disability portrayal in film and television

8/3/2019 Disability Portrayal in Film and Television

1/6

Disability Portrayal in Film and Television: A Barrier toInclusion?

Abstract

Although people with physical, mental and sensory disabilities are appearing with greater frequencyon both the big and small screen, portrayals of these characters leave a lot to be desired in terms ofproviding realistic examples of the human condition through the eyes of a person with a disability.This paper examines the literature relating to disability portrayal in film and television, and discusseshow these images can both act as a barrier to, and a facilitator of, inclusivity.

Ingesting Images

Australians are avid consumers of film and television media. According to 2006 data from theAustralian Bureau of Statistics, the use of audio/visual media is the primary way in which free time isutilised by Australians. Breaking this down even further, it was found that Australians dedicate a large

portion of this free time to watching television, watching DVDs/videos and seeing movies at thecinema (179, 109 and 129 minutes per day, respectively). Subsequently, it can be assumed that mostAustralians have relatively high exposure to content on both the big and small screens.

This high consumption of film and television media prompts the questions (a) what kinds of messagesand images are being conveyed and (b) what effect do these messages and images have on theviewing audience? For many years, these questions have been asked by minority groups in relation togender, sexuality and ethnicity (Harnett, 2000), however it is only in the last twenty years or so thatthe same questions have been asked by disability scholars (Safran, 1998a; Safran, 1998b). Much ofthis research and commentary has American and British roots, however, given the proliferation ofAmerican (and to a lesser extent, British) content on Australian screens, it is relevant to apply thesediscussions to an Australian context.

The kinds of messages being conveyed about disability in film and television will be discussed infurther depth later in this paper. As for the effect that these messages and images have on theviewing audience, the jury is still out. However, much of the research and commentary supports thenotion that film (Norden, 1994) and television (Cumberland & Negrine, 1992) may have a substantialimpact on public attitudes towards people with disabilities (Safran, 2001) and that media portrayalsreflect, define, or perpetuate ways of thinking about disabled persons (Susman, 1994, p. 18). Additionally, and more importantly for educators, some authors have identified that children havedifficulty discriminating between fact and fiction in film (Lawson & Fouts, 2004).

In terms of research, the results have been mixed but generally support the idea that film andtelevision may influence viewer attitudes. A 1989 study by Wahl and Yonatan Lefkowits examined theattitudes of college students towards mental illness and community care following the screening ofthree different films. The first film was a prime time television film that featured a killer with mentalillness. The second group saw the same film paired with an informational trailer explaining thatviolence is not characteristic of people with mental illness. The control group saw a film unrelated tomental illness. The study revealed that students who saw both films relating to mental illnessdemonstrated less favourable attitudes towards people with mental illness following the screening.This suggests that the messages and images conveyed in film are powerful devices that canoverwrite factual information. The authors suggest that this is because:

". . . entertainment media, especially visual media, present more than information. They draw theviewer into the portrayal and involve them emotionally with dramatic acting, music, andcinematography. If such presentations are successful, they involve the audience emotionally as wellas intellectually (Wahl & Yonatan Lefkowits, 1989, p. 525)".

In contrast to these findings, however, was a study conducted a decade later by Hall and Minnes,which again investigated the attitudes of college students following film screenings, but this time


2/6

focused on a character with Down Syndrome. This study, which compared the effects of adocumentary, a drama series and a control program on attitudes and behavioural change towards ayoung male with Down Syndrome, found that although attitudinal and behavioural change occurred inboth the documentary and drama groups, it was the documentary that was the more influential format.The authors suggest that this may be due to a number of factors, including the inclusion of directinformation regarding the causes, characteristics and potential of people with Down Syndrome (Hall &

Minnes, 1999, p. 73) as well as the power/authority and credibility of the documentary presenter(Triandis, 1971). Although the findings of these two studies differ in some respects, it may relate moreto the nature of the disabilityi.e. that the depiction of a killer is more emotionally provocative thana depiction of a person with Down Syndrome. Additionally, the quality of the factual information thatwas presented may have been more in-depth in the latter study. Still, both studies did reveal that filmand television generate attitudinal change towards people with disabilities.

