Movie review: Tiptoes
Imagine the movie North Country cast with Brad Pitt playing Charlize Theron's role of the woman suffering sexual harassment at work. Not as a man suffering that harassment. Imagine Pitt cast in the part as a woman, without irony or satire.
Or imagine Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing, about an urban cauldron of racial tension, but unironically cast entirely with white actors in the main roles. You know, because the actors are talented and it would be an exciting challenge to portray someone of another race convincingly when the audience is aware of exactly who they, as actors, are. Some of the white cast would need to wear blackface, but it's part of the craft of acting. Right?
Those movies had impressive scripts. But now imagine a film about an engaged couple where the woman gets pregnant but the man hasn't yet told her that dwarfism runs in his family. His twin brother is a dwarf, played in all seriousness by a well-known 5'10" actor.
Yep, the couple (Carol and Steven), an artist and firefighter, are played by Kate Beckinsale and Matthew McConaughey. That's them in the center of the photo for one DVD cover, at left. Gary Oldman, a great actor but 5'10", plays McConaughey's dwarf twin brother Rolfe (Oldman is also 12 years older than McConaughey), always filmed in lumpy clothing to hide the fact he's walking on his knees. He's in the picture at far right. Pictured at far left is Patricia Arquette, who plays Lucy the average-sized lover of Rolfe's weird, bitter French Marxist dwarf friend, Maurice. Maurice is played by Peter Dinklage, an actual little person and fantastic actor.* He doesn't appear anywhere in the photo, or the billing in that DVD cover photo.
Got that? Tiptoes, a movie about dwarfism with all average-size actors playing any character with billing. The secondary characters and extras include dozens of little folks, so it was a very conscious casting choice to not let dwarfs represent themselves in any major substantive character-developed way. And while it's good to see a film about dwarfism, exploring the unique difficulties and cultural events that bring little people together, they remain -- if you'll forgive me -- the sideshow to the average-sized people who spend the film talking about them or, in Oldman's case, acting as one of them.
False representation, however earnest or talented the actor, is still a form of silencing and control. Why shouldn't this be any less outrageous and offensive than blackface? Why is this accepted but we never see a male actor given a woman character for a role?
"Nothing about us without us." It's a disability rights political slogan for important reasons: too often someone else insists on controlling the story to ridiculous degrees.
Oh: I did enjoy little bits of the film. Dinklage was fun to see, and I do like all the actors in the cast. The script was uneven and boring toward the end. Tiptoes premiered at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival, but damned if I know why.
* Peter Dinklage played the lead in the film The Station Agent, which I reviewed here. He's also My Imaginary Boyfriend, so I may be slightly biased when I say he's the best thing in Tiptoes.




15 comments:
I watched this movie because my cable box said it got a really high rating. After watching it, I couldn't understand why. I totally agree with your review!
Also agree with your review. One of my best friends has dwarfism and this movie really is offensive in its portrayal of AB/dwarfism and reinforces a second class system and erroneous perceptions. Perceptions of people toward dwarfism have a very long way to go - I've seen more staring and more backward opinions toward my friend and dwarfism than toward my quadriplegia when we travel together. People treat her as if she's a child not an adult due to her size. This woman is more capable than three able bodied people put together -resourceful, sharp, and - obviously - has developed a habit of rolling her eyes frequently in life.
Just reading your review makes me cringe (except for the parts about Dinklage; agreed; and The Station Agent is one of the best movies I've ever seen). I'm not cringing at your writing or your opinion, understand; I'm cringing at the idea of this movie.
I haven't actually seen this movie, and I won't because of the cringing. In my sadly vast experience of others, though, these kinds of movies with these horribly wrong kinds of casting choices are almost always terrible, self-conscious, and -- no pun intended, really -- belittling. The worst I've ever seen are in the category of those using "normal" actors to portray people with developmental disabilities. The Other Sister springs to mind; yes Giovanni Ribisi is a brilliant actor, always, and Juliette Lewis is competent, but why not use actors who really have developmental disabilities? They exist. They are often very good!
The only casting of this kind I've seen work, oddly, since you mention it, has been about gender or sexuality. The HBO miniseries Angels in America included several actors who do not identify as gay in their real lives but who I thought turned in stunning performances (Jeffrey Wright, for example, and Ben Shenkman). The hysterical, brilliant movie Jeffrey starred Steven Wright, and he identifies as straight in real life, and he was amazing. And then there was Felicity Huffman playing a male-to-female transsexual in Transamerica; I was completely moved, and my disbelief was totally suspended.
But then, if I were transgendered or identified as gay myself, I might feel differently. And I still wonder why the hell they didn't use a real-life transsexual, or if they really can't find enough gay actors in Hollywood and New York to fill out all the gay roles in an extravaganza like Angels in America. But then I think of all the gay actors who play straight people completely credibly, and I think about how hard it is to get work at all if you're an actor, even a great and famous one.
