ableist Richard III casting drama at the Globe: explained | why disability representation matters

open letter from Disabled Artists Alliance:
docs.google.com/document/d/1k...
full statement from Shakespeare's Globe and Michelle Terry: cdn.shakespearesglobe.com/upl...
•
OHMYGOD HEY!
When Shakespeare's Globe announced that Michelle Terry would play Richard III in an upcoming production of the play of the same name, backlash ensued.
Terry, who is the venue's Artistic Director, is an able bodied actress, despite the character being disabled.
In today's news recap I'm explaining what has happened, talking through statements and open letters and sharing my thoughts on this casting controversy...
•
00:00 | introduction
05:54 | the criticism of the casting
15:30 | the Globe's response
28:12 | history / context / thoughts
•
SUBSCRIBE to My Channel: @MickeyJoTheatre
#news #theatre #disability

[@pleh7019]

I am a disabled actor, and I don't necessarily mind able bodied people playing disabled roles. I DO mind that disabled actors are rarely cast in generic roles, and therefore find it selfish and ableist to keep us out of disabled roles as well. If we got the first problem sorted I'd be fine with it.

[@Showtunediva]

I am the same way.

[@da__lang]

Indeed!

[@felikso]

yes!! this is also why, as a gay + trans person, I'm perfectly fine with straight people playing gay characters - because gay people are hardly underrepresented in theatre - but I do (often) have problems with cis people playing trans folk! (though in the latter instance, there's also the nuance of ... if a cis actor has a different gender from the trans character, that has Unpleasant Connotations).

[@noellefair4373]

As a disabled actor this put into words what I've been muddling over. Thanks for this.

[@SunnyMorningPancakes]

This is what I've been trying to say. Thank you for articulating it.

[@wildoranges]

as a disabled actor, the words "it will come around again" genuinely are like a slap in the face. telling disabled people that we should wait our turn to tell our own stories, telling this to working disabled actors as the abled AD of one of the biggest UK theatres - with the job security that comes with that position, is incredibly offensive.

[@da__lang]

Amen!

[@eleanor9878]

Especially as the last production the Globe did of Richard 3rd also had a non-disabled women as the lead (Sophie Russell in 2019/2020)

[@AnAverageSortaGuy]

I think the biggest issue in the whole debacle is the lack of opportunity, in that the Globe has basically said it’s the responsibility of other companies mounting future productions to give disabled artists the opportunity to play Richard III. It screams the fact that Michelle Terry is slightly abusing her power as Artistic Director to have her cast in many leading roles…and to think Emma Rice was sacked because of lighting…wb fair and equal casting??

[@tananario23]

Black, female, disabled. Got cast as Friar Lawerence (“Romeo and Juliet”). Didn’t wear a wig or makeup - outdoors with all kinds of weather so not worth the hassle - and didn’t make any effort change gender. Best reviews of my life. Learned a lot from that experience.

[@amandastumpff5252]

And what is even more important in my opinion is casting those with physical disabilities into roles that are “normal,” or not typically written for those who have disabilities. And I know you alluded to this in the beginning which I applaud. Because guess what? I have a fantastic relationship with my husband and my kids, and we do all the normal family things. We don’t sit around and make my wheelchair the topic of our discussions. The fact that I have a disability doesn’t make me super depressed or affect our day-to-day lives. It does affect things a little bit, but we do absolutely normal things. We have fights and struggles, and we go on vacations and hilarity ensues in our house, and none of that centers around my wheelchair. My husband met me, and he saw me, he did not see a disability. And there are so many people who are living in similar relationships, so casting agents and directors really need to start casting people with physical disabilities in regular roles. Just like Ali Stroker. It was groundbreaking when she won the Tony and everyone applauded how amazing it was that she was cast in that role. And it really should not have been amazing. It should have just been awesome because of her huge talent, not the fact that someone dared to give a girl in a wheelchair a chance and isn’t that amazing and we should applaud that. And not a lot has happened since anyway in casting people with physical disabilities, at least on the main Broadway stage. If you want to make people with disabilities, feel normal and included, you put them on the regular Broadway stage if they have the talent, and you don’t even mention the wheelchair or the crutches. Or that they might look a little different. That is being inclusive.

[@amandastumpff5252]

And you obviously addressed a lot more of these things toward the end of the video. So note to self, watch the video completely before commenting 😂

[@HarlequinMTL]

Thank you for covering this issue in such a thoughtful manner! Regarding your idea of "what if an able-bodied actor was cast as Richard but the rest of the cast had disabilities," something like that was done in 2022 in New York. The Public Theater’s Free Shakespeare in the Park production starred Danai Gurira as Richard, but also featured Ali Stroker and other actors with disabilities. (It was filmed for PBS and so is available online, if you're curious.)

[@amandahealey2216]

Didn't they also do an Othello production where Othello was white and the rest of the cast is black, or am I confusing that with a different theater troup/company?

[@noellefair4373]

​@@amandahealey2216DC Shakes did this in the 90s.

[@amandastumpff5252]

I just started watching this, but I’m super glad you are covering it. As someone who wanted to go into musical theater and who also has muscular dystrophy and has to use a wheelchair full-time now, I was told before I went to college that if I could not dance across the stage, there was no place for me in theatre. So thank you for covering this, because that one comment completely changed my entire trajectory. It’s so important to see representation of those with disabilities on stage and to also have accessible accommodations backstage. Because that is even more rare, especially on Broadway with all of those old theaters.

[@Lighting_Desk]

As a disabled professional in the industry, stuff like this is incredibly frustrating. Working in an industry that is not built for us, and is only just starting to get to grips with accessibility. Its hard enough getting work by disabled work seen and heard, never mind getting good reprisenration both on and off stage. Especially so coming from the hugely privileged Southern London mentality industry as opposed to the north which is struggling. Things like this is why I am in the panels for access conferences, advocate for disability lead work as well as work with disability lead theatre and continue to push for meaningful relaxed, BSL interpreted, Audio Description and Captioned performances. We clearly still have a long way to go.

[@mikaelamoody4005]

For what it's worth (speaking as a singular Disfigured, deaf person), in my opinion this is great allyship, with very thorough thread-pulling and consideration. Also (full disclosure of bias, as someone who was in the following show), last year's RSC production of Julius Caesar was so full of d/Deafness, disability and queerness, in professional and volunteer casts alike, not to mention creatives. I wish you'd been able to see it! I'm very proud of being part of it, and I miss it every day.

[@emhu2594]

I saw it, and agree with the critics that it was atrocious and an absolute embarrassment for the RSC. There is a difference between representation and tokenism. Their 2012 version of Julius Caesar featuring an all black cast made sense in context, augmented the storytelling, and the acting was outstanding. The new version was a checklist for a pat on the head, not a production of Julius Caesar.

[@mikaelamoody4005]

@@emhu2594 thanks for the lovely response ☺ [edit] Y'know, actually, I shouldn't just be passive. I hope you understand that this was a surprisingly rude thing to say in response to a person talking about how they enjoyed being -in- something (nothing about the perceived quality of the show, which as a participant I'm not really qualified to comment on), for reasons that are super pertinent to the topics of this video. I don’t really like even indirectly being called a token, because as I said, the production was incredibly inclusive from my perspective (and others), and furthermore, the RSC has continued to involve myself and other JC folks in unrelated projects, thus putting their money (often literally, they've paid me to host events!) where their mouth is.

