I’ve
been aware of this TV film for quite a while, but it’s been quietly hanging out
on my to-see-whenever-I-get-around-to-it list for almost as long. Finally, though, I managed to see this movie,
and I’m incredibly glad that I did.
The
film is based on the true story of the eponymous Temple Grandin, a young woman
who, in the ‘60s, works through the hindrances of her autism while at the same
time using the advantages it gives her in order to excel in her field. From her aunts’ ranch, to college, and
beyond, Temple is able to approach problems from a different perspective than
most, and she directs that insight and visual-based thinking toward one of the
interests closest to her heart: cows.
There’s
no doubt that Temple’s story gives the movie immensely rich material to work
with. It’s impressive enough that, as a
woman, she achieves so much in the world of animal husbandry in the ‘60s and
‘70s. When you throw in how little was
understood about autism at the time (the flashback scene in which her mom is
basically called a refrigerator mother is just awful,) it’s incredible – not that
she’s capable of the brilliant things
she does, but that she can get her foot in the door to do them. These circumstances really hammer home how
determined and resourceful she is, as well as just how innovative her ideas are
that she gets people to take a chance on them.
I think
it’s rare to see such an honest movie dealing with disability. Now, Temple is of course a real person, but she’s
also so multi-dimensional as a character.
She’s laser-focused, creative, impatient, tenacious, logical, furious,
standoffish, goofy, contented, and impassioned, often several at the same
time. Her autism is ever-present, and
the film shows that, like many things, living with autism can be terrible and
amazing in almost equal turn. It doesn’t
pull back from the hard moments, but it doesn’t wallow in them, either. The ways that Temple’s neurodiversity make
her work so distinct and lauded don’t diminish the tremendous stressors it can
create, nor is there any suggestion that her happy ending can only be found by
“erasing” or “overcoming” her autism.
The good and bad comingle, and the key for Temple isn’t to be like
others, but to teach herself their subtle “language” and figure out what she
needs in order to be successful.
Claire
Danes, of course, doesn’t have autism.
Now, casting able-bodied actors to play disabled characters is rampant
in most areas, but when dealing with disorders/disabilities that affect the
mind, the waters seem to get muddier. In
this (admittedly broad) area, abled-bodied actors are cast almost without
exception, and complaints about this don’t seem as loud as those about
able-bodied actors being cast as, say, wheelchair users or Deaf
characters. It seems to me that there’s
some uncertainty with more “invisible” disabilities as to how important it is
for an actor’s life to reflect that aspect of the character. Is autism like race or gender identity, in
that it’s improper for neurotypical actors to assume these roles and take parts
away from actors with ASDs, or is it more like religion or sexual orientation,
in that the roles should be open to anyone who can play them, regardless of
whether or not they themselves have autism?
I’m not quite sure where I stand on this issue, other than that I obviously
want neurodiverse actors to be able to get work.
Warnings
No comments:
Post a Comment