Actors who don't want to label their characters as autistic

Post Reply New Topic

Forgive the rant, i'm having media portrayal annoyance.

I've been watching The Tunnel, which is the British/French version of the Swedish/Danish TV series Broen/Bron. They've just started showing The Tunnel in the US. We had an US/Mexican version a few years ago, The Bridge. Actress Diane Kruger interviewed Wrong Planet's Alex Plank for the American version of the role (Sonya Cross), and I liked the version she did.

The Tunnel showed an interview with Clemence Poesy, the actress who played the female cop role (Elise Wassermann) in the British/French series. If you've watched any of the series, you'll know it's a murder mystery that literally crosses the borders of two countries, and involves a male cop from one country and a female cop from the other. In each, the male cop is a fairly relaxed guy, and the female cop is much more formal and serious, and shows signs of Asperger syndrome, although I'm not sure if it's ever stated.

In the interview with Ms. Poesy, she said something disturbing that I've heard other actors say about their characters that display autistic traits but never explicitly call them that. She says that she didn't want to label her character as autistic because she didn't want to limit the character or something to that effect. The director Dominik Moll said something worse:
"We didn't want her to have a defined pathology. If you really want to say she has Asperger's, there are things [that go with it] such as being physically very clumsy, which she isn't. So if you do it seriously, you have to integrate all parts of it. "

I recall Benedict Cumberbatch actually acting as though the interviewer had insulted his hero, Alan Turing, when he was asked if he could have had Asperger's Syndrome. He had a similar reaction when someone suggested that another of his characters, Sherlock, was on the Spectrum.

This REALLY PISSES ME OFF. It's basically saying that we can't label a character who is capable, smart, or nuanced as having ASD, or even someone who is able to contribute to society in any way. It absolves the writers, director, and actress of having to do their research and get such a portrayal right. It assumes that we are all the same, we all have the same issues (like clumsiness or sensory disorders) and implies that such conditions make it impossible to be functional.

The only characters that DO get an autism or Asperger's label (with only a few exceptions) are either in inspiration porn, or a bundle of stereotypical quirks and tics played for pathos and laughs (or both). We're the last Amos 'n' Andy, Charlie Chan, or Tonto, played by people who are not us, without understanding. We are the eternal Other, the freak, the magical Autistic person whose sparkly powers transform the life of an NT. I can't decided if we are being used as a lens to examine NT's assumptions from a different perspective, or something for them to feel superior to. I think the operating word here, though, is used.

Thanks for reading </endRant>

That is annoying. I don't get why in some programs they seem to make a lot of effort for you to think a character's on the spectrum, but (as you point out) the creators don't want to admit anything.

I tried watching The Tunnel, but I felt they just made Elise out to be rude. I could tell in some ways that Asperger's was what they were going for, but here character seemed so one-dimensional and annoying, like they didn't know what they were doing.

Seems to me the only character that got it right in recent years was Max on Parenthood, but i get what you mean. I'm not clumsy, i actually have an incredible sense of balance compared to almost anyone i know (only two of which are autistic). my only issue comes with hand-eye coordination because i'm legally blind in my left eye.

They can't afford to be accurate--TV shows are carefully scripted to provide entertainment while selling advertising. There are already pitched battles in deciding what will and won't be in a show--who is going to pay for the autism expert to make sure that everything is accurate? And, even if you could afford it, how many experts get it right all the time under such a pressure environment? There is a lot of questioning right here on this forum about the accuracy of expert opinion.

I don't think it requires as much effort as keeping an expert on the payroll. Even a little effort is more than what most actors put into researching autistic-like characters. Diane Kruger interviewed Alex Plank for The Bridge. Ryan Cartwright, who played Gary Bell in Alphas, talked to people who work with autistic people (although it doesn't sound like he talked to autistic people themselves) and watched documentaries and read books by autistic people. I thought they did a good job in showing these people to be more interesting and layered, not just a lot of quirks. Autism is a broad range of abilities and characteristics. One could omit certain symptoms or lessen or increase them and still fall within the parameters of the condition. Lot of actors prepare for roles: taking fighting lessons, practicing an accent, or observing professionals in the career that they will be portraying. Doing their research isn't just being responsible; it lends authenticity and depth to their performance.

It's sheer laziness and sloppiness to not make at least a small effort to get it right, especially in playing a minority where doing a bad job will cause them harm. For an actor to portray a minority that they don't belong to, and do it badly, is to be similar to players in 19th century minstrel shows, putting on black makeup to ridicule African Americans, or to make them villains like in D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

Also, as regards to paying an autism expert--TV shows pay consultants all the time to make their shows more authentic: military experts on military shows, forensics experts on cop shows, and so on. They pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to their stars per episode. I don't think a retainer fee is that big of a burden.