[@emhu2594]

@@mikaelamoody4005 From the audience I can only say it felt incredibly cynical and exploitative.

[@bizbethj]

I think ultimately the globe (*cough* michelle terry) has a vision for this production that they want to be at the center of and doesn't want to hear any perspective that conflict with their vision. Obviously, like you said, they could've casted anyone, either disabled or able bodied, as richard and still completed this vision but the truth of the matter is they wanted to play this character and that's why this is happening.

[@sappho4828]

i know this isn't really relevant to the conversation in the video but i'm an aspiring actor with tourette's and i've been told at nearly any turn that acting just isn't an option for me because my tics make me "uncastable". i remember getting actually emotional about the first (and tbh only) time i've ever seen a character with tics in a piece of media - he was a very minor character in a novel and yet it still absolutely meant the world to me, to see a character who experienced but wasn't defined by a tic disorder like mine. i don't even know where im going with this but basically shit's hard for disabled actors and disability representation means more than most people realise.

[@CP-jc2mn]

The main character of "Motherless Brooklyn" has tourette's. The book and the film have very different plots I believe, and I've only seen the latter. I remember thinking afterwards that it's probably the first time I've seen a character with tourette's in a prominent role, and how many interesting characters we're missing out on by ignoring so many aspects of human life. I did wonder how people would feel about a non-disabled actor playing the part, but I don't think the film was successful enough to garner such discussions - at least not that widespread.

[@amycarcaterra8177]

Stay strong becuse doctors didn't believe jeremy Stenberg also known as twitch he will never be a prorofessional motorcross part of the x games. the number 1 motorcrosser in the entire extreme sports and won plenty of contests. so you have role model there.

[@OlivierNourry]

FWIW, Vincent Lindon is a very successful actor in France, and he's known for having very noticeable tics (not due to Tourrette's though, but from a childhood trauma). Interestingly, they don't show up at all when he' acting

[@amycarcaterra8177]

@@OlivierNourry I love that. That means that is an excellent sign he is in his comfort zone. Magical it doesn't show up when he is acting or singing. crossing my fingers he will get more roles even if it is ensemble role. Readig your comment me smile.

[@Showtunediva]

12:34 The quote “.There is nothing about us without us.” absolutely needs to be on merchandise or political campaign signs.

[@callalily3994]

It's been a pretty common slogan in disability rights activism for a while.

[@beque3668]

Not to take away from the main issue at hand, but side note, can I just say how I find it kind of inappropriate that the ARTIST DIRECTOR is casting herself in lead roles for productions of a company in which she is the Artist director for... like... isn't that a conflict of interest??? And It's not like this is her own theatre company... its the Globe!!!

[@MickeyJoTheatre]

Yes and no - this instance definitely illustrates the potential pitfalls but she has been brought in as an Artistic Director for her background as a celebrated Shakespearean interpreter, so there is an expectation for her to act in the programming. It doesn't need to be leading roles and vanity projects though.

[@beque3668]

to add on, it sounds to me she *cough*abusing her power as an Artist Director to cast herself in roles that she probably would have never had the chance to play ie Richard III who is normally played by a disabled MALE actor... I mean if she wanted to push the envelope why didn't she casted a disabled female actor in the role? or like you said keep Richard as an able bodied person but cast disabled actors in all the other roles, there for Richard by proxy becomes disabled because the world he lives in doesn't cater to his body's abilities... that would be an interesting take.... but regardless, her being the Artistic Director for the most famous and respected Shakespearian theatre company in the world and casting herself in the lead roles is (IMO) very inappropriate.

[@emhu2594]

​@@beque3668 the Globe is only famous as a tourist attraction. Their productions are high school level.

[@littlelizzyann]

There is an issue here that is, as noted, decidedly a side one, but I am a little dismayed by the characterization of Terry's (self?) casting in the role as an act of vanity or presumption. As Mickey noted, Artistic Directors with a directing background regularly direct productions. And the first Artistic Director, Mark Rylance, who has an acting background, regularly directed and took leading roles in productions during his tenure, notably including Olivia in an all-male production of Twelfth Night and the title role in Richard III. I wonder if people would be so quick to read Terry's actions as vanity or presumption if she were a man. It makes very little difference to the main point--the casting was ill-conceived regardless of whether the artistic director is entitled to take a leading role--and suggests a thread of sexism that frustrates me because it muddies the central, important issue here.

[@filmgeek520]

I think the wording regarding 'the role coming around again' is quite crass and a vert ablist view, ESPECIALLY when paired with the sad recent announcment that How to Dance in Ohio, a production that cast its disabled roles authentically and told a new story, will close its run early due to lack of support from theatregoers. No, these roles WON'T come always come around again, because these productions and roles are not always guaranteed to continue, and even if they do, as they've proven, the people who produce these shows will more likely than not choose to cast authentically, whether it's because the idea hasn't occurred to them or because they fear it will make them less money than to cast an established able-bodied actor.

[@42ariadna]

The last time I went to NY I got to see Richard III with Danai Gurira in the title role, it was for Shakespeare in the Park. She didn't played the role with a disability, instead making her "blackness" what made the character "other" (Richard's brothers were played by white actors). In that version though, several of the other characters were played by disabled actors because the director made a conscious efforst to open up casting to get those actors. The cast included Ali Stroker, Monique Holt, Greg Mozgala, Matthew Jeffers... I thought it was an interesting take (the cast seemed to be having a blast on stage, all of them had very energetic performances) and I found refreshing to see disabled actors in so many different roles at once. I wish that could happen more often. Shakespeare's plays at this point should be open to be played by any kind of actor! (and by open, I mean productions making a conscious choice to diversify and give access) I've been to The Globe and I've been lucky to enjoy many different takes of the plays, so it's very disappointing that their reaction to this situation has been so lacking. I do hope they make some changes before the summer season.

[@am-lo1pz]

Yep, what people don't understand (and what was mentioned multiple times in this video) is that it's not necessarily about needing to have a certain life experience, it's about opportunities. If you're casting disabled performers in traditionally non-disabled roles then most people won't care about traditionally disabled roles being played by anyone. It's always the fact that minorities are told they're ONLY allowed to play those roles and then half of the time they don't even get that.

[@claragoodwin5200]

In awe of your articulate, considered, and well-measured approach to this and all theatrical controversies you discuss on your channel. We need more voices like yours. ❤️🙏

[@christopherbutler1980]

There are actors who have played Richard without focusing on physical disability. They emphasize his twisted and evil personality. That is an interesting take on the role. BUT..this role should be open actors who have physical challenges. I did see a Lear with a Edgar who needed a wheelchair. That was a valid take on that role.

[@emhu2594]

The RSC's recent 2022 production of Richard 3 had a disabled actor as the lead, and he was incredible and so entertaining. Highly recommend watching the recording of it. The globe's new version just sounds like someone abusing their power (artistic director) to get a starring role in something.

[@MsJaytee1975]

@@emhu2594I remember an interview with the director and he said some of the insults in the scripts really hit differently with Arthur Hughes in the role.

