I went to see Wonder Woman this afternoon. I really enjoyed it – loved Diana’s strength, resilience, no bullshit attitude and her belief in love. The costumes were amazing.
But you know what saddened me? That the villain – Dr Poison – had a facial difference. Jason mentioned it to me when we recorded our podcast on Friday, so I was prepared.
(Spoiler: she took the covering off to reveal a scarred face. I searched for a long time to find a picture of Dr Poison without the partial mask, but had no luck.)
There was no backstory about why she had a facial difference. She was evil, intent on killing people using chemical warfare, and had a facial difference.
I am tired of the trope that beauty equals good and facial differences equal evil. Let’s face it, Diana was stunning – luminescent and loving – she wanted to save the world.
Slate recently featured an article questioning why movie villains have dermatological issues.
“But it illuminates several aesthetic similarities between evil characters, making a convincing case that skin conditions are used as shorthand for evil across film genres. Six of AFI’s top 10 villains would get clinical dermatological diagnoses, the authors contend, compared to none of the top 10 heroes. Three of the villains (Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, and Mr. Potter of It’s a Wonderful Life) have alopecia; three have dark eye sockets, or “periorbital hyperpigmentation” (Vader, The Exorcist’s Regan MacNeil, and Snow White’s Queen); deep rhytides (wrinkles), facial scarring, and warts claim two villains each; and one top villain, the Queen, also has rhinophyma, a bulbous, ruddy nose with enlarged pores.”
I recently wrote about the issues with facial difference in Beauty and the Beast. “But it’s just a movie, stop ruining the childhood magic, people cried! Oh yes they did!
But when I raised the issue of Dr Poison on Facebook and Instagram, there wasn’t the same outcry. People are thinking more broadly – because of exposure and discussion about facial difference. When people tell me they are thinking about representation more because of my work, it makes me happy.
I hope You Can’t Ask That has helped, too.
Since You Can’t Ask That, I’ve seen a lot of Ellen – one of the participants with a facial difference. Our friendship is cemented by the experiences of stares and being othered, and also our love of fashion. We’ve ben recognised in the street, and it’s such a thrill. People’s responses have been so positive – they aren’t frightened at all.
A character like Dr Poison, with evil depicted with a facial difference, is the reason a child hides behind their parents when they see me. A character like Two Face is why the cleaner was scared of my face and left. A character like Freddy Kruger is the reason Ellen and I were sent violent tweets on Friday. People dress up as Scary Face for Halloween, and that’s supposedly just for a laugh.
In my lifetime I want to see a character with a facial difference be someone who puts people at ease, not instills fear. I want to see a person with a facial difference save the world, not destroy it.
Representation matters.
If we’re going to talk about how empowering Wonder Woman was, why can’t we have a character with a facial difference that is empowering too?
Here is a list of role models with facial differences.
You need to know them.
We might not see them on the big screen, but know that the good they do triumphs any evil represented in films like Wonder Woman.
You need to know them.
Update: my friend Melissa talked about the issue of facial difference as evil in her Silver Screen Queens podcast – she said it was because I’ve taught her to notice it. Listen here.
There is is also a much more comprehensive piece on Geeky Gimp about facial difference and wider disability representation in the movie. Read that here.
Has this piece of writing helped you or made you think? Will you use it in your workplace or classroom? Please consider buying me a drink to show your appreciation.
Yes! I have noticed this ugliness in comic based movies, and comics themselves, before. Just because someone has an acquired facial injury, or born with facial abnormalities, doesn’t mean they are, or would turn, evil incarnate.
It’s a sad indictment by Authors and Scriptwriters that this is done over and over
I was talking about Dr. Poison with some folks on twitter. I can’t remember who said it but someone interviewed about/reviewing the film said that Wonder Woman spares Dr. Poison because she recognises that Dr. Poison represents “humanity’s flaws”. So essentially the writing team were too lazy to figure out a way to write a character who was flawed as a human being; they used facial difference as a cheap signifier for “the evil that men do”.
It’s also used to make Dr. Poison an object of pity, which in turn makes Wonder Woman’s compassion all the more commendable in the opinion of the audience. Wonder Woman thereby achieves true Goddess status; she is given the power of life and death and chooses to be merciful towards the “piteous creature”, which endears her to the audience even more; she’s not just a force for destruction, or a perfect, unreachable object of worship; the Goddess gets to show her human side by allowing Dr. Poison, the Imperfect Heroine, to remain alive. It’s a shame that Dr. Poison seems little more than an “ugly friend”/Disabled Villain trope plonked into the script to confirm Wonder Woman’s humanity while Dr. Poison’s humanity is erased to make her a cardboard cutout “baddie”.
