Sia says sorry to autism community for controversial film Music

Watch
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
There seem to be two key 'complaints' here, that she included a scene that some viwers may find distressing and that she had the temerity to cast someone who doesnt have autism to play the lead role.
Is it just me or do both these claims seem, at best, specious and at worst little more than a petty attempt to mould life to suit their own bubbles?
Is the point of such movies not to depict real life and to challenge held beliefs and so on? In which case the scene in question, whilst possibly disturbing for some, seems perfectly valid to include.
As to the moronic assertion that only actors with lived experience may ever play the role being cast that comes across as more than a touch regressive (ironic considering it comes from the "progressive" crowd) Afterall, by their "logic" autistic people are now banned from playing any role that isnt explicitly of an autistic person. Blacks cant play white roles and vice versa, gays are shut out of the industry outside of the odd gay character and so on.
I wonder if they realise the spectacular own goal theyre trying to achieve with these bizarre demands?

Then again, these are irrelevant little people throwing a tantrum on twitter so the real loser here is probably Sia for actually paying even the slightest bit of attention to said bored malcontents with far too much free time. Oh what a time to be alive where everyone must fit within their own little box and hell hath no fury if someone dares to even look out of it :lol: :rolleyes:


https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55931544
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
the "some viewers may find it distressing" criticism was mainly about how a movie about autistic people is inaccessible to autistic people. there was also a scene where an autistic person having a meltdown was pinned/attacked in a way that often causes severe harm in real life situations because people do it without prior consent of the person who is melting down, and do it incorrectly.

the other criticism was how a movie about autistic people originally had an autistic actor playing the role, but when the environment distressed them, instead of adapting the environment and making it more accessible, Sia hired someone who was not autistic. There are quite a few autistic actors who could have filled that role and autistic actors are often discriminated against, so the goal should have been to help represent them more in media.

and the same goes for black people. if these kinds of characters were always portrayed by others who weren't like them (see: blackface) representing them with people who were like them and letting black actors be represented in media was be a good thing.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
the "some viewers may find it distressing" criticism was mainly about how a movie about autistic people is inaccessible to autistic people. there was also a scene where an autistic person having a meltdown was pinned/attacked in a way that often causes severe harm in real life situations because people do it without prior consent of the person who is melting down, and do it incorrectly.
That doesnt seem like an overly good reason to object to a film, given many films feature similar and comparable scenes from EST to torture and beyond. Just because its an unpleasant method is hardly a reason to ban its artistic portrayal.
the other criticism was how a movie about autistic people originally had an autistic actor playing the role, but when the environment distressed them, instead of adapting the environment and making it more accessible, Sia hired someone who was not autistic. There are quite a few autistic actors who could have filled that role and autistic actors are often discriminated against, so the goal should have been to help represent them more in media.
That makes the decision to overlook an autistic actor vaguely questionable but given 'lived experience' is of little use in such a role im afraid i still dont see the issue here.
As to representing them for the sake of it, why might one ask? Whilst it might be nice to have someone of (insert whichever group here) playing more roles hiring them solely on that basis is less an equitable outcome as opposed to a condescending way to humour people in my book. People should be hired on their skills, not whether theyre black/white/disabled/mentally unwell etc. etc.
and the same goes for black people. if these kinds of characters were always portrayed by others who weren't like them (see: blackface) representing them with people who were like them and letting black actors be represented in media was be a good thing.
As much as one is loathe to have to bring up the double standards argument it does rather boil down to that. The masses of whiney twitter mobs tend to get incredibly uppity if half the cast arent converted to blacks, as it were (take the example of trying to retroactively make Hermione black). If we were to do this the other way around though, well, im sure you can guess the reaction that would ensue if a director said "no blacks are allowed to play this role".