[@SMF24601]

This is such a surprising controversy to take place at the Globe when this production is happening just before they are doing Antony and Cleopatra starring deaf actor Nadia Nadarajah as Cleopatra (Having previously played Guildenstern opposite Michelle Terry's Hamlet in a production that used the casting of a deaf actor in that role in an incredible way)

[@Empress-Angel]

"There'll be other chances" is what you tell a kid who's disappointed about losing a baseball game. It's not what you tell an entire community of adults when _you_ made the choice to not give them that chance, and I'm flabbergasted that anyone involved thought it was an acceptable response. It seems like the root of this specific instance isn't an active decision to exclude, but the bizarre fact that the casting director is allowed to frequently cast herself in principal roles. To me, that response almost reads as this one lady just wanted to be the star of the show, never stopped to consider if making herself the star of the show was appropriate, and is now sulking because people have very valid reasons for not wanting her to be the star of the show.

[@etherealtb6021]

Of course a disabled actor would bring facettes of the role of Richard III to the role an abled actor couldn't. But saying there have never been great performances by abled actors in the part is ridiculous. I saw Ian McKellen and he was brilliant. However, I would like to see disabled actors given the chance to play the role. It is time, as we've had 500+ years of abled actors playing the part. It is important to do this in one of the top Shakespeare companies in the world!

[@emhu2594]

People that think the Globe is one of the top Shakespeare companies in the world either have never seen their productions or know nothing about Shakespeare. The Globe is amateur hour made for tourists. Ian Mckellan's 2018 king lear was probably the best king lear that ever will be. Incredible Shakespeare actor. So glad that they are recording these performances now.

[@Countfoscolikesmice]

@@emhu2594 lol what a pointless comment. love it! go on and be petty. own it.

[@etherealtb6021]

@@emhu2594 Well, that is its reputation! No, I haven't seen one of their productions, as I haven't been lucky enough to get back to the UK since The Globe opened.

[@emhu2594]

​@@Countfoscolikesmice see for yourself and then come back and commiserate.

[@lunasuji]

Disabled theater fan here! I have complex feelings on this subject. I won't speak of other types of representation, but in the specific case of disabled people, a lot of us are questioned about our disability, invalidated, told we're exaggerating or faking, etc, or that we could just fix ourselves if we tried. This is why non disabled actors playing disabled roles, with the ability to just "take off the disability" has (hopefully unintentional?) harmful implications. Just erasing the disability of the character isn't too great, especially with the excuse of "well disabled character complex so let's make him not disabled to not offend anyone!" kinda infantilizing disabled people? eh. When it comes to invisible disability, however, I do understand that in a lot of social contexts many of us hide our disabilities, so demanding that information for a person to play an invisibly disabled character feels unfair. Or that there simply won't be a lot of publicly disabled actors in some places due to existing ableist environments. This is not the case for the UK as far as I know, but it can be the case for other contexts and it informs my general opinion on this topic. Some disabled roles are inaccessible themselves for disabled actors (Nessarose from Wicked comes to mind) which is its own discussion. There's also this idea of how a full time role can be more taxing on disabled people and using that as an excuse not to cast disabled actors, and to that I say we need to move towards multicasting in cases that require it, such as Matilda did for its titular role. (South Korean theater does this for most plays but they do almost only limited runs that come around every 1-3 years so it's not the same). That would be a massive cultural change when it comes to health and physical demands in theater.

[@amandastumpff5252]

I have a disability and have to use a wheelchair, and I would have loved to do theater, but it just probably would not have worked out. When my mom and I saw Wicked with the original Broadway cast in New York, we knew nothing about it. So, when we saw Nessa, I was like, finally, something I could play! And then she stood up toward the end, and my mom and I both looked at each other and thought, never mind lol

[@lunasuji]

@@amandastumpff5252 yeah, her whole character is written in a kinda iffy way? i also used to be a theater staff but it's something not possible due to my chronic illness anymore so i get your feeling ;;;

[@aarushicrystalis7998]

a weird one, bc the globe has been very into casting disabled actors in non disabled roles recently, but they do seem to be acting as if the fact that they do this has solved all the ails of the industry, and now representation in theatre is no longer an issue. They have a deaf anthony and cleopatra that'll be playing alongside this, but that doesnt absolve them of this show's history. Tbh i think the issue was their statement, if theyd just said they have plans to cast more disabled actors in the play, but keep michelle as richard, itd have been far better received. I do find it weird how many people seem to think the globe is a v popular venue though - it's really not. It's one that makes less money than youd think, does cast big names, brings in middling crowds. the seats are never sold out, they have a really low amount of patron funding, and most tickets cost £5 - they have a single digit percentage of the london theatre-goers who go to a single show per year. like its not a tiny indie place, but its not a big cultural juggernaut. its mostly just historically important

[@Ranger7Studios]

I was in a professional production of the Jungle Book where our Mowgli jumped off a set piece that he was not suppose to jump off of and broke his foot on the landing. He had to do two of the performances in a wheel chair before his replacement arrived. Everyone thought it was so progressive and fantastic that they hired a disabled actor for that role. True story.

[@Amatureb]

I remember at my school someone broke his leg the day of Bugsey Malone (he was playing Bugsey Malone - probably spelled that wrong) and came back from hospital just in time to do the whole performance of a musical sitting. I didn't see that show, but according to my friend who did see it he was really good.

[@christopherhyde9523]

The artistic director's response was astonishingly poorly written and even more offensive than the original issue. I would have more respect for them if they said, "I have worked very hard for many years to reach a level in my profession where I can choose to produce plays so that I can play roles I want to play. And I want to play Richard III."

[@secretmindtwin]

Wow, that Globe response was horrid. They threw around a lot of phrases and buzzwords without getting to the heart of the problem. And I don’t care how talented an art director is, it looks sketchy to cast yourself

[@cedricalvarez7420]

As an actor and writer who have born with a disability and I fight for artists with my/similar conditions THANK YOU WITH ALL MY HEART FOR COVERING THIS ISSUE P.S: Sorry if my english is not good. Im freanch/Mexican and english is not my first language 😅

[@cammiehalliday757]

Thanks for covering this. I’m a physically disabled woman who loves theatre. This has infuriated me, it’s 2024 disabled people should be able to play disabled characters. Disability is not an act for non disabled people to put on. It feels worse with the Globe because it’s been inclusive with its casting in other areas I’ve seen Othello with multiple Black actors and A Midsummer Nightsdream that was gender bent and explicitly queer which was clearly not in the text. Yet they won’t cast a disabled actor for Richard III.

[@AllyWasson]

I LOVE the idea of an all disabled production of Richard III. I read a tip once in terms of diversity and writing, where if you make a character a member of a certain minority group and they play into any stereotypes, ask yourself why you're making that character a member of that group, and if you still think that it's a thoughtful choice to make, make sure that that character is NOT the only character who is a part of that group.

[@neishab412]

My first thought upon seeing the video title was that maybe she has an invisible disability and everyone was up in arms bc they assumed she wasn’t disabled. That being said, I tend to try to see the best in people, and after watching the video I am sideeyeing her intensely

[@steph_stargirl]

It’s a good point though about visible and non-visible disabilities.

[@JeaniusIsMe]

I’m actually about to see a production of Richard III tonight starring Katy Sullivan, who was born a bilateral amputee. I also saw a previous production at Steppenwolf in Chicago where the Richard was a paraplegic, and was able to walk at the end through special tech “legs.” Having an actor with a disability take on the role allows for some more complexities to the character that aren’t there is you have an actor without a disability playing the part. But, so long as you aren’t mimicking a disability - which just feels so distasteful at this time - I can’t see why a non-disabled actor can’t also play the role. But, as with all things, it’s how the character and story are handled that matter at the end of the day.