I did not even pick up on this in WW, I thought she’s had an accident in the lab. I read your article though and villains with scarring or metal teeth or the monk in The Da Vinci code sprang so easily to mind I thought, ‘ how the heck have I not noticed this before?’ thanks for your list, I’ll look in to that.
when you can’t visually see what somebody looks like, it’s easy for there to be no judgements for me, I’m never much concerned about looks it’s about personality we are all human and if looks are of no consequenc we take people as they are in other words if somebody’s nice to us we return the favour and be nice back
And someone else who is really cool and has a facial difference is Dawn Shaw of Facing up to it fame:
http://www.facinguptoit.com/about/
who I discovered in 2013/14.
I’m Bob Blakey, a Calgary-based film and television producer – president of Chinook Productions.
I am excited to be here today, to share our work – groundbreaking work –in television. Today, I’d like to introduce you to “That’s me!” – a made for television movie about resilience, strength, and laughter.
Yes, it’s a feel-good movie.
Yes, it’s triumph over adversity.
Yes, it’s a true story.
Today, I’d also like to highlight some issues about this rarely-talked-about subject and this audience segment. And finally, today, I will ask you to consider these topics in your programming.
That’s Me! opens with a five year old girl dipping her toes in the water from the side of the pool. Several children in the pool paddle by, eyes wide. A close-up reveals a child whose face is distorted by an egg-sized water blister on her left cheek.
We are carried immediately into the daily routine of meeting the world with a spoiled identity. The little girl, our main character was born with a facial cleft. The water blister is a tissue expander, an intervention that gets worse before it gets better.
That’s Me! examines the social and psychological resilience of a little girl born with a disfigured face. The movie confronts our ideals of beauty, questions our skin-deep judgments, and ultimately, builds bridges toward empathy and acceptance.
We were fortunate to work with Nancy Burson, whose stunning photography provides an intimate portrait without intruding. We feel an affinity for the main character which transcends the visual and moves us into the affable, the visceral, the emotional, and the laughable. Few films offer this kind of portrayal of a person with a facial difference.
Facial difference. What does that mean?
Well, the answer is partly in your hands. I’ll come back to that.
In North America, a facial deformity is the fourth most common birth defect affecting 1 in 600 babies. Thousands more acquire facial differences through trauma or disease. Despite being a highly visible minority, these people are nearly invisible within the media – including television. And when they are portrayed, it promotes a terrible stereotype.
Throughout our cinematic history, evil characters were typically given some form of disfigured face to signify their evil-ness. The premise was clear. A spoiled identity equals a rotten soul.
That’s Me! challenges this premise of cinematic story-telling by turning the lens on the most innocent of souls — a child. But one with a spoiled identity — a face that constantly needs to be explained to the rest of the world
While we were making this film, I looked around generally at how people with disabilities are portrayed, and I looked closely for persons with facial differences.
Most of the programs about disfigured people on television are linked to medical treatments. Certainly, we’ve all seen the Operation Smile segments and the remarkable surgical reconstruction stories on TLC.
But few programs include cast members with obvious facial differences. Nor does any of the advertising coming at us from any of our commercial sponsors.
The invisibility of children with facial deformities – facial differences – on television, in movies and media affects our kids, and their classmates. They’re strongly influenced by what they see about their peer group in the media, and the exclusion of those with a facial deformity or other visible difference creates more challenges for our youth than the disability itself.
To be fair, there are a few actors with clefts, and have been a few actors with other facial differences – think Marty Feldman who had Crouzon’s Syndrome.
And we are seeing more programming including various other disabilities. These shows and their treatment of characters with differences — they’re starting to change assumptions, to change the way we think.
Remember I said the answer is partly in your hands?
Rear Adm. Alan S. Steinman, the highest-ranking member of the military to come out as gay, recently told MSNBC that he felt that gay characters in television and film have helped to foster acceptance, and ultimately led to the repeal of discriminatory policies.
We, in television, and the greater media have a responsibility to present authentic, nuanced portrayals that add not only to the rich, diverse fabric of our culture, but also create a greater understanding about the society in which we live.
We look to our stages and screens not just for entertainment, but to hold a mirror up to society. Our industry has a responsibility to its artists and the viewing public to accurately reflect what we see on our streets and in our communities.
Looking just at the numbers, the business case makes sense, too.
Disabilities cross all backgrounds and social classes. People with disabilities make up nearly 41 % of the population, according to some estimates. That’s a huge audience segment. And we need a deep understanding of all our audiences to help us reflect that diversity accurately and authentically through our programming.
We, in this television industry – this visual industry – we have the power of profound influence. The power to change how society sees different and disabled people.
I ask you simply to consider your power, your intent and your obligation to all your audiences.
Let me leave you with something to think about.
The title of the movie reflects a simple observation about our identities. Next time you’re looking over old photos, check it out for yourself. When we see our picture, we might say that’s my hand, or that’s my shoulder. But when we identify our faces, we almost always say That’s me.
Our faces are ourselves.
Thank you and good evening.