Glee and Faking Disabilities
I watched my first full episode ever of Fox's Glee last night. The episode, entitled "Wheels," was kind of a special-needs extravaganza (if you missed it, you can watch it on Hulu; be warned that my blog post here will contain spoilers). One of the main plotlines focused on Artie, a character who uses a wheelchair, and dances pretty well in one, too. Efforts to get a bus with a lift so he can ride with his fellow glee-club members to the sectional competition leads to a consciousness-raising exercise in which all the glee-club kids have to go around in wheelchairs, and eventually perform as a group on wheels.
A second plot involves the notoriously abrasive and manipulative cheerleading coach, Sue, being unexpectedly decent to a girl with Down syndrome who wants to join the hypercompetitive squad. Later we find out where Sue's perspective comes from, as she visits her older sister who also has Down syndrome. It looks like the cheerleader may be a recurring character, which would be a neat addition.
There was, in fact, a lot to feel good about in the episode, including consideration of the need for ramps in a big high school, and a wheelchair-level look at how hard it is to get around without getting blocked or bomped. There were also a couple of subplots that dealt with faking disabilities, including one in which a girl admits that she's been faking her stutter, causing Artie to tell her how much it hurts him to find that they don't have this important thing in common after all, and she can just leave her disability behind.
Unfortunately, there's some irony in having actor Kevin McHale deliver lines like, "I'm sorry that now you get to be normal, and I'm going to be stuck in this chair the rest of my life. And that's not something I can fake," because faking is exactly what he's doing. This episode's disability focus has brought complaints from disability advocates about the casting of a non-wheelchair-using actor as Artie. Those who disagree that McHale's wrong for the role argue that it's acting we're talking about here, and you hire the best actor regardless of his abilities or disabilities.
I do think there are times when that's true, and certainly making sure that every single actor has everything in common with every character would make casting a ridiculous challenge. I think there's some merit in taking things role by role -- and for this particular role, I don't think an actor who's faking the disability can be the best choice. Not for a show that's about championing underdogs, and being true to yourself, and appreciating unexpected strengths. If your show's about that, saying "But there was nobody in a wheelchair talented enough for this part" feels like a slap in the face to all the real-life Arties out there.
That said, I'll admit that for me, the most distracting casting on the show is that of Finn, the high-school football star being played by an actor who looks every one of his twenty-seven years. I keep mistaking him for the teacher.
Did you watch the Glee episode? Did you appreciate its message? Does it bother you that Artie is played by a non-disabled actor? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Also new today: Site of the Day | Today's News and Views | Tip of the Day
Photo by Jesse Grant/Getty Images
I haven’t seen this particular episode, so my comment is about Glee in general in regard to disabilities. I’m having a really hard time with the show based on one of the characters (adult girlfriend faking a pregnancy) having said that morning sickness is a good sign that the unborn baby won’t be a mongoloid. When I heard that line – and esp since her boyfriend, the Glee Teacher – didn’t act shocked or say anything to counter her, I felt like I’d been kicked in the stomach. I numbly reached for the remote and clicked off the show. NO ONE uses that word anymore! I felt shocked and deeply offended. Why perpetuate such a negative stereotype? I can’t think of any justification the writers would have for using that word. I can’t believe they used that word and then brought on an actress with Down syndrome. It is really confusing to me. The overall messages of awareness building and acceptance are awesome, but the writing and casting of the show aren’t mirroring the message at all.
Therapist in WI, that surprised me too. However, I think they did it mostly to show that character as extremely shallow, judgmental, stupid, and selfish. That same episode also focusses on her feelings that she is entitled to a big, expensive house no matter what. I think the audience was meant to read that comment as just another example of her character being unsavory- after all, we’re supposed to root for Mr. Schuester to leave her and be with his other love interest, right?
Unfortunately the fact that Mr. Schuester- who is otherwise portrayed as very sensitive and politically correct- says nothing to her about this and doesn’t seem to see her selfishness for what it is, is so inconsistent as to be unbelievable. His entire relationship with her seems like it doesn’t fit his character. It’s definitely poorly written.
Oh, and that’s not even getting into how the portrayal of his wife that way is a negative stereotype of women in and of itself!
Real people say things. Things that others find hurtful and that they either don’t know are hurtful or don’t care are hurtful. Portraying the good, the bad and the ugly is what a solid script ought to do. All in the Family was brilliant for its willingness to do that; no show since has been as brave, nor as smart, I think.
I think Luai’s point about Schuester’s wife being portrayed negatively is more interesting; in fact, aren’t an awful lot of the female characters on the show shown pretty harshly? Sue, for instance? The pregnant teen lying about who her kid’s father is?
It seems more interesting because I don’t know that the folks at Glee are aware of the tendency and don’t expect they’re doing it intentionally.
But the individual remark in the script, well, it’s not polite but it’s how some folks talk.
Peter, I respectfully disagree.
NO ONE uses the word “mongoloid” in casual conversations these days. The wife was already completely unlikeable/shallow/mean before she uttered the word. It was completely unneccessary and could have been accomplished with a less awful word. Actually, it would have made much more sense for her to use the dread r-word; I hear that one everywhere. And they could have paired it with a PSA for the Spec Olympics’ “Stop the R-Word” campaign. Now, that would have been educational.
And as for All in the Family, agreed that that show was brave, smart, and even controversial. But when Archie used offensive labels for people his daughter or son-in-law would have immediately called him on it. So his ignorance or bigotry were immediately challenged.
And that’s my whole point. I wouldn’t have been so offended if the husband/teacher (or any character! even the waiter
had jumped in and corrected her.
I’m not feeling the love with Glee. I don’t see how reinforcing stereotypes while proclaiming to challenge them is worthy of gushing praise or accolades.
I watched the program last night after seeing the discussions. I have to say that I was impressed that they would take the time to put disability issues in tv. Programs aren’t emphasizing the struggles of the kids in wheelchairs or lack of ramps (the same issues my daughter has). Notice how the inclusion was there. nice. It may have brought awaremess to some kids/adults and that’s all I can ask for. I don’t necessarily care who sends the message out (disabled or non-disabled), but embrace the idea that we are teaching kids, teachers, parents and people about differences and challenges. Nobody reflected on the idea that the bigger issue was ADA not being implemented for this boy in a wheelchair having limited to no access within the school and raising money for a bus that the district should pay for anyway.
This post has been included in a linkspam at Access_fandom. Thank you!