Widening the Lens

While some researchers continue to examine the effects of film and television portrayal on attitudinalchange in viewers, others have already adopted a minimal effects stance (Entman, 1989, p. 348).Even within this approach, however, it is widely accepted that the media can play a much larger rolein telling us what to think about, if not what to think (Lau and Erber, 1985, p. 60, emphasis added).This framework implies that public discourse is influenced more by the frequency of portrayal and lessby the quality of portrayal. This notion is supported by the findings of Eichinger, Rizzo and Sirotnik(1992) which determined a positive relationship between the number of movies viewed about peoplewith disabilities, and discussions at school and home, as well as with positive attitudes towardspeople with disabilities.

It is difficult to determine how disability fares when it comes to the frequency of portrayal in film andtelevision, due to the relative scarcity of quantitative research (Safran, 1998a; Safran, 1998b). Interms of film, studies that have been conducted indicate that the percentage of disability portrayal infilm is on an upward trend, and is starting to reflect the percentage of people with a disability insociety. A series of quantitative studies conducted by Byrd and colleagues examining feature-lengthfilms from 1977 to 1988 found that the number of disability roles has increased over time, from 11.5%

to 17.5%. (Byrd & Pipes, 1981; Byrd & Elliot, 1985; Byrd & Elliot, 1986; Byrd, 1989). Although 17.5%is just shy of the numbers generated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey of Disability,Ageing and Carers (2003) which indicates that 20% of the Australian population has a disabilitythe figure is slowly but surely making its way to a more appropriate reflection of society. Additionally,Byrds figures are only representative of films made up until 1988, and as there is no current data toexamine, it may well be that this trend has continued to rise in that time.

However, a more recent analysis by Safran (1998b) that specifically examined Academy Awardnominated films also indicated an increase in disability roles. This study looked at films which hadwon Best Picture, Best Actor or Best Actress categories since the inception of the awards in 1927.Earlier decades (1927 1969) showed a modest increase, with 2.6% of awards in the first decadeescalating to 13.3% in the latter decade. However, in the decades following the civil rights era of the1960s, the frequency of disability portrayal increased dramatically, with 30% between 1970 1979

and an astounding 42.8% from 1990 1996.

Although these figures indicate an increased willingness of film-makers to widen their lens andincorporate disability roles into their pictures, the same cannot be said for their televisioncounterparts. A brief analysis of an television soap opera in Ireland by Harnett (2000) revealed thatonly three characters out of approximately two hundred and forty characters were portrayed as havinga disability - a mere 1.25 percent. This is a far cry to the published Irish figures of ten per cent of thepopulation having a disability. Similar inequities were discovered in a survey of television programs inthe UK by the British Standards Council (n.d.) in the early 1990s, which found that only 1-2% of allprograms featured people with disabilities or disability issues. Unfortunately, no such comparativedata exists that examines the frequency of disability portrayal on Australian television screens.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly . . . but Wheres the Reality?


3/6

While it can be argued that the frequency of portrayal is useful for encouraging public discourse, mostof the literature surrounding the portrayal of disability in film relates to the quality of said portrayals.

The quality of disability portrayal in film has improved over time (Bogdan & Taylor, 1988), moving fromthe magical cure and disfigured madman themes of the early 1900s to more realistic portrayalsdepicting independent living in the 1960s and beyond (Safran, 1998a). Despite this improvement, film-

makers no doubt driven by the dramatic (Safran, 1998b) and/or comedic currency of manydisabilities are still reverting to age-old stereotypes, that is, depicting people with disabilities asexotic spectacles of otherness (Ferri, Connor, Solis, Valle & Volpitta, 2005, p. 63). Thus, not only isthe able-bodied audience presented with a skewed view of disabled life, but the perceptions thatpeople with disabilities have of themselves can be affected (Norden, 1994) resulting in a sense ofisolation, as captured in a comment by Deborah Kent, a woman with a disability (Ferri et. al., 2005, p.63):

