05/23/2024
This article is wonderfully insightful, and simplification of this issue is absurd. Here's why.
Disabled actors (as British parlance refers to them at the moment) should obviously be given the same opportunities as all other actors, and space should be consciously made for them by theatres, not just by accident.
That said, every character in Shakespeare except some "Moors' are white, but we don't usually cast them by their race: we cast them as people. Sometimes race is not ignored but explored thematically, and casting is used to touch on particulay modern social situations, even though Shakespeare never could have imagined them. Further, sometimes character gender is switched or ignored, and a project gains another potential purpose. For heaven's sake, I've played the male lead in "Taming of the Shrew" opposite Carole Lynn Moore Strickland's fantastic Kate, and yes, I kissed her unironically at the end. More to the point, we would never agree that a "disabled" actor couldn't play an "able bodied" character, would we?
In the case of Richard III, The idea that we must find an actor "disabled" in the same manner as the character ridiculous for 2 reasons. First, Shakespeare's scripted notions about and possible details of Richard's deformity are sometimes specific, other times vague, and always fictional. Second, the historical British King this character is based on we now know had scoliosis. Which deformities must we adhere to and why? IS there a male actor with scoliosis who is good for the part? Or is that the "correct" disability?
Arthur Hughes, an actor who the RSC recognized was wonderfully up for the part of Richard III, doesn't have scoliosis, though he was born with radial dysplasia (a shortened right arm). And, as he puts it, “people don't make the sign of the cross at me when I walk down Queens Road in Peckham.” The stars aligned for the production in which he performed, which (as most Richard III productions do) explored how "deformity" both hindered and helped that character' life, while also recognizing the story is not just about a deformity. It's about ambition and many other things. But honestly, it wasn't the best Richard III I've ever seen. Thankfully, the talented Hughes' continued career has been a success and does not constantly focus on his dysplasia, which we can all agree would be ridiculous.
I don't think this controversy is an example of social consciousness going too far, but the question and potential answers are complex, not simple. It's good too have these conversations, and I thank you for reading my opinions on the matter. - Laura Rose
A production at the Shakespeare’s Globe theater faced criticism because a nondisabled actor plays the scheming king. But disputes like these miss the point, our critic writes.