When I saw the kids from Glee sing at the World Series earlier this month, I was surprised to see that Kevin McHale, the actor who plays disabled gleester Artie, wasn't disabled in real life. Not sure why this surprised me; non-disabled actors have been playing disabled characters for decades. Maybe it's because McHale handles his wheelchair so well, or because Glee seems to be pretty proud of its not-calling-attention-to-itself brand of diversity. Maybe I just figured that, in 2009, hiring a disabled actor to play a disabled character wasn't a big deal.
I guess I was wrong. And I'm not the only one who's puzzled and disappointed by the show's decision. Tonight's episode, in which the gleesters rally around Artie so he can travel with them to the regionals, is the jumping-off point for an AP article on how disappointed disabled actors are about the casting of McHale in the role.
As much as I don't like to get bogged down in political correctness, the folks who speak in this article have a point. There are plenty of disabled actors who are talented enough to take these roles, including fellow FOX star Daryl Mitchell, who has had a productive acting career (Ed, Brothers) since being paralyzed in a motorcycle accident.
The excuse Glee producer Ryan Murphy uses, that McHale was too talented to not use him, doesn't wash. You mean to say there wasn't a wheelchair-bound actor who was as good as McHale at singing, dancing, and acting? Heck, they might have found a person that does an even better job of moving around in the chair than McHale does, because it's a part of his life. Just the sheer number of actors out there would have improved the odds of finding an equally-talented disabled actor.
And it seems that other productions have gotten around the supposed time and liability "issues" that others have cited as a reason not to hire disabled actors. It didn't seem to hamper David Milch, who cast Geri Jewell (remember her from The Facts of Life?) on Deadwood, or Vince Gilligan, who hired RJ Mitte to play Bryan Cranston's son in Breaking Bad.
So, what's the hold-up? Why are disabled actors having such a hard time getting work in Hollywood? Maybe you folks can come up with some theories, because I certainly can't.
[via TV Week]















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
11-11-2009 @ 2:10PM
Ryan said...
I wasn't at the auditions, but maybe the disabled actors were not as good at the acting part of the job. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt that the "best" person got the job.
"Best" being an entirely relative term that is complete decided by the casting department.
On a far pettier comparison, Huge Laurie got a part playing Dr. house and he is neither crippled, or American. Just happened to be the best person that auditioned for that part.
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 2:24PM
MJL said...
I'm quite certain Hugh Laurie didn't have to audition for the part of Dr. House.
11-11-2009 @ 2:30PM
Justin said...
Hugh Laurie did audition. There was an interview on Hulu a while ago where one of the producers said they were tired of people with foreign accents auditioning for the part. Laurie auditioned and knocked it out of the park. The producers then went on a rant about how he was perfect for the part (not realizing he was British).
11-11-2009 @ 3:34PM
hessian said...
Hugh Laurie DID audition.
In fact, he videotaped his audition in the bathroom of the hotel he was living in when he was on location filming FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX.
11-11-2009 @ 2:22PM
Alex said...
I truly don't believe that they DIDN'T hire a disabled actor. They just happened to like McHale the best. They cast him on his merit, because that's their job. Casting a wheelchair-bound actor just because he's wheelchair-bound would be unfairly discriminatory.
Frankly, this is one of those issues that only becomes an issue when people make it one.
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 2:37PM
Joel Keller said...
If McHale was really above and beyond all the actors they auditioned for the part, I'd agree with you. But you don't know that and I don't know that. We're only going on what Murphy said.
11-21-2009 @ 5:12PM
Rolling_Adventures said...
I have to respectfully disagree. Writers and casting directors have the ability to use artistic license to create a part for whoever they want. If McHale was truly the best for Artie's role, Artie could have easily been turned into an AB (able bodied) cast member and a disabled actor written in to the script. I think it is unfairly discriminatory to disabled actors to write a part that could be played by a disabled individual and not hire the best fit disabled individual. All too often disabled people are not even given the opportunity to audition for parts that are portraying disabled!