And I think of Dinklage in a movie like this, and wonder what he thought about all of it.
Not answering that question, but mildly related, I recommend a fiction book by the wonderful Armistead Maupin called Maybe the Moon, about a diminutive actress breaking her heart trying to get work and be loved.
I cannot believe this thing is actually real.
Peter Dinklage is your Imaginary Boyfriend, too, huh? That man is amazing. I finished Tiptoes because of him (agree with your review wholeheartedly) and I watched that series with Carla what'shername about the aliens because of him, too (he was the best thing in it).
And more politically (this, after all, isn't necessarily a teenaged gushing blog) - I agree. Movies about people with disabilities without any actors with disabilities is so common and so infuriating. I cna't believe how excited I get when I see the very occasional actor with a disability who isn't Inspiring and Brave, but just a regular part of the show/movie. Sad comment on the state of moviemaking...
Sara: I enjoyed Angels in America, Jeffrey, and Transamerica (Piny wrote about the latter recently at Feministe, have you seen that critique?). I appreciate the idea of actors taking on challenges and all, but to subsume physical difference in that desire is seriously problematic. And nondisabled actors portraying disabled people does nothing, really, to normalize us to the eye of the public. Film -- all art -- should be an avenue for staring, eliciting the gaze that we're otherwise so tiresomely subjected to. But casting nondisabled actors has the opposite effect, I think, by denying nondisabled people the chance to look freely and find us basically normal folks. It reinforces that we're not to be looked at by consciously refusing to put us out there.
I wonder what Dinklage thinks of this flick too. Actually, he was great fun to watch despite his character's story not really going anywhere. He plays this sexy, crabby French Marxist hedonist who rides a giant three-wheeled chopper motorcycle. The Station Agent is among my all-time favorite movies, largely due to him.
Lene: I saw him first.
;)
I loved The Station Agent. Dinklage also played the "dream dwarf" in Living in Oblivion, where he had a really good, angry speech about why dwarfs are supposed to be so spooky just the presence of them in a dream makes it sort of a nightmare.
I'm not explaining it real well, but if you haven't seen the movie, you should.
Kay, agreed. When I was writing all that, I skipped a step in my thinking where I transitioned from "Gee, these movies suck," to "Why would a person with one of these life conditions act in a movie like this where the people portraying his/her life condition don't actually have it, when there are many actors who do have it who would do a fabulous job including, for example the actor in question?" And that's how I got (mentally) to how actors just like to work and it's hard to get a job acting even when you're famous, which is why people like Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, and possibly Gary Oldman seem to take pretty much every single job they are ever offered, because they like to work and not to make value judgments about the work, and how I got to wondering how Dinklage felt about this movie and if we will ever find out.
And no, I haven't read that review by Piny, but I'm going to. Thanks.
I will shut up after this (I have a library book sale to attend), but I wanted to give a heads-up to Dinklage fans: Don't miss Find Me Guilty in which Vin Diesel plays a real life mob character and Dinklage plays his lawyer, plays him absolutely straight, with no reference I remember ever made to his height except one point in the courtroom, I think, where they bring him a step to stand on so he can reach the podium. (It's been awhile since I saw this; I may have the details wrong.)
Good movie, great performances by Diesel and Dinklage, and more of what I personally would like to see in general, not just life condition roles being played by people with that life condition, but all kinds of roles being played by all kinds of people, ordinary people being played by the full diverse range of ordinary actors which, just like the general population of ordinary non-actors, includes little people and people in wheelchairs and blind people and gay people and...
You know what I mean? Like Lene said, only I also think even these horrible movies would also be less purely offensive not only if casting moguls thought of wheelchair users to play wheelchair roles and little people to play little people roles but also if genuine diversity were more visible in all movies, in all roles. "Hooker #2" can be an amputee. "Gay Neighbor" can have cerebral palsy. "Dr. Taylor" can be a transsexual. The fact that they aren't usually only makes filling roles of amputees, CP people, and transsexuals with people who are none of these things all the more insulting.
Kactus: I can't remember if I've seen Living in Oblivion or if it's just in my Netflix queue. I'll have to check that out.
Sara: I saw references to Find Me Guilty when writing this post and it does look very interesting. And seriously, Van Diesel and Dinklage? (sigh)
TV has had a few disabled characters whose disabilities are just background and not stories in themselves. Marlee Matlin on West Wing was a political operative who happened to have a sign interpreter with her, and while there were a few lines of extra dialogue here and there over the years to account for people's reaction to this guy, and his male voice usually speaking for Matlin when she communicated, it was never made into a story for it's own sake. And I loved that. She was also a love interest of one of the main characters without her deafness ever being exoticized.