[@moviemelody2210]

I am physically disabled and have been since birth (I have Spina Bifida) so I thought I’d give my two cents: Need disabled actors to play disabled characters This is a complicated situation because on one hand I see the argument for “it’s acting so why can’t people who are not that play it?” because it is true that if you are a good enough actor it should not matter as you are playing a make believe character. Yet on the other hand I can also understand the argument that “disabled actors should play disabled characters” because these people can theoretically relate to these characters better than anyone else. To answer that I would like to unpack a few things. • “free for all” casting. Basically what I mean by this is that disabled actors should be cast in traditionally able bodied roles so they are not scrambling to get a role as a character that makes up only 1% of all TV/movie characters. • Accessibility. I am not naive enough to think that the world was built with my in mind, I know it was not. So with that in mind I understand when it is impossible to hire a disabled actor due to inaccessibility. Of course people might say “well just renovate the theater/studio to make it accessible” but what people don’t understand is that it’s expensive to do so and frankly a lot simpler to just hire an able bodied actor that can move around freely in an environment that would otherwise be inaccessible to those who use mobility aids. Ultimately until we can guarantee that actors that have a disability can play ANY ROLE (even traditionally able-bodied people) and can access anyplace I think people who are not disabled should continue to play disabled roles because at least our experience is being told. Disability as a “Costume” I feel like the same could be said about one’s sexuality, especially way back when it was DANGEROUS to like the same sex as yourself. That kind of experience can never be fully understood by a actor who is straight yet it happens all the time (Eric Sheffer Stevens from As The World Turns, Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger from Brokeback Mountain, and Darren Criss from Glee). To my view point as a straight woman both of these things are something that can be “easily faked” to the general public so it makes sense that people would view it as a “costume” even though it isn’t for a lot of people. In conclusion disability representation IS important (I was thrilled when I heard about Ali Stroker becoming the first Broadway actor to use a wheelchair) but the fact that this is a Shakespearean play (all characters were played by men during this period) makes it seem less like something to get upset about because the character was already written (supposedly) as being bad as a direct consequence of his disability and no matter who plays him that will not change. Also remember that you said that people who are disabled have also been cast in other Shakespeare plays in the past so the fact that this time that is not the case is honestly not that big of a deal (you win some, you lose some). That being said, I do think we need to get rid of the “oh next time will be better/someone else will do it” because the bottom line is if you or someone you love is not disabled you don’t care because “it’s not my problem” and people need to start caring if we are to fix ANYTHING in the world. I also think more people with disabilities need to be in the writing room when creating these characters because that is where true representation is achieved in my opinion. Please let me know your thoughts!

[@kassidyj97]

It's not very often that I feel like I have an ally in so many communities that I am a part of. Thank you Mickey Jo ❤

[@fluffypineapple790]

As a disabled watcher, this video makes me happy. It’s nice to see others advocate for us, and I’m glad positive action is being centred rather then blind and purposeless attempts at inclusion

[@user-xc5cg1pe3q]

I just want to say that even if you can hide it, having scoliosis is a disability, and I think the real person could be classified as such. I have severe enough scoliosis I had to wear a backbrace while I was growing for a good part of my adolescence while I was growing, and even though it is not always evident in how I look now, it still causes me back pain and stiffness a lot of the time. We need to remember physical disabilities that are not as easy to spot too.

[@lydia1634]

I just looked up the curvature on his spine. It's intense! 70-90°. I think my spine is something like 15°, not enough to cause disability or obvious disfigurement, but I had to give up playing the violin. It just hurt too much. My muscles would lock up between my shoulder blade and the nearby curve, and it was excruciating. I have one shoulder shorter than the other in a small enough increment that most people don't notice until I bring it up, but it means unadjustable spaghetti straps are obnoxious and always slipping off one shoulder. All that to say, my mild curve impacts my daily life. A severe one absolutely would. (Again, I'm not identifying as disabled. For me it's generally just a thing I have to put on my medical intake forms)

[@lewispowell6015]

Thank You, Thank You, THANK YOU for this video. For covering it with such honesty, such compassion and such tact.

[@chronicallykat4920]

I am a disabled person who was a professional ballet dancer. I was disabled then and I am much more disabled now. I was given that opportunity because my ability was what was put first. It wasn't ever advertised because when I was dancing that wouldn't have been well received. To me this sounds like the creative director at the Globe is a selfish person. They are not necessarily the most qualified for the roles they are taking and want them so they did it. I would feel this way regardless of the exact role they took because their job is not acting. If they want to be an actor? Go be one but don't abuse your power. I do think your concept would be interesting also. As I am sure was said already, if ability was not the focus of the casting for every role allowing disabled actors careers outside of these specific characters? It would not matter but it certainly does because we are not there yet. I appreciate your attempts at nuance here while highlighting what was said by disabled people vs claiming credit as well

[@eleanor9878]

Really interesting to note that Sophie Russell (another women) played Richard The 3rd without a disability in the globe in 2019! So they can't even argue that this is a new take, I'm pretty sure the 2019 production was the last version they did so the "another time will come around comment" is especially bad because it has and disabled people have once again been overlooked for the part!

[@skallywalla502]

Thank you for talking about this and your thoughtful response. As a wheelchair user who identifies as disabled, I am encouraged to hear that the Globe has really been trying to emphasize more diversity in casting, including so many disabled actors in roles recently. But I do think their response to the open letter wasn't enough and definitely sounded like "we want to make a political statement the way we want to make it" was at work here. "Let's talk about misogyny and abuse of power because that's relevant to our world today" meant "we don't want to focus on disability this time around." As you so aptly observed: it was a choice. They should have just owned "this was our choice. We're sorry it meant we regressed in inclusion of disabled actors. We thought we had learned what we'd needed to, but clearly we hadn't. We're still learning. We'll fix it. Or we'll do better next time."

[@amythomas7054]

I'm writing this comment as I watch so it's all in parts. Regarding your point about Othello, Anthony Hopkins also played Othello in Blackface for the BBC back in like the 80s/90s. If they won't even cast a physically disabled actor (which, I think, is easier for those with ignorance to understand and accept) then what hope is there for those of us with invisible disabilities? The idea of a fully disabled cast is amazing, I wish that one day exists. Whatever the Globe wants to say, it is erasure of disability twofold by removing the representation in the script and in the casting. I'm sure there are plenty of people in media that are weakly standing in the middle of the road, so I appreciate how strongly you articulated your stance.

[@danvernite]

Hi, Mickey. As a disabled woman, I really appreciate you making this video as someone who regularly watches your content. Here are some thoughts, although I am not based in the UK anymore and can't see the production anymore, but still: I feel like the Globe's statements are a bit of a nothing burger, a waffling of platitudes to back up a bad choice. While it's great they have included disabled performers in the past, this just feels like "we got called out, so let's overexplain to get people off our backs." I was a little miffed at the idea that they don't want to conflate evil with disability, as disabled people are not an innocent monolith. Disabled people hold nuance and have varied life experiences, the same as abled people. It feels like infantilization and a weak justification for just not caring. Disabled people can be evil, prejudicial, obnoxious, etc. To act as if that's not the case strips away personhood. As a disabled person, I have always wanted to see media that portrays nuanced depictions, but I feel abled people still aren't at that mindset yet. Again, thank you for making this video, and being an ally to the disabled community. There's a lot more I want to say about this topic, but I don't necessarily have the verbiage, just a pang of sadness, tbh.

