Kristen LopezContributorHollywood & Entertainment I write about entertainment, focusing on disabled representation.
Emily Blunt is in talks to play a deaf and blind woman, continuing the problems of disabled representation. (Photo by Erica Price/WireImage)GETTY
In the disabled community there’s a term: “cripping up.” It’s in reference to when an able-bodied person puts on the role of a person with disabilities. This has been the industry standard since Hollywood started and there’s been little push to change that. When Netflix announced their series, The Healing Powers of Dude, and actually put out a casting call for a disabled actor it was revolutionary and it really shouldn’t be. Breaking the glass ceiling regarding disability shouldn’t be the last frontier, but it seems to be.
But for every step forward there are ten steps back, such is the announcement that Emily Blunt is in talks to star in Not Fade Away, an adaptation of Rebecca Alexander’s memoir of the same name. Alexander was born with the genetic mutation Usher syndrome Type III which resulted in her losing her hearing and sight, with the belief that she’d be completely deaf and blind by 30. There’s a lot more here to unpack than simply Blunt’s casting, though it is sad to see her take on this role. Just last year she starred in A Quiet Place which featured Millicent Simmonds’ affecting portrayal as a deaf teenage girl. Krasinski maintained he fought to hire someone who was actually deaf and hired deaf consultants on the feature, which gave the film a significant bit of attention from the disabled and deaf community. There remained mixed emotions about it, but having an A-list star strive for authenticity was heartening.
What makes Blunt’s casting particularly egregious is in how stereotypically it seems to be. Hollywood only knows one disabled narrative and Not Fade Away checks all the boxes: based on a memoir so as both mitigate claims of inaccurate representation (“but it’s based on a true story”) as well as avoid actually having to properly research the illness or require additional consultants, situate it as an Oscar film with an awards-worthy performer, illustrate how it’s about overcoming some perceived adversity. Make no mistake, Rebecca Alexander has certainly triumphed over her condition and gone on to do great things, but that’s not how Hollywood sells these narratives. The goal of these movies is to present the deaf/blind/disabled as inspiration folk heroes, selling a lifestyle that will make able-bodied people appreciate themselves more.
The saddest thing is that it’d be very easy to champion this film because of how rarely women with any perceived disability are represented on-screen. Nine times out of 10 these films feature white men. However, when white women are the focus they’re often enduring “pretty” disabilities, i.e. deafness or blindness. Pretty in this sense implies that it doesn’t alter their physical attractiveness. They are challenged, but they’re still presented as sexually available and not marred in any way. When women are physically disabled in films it’s almost always presented as a disfigurement, ruining their chances at love. Jane Wyman in 1948’s Johnny Belinda can still find a man who will love her. A villainous figure like Wonder Woman’s Dr. Maru (Elena Anaya) will only receive male attention as a means of diversion or exploitation.
These movies remain mired in the belief that playing a character overcoming adversity is an easy way to win an Oscar. This is a taste untrue as the last person to triumph by this technique was Eddie Redmayne in 2014 for The Theory of Everything, and in that
Read full article on Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristenlopez/2019/03/22/emily-blunt-is-rumored-to-play-disabled-woman-and-heres-why-she-shouldnt/#2a3b96255fa4