Now, my issue isnt about hiring minorities or people with disabilities, by all means hire as many as you want. The issue i take is, aside from the double standards, that this seems like a cheap way to appease the "progressive" crowd at the expense of meritocracy. Call it 'colour blind' (or whatever inane and nonsensical term these cretins use now) but i really dont get the issue with hiring people on talent as opposed to trying to load movies with as many minority groups as possible. Take the furor last year over casting a normal person to play a transsexual in some movie another (i cant recall the exact example), it escapes me as to why people think it is not only wrong but 'offensive and violent repression' to do anything but take a literal interpretation of the cast but only in one specific direction. Hiring a straight "cis" person to play a gay transsexual is considered horrific and akin to naziism whilst doing that in reverse is good? Colour me confused.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Napp)
As to the moronic assertion that only actors with lived experience may ever play the role being cast that comes across as more than a touch regressive (ironic considering it comes from the "progressive" crowd) Afterall, by their "logic" autistic people are now banned from playing any role that isnt explicitly of an autistic person. Blacks cant play white roles and vice versa, gays are shut out of the industry outside of the odd gay character and so on.
I don't think the logic being used here is that "only if you are X should you be allowed to play a character who is X". People who make this sort of criticism would usually say that the role of an autistic person should ideally be played by an autistic actor; but they wouldn't go in reverse and say that the role of a neurotypical person should only be played by a neurotypical actor. Similarly for transgender people, disabled people etc.

The idea is to increase the acting opportunities of people in various minority groups who are typically underrepresented on the screen; the kind of people who might find it difficult to be considered for the role of a person who doesn't share their particular characteristic. So supposedly, at least the roles of people who do share their characteristic should be reserved for them; otherwise how else will they find work?


I don't personally agree with this line of reasoning. I'm just pointing out that it's used specifically for these sorts of underrepresented minority groups. So it doesn't follow that a gay actor can only play a gay role etc.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I don't think the logic being used here is that "only if you are X should you be allowed to play a character who is X". People who make this sort of criticism would usually say that the role of an autistic person should ideally be played by an autistic actor; but they wouldn't go in reverse and say that the role of a neurotypical person should only be played by a neurotypical actor. Similarly for transgender people, disabled people etc.

The idea is to increase the acting opportunities of people in various minority groups who are typically underrepresented on the screen; the kind of people who might find it difficult to be considered for the role of a person who doesn't share their particular characteristic. So supposedly, at least the roles of people who do share their characteristic should be reserved for them; otherwise how else will they find work?


I don't personally agree with this line of reasoning. I'm just pointing out that it's used specifically for these sorts of underrepresented minority groups. So it doesn't follow that a gay actor can only play a gay role etc.
I dont disagree that certain groups could do with better representation but, as you noted, the line of reasoning here is questionable. Aside from being grossly hypocritical it comes across as rather demeaning for those it targets where it explicitly says that they're unhiriable if it wasnt for a box ticking exercise.
I'm not arguing against hiring minorities (although i find the line that theyre being actively excluded somewhat questionable) merely that such characteristics shouldnt serve as an immutable factor in the hiring process. It being somewhat oxymoronic to try and combat discrimination with discrimination.

Then again, my main gripe here is with the Twitter trolls who think they deserve some form of a say in this and have resorted to harassing the people involved in the production and implicitly saying that the person chosen to act this role is undeserving of it. It's a remarkable spectacle of irony, double think and rank hypocrisy.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Napp)
I dont disagree that certain groups could do with better representation but, as you noted, the line of reasoning here is questionable. Aside from being grossly hypocritical it comes across as rather demeaning for those it targets where it explicitly says that they're unhiriable if it wasnt for a box ticking exercise.
I'm not arguing against hiring minorities (although i find the line that theyre being actively excluded somewhat questionable) merely that such characteristics shouldnt serve as an immutable factor in the hiring process. It being somewhat oxymoronic to try and combat discrimination with discrimination.

Then again, my main gripe here is with the Twitter trolls who think they deserve some form of a say in this and have resorted to harassing the people involved in the production and implicitly saying that the person chosen to act this role is undeserving of it. It's a remarkable spectacle of irony, double think and rank hypocrisy.
I suppose the reason I disagree with this line of reasoning is a bit different.