[@stevek6817]

Great to hear you discuss "opening doors" (at 36:51) while wearing your Merrily shirt! More importantly, thank you so much for your very thoughtful and detailed discussion about this issue. I especially love your ideas for staging the play with actors with physical disabilities. And, although I'm not new to this topic, I still learned from listening to your speak about the complexity and significance of these issues.

[@eilidhellery]

One of the things I've noticed that felt like a smack in the face in the Globe's response... Was the line "disability has not been forgotten"... But when you look at their workshops and education programme. They cover Shakespeare and... Sexism, Racism, etc... They do not have a Shakespeare and Disability strand. So disability has been forgotten in more than one area at the Globe. Doing well in one or two productions. Then doing poorly in others is an issue. Change is a process. And partly the feeling around this I've had a disabled theatre-maker is how the Globe has responded. With things like the "non-literal casting" and "everyone should be allowed to play every role" stance... But that's not true. Disabled actors are not invited to play every role. It would be different if that were true. But it isn't. Not at the Globe. And not across theatre as a whole.

[@chadwilliambaker]

She calls the character narcissistic and never once makes the connection to her being the artistic director who cast HERSELF in the role as being a pretty narcissistic move...

[@emhu2594]

i don't know how that's even allowed.

[@claire2088]

thanks for the explainer- I've never actually seen Richard III so I didn't know all the background to the character, I've watched a few history things that talk about how he had scoliosis which isn't necessarily a disability so I was a bit confused about the headline when I saw it, but when I saw this pop up on my subscription feed I knew you'd get me up to date :D imo it's definitely very very badly announced, and the intentions seem somewhat iffy, I think if you want to say 'we wanted to play the character as non disabled' you're going to need to proactively cast disabled actors elsewhere to stop people being upset about it. The statement was pretty dire- it definitely seemed to be underplaying that disability is an issue (or maybe trying to imply they were dealing with other representation issues in the production that they thought were more relevant). It seems very badly done by them, and it's a bit shocking that the globe didn't anticipate the backlash. Casting yourself in a position that's traditionally played by a disabled actor seems like a narcissistic move, idk, the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It would be nice to get to a stage where we could truly 'cast blindly' but until disabled actors get access to play more roles we shouldn't be removing them from one of the few chances they do get.

[@lucyj8204]

I have been waiting for you to do a video on this, so thanks! The play of Richard III was a special interest of mine for some time so the context and nuance has been tying me in knots. I saw Robert Lindsay play R3 at the Barbican 25 years ago in a production made to look like a mid-20th century dictatorship. A really interesting perspective. In (at least) the UK when we talk about protected characteristics it's often about perception and not necessarily truth - it's also illegal discrimination if someone does something bad because they mistakenly BELIEVE that the other person has that protected characteristic, eg making assumptions about race, gender, and crucially disability. As you said, it doesn't matter whether the actual man R3 was or considered himself disabled, but whether the character R3 is treated as disabled by the other characters in the play and indeed himself, which the script 100% shows they do.

[@wheelchichomeblog7193]

A great video, very even handed and great shout out to TLBT. This controversy wouldn’t happen with Othello for someone to say to a black actor, your time will come again, and erasing his blackness. For me the challenge is the casting of yourself when there are so many great actors out there and then finally the erasure of Richard’s disability is the final kick in the teeth. His character is to some extent a result of his disability, his behaviour, the way he lives in the world. It’s essential in some way to who he is.

[@isabelalexander6381]

it’s very bold of them to hit back with “we’re going to omit it completely” but framed in a “we’re actually doing you a favour” kind of lens. disabled peopled should also be able to play villains, it’s not the saviour stance they think they’re taking.

[@nettie607]

Thank you for this! I am an older handicapped singer, (in the US) so I get hit with ageism and ableism. Following a successful operatic career in Germany, I cannot even get cast in the chorus in a community theater production. I am too old, and why would they cast someone in a wheelchair? To give myself a chance to perform, I started a Caroling Troupe. (I am not the lead soprano, btw.) I had to do this or give up performing entirely. (I will save my comments on accessibility for that video!) We have so few chances to perform, when a role comes up, for it to be taken by a non-handicapped or too-young a performer.

[@Ranger7Studios]

Speaking as a disabled person, I think there should be opportunity, but it shouldn't be mandatory. I think (as you said) as long as that person has done their research and is creating an honest portrayal that comes from a real place of understanding, empathy and life experiences, then it doesn't bother me. As long as it is an honest and truthful portrayal and not stereotypical or insulting. I'm not really sure what has been happening across the pond, but it sounds like the issue is much larger than just a show at the globe. At the end of the day, we are all human. With the same human emotions and feelings that are more similar (if not the same) than we are willing to admit. I remember Stephen Sondheim was once asked how he wrote the character of Fosca in Passion, not being anything like her. He simply thought... "How would I feel if I were her. What emotions would I feel, given her circumstances”. It sounds to me that they were not going to address the disability aspect of the play, which is their artistic right to do so. It sounds like this production is going to be more politically motivated. Whilst I do believe in the importance of inclusion and this would be a huge step in the right direction, I can understand why they decline, as it is not the “vision” that the artists wish to focus on. They seem to be trying something new, despite what is originally written/known, which is their artistic right, even thought I personally don't agree with the "vision" of this production.

[@Chishannicon]

Genuine question for you: Do you think that every actor who plays the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera should be physically disfigured in some way, since they are the only ones who can possibly understand and relate to the character's life experiences? Is there a reason there isn't any similar outrage every time the London cast of POTO announces a new, non-disfigured actor in the role?

[@antonellamR2D2]

Thanks for all the informations , I didn't understand the twitter drama

[@callalily3994]

Shakespeare in the Park in NYC had an interesting production a few years ago -- multiple people in the cast were disabled, but not the woman playing Richard. It created an interesting dynamic -- I saw the production, and I'm still not totally sure how I feel about the concept, but it was at least a great opportunity for a lot of performers.

[@Natilra]

I've been waiting for your video on this because I know I can rely on you for nuance I love the sound of a production of Richard III where all the cast is disabled

[@MickeyJoTheatre]

Right? I now really want to see this!

[@Natilra]

@@MickeyJoTheatre I'd make the trip down from Edinburgh to London to see that!

[@JB-qf5ep]

I feel like it isnt Michelle Terry's place to decide whether or not the conversation is useful. If she and the Globe had actually done the necessary research and actually spoken to the disabled community as they claim, they would have heard the consensus within the community as they are the ones who decide if the conversation is useful. By casting herself, she has decided that the conversation is not worth having and so has tried to shut it down, taking away their voices. So her statement, even if you accept it as genuine, doesnt cut it. Also, if you are the head of an institution like the Globe, casting yourself in the lead role is just really cringe. Casting yourself in the lead role is fine when you write the show (because performers often create their own work for that purpose), but casting yourself in someone elses work when you are coming from an executive position rather than an actively creative one, it just doesn't sit right with me.

[@shoulderpadutopia2334]

In the discussion of ableism in theatre we should not ignore the way lack of COVID precautions as simple as asking audiences to mask is disabling so many of our theatre performers and workers.

[@wehojm7320]

I appreciate your efforts to bring this controversy to light and offer the various points of view be it artistically or ethically. Most societies have made efforts to acknowledge and correct inadequacy that the disabled encounter on a daily basis however so much more needs to be done. In this situation having an actor who is disabled and playing Richard III should not be a gimmick as having a disabled actor play any of the other roles. I hope to hear more from you on this subject. In the meantime stay well 👍🙏

[@thereboucher]

@9:01 when you talk about using your own experiences, while still understanding the purpose of acting - THAT IS IT for me. If you haven't had to navigate life with a disability, you can talk to people who have and try and understand but if it isn't in your lived experience then you cannot bring to the role that deep understanding and empathy that a non-physically-abled actor could. This is without acknowledging the privilege of one casting oneself, that's a separate issue I feel.

