.

In my opinion, yes. It's a huge problem. I hold the very solid belief that an actor can and should just be replaced or the physically disabled actor's disability/disabilities can be disguised until their character gets hurt. (Even if someone is physically disabled but isn't a wheelchair user. And even if an ambulatory wheelchair user plays a non-ambulatory wheelchair user.)

you did mention before how you prefer disabled people acting disabled roles.

but what about comics and any similar genre related to drawing, would you be fine if it’s a normal person or do you prefer disabled person drawing it?

First of all, please never group all disabled people as not normal. Some disabled people are okay with it and even identify as not normal. Some aren't and don't. I personally hate the word when talking about living beings. Please just say nondisabled.

Second of all, I definitely prefer disabled people drawing disabled characters. I understand not every disabled person can though. This is where I believe the drawing equivalent of sensitivity readers should come into play.

If someone is drawing a character with a disability or disabilities they don't have in general, I believe input from people with that disability or those disabilities is incredibly important.

I'm going to explain exactly what I mean when I say I believe LGBTQIA+ characters should be played by LGBTQIA+ people because people seem to misunderstand.

The main argument people have is no one owes us their sexuality and/or gender, etc. I agree. I never said they did. I don't expect for anyone to talk publicly about their identity if they don't want to. If they know they're LGBTQIA+, that's enough.

When it comes to people who are closeted, I feel basically the same. If they know they're LGBTQIA+, that's enough.

Same with someone who's questioning.

My issue is when an explicitly straight person plays someone not straight, when an explicitly cis person plays someone not cis, etc.

What about anyone who has previously explicitly said they're straight or cis or etc? I honestly cannot imagine someone who has previously stated they're straight and/or cis and/or etc playing an LGBTQIA+ character and it not be a coming out. Example: Elliot Page playing Viktor in "Umbrella Academy"

So I guess instead of saying "only people who are LGBTQIA+ should play LGBTQIA+ characters" I should say "people who are not LGBTQIA+ should not play LGBTQIA+ characters". That is more accurate to my opinion.