As a free-market capitalist, I favour the view that a production company should be free to cast whomever they want for their roles, based on whatever they think will make their film as popular as possible. It is not their duty to go out of their way create jobs for disadvantaged people. A more appropriate solution is simply "if you don't like it, don't watch it". That way, production companies can hire whichever actors the viewers want to see, and if most of the viewers want to see an autistic actor, then so be it. Everyone will be represented in proportion to how much viewership they can generate.

We all have some natural advantages and disadvantages. But I think we should play to our strengths rather than force ourselves into areas where we are weak. It may be more difficult for some people to get acting roles just because they're not as naturally versatile as other people are. But rather than actively make concessions for them, perhaps it is worth accepting that there just isn't that much of a market for people with those characteristics on the screen, and that the acting profession doesn't need quite so many of them.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
These so called progressive are some of the most toxic ****s out there.

It is all well and good wanting hire an autistic person for the role but film sets are noisy and chaotic places which can't always be made suitable for neurodivergent people if you need to keep to a time frame and a budget. She tried to and it just didn't work out, that is business whether you like it or not. However the whole point of an actor is to act, that should not need to be explained. Progressives these days would have cancelled My Left Foot or The Diving Bell and the Butterfly given half a chance both of which were incredibly humanising stories told by able bodied actors.

Here is an interesting letter from someone with ASD on the matter, seems to have much more level head than the shrieking Twitter banshees.
https://www.ncsautism.org/blog//a-le...om-an-autistic

I do however agree that the warning about disturbing restraint scenes should have been there from the start but they should not be removed entirely. They are something that autistic people and others face and they should be highlighted if anything but to raise awareness that barbaric treatment such as this still exists. Personally I find scenes like this very hard to watch and normally just turn them off or leave the room but that is a "me" problem not an everybody else problem. I would never complain to director for wanting to tell their own story because it makes me feel uncomfortable.

I really do hate progressives and cancel culture, if you don't like something then don't watch it. Don't ruin someone's career and livelihood because it wasn't to your taste. As the saying goes, vote with your feet.
1
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Napp)
That doesnt seem like an overly good reason to object to a film, given many films feature similar and comparable scenes from EST to torture and beyond. Just because its an unpleasant method is hardly a reason to ban its artistic portrayal.

That makes the decision to overlook an autistic actor vaguely questionable but given 'lived experience' is of little use in such a role im afraid i still dont see the issue here.
As to representing them for the sake of it, why might one ask? Whilst it might be nice to have someone of (insert whichever group here) playing more roles hiring them solely on that basis is less an equitable outcome as opposed to a condescending way to humour people in my book. People should be hired on their skills, not whether theyre black/white/disabled/mentally unwell etc. etc.

As much as one is loathe to have to bring up the double standards argument it does rather boil down to that. The masses of whiney twitter mobs tend to get incredibly uppity if half the cast arent converted to blacks, as it were (take the example of trying to retroactively make Hermione black). If we were to do this the other way around though, well, im sure you can guess the reaction that would ensue if a director said "no blacks are allowed to play this role".

Now, my issue isnt about hiring minorities or people with disabilities, by all means hire as many as you want. The issue i take is, aside from the double standards, that this seems like a cheap way to appease the "progressive" crowd at the expense of meritocracy. Call it 'colour blind' (or whatever inane and nonsensical term these cretins use now) but i really dont get the issue with hiring people on talent as opposed to trying to load movies with as many minority groups as possible. Take the furor last year over casting a normal person to play a transsexual in some movie another (i cant recall the exact example), it escapes me as to why people think it is not only wrong but 'offensive and violent repression' to do anything but take a literal interpretation of the cast but only in one specific direction. Hiring a straight "cis" person to play a gay transsexual is considered horrific and akin to naziism whilst doing that in reverse is good? Colour me confused.
You just moved the goalpost. It started as "people are complaining about this movie on twitter" and now you've described it as "wanting to ban artistic expression". I am defending the people who have the right to criticize a movie for seeming performative, not banning artistic expression. Don't attack positions I do not have.
You think that people should be hired for their skills, and one of those skills is being able to portray an autistic character more realistically. I'm not autistic and I don't know enough about the differences between how the character was portrayed and what autistic people's experiences are like, but you could always look for autistic people who are talking about it if you want to understand that better.
And the reason why representation is important is that statistically if you are exposed to characters in media who you can form parasocial relationships with, you are less likely to be bigoted against that group. (In the same way having a diverse friend group can make you less bigoted). This goes back to my point about accurate portrayal. if the only autistic character you can relate to is a neurotypical interpretation of autism, it's not going to be that helpful.
This is why it is good to represent groups that face more discrimination and are underrepresented in media like trans people and disabled people. No one is saying that it is "offensive and violent repression" they are criticizing a movie's decisions and saying the way it advocates for autistic people seems performative.
Last edited by 64Lightbulbs; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
i can see why there would be an interest in having more characters on film with autism or disabilities and i can see why there would be an interest in having more actors hired with autism or disabilities; but i don't understand why it would be necessary for an autistic person to play an autistic character. in my mind there may even be a risk of the actor not getting credit for actually 'acting' the part and being taken seriously as an actor and criticism of the director just type casting. surprised the actual criticism here isn't nepotism considering the main character is Sia's goddaughter

