Behind the screen

 There's been a lot of emphasis lately on casting actors who match their characters' underrepresented identities -- disabled actors as disabled characters, queer actors as queer characters, etc.

In general, I think this is a good and necessary thing, both because it prevents underrepresented actors from being shut out of the industry, and because it generally adds a layer of depth and realism to the characters in question.

The problem I see is when casting, and casting alone, is seen as the one solution to the problems of minority underrepresentation and, equally as crucially, misrepresentation. Actors do not necessarily have much power over their scripts, stories, or character arcs. We need diverse representation not only among actors, but also among writers, directors, producers, and all the other people involved in a creative project.

When creators do cast an actor who matches the character's identity, this low bar is often used as a shield against criticism of the story's writing or the character's depiction "It's a (X) actor, so it's okay" becomes a variation of "My (X) friend said it was okay." Asking an actor of the targeted group to star in hate propaganda against her isn't an improvement; it's just finding someone desperate enough to degrade herself on screen. Casting disabled actors, for example, will not save stories whose central messages are "Disabled people should just die," "Disabled people are burdens on their families," "Disabled people lack inner depth," or "Disabled people are incompetent to make decisions about their own lives."

Yes, keep demanding that underrepresented actors be cast. Also demand that marginalized people be writers, directors, producers, and other people in the creative process. Also demand that stories humanize and advocate the liberation, not the oppression, of marginalized people.