The disabled woman, searching as I did through my growing up years, will find few positive rolemodels . . . There arent many of these characters I would like to get to know in real life; there areeven fewer I would ever want to become. Various scholars have defined the most common disabilitystereotypes in different ways, however most of the literature refers to seven common stereotypes, asdefined by Nelson (1994). These include (a) pitiable and pathetic (b) supercrip (c) sinister, evil andcriminal (d) better off dead (e) maladjusted / his or her own enemy (f) a burden and (g) unable to livea successful life.

Some of these stereotypes have no doubt been formed with good intentions to portray people withdisabilities in a positive light or to engender a sense of empathy in the viewer. To borrow and adapt aterm from Bogdan (1988, p. 108) in his work on the evolution of freak shows, this as theaggrandised mode of presentation, where despite particular physical, mental, or behaviouralconditions, the [character is] an upstanding, high status person with talents of a conventional andsocially prestigious nature. The most poignant example of this is in the supercrip scenario - wherethe person with a disability triumphs over the tragedy of their condition, against all odds (Harnett,2000). One of the most cited examples of this phenomenon is the movie My Left Foot a moviebased on the autobiography of the artist, writer and poet, Christy Brown, which Brown, himself,

describes as my plucky little cripple story (Barnes, 1992, p. 12). However, some disability critics viewthis sort of portrayal as problematic, as it only values the contributions of people with disabilities whenthey are exceptional, and does not reflect the day-to-day reality of most disabled people (Shapiro,1994, p. 17).

Critics adopt a similar argument when examining another positive portrayal of disability that is, thedevelopment of misconceptions about extraordinary abilities attached to particular disabilities. Forexample Safran (1998a) states that although the movie Rain Man accurately depicts some commonelements of autism, such as echolalia and resistance to routine change, the movie may also causepeople to assume that all people with autism are savants, prompting them to search for unfoundgenius (p. 468). Other examples cited by Safran in the same article include a sixth sense orsecond sight that seems to be a common attribute of characters with visual impairments, along withthe skill of face feeling as popularised by Helen Keller (p. 474).

Not all portrayals of disability in film and television are simply misguided attempts at positiveportrayals. To again borrow and adapt a term from Bogdans (1988) work on freak shows, somecharacterisations are simply created to appeal to the spectators interest in the culturally strange, theprimitive, the bestial and the exotic (p. 105), for example the scarred, deformed and physically andmentally handicapped monsters that commonly appear in horror films (Safran, 1998a; Bogdan andBiklen, 1977). In fact, physically and mentally impaired characters are regularly used as easilyidentifiable personifications of evil (Harnett, 2000, p. 21); take, for example, the various physicaldisfigurements of the villains in Batman and James Bond films. Additionally, it seems that a negativeassociation with disability has the potential to be developed from a very young age. A study of 34Disney films by Lawson and Fouts (2004) revealed that 85% of the films contained verbal referencesto mental illness, designed to denigrate or ostracise the characters that were being targeted by thelanguage.


4/6

So if these common stereotypes are not portraying people with disabilities in a suitable way, howshould they be portrayed? Harnett (2000) provides a number of recent examples where disabilityportrayal has occurred in a positive, realistic manner. The first example is in the movie Boyz n theHood, which includes a character in a wheelchair. According to Harnett, the character named Chris- is first introduced sitting at a card table, engaging in a card game with his friends. It is not until theend of the scene that his wheelchair is revealedessentially making it a person first portrayal.

Throughout the film, Chris is regularly seen out of his chair, thus dismissing the notion that he iswheelchair-bound. Another example provided by Harnett is the character of Shabnam, in the movieFour Weddings and a Funeral who is firstly a brother, a good friend and he also happens to be deaf(p. 22). Again, this is a person first depiction. However, as Harnett states, these films are theexception; The disabled mothers, brothers, friends and business people that make up ten per cent ofthe population and lead ordinary lives rarely appear in television or film fiction (p. 22).