[@factorialrabbits11]

Oh yeah the train thing happens all the time even when I let them know the exact train I want months in advance. But yeah the whole reply makes me feel icky, especially knowing she cast herself in the role. Also I love the idea of a full disabled cast you had!

[@colleenbenedetto5440]

Danai Gurira played Richard in ‘22 at the Public Theater (Shakespeare in the PARK NYC). She did not play him disable but many of the cast members were in this production.

[@netherfield2000]

Very interesting to listen to this analyses of representation of differenting abilities. The thing that made me really have a "deep think" was inclusion of disabled actors in so-called normally abled rolls. Makes a lot of sense. Having an actor with a physical difference and not having it as a plot point is something that should not be something out of the ordinary.

[@danjon8799]

So to start I will say I will put my comments down in two parts. The first being a fan of this play (perhaps this is probably in my top 5) and then as someone who has a disability (for reference my disability is not physical but I suffer from ADHD, Worcester Draught Syndrome (a disability that caused me to have issues with the development of my speech from a young age) and Dyspraxia - I understand that for some people they may not think these are disabilities that we are discussing about but I thought I would say this so that way people can understand my perspective). So firstly as said I am going to mention about the play itself and I think the sad thing is no matter what you do with this play this is always a play that has been plagued by controversy over the years. I think the main thing being the fact that it puts itself down as a History when really it isn't and is more a propaganda piece as we have to remember that this play was made when the Tudors were in power and there had been some time since the House of Lancaster had won against the House of York. So really Shakespeare had to inevitably write a piece that was damning of Richard III to avoid being accused of being anti-monarchy towards the Tudors (I don't know if you've read the play but at the end there is a moment when Henry Tudor arrives and the whole piece feels victorious as if he is the saviour of the story and the person that will do no wrong). Now in terms of the piece one of the reasons why I love it is because of the fact this is a role where any actor who plays the role (regardless of whether they have a disability or not) can really get their teeth into as this is one of the classic anti-hero stories of all. I also think what makes it stand out recently are the interpretations as the thing is Richard is meant to be someone that exploits his otherness as a way to play his monstrosity because the problem is Richard has been neglected for years (in his opening monologue he talks about 'And since I cannot be proven a lover, to hate the idle scores, I am determined to be proven a villain) and uses this sense of his disability to make himself someone that is noticed because of his neglect. I think for me the best version I've seen recently is Arthur Hughes who did it at the RSC and he did it in a way he did play Richard as a villain but he did it in a way where he realises through the play that actually people don't hate him for being a villain but they hate and pity on him that he has to be this villainous archetype because of the fact he has been unnoticed for years and that his behaviour has just had to become more noticeable to gain attention. So I think it is tricky but my feeling is it can be done and with the right support around this production they could make something interesting if they do the right things. But of course I say this from the perspective of a lover of the play. From the person who has had a disability what I find really horrible to hear is that they are not even willing to acknowledge their disability because it is integral to the role that he has a disability. This is obviously excluding the factual proof knowing that he was disabled but because as well there was the notion in the 1500s that it was highly uncommon that someone would be disabled and if you had a disability you were untrustworthy. So for me this is important because in modern times we need to use this as a way to challenge this stereotype and help people understand more that just because someone is disabled that does not make them different. I also think as you have said we have made massive strides to show disability onstage and to have it on a stage like the Globe where the role could show a new light on things (especially since this play would have been performed 500 years by someone who would not have understood the need for authenticity in recent times) and this would be an interesting opportunity to show new talent from people who are not able bodies (i.e. If we think about plays and musicals recently such as The Little Big Things they have made progress in showing disability onstage and breaking down the barriers of disability. Likewise with other shows such as How to Dance in Ohio and previous plays such as Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time its down to them that we have a positive attitude to seeing disability done onstage because they have done it right) so I really don't understand why there is a step back from the globe and casting someone who is abled when it is one of the most iconic characters. I also think it is such a shame that they have taken this backstep when as you have said they have done so much to break down barriers and as per their season they are reviving Antony and Cleopatra which will be one of the first productions to use bilingual language which I think is very progressive when, in the case of that play, the whole point is about cultural differences and clashes against doing what is right for you and for your country.

[@AmieCaitlin]

Where can I buy tickets to the all disabled production of Richard III, please? That sounds a really interesting and genuinely new and creative take on this play!

[@natashakingston8302]

Thank you much for covering this. As a disabled person who loves theatre i feel representation is so important.

[@leslieshort8348]

What a great video! So thoughtful! Thank you.

[@Elphaboy]

The only place where I have a point of contention with this entire mindset is if we’re really only interested in queer roles being played by queer actors(I’m gay I am fully here for this in general) doesn’t that sort of mean that they then shouldn’t be cast in non queer roles like if for example straight people aren’t allowed to play queer characters of any kind how is it fair that queer actors then eventually play a non queer role. And before anyone is like “straight actors have everything!” There is a massive amount of lgbtq+ actors, creatives working professionally in the industry and do all these jobs already. Again I’m fully here for queer actors having the fair shot at a roles but I’m also, as a director, 100% in the camp of if the absolute best performer for that specific role happens to not be from the specific walk of life the character comes from… that’s just how it is for this particular endeavor. Now again, no there will never be a situation where Ariana Grande is the ideal casting choice for a Whitney Houston bio pic but like NPH played a womanizing pig on tv for years and Eric McCormic was iconic in the role of Will so like where is this line “yes/no” DRAWN for this stuff?

[@Bgins19]

I have been living with arthritis since 2014 and have had use crutches and canes for a good chunk of my life. I feel the same way I feel about straight actors playing queer roles (I am also queer) is that both types of performances have made me felt very seen my go to point with this play is seeing the Richard III movie with Ian McKellen charisma in the role mainly His confidence was infectious (which I didn't have) but also that anger and resentment that is so crucial to that character was something I also felt. I am not saying a disabled actor couldn't do both (I couldn't personally) But I'm saying it didn't matter that he wasn't cause it feels the same if the actor is willing to put in the mental and physical work.

[@wildoranges]

there's a big difference between being queer and being physically disabled. "physically" being the keyword here. it's like the difference between a straight actor playing queer and a cis person playing trans. one is a matter of opinion, the latter is harmful and actually dangerous in the narratives it perpetuates. there is the aspect of a physical otherness and the body of The Other being turned into costume. and considering how much physically disabled (and trans people) face institutional marginalisation and criminalisation of the body, it is far more harmful for an abled actor to "crip up" than merely taking on another's story, the way a straight actor would a queer story.

[@etherealtb6021]

Ian was brilliant. It doesn't mean able actors haven't been brilliant in the role, to me. But it would be great to see the top Shakespeare companies in the world start casting a disabled actor.

[@amandastumpff5252]

@@wildoranges plus, I have often times seen able-bodied actors try to play those with disabilities and it almost just becomes a mockery. So it can be a really tricky area.