As a person with a SCI that has friends (disabled) in the industry, it is disappointing when you find out that yet another AB actor is hired to PLAY the part of a PWD (person with a disability) where a PWD could do just as good (if not better) job as the AB actor. PWD's live with their disability EVERYDAY, not just when they are on camera. They do not have to be taught how to use a wheelchair for their role. Having a PWD play the disabled character could shape the part so much better and make it more realistic, because it is REAL.
Anyways, back to the original comment. We don't even know for sure that actors with disabilities were even auditioned. This person could be covering their @$$ by saying that McHale was best for the job.
Thats just my .02
11-11-2009 @ 2:42PM
jwp said...
I've never understood why this was an issue. To me they are ACTORS...they are acting, hence they aren't necessarily disabled, French, singers, drug addicts, policemen, etc, etc in real life. The best ACTOR should get the part...
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 6:09PM
Inadequate Wife said...
I've read many articles about casting directors "looking" for a particular type of person to play a role and hiring a totally different actor and modifying the role to fit. Just look at the number of British and Australian actors filling "American" roles - such as Eli Stone and the Mentalist - both lead actors speak naturally with accents.
I have to wonder if wheelchair-bound actors ever show up for auditions for presumably non-handicap roles. Do they "take that risk" and put themselves out there knowing full well they may be rejected on sight alone? Or do they audition, with the hope that a casting director might say "hey, this guy is great, he's in a wheelchair, let's rework the role and make use of this fabulous actor"?
I just finished watching Make it or Break It on Hulu (ABC Family show) and the casting director couldn't find any elite gymnasts who were (1) willing to risk injury during filming, and (2) able to actually act. So they hired some actors who were flexible enough to do the stretches and who could do a few dance-type moves, and used stunt doubles for the real gymnastics.
This type of casting happens all the time. The best actor is hired for the role, within all the other criteria: scheduling, availability, salary, and whether s/he fits with the rest of the cast - chemistry, personality, etc.
11-11-2009 @ 2:48PM
MarcDom7 said...
This is a casting rule. Hire the actor, not the gimmick. And so Murphy's word is better than no word at all. I would have been far more offended had they hired somebody just because they were in a wheelchair.
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 5:44PM
Creep said...
I remember something someone said about the hiring of Jason Scott Lee to play Bruce Lee in Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, it went something like, "It was easier to hire and actor and teach him how to fight than to hire a fighter and teach him how to act." I imagine this situation was similar to that one.
11-11-2009 @ 2:52PM
Chrysee said...
Why are the students being played by actors who are in their late twenties? The guy playing Finn is almost the same age as the guy playing Will. Kurt's actor (19) is the closest to being an actual high school student.
Actors _act_. They play people unlike themselves all the time. A non-disabled actor can play a character with a disability and I am not going to be offended about it if they do a good job (and I think McHale does do a good job and have read that he had to put a lot of work into looking "natural" in a wheelchair and keep himself from moving) Unfortunately, an actor with a disability usually cannot play a character without a disability. There is no reason to assume McHale wasn't the best actor for the role simply because it could be construed as discrimination if he wasn't.
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 2:57PM
misguided said...
The TV/Movie Industry treats the physically disabled community worse than pretty much any other minority. Breaking Bad and Glee almost get it right. Here's a list of common problems:
1. Disabilities are viewed as problems that need fixing. Heaven forbid someone accept it and thrive.
2. Disabled characters are depressed about their situation.
3. Disabled characters were paralyzed in a traumatic accident. There are more non-paralyzed disabled people than paralyzed.
4. They have no sex life and cannot have fulfilling relationships.
5. They are uneducated or have mental deficiency. At least this one is improving.
I'm disabled myself. It's unfortunate this occurs because I've met such courageous, amazing people overcoming so much who love their lives.
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 4:17PM
kikstad said...
It's ACTING! I agree that I would love to give talented people with disabilities more opportunities, but what's wrong with actors ACTING and becoming characters that they're not. Isn't that what acting is all about, as long as they're believable? I think the Glee actor has done a fine job in the role.
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 1:05AM
Mark Dissette said...
