In dropping independent documentary The Last American Freak Show from its scheduled place at a BAFTA sponsored event, Head of Events Corinna Downing argued that it was too challenging for her members. She suggested that replacing it with Lars And The Real Girl, whose hero has mental health problems, would demonstrate that her organisation is committed to promoting disability issues. But Lars And The Real Girl, for all the praise it has garnered, is essentially a lightweight look at a serious subject, and what's more, it was made by people who are not disabled themselves. Whilst films like this undoubtedly have a positive influence, there is a serious problem when the voices of disabled people themselves are considered too challenging to be heard.
One of the aims of BAFTA is supposed to be to celebrate artistic excellence in British film, and the very nature of art is to be challenging. As a disabled writer I am often asked to comment on disability issues in film. I am happy to note that, over the past few decades, the general trend has been toward more positive representations of assorted problems, with disabled people gradually emerging as fully-fledged characters in fiction rather than mere plot devices for stories centred on able-bodied protagonists. However, there is still a long way to go, and we are still vastly under-represented in comparison to our numbers within society. What's more, disability issues in film are generally presented in a carefully sanitised manner which may elicit more public sympathy but which is scarcely representative of real life experiences. Popular narratives like the tragic victim gradually fading and the plucky hero overcoming adversity do little to convey what it's really like to live with a disability or, for that matter, to demonstrate that disabled people have lives which go beyond their experiences of impairment.
The heroes of The Last American Freak Show are a group of disabled people - including 'The Half Woman' and 'Lobster Boy and Lobster Girl' - who make their living as performers and who go on tour together to confront audiences with their different bodies. These are people who have reclaimed their identities within the tradition of Burlesque theatre, who expect to shock but who are positive about their appearances, preferring to deal with it all honestly on stage rather than hide away in real life or have to deal with being stared at in the street. The film was directed by Englishman Richard Butchins, who is partially paralysed as a result of childhood polio. He chose to become involved with it because he was intrigued by his subjects' chosen form of expression.
“She appears to be making a judgment on behalf of BAFTA members because she feels uncomfortable with The Last American Freak Show when she should be taking us as a guideline," said event director Peter Kincaid of Downing's decision. “It is an important film because it illustrates how disabled artists are claiming their identity in a more assertive way that can be uncomfortable for some people in the non-disabled world.”
Making people uncomfortable is also a proud aspect of artistic tradition, at least when it's a step on the way to making people think. But Downing has not only called the film "too explicit", she's argued that it "raises too many questions". What are BAFTA members to take from this? Are we to understand that they're not smart enough to deal with such questions? Butchins' film tackles some very real issues which disabled people have to deal with every day of their lives. Isn't this something which British film should be proud to do? Or should we restrict ourselves to making light entertainment and leave the hard stuff for the sophisticates in continental Europe?
BAFTA's decision raises issues not only for disabled people but for everyone with an interest in cutting edge film. Cinema is about giving us the opportunity to see through other people's eyes, to experience other people's lives, so it is shameful that here, of all places, we should consider certain people's lives unfit for exploration.
