Synecdoche2 said: "The character does not have progeria. She has "an extremely rare genetic disorder" that they go out of their way not to mention, because it's a magical disease that does not exist. And this magical disease makes Kimberly Akimbo look like Victoria Clark/an old woman. There's no physical disconnect between what Clark looks like and what the character looks like."
In the original play, she does have progeria. I know it quite well. They do mention it by name. So even if they don't name it in the musical, it's still very obviously progeria. If the show wasn't always like that, then maybe that argument would hold up, but the OG does name it, therefore, it has the same affect in my mind.
I'm clearly in the minority here since everyone seems to think it doesn't matter, and all I'll say is that it's privileged to dismiss even the conversation behind this. If Kimberly's disease were something so far from reality and/or so specific, like Aquagenic urticaria which is only visible during flareups, this argument might hold up more--but my point remains. In the original play she has a "form of progeria". Progeria is a form of dwarfism, as I've already mentioned. To me, it seems fairly obvious that the closest thing to casting a person with progeria would be to cast a person with dwarfism.
I'd go so far as to say is that the reason a person with dwarfism isn't being considered it's because producers know that it would be a tough sell for a commercial audiences, since most people are repulsed by people with physical disabilities/abnormalities. For Peter D to be starring in CYRANO is a huge deal, and it took how long for that to happen? And he's only even in that role because he has a handsome face and therefore has a "palatable" version of dwarfism to most people.
I think what's especially insidious about it is that there is no excuse for a Broadway production not to cast someone with a Disability in a role that calls for an obvious physical disability that is part of the plot. You could make a case for a smaller theatre that doesn't have money or resources and wouldn't have the means to accomedate an actor with dwarfism (or two, most likely, since you'd ideally have an understudy). But Atlantic and Broadway have the money and have the resources. They just don't want to even attempt to do the work.
Even if you all completely disagree with me, which, fine, whatever--as JBroadway mentioned, "this would’ve been a great opportunity to write a lead role for a disabled actor." So even if you don't believe it bottom line HAS to be cast by a person who has a disability, it is an opportunity that at the very least, lends itself extremely well to that. And there is plenty of talented disabled people who could use the work.
I think it would be incredibly empowering move to display the version where Kimberly is a teenager who has a disability, because that's what she is. She's NOT an old woman. People with dwarfism and other noticeable physical disabilities deserve to be romantic leads, regardless if their characters are intentionally written that way or not. Ali Stroker and Madison Ferris in OKLAHOMA and GLASS MENAGERIE are proof that it can be done to great success, and at the very least, I think it's insanely disappointing that at no stage of development did they even TRY to see the material this way.
It's disappointing especially considering writers like DLA and Jeanine Tesori, who both have proven in their work that they care about and are sympathetic to people with outsiders, would drop the ball like this. I mean, JT's VIOLET is LITERALLY about a woman with a physical disability (and btw, I have never understood the choice for Violet not to have a visible scar. If the argument is it would be "too distracting", I find that incredibly offensive towards people with facial scars/burn victims/etc. but whatever, other tangent). So this can't have never crossed their minds at all. They just chose not to. But it's also not just them who is disappointing in my view--it's the director, and above all, the producers--who clearly didn't even think to hire a Disability consultant. All of them are guilty.
I want to take this time to say to that the only reason I'm so riled up about this is because I truly love the original play. I directed it many years ago (with a teenager in old age makeup, a choice I wouldn't make now, but I was young and was not plugged into this conversation--but even still, with that choice, it still feels like what I was aiming at was to portray an actual teenage girl with a physical disability, which again, Kimberly is!) and I've found it to be heartbreaking, hilarious, and deeply moving.
I will also say that I've developed an autoimmune disease over the past year that's made me see these kinds of things in a different light, and I think it's a difficult conversation as to where to draw the line with disability (for obvious reasons it would be logisitically difficult to say the least to say only AIDS patients/people living with HIV can play those roles, same with people with cancer, etc. as per my point above with Aquagenic urticaria) -- but I'm not a disability consultant. I'm just a person with an autoimmune disability and an opinion who works in the biz. So if anything, my speculation proves that there should've been at the very least, a disability consultant from the start. I've spent a lot of time online trying to see if there ever was one, and it seems there wasn't even an attempt in early workshops.
Updated On: 3/9/22 at 02:42 AM
