I would love a less-ableist Broadway. Maybe I'm coming at this from the wrong perspective, but to specify the type of differently-abled actor who could play a role almost defeats the purpose? Unless there are major plot-related specifics of a character, most roles could be adapted to fit different types of actors.
The best thing is to set a precedent with the original production of a new work, whether it's a deliberate choice of the author, or a choice based on someone's audition.
Now, to put on my Devil's Advocate hat, a couple things to keep in mind:
–– a commercially-successful production using multiple differently-abled actors will help this cause significantly. Ali Stroker's Tony win was a major step in the right direction, but Oklahoma! isn't a hit yet, Spring Awakening was a huge flop, Big River was a nonprofit run, and other recent shows haven't made it to B'way (Hunchback, Craig Lucas's I Was Most Alive With You, and Deaf West's other projects come to mind).
–– from a business standpoint, there could be financial limitations: hiring two actors for one character (in a speaking/nonspeaking situation), or adapting a set design/staging/choreo for a long-running show, or adapting the backstage area (there are lots of stairs in B'way houses).
–– some authors or producers might not want to specify if a role is written for an actor of certain abilities, because they think it will be an obstacle for post-B'way subsidiary licensing. I wish that could change, but that's something that will always come up in this type of conversation.
Updated On: 7/24/19 at 01:46 PM