A Barrier to Inclusion?

As can be seen, Australians are frequently exposed to film and television portrayals of people withdisabilities. Additionally, few of these portrayals are conducive to the formation of realistic and positiveperceptions of people with disabilities. Naturally, it could be assumed that fears and misconceptionsgenerated by inaccurate film and television portrayals may create a barrier to inclusion, particularly forthose with little interaction with people with disabilities (Safran, 1998b). This is evidenced in ahypothetical situation described by Black (2004, p. 37), in which she details a situation involving twopeople discussing autism. One party, Mary, states that she doesnt know much about autism, and herfriend, Bill, provides her with the example of Dustin Hoffmans character in Rain Man. Black statesthat this is a case of two people using a movie to define a disability and its characteristics areasonably common occurrence. Black then goes on to explain how Mary then attends a ParentTeacher Student Organisation (American equivalent of P&C Meeting) where inclusion was beingdiscussed, and that she votes against inclusion based on her understanding of autism gleaned fromthe film Rain Man. This wasnt a malicious move as the movie had made her believe that studentswith autism should be kept away from too much stimulation but instead was a misguided belief builton a single film experience. In an Australian context, the laws protect such outright exclusion(Disability Standards for Education, 2005), however these laws do not protect against attitudes thereal barrier to inclusion.

Despite this obvious attitudinal barrier to inclusion that may stem from negative and unrealistic filmand television portrayals, some argue that these roles can in fact be instrumental in promotinginclusion, and that film and television, despite their inaccuracies, can be a major information sourceon disabilities (Safran, 1998b) and allow for sanctioned staring that would be impossible in real life(Hall & Minnes, 1999). In this respect, even the poorest portrayals may enlighten audiences about theattitudinal and environmental barriers that people with disabilities encounter every day. For example,Safran (1998a) cites the potential of the film Coming Home as an educational medium through whichto provide access to issues relating to accessibility, rehabilitation and sexuality for people withphysical disabilities (p. 467). Additionally, authors such as Safran suggest that the many negativeexamples of disability portrayed in film and television can become useful educational tools if they arethe subject of deconstruction. Typical disability stereotypes, as mentioned earlier, can be examined

and their accuracy evaluated. This approach provides an excellent avenue for teachers to integratecritical literacy skills with the development of more positive attitudes towards people with disabilitiesa stepping stone to inclusion. Some media organisations, such as the British Film Institute, havedevised teaching resources to encourage this evaluative process, which would no doubt be aneffective tool in promoting an inclusive classroom, school and community atmosphere.

Discussion and Further Research

Global research clearly indicates that people with disabilities have been presented in distinct, pigeon-holed categories in film and television since the medias inception, and that very few of thesestereotypes are of a positive nature. However, given the growth of critical analysis relating to disabilityportrayal in film and television over the past two decades, this is starting to change. Additionally, thisgrowing awareness of misrepresentation has allowed for educators to counter media fallacies through

the use of deconstruction as well as providing students with more positive and realistic examples ofdisability portrayal in film and television. So although these depictions may act as a barrier to


5/6

inclusion, there are ways to counter these effects. In terms of further research, this area isdesperately in need of both quantitative and qualitative examinations of disability in film and televisionin an Australian context. Despite a high proportion of Australian film and television content beingsourced from overseas, it would be interesting to see if the cultural nuances that are so revered inAustraliasuch as the fair go and the concept of the classless society are reflected on thenations big and small screens, and how the population responds to these images.

REFERENCES

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Arts and culture in Australia: A statistical overview (2nd ed.).Retrieved 25th May, 2009, fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/39433889d406eeb9ca2570610019e9a5/0cd49bfd994827d9ca2574520010a476!OpenDocument Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Survey of Disability,Ageing and Carers. Retrieved 25th May, 2009, fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4430.0 .

