Who Should Play What Role?

Which actor is cast for which role has become a hotly contested issue.  Ethnic minority actors, already finding most roles defined by conventional ‘white male’ characteristics which are then cited as reasons for not auditioning non-white actors, are rightly aggrieved when the odd role of an ethnic minority character comes up, it is a white actor who ends up being cast to play it as well.

Similar feelings are experienced by actors who have to rely on using sign language or a wheelchair, finding out that roles associated with those disabilities are given to actors who can speak or walk without aid in their everyday life.

It is clearly unfair that people are not only told they cannot play the part of X because they lack key characteristics associated with X, but also that despite having the characteristics associated with the part of Y, that part too is denied them and handed to people with X rather than Y characteristics. 

There are at least two ways to respond to this. One may be termed ‘identitarian’, and the other can be called ‘cosmopolitan’.

The identitarian response is to demand that roles with certain defining characteristics must be played by actors who actually possess those characteristics.  This has led to calls for characters with disabilities only to be played by actors with those disabilities, Jewish characters to be played by Jewish actors, gay characters to be played by gay actors, and so on.  The argument often used is that only actors who share key characteristics with the roles in question can bring out what those roles require.  

Identitarian thinking is problematic when it appears to hold that acting is above all about relating one’s own experiences as a person with certain characteristics to performing a dramatic role with those characteristics.  Does that mean only someone who has lost a child should play a character who has lost a child? Should only people who are pathologically sadistic play a dedicated torturer?  Should roles about geniuses be limited to actual geniuses?  Should roles about, say, Texan, heterosexual, or Catholic characters be as a matter of principle be denied, respectively, to Cherokee, gay, and Muslim actors?  Not only is identitarian thinking contrary to the power of imaginative expression that lies at the heart of acting, it could end up providing inadvertent cover for prejudiced practices that deny even more opportunities for actors who are already marginalised.

The cosmopolitan response, by contrast, holds that the essence of dramatic arts is to celebrate our imaginative powers to transcend all mundane barriers.  With CGI, make-up, and alternative reading of text, any actor should have the chance to play any role.  Female actors have played Hamlet; black actors have played white historical figures; gay actors have played womanisers; and CGI has done away with any limitations on how any actor may appear or what physical ability they can exhibit on screen.

Ultimately, identitiarian thinking is self-defeating. It limits the horizons of those for whom it tries to promote wider opportunities; whereas the cosmopolitan outlook embraces diversity and opens the door to all talents to express themselves in any role.  This is, of course, pertinent to the world beyond acting.  Identitarian politics boxes people into sealed off categories. Cosmopolitan democracy paves the way for power sharing amongst people with multiple and overlapping backgrounds.