if the concern is representation of autistic or persons with disabilities in the industry, the issue would be that they exist but it's not like something they talk about and want to be the poster child for, which is totally understandable cuz you want to be recognised for your talent and not your autism etc. like, i didn't know Dan Akroyd, Tim Burton, Stanley Kubrick, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Courtney Love, Woody Allen or Anthony Hopkins have either autism or aspergers till i googled it.
1
reply
GremlinIAMH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
Autistic person here. It's not as simple as we didn't want an Allistic person playing an Autistic person, whilst I don't agree with there is a lot more than that. Sia acted atrociously towards the Autistic community when people criticised the move especially considering they are the ones being represented. When an Autistic actor spoke and said that there are multiple Autistic actors who would have been okay with performing in that environment and would have been available for the movie, Sia responded with 'Maybe your just a bad actor'. She also responded to multiple Autistic's comments with strong language which is not how you respond to criticism. She also referred to Autistic people as 'people with special abilities' which is derogatory.

This is also not just something 'from twitter'. Both ASAN and Autism Speaks (which is an organisation which is loathed by these Autistics from the 'twitter mob') have spoken out against the movie as well as our own Autism organisation the National Autistic Society. The one Autistic that was included in a comment earlier was through an organisation called the NCAS which is highly controversial (https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/ne...severe-autism/).

She literally wrote the movie for Maddie to star in as the Autistic girl. Sia has said herself that the movie is ableist and that hiring Maddie was nepotism. Despite what you may think many Autistic people can definitely act and feel fine within a high-stress environment, there is literally no excuse to not hire an Autistic person, especially considering, within the US, 1 in 58 people are Autistic. It is incredibly obvious that Maddie is not Autistic.( I would quickly like to clarify that Maddie never did anything wrong, she was ~14 when cast)

The restraint scene is so horrific because restraint like that has killed Autistics and before the message was added, the movie promoted that way of de-escalation. This means if I had a meltdown when out by myself in public and someone, who had seen the movie without the warning, decided to intervene I could end up dead.

There is a major difference between a minority playing a majority than the other way around, due to discrimination within the industry and basic morals.

Autism is a very misunderstood condition. While most people have heard of it, most people don't know what it is nor can identify Autistic's well. A bad representation of Autism within media can have real consequences. Having an Autistic person play the role helps to get rid of any possible consequences.

Lastly, as a non-Autistic individual your really don't have the right to be saying how Autistics should be represented or played by. You are not Autistic and not part of the monority.