Robert David Hall, who plays the coroner on CSI, is also a disabled guy and activist who uses crutches, yet that's never been made a story in the show -- I don't recall seeing a single reference to it anywhere. It's just part of him without being spectacle.
But it's rare, and I can't think of any movie off the top of my head that has a character whose disability is incidental. (Barbara Kingsolver is one of the few authors who has disabled characters that also don't need to be symbolic of anything because of an impairment. They get to be people with lives just like the nondisabled.)
I don't think it's an accident that Matlin and Hall are actual disabled actors. Hiring them probably means someone in the biz has enough crip savvy to consider their disabilities as something interesting about their lives that they bring with them to the job rather than some tragic situation that a story should be made out of.
Child actors with Down syndrome occasionally have small roles in films where their visible difference is not much commented upon, nor does it become a major plot point. I'm thinking of Testament (1983), for example, and last year's Notes on a Scandal. Both smaller, serious dramas, with women in the leading roles--maybe that's no coincidence?
Ah, Kay, you've answered a question that was bugging me about Hall. I always wondered if he was really using that cane or if this was something like the redheaded doctor on ER, who I believe eventually gets cured of whatever it was that made her use a cane, but goes through about five TV minutes of arguing with herself about whether she should or not.
Also, I was noticing Martin Klebba, the actor who plays Randall, one of the janitors on Scrubs, and who also plays the pirate Marty in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Except for one scene in the latest of the Pirates movies, where he shoots a gun and the kickback sends him flying, 'cause, you know, he's little (it's a silly sight gag), I don't remember either of these roles putting him in a position of anything other than one of a variety of diverse, ordinary people (ordinary janitors, ordinary pirates, whatever).
And then we were rewatching Lord of the Rings (again, because we are total nerds and we love it), and I was for the millionth time noticing and thinking about John Rhys-Davies of all people playing a dwarf. And putting together that with this apparently silly Tiptoes film using Oldman to play a little person, I wondered if the day would come when Dinklage or Klebba or someone else would play a tall person. If the technology exists to go in one direction, wouldn't you think it would exist to go in the other? And if putting tall people in a position to play short people is a good idea -- and it isn't always a terrible idea, as in Lord of the Rings -- then isn't putting little people in a position to play tall people a good idea?
And yeah, when is a man going to play a woman but not (as with Tyler Perry's Mad Housewife character) for laughs?
Penny: I haven't seen either of those movies yet. Do you think the kids in them are just kids or does their Down Syndrome symbolize something about the mothers' lives?
Sara: If you Google Hall you'll find he's been quite outspoken in recent years about employing disabled actors. I don't know how far his activism goes back. I believe his impairments are from a serious auto accident. And I deliberately didn't mention Laura Innes' ER character when I mentioned Matlin and Hall. While her character's crutches were present for a long time before it was mentioned and I generally liked the way her disability was seemlessly part of the character, I think it did explicitly enter her storyline at some point. Not sure. I gave up on ER some time go.
I haven't seen much Scrubs. Zach Braff annoys me, and I haven't decided what I think of all his movies having disabled characters in them, or the characterization of disability in those flicks. His new movie has Jason Bateman playing a paraplegic, I think.
Interesting idea, Sara, as to whether technology will lead to someone like Dinklage playing a tall character. I tend to think that disrupts the status quo too much and is unlikely to happen. But it's nice to contemplate.
Penny: I haven't seen either of those movies yet. Do you think the kids in them are just kids or does their Down Syndrome symbolize something about the mothers' lives?
Well, in Testament the boy's mother isn't in the story--he and his father are among the secondary characters, neighbors to Jane Alexander's lead character. I haven't seen it in years, but my memory is that his Down syndrome isn't "symbolic" of anything--they're presented as another ordinary, decent family, father and son, in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster. The film's tagline was "Imagine a day like any other. The children are fighting, the refrigerator is humming. Highways are jammed, playgrounds are filled. Everything is perfectly normal... For the very last time."
But as I'm reading now, the boy's name is Hiroshi--probably a reference to Hiroshima. Oh, hmm, now I feel like I have to track it down and watch it again. No hardship, it's a good film.
I haven't actually seen Notes on a Scandal, but I recall a few reviewers noting how refreshing it was to see him, without his character's DS being any big "thing." (The character also has Down syndrome in the book--so it wasn't added at the film adaptation stage, but it wasn't removed either.)
Notes on a Scandal just happens to be at the top of my Netflix queue, so I should get it tomorrow. (Yay!) I added Testament and Living in Oblivion too.
Check it out: June 11 is Peter Dinklage's 38th birthday. I thought of you when I saw that in the Wikipedia listing of birthdays for Monday.
Post a Comment