[@moviemelody2210]

@@amandastumpff5252i agree that often times that able bodied actors playing disabled characters comes out as looking like a mockery t word disabled people (think Artie from Glee) but that’s more the WRITERS fault than the actors. No matter how good an actor is they still have to work within the parameters of the script and if the script is bad representation of disability the actors performance is going to reflect that.

[@BroadwayGuy]

As a life-long theatre person, I appreciate this video discussion and your solidarity. I agree with wild oranges that Terry's remark "it will come around again" is extremely, incredibly offensive.

[@AlwaysM0ndayy]

I think the comparison to Othello is apt here. In the past, film and theater deemed it acceptable to throw on face paint to tell the stories of black characters or completely whitewash them. Now we recognize that as wrong. Why can't the same be recognized for disabled characters?

[@amycarcaterra8177]

Sucks that nessarose finally walks in Wicked because it will be cool to see allie stroke in the role. i always forget about Richard III as a shakesphere play.

[@beatricedunnavan4576]

Who are the candidates for the role if authentically cast?

[@lisa-lisa-lisa]

you have such good ideas, someone should get you to consult

[@DJWhovian]

I can't believe the audacity to cast herself in a show, bit of an abuse of her role. This is an example of making assumptions and not considering adaptability.

[@Ranger7Studios]

Also, artistic directors should never cast themselves. That just looks bad.

[@keouine]

Which movements does Richard's disability prevent him from doing? running? I think the producer and directors should make a resonable effort for representation. The authenticity argument is trash and difficult to prove. White man in 2024 is a completely different mindset from white man in 1483. In their words it's inauthentic. Can only super rich play the super rich? What about Helen Keller in The Miracle Worker? Fairness and increased opportunity are the most persuasive reasons. Otherwise theater company would have to seek out a talented actor with a very similar disability. They might skip staging plays that present controversial casting.

[@TheKatietwin2]

This video is fire!

[@lolityar7990]

There are many different threads to tease apart here, and I am genuinely unsure about what I think. As a person who always goes to every show at the globe, the only perspective I can bring to this is as someone very familiar with the space. I do think it is very important that Michelle has confirmed that Richard isn't going to played as a disabled character. I wonder if there's something interesting to be said there about the conflation of disability with evil, and how that can be ridiculed when the actor is not disabled It's also worth noting that literally nothing other than the casting of Richard III has been announced yet, and the Globe has a tendency to change things a lot far later into the production schedule than other spaces. I wonder if it's also important that the Globe has a long history, especially in recent years, of casting disabled actors in non-disabled roles, and using that to highlight interesting aspects of the script. It might also be worth noting that as much as the Globe is a well-known name, they're somewhat of a theatre underdog in London? It's not where the big spenders go, they've been protested repeatedly over the last few years for advocating for queer rights, and their shows are often at a surprisingly small scale. The Globe really isn't that popular of a venue with people who regularly go to theatre. I really don't know much about this issue, and the disabled people in my community aren't theatre goers, so I do very much defer to the others in the comments to hear a variety of opinions. I also do think that Michelle's statement was definitely too defensive, it reads like her response to the transphobes from two years ago. It definitely does feel like a missed opportunity to not cast Richard as disabled, but I think it can still have value as a production, depending on the future choices they make with the production.

[@MsJaytee1975]

I look at this issue a lot, although more so when it comes to film and TV, and I’ve never come across an instance where I thought it was appropriate for an non-disabled actor to play a disabled character, and I can’t think of an instance where I thought it worked. And I’m including Oscar winners in that. The disability becomes a performance and that immediately changes the entire performance of the role. I don’t know about other people but watching someone perform my disability gives me a full body cringe, I can’t watch it. I also don’t trust a performance if it’s a disability I don’t have, I know how much actors get wrong, two of the best examples are Artie from Glee has the wrong type of wheelchair and House uses his cane incorrectly. One thing I think people don’t appreciate is how much resistance there is still to disabled actors. I loved the point you made about how authentic casting can make a better performance. There are still people who think that casting a disabled actor is removing any acting from the role. That’s the view of Succession star Brian Cox. On Richard III itself, I think the point has been made that his real-life scoliosis is not as severe as Richard in the play, that’s true, but the reason it’s believed Shakespeare exaggerated it and made it a focus is because it was based on Robert Cecil, Elizabeth I principal secretary, his scoliosis was more severe and also reduced his height, he was only about 5ft tall. I can’t remember why Shakespeare didn’t like him politically but he didn’t. Btw, I’ve never seen a TV show or movie where Cecil is portrayed as disabled, I think my last rant about disability in theatre in your comments section was about Treason erasing his disability.

[@MaryanneNZ]

Here in NZ the pop up Globe AD pulled an all male cast decision because they wanted to make a statement about the partriarchy in Elizabethan times or some similar horsepoop. Our fab femme actors swiftly pointed out that maybe an appropriate response to a feminist commentary would be to provide PAID WORK to femme actors who already were finding it hard to survive. I see a similar situation here - the Globe wants to make some kind of point about disability when the most apt response would be to lean into the disabled actor community and provide them with work. Otherwise it is about self indulgent signalling.

[@minirth.maggie]

All I'm hearing from the Globe letter is "i don't care about your concerns, I'm playing the character MY WAY. I'm making it about MISOGYNY, which is MUCH more important. " Her attitude is terrible.

[@davidworobec1673]

This also isn't the first time she cast herself in lead roles. A few years ago, she cast herself in the title role of Hamlet.

[@minirth.maggie]

​@@davidworobec1673OH NO. Thank you so much for adding that. It makes me dislike her even more.

[@bigjedimullet]

feminist win: this Richard III is a girlboss!

[@caroles5502]

Terry says she will not play Richard as disabled, yet the text of the play says he is. I wonder how that will work.

[@PianoDisneygal10]

Just here to state that I think the only times when disabled characters should be played by non disabled people is 1. The disability is so rare that casting it authentically would be nigh impossible, 2. The role calls for an able bodied actor (for example, character starts off able bodied but becomes disabled later), 3. Casting a person with that disability would be exploitative or unsafe for that person, and 4. The character is based on a well known, real life person and the intention is to find someone who can convincingly portray said person. Though of course, even in these instances, efforts should be made to cast disabled actors. Then of course we should be casting more disabled actors in non disabled roles too.

[@fluffypineapple790]

Why did they keep using words other than ‘disabled’ in the open letter? It sounds very awful

[@garethfw6033]

Please could you edit the captions and correct all the spelling errors, and add some punctuation to the transcript. It's currently not very accessible for anyone that is hearing impaired or Deaf. Apart from that, this is a really great breakdown. Thank you.

[@gstone8255]

I am Autistic myself ( which might make me count as disablad) Musicals is my special Intrest 😍

[@AthynVixen]

I hate to say this but at the end of the day the bottom line is how many disabled actors are there and if we limit the playing of any marginalised group to those within it we run the risk of not being able to show their stories which is important in my book..On an interesting slightly related side note I was thrilled to see the National Theatre cast a brown actor of Sri Lankan heritage in the iconic role of Winston Churchill in Nye and I cannot wait to see this onstage. Also there is much mention in these conversations about seeing someone like you onstage. Is it just me who has never seen any character onstage who closely represents or relate to themselves despite being a straight white female?It's never once affected my enjoyment or non enjoyment of a production/

[@tananario23]

You’d be surprised. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@MsJaytee1975]

The idea that there is a lack of disabled actors in the industry is a fiction made up by non-disabled people. To say you can only tell disabled stories with non-disabled actors means you don’t understand what disabled stories really are, when they’re told by non-disabled actors they become a fiction, a fantasy of what disability is really like.