There is a disability campaign called 'Nothing about us,without us' which is meant to highlight when there hasn't been enough input by Disabled people and in this case it is definetly 'without us'
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
You just moved the goalpost. It started as "people are complaining about this movie on twitter" and now you've described it as "wanting to ban artistic expression". I am defending the people who have the right to criticize a movie for seeming performative, not banning artistic expression. Don't attack positions I do not have.
Hardly.
Er which position have i "attacked" as opposed to rebutting.
You think that people should be hired for their skills, and one of those skills is being able to portray an autistic character more realistically. I'm not autistic and I don't know enough about the differences between how the character was portrayed and what autistic people's experiences are like, but you could always look for autistic people who are talking about it if you want to understand that better.
Heathen forfend people be hired on their talent as opposed to qualities they have no say over?
I would point out that just because you don't know how to play an autistic character doesnt mean other actors are similarily limited.. just because someone has not experienced it doesnt mean they cant simply read up on the issue... As i said, if you only hire actors on the basis that they must be representative of the role and have lived experience few movies would ever be made again. Never mind the fact that it is, by definition, discriminatory for all concerned.
And the reason why representation is important is that statistically if you are exposed to characters in media who you can form parasocial relationships with, you are less likely to be bigoted against that group. (In the same way having a diverse friend group can make you less bigoted). This goes back to my point about accurate portrayal. if the only autistic character you can relate to is a neurotypical interpretation of autism, it's not going to be that helpful.
This is why it is good to represent groups that face more discrimination and are underrepresented in media like trans people and disabled people. No one is saying that it is "offensive and violent repression" they are criticizing a movie's decisions and saying the way it advocates for autistic people seems performative.
I never said it wasnt a good idea having a diverse range of people in the media. Merely that diversity for the sake of it is pointless. Not to mention films do not exist to advance a political and social ideology. Entertainment//propaganda and that.
Why wouldnt it be? Just as n American actor can play a European/African/Asian person in a movie there is no particular requirement for lived experience. It might make it slightly easier for them to act the part but it is extremely far from prerequisite.

In what way is hiring autistic people, or transexuals for that matter, for the sake of it not 'performative' as you put it? As to them being 'underrepresented', given thats trans are a tiny minority in the first place (and few movies actually need feature someone simply for the fact that they dislike their biology) would you mind expanding on your insinuation that there is some form of requirement to artificially scatter more of them throughout the entertainment industry? Aside from a box ticking exercise of course.
Last edited by Napp; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by GremlinIAMH)
Lastly, as a non-Autistic individual your really don't have the right to be saying how Autistics should be represented or played by. You are not Autistic and not part of the monority.
This seems to suggest that people should only be able to tell stories directly related their innate traits, so Autistics can only tell autistic stories, Indians can only tell Indian stories.

We would lose a huge amounts of creative freedom because you want to put people in neat little boxes of what they can and can't do.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by DiddyDec)
This seems to suggest that people should only be able to tell stories directly related their innate traits, so Autistics can only tell autistic stories, Indians can only tell Indian stories.

We would lose a huge amounts of creative freedom because you want to put people in neat little boxes of what they can and can't do.
Imagine the troubles of trying to do historical dramas where, for example, the only people qualified to play the Nazis are all in their late 80's or dead.
The idea that actors can only play parts that they have lived experience of is utterly preposterous. Its therefor not surprising that a certain, unnamed, group of intellectually subnormal activists have latched onto such a bizare notion in the same way that a Peta activist will chain itself to a farm gate to protest about pest control. It has the same unmistakable stench as the pseudo-academic "disciplines" like critical race/gender/sex/fat theory (well all of the bizarre ones)
0
reply
TheStupidMoon
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
The entire storm ina teacup is ******eed.

The film is ******ed.
The fake autiistic groups are ******ed.
The BBC is helping promote this nonsense.
0
reply
GremlinIAMH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Napp)
Imagine the troubles of trying to do historical dramas where, for example, the only people qualified to play the Nazis are all in their late 80's or dead.
The idea that actors can only play parts that they have lived experience of is utterly preposterous. Its therefor not surprising that a certain, unnamed, group of intellectually subnormal activists have latched onto such a bizare notion in the same way that a Peta activist will chain itself to a farm gate to protest about pest control. It has the same unmistakable stench as the pseudo-academic "disciplines" like critical race/gender/sex/fat theory (well all of the bizarre ones)
How on Earth are you comparing Nazis to Autistics?? You are comparing extremists to everyday individuals. This is not in reference to a historical drama, this is the current day.

