Recently, Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre has faced criticism for casting Michelle Terry, a non-disabled actor, as Richard III in this summer’s production. Studies of Richard III’s bones, which were discovered in a Leicester car park in 2012, have suggested that he probably suffered from scoliosis and recent productions with disabled actors playing the titular character claim to have ‘reclaimed’ the character. Therefore, the Globe’s casting is controversial not only because a non-disabled actor is unable to draw on their own life experience to play a disabled character, but also because disabled actors routinely struggle to find work since disabled people are already vastly underrepresented in TV, film and theatre.
Whilst researching this controversial topic, I read an article that argued that disabled actors should be cast for disabled roles where possible. This makes sense to me, as a person’s ability to act a character well is surely an important factor to consider and if there are no disabled actors available to play a role then it seems like a non-disabled actor would be a better choice than a disabled non-actor since the former would give a better performance. However, I think it is important for theatres to actively search for disabled actors to work with rather than automatically assuming that a non-disabled actor who they have worked with before will be the best person to play the part. Moreover, perhaps even more important than the actor themselves being disabled, it is imperative for the theatre to consult disabled communities to ensure that they are representing a character rather than a caricature. This is important whether or not the actor is disabled because the experience of one person with a specific disability does not necessarily represent the experience of everyone with that disability.
One of the articles that I read also suggested that requiring only disabled actors to play characters with a hidden disability could cause more harm than good, especially for the actor in question since they should not be required to reveal their medical information to the public in order to be seen as qualified for the role. Moreover, it is also important to consider the accommodations that have to be made in theatres or on film or TV sets to make them accessible for disabled actors and whether these are reasonable. For example, installing ramps to make a space accessible to a wheelchair-using actor is definitely reasonable, but needing to do twenty rather than two or three takes of each scene so that a disabled character can master their lines and positioning might not be; it could affect the financial viability of the show or film as well as the availability of the other actors as they are only contracted for a certain time period.
When it comes to representing characters with other protected characteristics, such as race, gender and sexuality, there continues to be debates about who is qualified to perform the roles. Obviously White actors cannot perform roles designed for ethnic minorities, so roles such as Shakespeare’s Othello are off limits for them; however, non-White actors often play characters who have been assumed to be White. This tends to happen in theatre when racial difference is not a prominent theme in the play. For example, when I saw Les Misérables Eponine was played by a Black actor, and this did not change the meaning of the show in the slightest. Similarly, women are now being cast in traditionally male parts. This no longer causes much criticism: all the criticism about Michelle Terry playing Richard III is that she is not disabled, not that she is a woman. Personally, I think that the case for matching an actor’s sexual orientation to their character’s is flawed because although your sexuality is a key part of your identity, it is not a physical characteristic, and, once again, we come across the problem of actors being forced to publicly come out even if they are not comfortable with this in order to play roles that match their sexual orientation.
Overall, I don’t think it is clear cut whether or not actors must have the same characteristics as the characters the play since, whilst bringing lived experience to the role can lead to a more authentic performance that better represents certain communities, the job of an actor is to play someone who isn’t themselves. Nevertheless, I think it is important for theatres and producers to always consult with minority communities when considering how to best represent characters from these communities.