Okay kiddies time for your first lesson..."THEY'RE NOT WHEELCHAIR BOUND" They are people first then actors then actors with a disability. Having been acting for 30 years done stunt work for 10 now producing for television for almost 20 oh and I've been dropped off a five story building in a shoot gone horribly wrong I am disabled. Also I have been working with disabled actors for 20 years they are my fellow actors but mostly my friends. The posts I've seen concerning "Glee" here and on other sites make me sick. Statements of "I'm tired of these disabled people demanding things like ramps" what is this insane fear of "cripples" yes I used the word I've earned the right so piss off. Here's the truth, they looked but not very hard just enough to make themselves feel good then they cast the able bodied actor because that's who they wanted. That's their right but hiding behind "we couldn't find someone as talented" is a lie. They want trained and talented performers with disabilities then look on the internet I know of many they just have to make it a priority and it's not the fact is, "IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO THEM" Finding the best actor is important just don't BS me. Do I sound angry yes I am because I watch my talented friends who would bring heart, soul and realism to these roles washed out without a chance and that's all any actor can ask for is the chance to win the part. That's tough when they won't even look down at someone "who uses a wheelchair" much less give them the opportunity.
11-11-2009 @ 4:43PM
Jim said...
Are they just now noticing Kevin McHale can walk. Glee has been around since last May.
Also I don't know but at some point since there are dream sequences they may need him to dance.
Funny the episode is suppose to bring light to differnt ablities and they chose now to protest.
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 3:26PM
khia213 said...
We don't know whether McHale was the best auditioner, but knowing how casting directors think (or don't) there probably wasn't a call sent out for disabled actors who could sing. It's just lazy. As for "actors act", you don't cast white actors to play Asians anymore because it's offensive. You don't black up whites to play black people anymore because it's offensive. Why should you cast a non disabled person to play a disabled person? It's sheer laziness not to conduct a search for one.
Reply
11-15-2009 @ 9:45PM
Heather said...
Now, it is all to true that directors don't cast whites to play asians or blacks to play white characters but "color blindness" is an ongoing growth spurt of very recent hollywood (the last 10 years or so) that I frist remeber seeing in "color blind casting" of Cinderella (Whitney Houston and Brandi) and it THRILLED me. That was the stated aim of that production.
Hugh Laurie is a great example, but there is also Tom Cruise who was often told early in his career that he was too short to play a leading man or to look at the same show Jane Lynch who plays Sue Sylvester who has been an out lesibian in Hollywood since before it was "cool" or "pc." Now should the casting director have seen Lynch, a rangy and powerful physical presence and given her the role just because she looked the part? What if she had a whiny tenor to her voice or a hitch to her step-- it would disolve the character. Why is this not considered in the same way? Why would a casting director be expected to put out a special call because the character is wheel chair bound. I have seen the way these calls go out and if disabled actors were not called on to audition that fault lies with their talent management. Kevin McHale is a very talented actor who has worked hard to become Artie-- all of Artie the good and the bad and the bittersweet. I think the episode "Wheels" highlights everything about McHale that makes him perfect to play Artie. I would love to hear McHale's take on all this. I know that I for one if chosen for that role would give everything I had to representing a group of people that are so often misrepresented as self-focused, disability focused, depressed social piarahs.
I watched a sweet character do several admirably written things in this episode things that are hard for any teenager things I hope my teenagers will be able to do themselves, disabled or not:
*stand up for himself when it was hard and unpopular
*think of others before himself
*call someone out on deception (though I hope forgiveness will be shown later)
*inspire others to be better more understanding citizens
As for why the actor are older than their characters-- it is just easier on production that way teenagers have strict rules and limits for shooting and rehearsal schedules. You almost never seen a teenager played by an actual teen.
11-11-2009 @ 3:33PM
Kellian said...
I don't see how this is any different from straight actors playing GLBT roles and vice versa. Ultimately, the thing that matters most is can they ACT the part, not ARE THEY the part. That's what makes it acting.
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 4:12PM
Joel Keller said...
Because a gay actor can play straight and vice versa. A non-disabled actor can play disabled, but the reverse isn't possible.