It's not as simple of 'this one thing that I have affects this small bit of me', it affects your entire perception of the world. Non-Autistics will never understand our perception of the world, as we will never completely understand theres. I have never seen a non-Autistic individual play an Autistic person well and highly doubt I will ever.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by GremlinIAMH)
How on Earth are you comparing Nazis to Autistics?? You are comparing extremists to everyday individuals. This is not in reference to a historical drama, this is the current day.

It's not as simple of 'this one thing that I have affects this small bit of me', it affects your entire perception of the world. Non-Autistics will never understand our perception of the world, as we will never completely understand theres. I have never seen a non-Autistic individual play an Autistic person well and highly doubt I will ever.
Have you ever seen an Autistic play a non-Autistic well?
0
reply
ry7xsfa
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Have you ever seen an Autistic play a non-Autistic well?
Happens all the time. I bet you wouldn't even know, because it's not always completely obvious when somebody is Autistic. Some Autistic people learn to mask their traits in front of others. It doesn't mean being Autistic affects them less (masking is exhausting), but it does mean that in a lot of cases an observer wouldn't even know they are Autistic.

So let's ask, why does this work one way, but not the other?

Well, quite simply, it's experiences and ways of thinking. Apologies in advance here, because I'm bad at wording things. Autistic people will often grow up surrounded by NTs (neurotypicals), who think in what is considered to be a "normal" way. Autistic brains work differently to non-Autistic ones, but this usually comes out in mannerisms that are seen as "weird" by NTs. As a result, a lot of Autistic people will be taught from a young age "you shouldn't do this", and "this is what you should be doing/thinking/feeling etc.". After years of this, some Autistic people are able to "get it", and understand how they're "supposed" to act and think (according to non-Autistics). They are able to "think" like a NT in a sense, but this doesn't make them any less Autistic. Their brain still functions in its alternative way, but they've learned to suppress that and think and act how society tells them is normal. Is this a good thing? No. It's exhausting and isn't giving the Autistic person freedom to be themselves. But it does mean that it can be difficult, if not impossible, to tell that the person is Autistic unless you really know them. This is why an Autistic person can play a non-Autistic well.

Now, let's flip the scenario. A non-Autistic person wants to play an Autistic person. Why can't they do this well? Again, it's down to experience. I mentioned before that some Autistic people are able to mask, a lot of that due to growing up around NT people and being told how they are "supposed to be". Simply, a NT person wouldn't have grown up being taught to act in a way that is generally seen as the way Autistic people act (which is a bad thing in the first place, since ASD affects everyone differently. No 2 Autistic people are the same with how their condition affects them, so this is literally impossible). Because of this, non-Autistic people don't have this different way of thinking that Autistic people do, and aren't able to develop/"learn" it either. They also haven't experienced life the way Autistic people have, being told "you shouldn't be doing that", "this is how you should be", "you don't fit in here", and being called "weird" just for acting in the way that their brain naturally does.
Last edited by ry7xsfa; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
GremlinIAMH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Have you ever seen an Autistic play a non-Autistic well?
Yep, the amount of times people are surprised to find out when an Autistic is Autistic is ridiculous. So many mask their symptoms which is incredibly exhausting. Some don't realise they are Autistic until they are in their 40's and no one else realised either. Sir Anthony Hopkins ,who played Odin in the MCU, among other things, is Autistic and was diagnosed in later life. You wouldn't be able to notice it.
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Napp)
Hardly.
Er which position have i "attacked" as opposed to rebutting.

Heathen forfend people be hired on their talent as opposed to qualities they have no say over?
I would point out that just because you don't know how to play an autistic character doesnt mean other actors are similarily limited.. just because someone has not experienced it doesnt mean they cant simply read up on the issue... As i said, if you only hire actors on the basis that they must be representative of the role and have lived experience few movies would ever be made again. Never mind the fact that it is, by definition, discriminatory for all concerned.

I never said it wasnt a good idea having a diverse range of people in the media. Merely that diversity for the sake of it is pointless. Not to mention films do not exist to advance a political and social ideology. Entertainment//propaganda and that.
Why wouldnt it be? Just as n American actor can play a European/African/Asian person in a movie there is no particular requirement for lived experience. It might make it slightly easier for them to act the part but it is extremely far from prerequisite.

