Just watched the making of Predator 2 <spoliers> and the frisbee-arm-chop effect was also achieved by employing a stunt man with one arm.
So they wouldn’t have a problem with playing or seeing other amputees playing, say, zombies or monsters?
Ed Helms has a missing tooth IRL, and this was exploited to comic effect in The Hangover.
Jim Carrey has a big chip in one tooth, which he also used to comic effect in Dumb and Dumber.
I always used to think it was a bit harsh when particularly fat or ugly people were hired to play particularly fat or ugly people. I think (if I were an amputee) I’d prefer to play an amputee role (it might even be fun) than “the fat and/or ugly guy”.
Well, the “fat and/or ugly” people have agents too, and know that’s exactly the role they’ll be auditioned for. It’s not like they think they’re budding leading men and women or anything.
Needed: 1 fat, ugly amputee with red hair
In that vein, VW is currently running an ad about a fat dog who loses weight in order to be able to chase the latest VW, and it’s pretty clear that they put the dog in a canine fat suit for the “before” shots.
Wait, so dwarf-tossing is back on?
I’m so easily confused.
And he won two Academy Awards for that role; the only actor to win twice for one permormance (and current rules make it impossible to do now)
I know they’ve used a lot of amputees in The Walking Dead; here’s a commercial I found with a quick search: Walking Dead Promo.
Yeah I understand that, but in a lot of ways that makes it worse. They’ve had to accept their positions at the bottom of the respect food chain and define themselves in their profession as “the fat and ugly guys”. I expect some can be smug that they’ve turned a disadvantage into a way to make money, but it must take strong character. I’m imagining a lot of secretly depressed fat and ugly actors.
I was under the impression that an unwritten rule was to have a handicapped individual play a character with the same disability whenever possible.
No citations, but here is one article: 11 Things Introverts Want You to Know
Generally, amputees have lowered employability, so this is just an extra possible job opportunity. No more exploitative than Hooters girls using their physical appearance (also surgically enhanced, often) for job opportunities.
There used to be circus ‘freak shows’, which also provided ‘job opportunities’ to people who would otherwise had little employment available.
There isn’t a single job out there that isn’t exploiting you. Either it’s your talents, skills, experiences, physicality, appearance, age, tenacity, whatever. Every employer exploits you. But you get paid for it, and it’s the way society operates, so you go with it.
Occasionally there’s a stumbling block, like remuneration doesn’t seem enough, or you miss out on privileges, or there’s some other imbalance. But being used for your (relatively) unique contribution is the way things always have been.
That’s basically what I’m asking. Do amputee actors enjoy what they do, or do they find it undignified and only do it for the money?
Only for a very specific definition of “exploiting” that is almost right-angles to the usual definition.
A normal job has two people agreeing to a contract with as much as possible on equal footage, where both give something and receive something in turn.
Exploitation is a power imbalance used by the stronger person to pressure the other party to unfavourable terms or to demeaning terms (like dwarf-tossing, done out of economic necessity, but degrading to human persons).
So hiring illegal immigrants because you can report them to Immigration when they want better payment or a break is exploitation; hiring legal workers is usually not.
True. But we’re not talking about anything like that in this thread. Using an actor who has a particularly useful feature is standard operating procedure, and no more exploitation than regular employment.
Saving Private Ryan, in it’s horrific recreation of a D-Day opening assault, had many amputees to simulate mine victims blown into the air.