Australian Government Attorney-Generals Department. (2005). Disability Standards for Education.Retrieved on 25th May, 2009 fromhttp://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/forms_guidelines/disability_standards_for_education.htm Barnes, C. (1992). Disabling imagery and the media: An exploration ofthe principles for media representations of disabled people. Halifax: Ryburn Publishing.

Black, R. S. (2004). Feature films: Public perception of disability. In C. A. Bowman and P. T. Jaeger(Eds.), A Guide to High School Success for Students with Disabilities (pp. 36-41).

Bogdan, R. (1988). Freak show: Presenting human oddities for amusement and profit. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, D.(1977). Handicapism. Social Policy , 15, 537-550.

Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1988). Toward a sociology of acceptance: The other side of humandeviance. Social Policy, 13, 32-35.

British Film Institute. Disabling imagery? A teaching guide to disability and moving image media.Retrieved 25th May, 2009, from http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/disability/

British Standards Council. (n.d.). Television representations. Retrieved 25th May, 2009, fromhttp://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/disability/treatment/tv/

Byrd, E. K. (1989). A study of specific characteristics of characters with disability in film. Journal ofRehabilitation Counselling, 20, 43-45.

Byrd, E. K., & Elliot,T. R. (1985). Feature film and disability: A descriptive study. RehabilitationPsychology, 30, 47-51.

Byrd, E. K., & Elliot, T. R. (1988). Disability in full-length films: Frequency and quality of films over an11 year span. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 11, 143-148.

Byrd, E. K. , & Pipes, R. B. (1981). Feature films and disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 47, 51-53.

Cumberland, G. & Negrine, R. (1992). Images of disability on television. New York: Routledge.

Eichinger, J., Rizzo, T. L., & Sirotnik, B. W. (1992). Attributes related to attitudes toward people withdisabilities. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 15, 53-56.


6/6

Entman, R. M. (1989). How the media affect what people think: An information processing approach.The Journal of Politics, 51(2), 347-370.

Ferri, B.A., Connor, D. J., Solis, S., Valle, J., & Volpitta, D. (2005). Teachers with LD: Ongoingnegotiations with discourses of disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 62-78.

Hall, H., & Minnes, P. (1999). Attitudes towards persons with Down Syndrome: The impact oftelevision. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11(1), 61-76.

Harnett, A. (2000). Escaping the evil avenger and the supercrip: Images of disability in populartelevision. Irish Communications Review, 8, 21-29.

Lau, R. R., and R. Erber. 1985. An Information Processing Approach to Political Sophistication. In S.Kraus and R. Perloff, eds., Mass Media and Political Thought. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lawson, A., & Fouts, G. (2004). Mental illness in Disney animated films. Canadian Journal ofPsychology, 49, 310-314.

Nelson, J. A. (1994). Broken images: Portrayal of those with disabilities in American media. In J. A.Nelson (Ed.) The disabled, the media, and the information age (pp. 1-17). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Nordern, M. F. (1994). The cinema of isolation: A history of physical disability in the movies. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Safran, S. P. (1998a). The first century of disability portrayal in film: An analysis of the literature. TheJournal of Special Education, 31(4), 467 -478.

Safran, S. P. (1998b). Disability portrayal in film: Reflecting the past, directing the future. ExceptionalChildren, 64(2), 227-238.

Safran, S. P. (2001). Movie images of disability and war: Framing history and political ideology.Remedial and Special Education, 22, 223-232.

Shapiro, J. P. (1994). No pity. New York: Random House. Susman, J. (1994). Disability, stigma anddeviance. Social Science and Medicine, 38, 15-22.

Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitudes and attitude change. John Wiley, New York.

Wahl, O. F., & Yonatan Lefkowits, J. (1989). Impact of television film on attitudes towards mentalillness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17(4), 521-528.

disability portrayal in film and television

Documents