In what way is hiring autistic people, or transexuals for that matter, for the sake of it not 'performative' as you put it? As to them being 'underrepresented', given thats trans are a tiny minority in the first place (and few movies actually need feature someone simply for the fact that they dislike their biology) would you mind expanding on your insinuation that there is some form of requirement to artificially scatter more of them throughout the entertainment industry? Aside from a box ticking exercise of course.
I wasn't using attacked in a negative way. That's what you do to arguments. You "attack" or "rebut" an argument.
Most autistic people said that Sia's god daughter did not portray autistic characters well, because autistic people had little to no input on the film. It's not that they have to be representative of the role, it's just that if you made a movie about a black character's experiences with racism and only talked to white people about it, and had a white actor play the character who experiences racism, it would be kinda ****ed up.
You think that encouraging people to be less bigoted is propaganda? I? How is that in any way a defensible position?
All I said was that people have the right to criticize a movie they feel poorly represents them. I didn't say we should require a certain percentage of movie to have actors be in x minority.
2
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by ry7xsfa)
Happens all the time. I bet you wouldn't even know, because it's not always completely obvious when somebody is Autistic. Some Autistic people learn to mask their traits in front of others. It doesn't mean being Autistic affects them less (masking is exhausting), but it does mean that in a lot of cases an observer wouldn't even know they are Autistic.

So let's ask, why does this work one way, but not the other?

Well, quite simply, it's experiences and ways of thinking. Apologies in advance here, because I'm bad at wording things. Autistic people will often grow up surrounded by NTs (neurotypicals), who think in what is considered to be a "normal" way. Autistic brains work differently to non-Autistic ones, but this usually comes out in mannerisms that are seen as "weird" by NTs. As a result, a lot of Autistic people will be taught from a young age "you shouldn't do this", and "this is what you should be doing/thinking/feeling etc.". After years of this, some Autistic people are able to "get it", and understand how they're "supposed" to act and think (according to non-Autistics). They are able to "think" like a NT in a sense, but this doesn't make them any less Autistic. Their brain still functions in its alternative way, but they've learned to suppress that and think and act how society tells them is normal. Is this a good thing? No. It's exhausting and isn't giving the Autistic person freedom to be themselves. But it does mean that it can be difficult, if not impossible, to tell that the person is Autistic unless you really know them. This is why an Autistic person can play a non-Autistic well.

Now, let's flip the scenario. A non-Autistic person wants to play an Autistic person. Why can't they do this well? Again, it's down to experience. I mentioned before that some Autistic people are able to mask, a lot of that due to growing up around NT people and being told how they are "supposed to be". Simply, a NT person wouldn't have grown up being taught to act in a way that is generally seen as the way Autistic people act (which is a bad thing in the first place, since ASD affects everyone differently. No 2 Autistic people are the same with how their condition affects them, so this is literally impossible). Because of this, non-Autistic people don't have this different way of thinking that Autistic people do, and aren't able to develop/"learn" it either. They also haven't experienced life the way Autistic people have, being told "you shouldn't be doing that", "this is how you should be", "you don't fit in here", and being called "weird" just for acting in the way that their brain naturally does.
It isn't the whole point of an actor to act as someone they are not? Whether they be playing the president or a serial killer neither of which they will have experienced but for which they must be convincing.

It is not impossible to play a convincing autistic character, off the top of my head would be Dr. Brennan in Bones or Abed in Community. Both played by neurotypical actors.

Here is an interesting article based on paper written by psychiatrists looking into how well represented psychopaths were in film.
https://www.businessinsider.com/famo...7-12?r=US&IR=T

Sir Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Hannibal didn't make the cut whereas Javier Bardem's performance in No Country For Old Men was in fact the best representation based on their criteria.

Actors act, that is their job. They don't always get it right.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Following the government's announcement, do you think you will be awarded a fair grade this year?

Yes (170)
51.52%
No (160)
48.48%

Watched Threads

View All