[@tessawidenhofer]

As a disabled actor, this gets to me in a way that it wouldn’t at just about any other theatre company. Because this isn’t some tiny company where they barely have enough people to fill the roles and can’t get too picky about casting, nor is this somewhere that doesn’t care about diversity and representation so expecting that they would is a fool’s errand. This is The Globe; if anywhere should be willing and able to involve disabled actors, directors, dramaturgs, any of us in this process of the most iconic disabled character in the canon, it’s The Globe! And they’ve cloaked it in well-intentioned sounded words, but it’s painfully obvious that Terry wanted to play Richard III and was willing to throw away all the morals that The Globe claims to value in order to do so.

[@timeforlaurynsopinion5138]

as someone with the same disability as richard iii, i find it very weird that none of these actors have scoliosis. disabilities are not interchangeable! i kinda think we might need to rethink doing richard iii altogether because for me personally the issue is in the text itself.

[@andrewstorm8240]

Did they self cast? This is longer than the play

[@PeacefulTablet-mj2gj]

I've been looking at this for a while. And while I see people's point. Surely, the role should be available to all actors to play, regardless of whether they're disabled or not? Besides if we cast solely disabled actors, that could create a new problem: typecasting.

[@maurinet2291]

What I'm hearing is that "we'll be inclusive as long as it's a part I don't want to play".

[@amycarcaterra8177]

Spring Awakening Broadway revival and How to dance in ohio are great steps forward. Both musicals needed to promote more. Found out in Spring Awakening they need sign language interreters in the orchestra and mezz. For me both shows made great strides. Sad that a closing notice for How To Dance In Ohio more people are filling up the theater. But seen a few deaf/hard of hearing performers from spring awakening in other shows and movies. We need more people that are disabled be cast in many parts. other thing more gay actors in leading roles and musicals again. it is heartbreaking it will take more time for disability representation.

[@tanwencooper6928]

I think the only way you could make this role work with an abled actor now is if every other cast member was disabled. That turns the thing on its head and says something interested rather than "this is a problematic representation of disabled people so we're just going to ignore it" which is the vibe its currently giving. Edit: I wrote this exactly 30 seconds before MJ said the exact same thing.

[@____toomuch____]

this question has an obvious answer and its the same answer as other analogous scenarios. disabled roles are fr disabled ppl, trans roles are fr trans ppl, etc. no questions shd be asked

[@moviemelody2210]

You would think so HOWEVER the things you listed can “easily be faked” (someone can sit in a wheelchair, someone can dress like the other gender) so it begs the question “what is acting if not playing someone you are nothing like”?

[@____toomuch____]

@@moviemelody2210 LOL this is a dummy take on both acting and on disability and gender. These things cannot be easily faked and lived experience will make the performance better. also what yr suggesting is akin to blackface, theres a moral reason why those outside of these communities shd not perform such roles. acting isnt abt playing something as far away from yrself as you can, its abt performing in a way that has the most emotional resonance. id hate to know yr opinions on anything else

[@moviemelody2210]

@@____toomuch____ as someone with a physical disability I can tell you that the majority of the world can be fooled by an able bodied actor playing a disabled character or a cis person can play a transgender person (at least to a certain degree) because neither have a distinct feature that can’t be acted/or applied to the actor to look mostly authentic (unlike black face). I DO agree that those that actually live those experiences are the best for consulting when such characters are created but I think the best way to get accurate representation of our stories is to have the WRITERS of these shows be from these communities.

[@____toomuch____]

@@moviemelody2210 its morally wrong fr someone outside of marginalized communities to perform as one full stop. theres too much historical baggage to deal with. and if yr alrdy having the character written by a person of that community, why not extend it to the actor as well. this is an easy boundary to set and it shdnt be crossed in todays world

[@moviemelody2210]

@@____toomuch____ I understand where you are coming from. People with disabilities (or any minority frankly) have historically been treated horribly by society in one way or another so it makes sense to be angry when an able bodied actor, that’s never lived our struggles, gets a role that we can play theoretically better by virtue of having the same disability as the character. You are also right that if a person with a disability (or any other marginalized group) writes these things it should extend to actors with those traits as well. However, aren’t we striving for inclusion? If so, why are we pigeon holing ourselves into only roles with characters that have a disability? Shouldn’t we also audition for (and get) roles that are traditionally “able bodied” roles and vise versa for able bodied actors playing ““disabled” roles ? THAT to me should be the priority, not this gatekeeping of a role that ANYONE can join at anytime. We should also be striving to create more narratives that do not include harmful stereotypes because, as long as the script still showcases a weak character with all those negative stereotypes, it won’t matter if the actor is disabled or not. I don’t believe It’s morally wrong to play a character that is different than you if you can realistically play said character (which able bodied people can given proper training), I believe it’s morally wrong to continue to write characters incorrectly/with negative stereotypes.

[@theatrewithbenjamin]

I am disabled and have Scoliosis, and though I don't know very much about this play, it breaks my heart seeing this situation as characters who's identity is something such as disability, should absolutely be played by people who's identity is the same (obviously unless you have a clear directorial intent which, then, make clear when you announce the programming so as to not cause controversy and, as you say, don't do it on this prominent of a stage and in a way that will cause harm to a whole community, and when the opportunities are not plentiful anyway (instead, wait until things have changed more!!!!)! It feels like such a slap in the face given the ground-breaking things that The Little Big Things has just achieved and I will never get over how seen I felt watching that production for the first time with the inclusivity of it and its content.

[@theatrewithbenjamin]

Edit - ‘unless you have a clear directorial intent, which isn’t removing that specific part of the character’s identity!’

[@Ranger7Studios]

I like your idea about everyone else being disabled. I might steal that. ;)

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

23:51 "DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON HAMLET" ...would make fab merch slogan just saying.

[@user-ql9di3ht5t]

Shakespeare in the Park did an interesting take on Richard III a few years ago...they cast an able bodied black women as the title character and then cast other roles with differently abled actors. Richard was played as the most virile/active role with no noticeable disability. I wasn't sure what I was supposed to take from that. Was the disability all in the Richard's mind? Given the diversity of the rest of the cast, was race and gender supposed mean something or not in Richard's feeling of allienation? Overall the production was uneven although the all the actors were very good.

[@MrEyelovephoto]

I think now is a moment that a theater of disabled performers can start a theater of their own and do what they want… with casting. in other words find the power in this moment instead of feeling left out make a new way… things are getting weird out in the world … not sure what word to use other than that … there can be gender blind casting color blind casting all the inclusion but are they going to do a colorblind casting of the color purple? It’s late here and I am feeling in articulate but… let’s remember this is theater really anything can go its a “play” it’s not a documentary… do we need to cast an actual monarch as the role … no and in the same way richard also does. not need to be a actual hunchback with club foot… It could be an awesome and creative approach but to have someone in the condition of steven hawking playing richard the 3rd… but no one had a fit about gandolf playing richard the 3rd… let her do her thing … a woman as richard the 3rd … is a groundbreaking moment let’s celebrate that …

[@tanwencooper6928]

When casting a disabled role, casting a disabled actor should be the default option. Unless there is a good reason why an abled actor has to be used (i.e It's a new storyline for an existing character, the physical demands of the role would make it unsafe) it should go to a disabled actor.

[@antonybeney]

Agh this is such a double edged sword… the pendulum effect is dangerous 😬