If you, like me, have been watching the second season of Euphoria, then you’ll know what it means to feel stressed. The opening episode alone featured a girl hanging her head out the window of a truck while the boy driving hit up to 90 mph, and later that same girl hid in a bathtub to avoid being caught having an affair (that second one was tenser than it sounds, I promise!). The premiere ended on a distinctly violent note, too, in which the show’s villain, if one can talk about Euphoria in such binary terms, was beaten to a pulp by the local drug dealer. Yet none of that compares to episode five, in which Rue (played exquisitely by Zendaya) goes on the run after refusing rehab, and, honestly, it’s still too soon to talk about it even two weeks later. But, in all the chaos, the show is often funny. A scene in a recent episode in which a large number of the female cast discuss the musical Oklahoma! in the school bathroom is a brilliant piece of comic writing. 

Amongst all this tension and humour, though, the show has consistently been a lightning rod for discussion by those who say they get the show and those who don’t. Its first season was measured by how many dicks were on screen (was it 30 or 80?), and it was dogged by a moralistic discussion of how much sex was too much. Was it appropriate to show teen characters, albeit those being played by adults, taking drugs and having sex? This was mixed up in the endless debate surrounding whether shows like Euphoria glamorise sex and drug use or condemn them, as if each piece of art needs to have a clear moral position on every issue it chooses to engage with. 

The show’s second season, currently airing on Now TV in the UK, has been chiefly used as a litmus test for coolness. If you say you don’t understand the show, you’re old and out of touch (either that or you admit to your own “uncool” teenage years). Moreover, people have questioned whether the show is any good when you peel back its shocking parts. Recently, various writers have levelled accusations of valuing style over substance, with Dazed calling the show a walking meme and The Guardian proclaiming season two contains “far too much nudity, sex and violence.” Still, the show has repeatedly dominated online conversation each week and has seen its viewing figures double since it premiered in 2019. Clearly, something appeals to people, and surely that can’t all be smoke and mirrors? 

I have found, perhaps surprisingly given its success, that the show’s second season reminds me of  John Cassavetes’ deeply depressing 1974 independent masterpiece about a woman’s declining mental state, A Woman Under the Influence. Not in its style – Cassavetes always favoured realism, and his films are brutal in their commitment to the grimness of reality – but in its central performance. It is certainly not light praise to compare Zendaya’s turn as Rue Bennett, a teenage drug addict, to that of Gena Rowland’s as Mabel, the latter a performance which crops up often in discussions of the greatest ever captured on film. Yet there is something to be said for the sheer panic of them; the way both actresses relinquish themselves totally to their respective roles.

Watching the first ten minutes of episode five, when Rue discovers her mother has flushed her stash, I saw shades of the scene in which Mabel’s family try to convince her to go to the hospital. Mabel’s demeanour moves from fear to denial to anger. When the doctor shows up, she makes nervous jokes, becoming increasingly uneasy as the inevitable dawns on her.  It is a heart-breaking scene, one that feels painful to watch—much like those opening ten minutes of episode five were, with Rue spiralling between severe anger, terror, and regret. 

A Woman Under the Influence was initially written as a play, but Rowlands told her husband, Cassavetes, she could not do the role eight times a week. It would be too demanding and too draining. Her performance earned her an Oscar nomination although, shockingly, she did not win, a decision that looks even more bizarre in hindsight. Zendaya has already won an Emmy for her role on Euphoria, and rightly so, but just as Rowlands found the idea of performing as Mabel, again and again, to be impossible, it’s a wonder Zendaya is able to manage the long shoots the show demands. Even the actress herself took to social media before season two started and told fans that it would not be an easy ride. Of course, the vehicle is different. A Woman Under the Influence was made with very little money, with Cassavetes literally stealing electricity and casting his own family in most of the roles. By contrast, Euphoria is a buzzy and expensive show funded by HBO. It routinely employs complex camera tricks, dream sequences, and complex deconstructions of its artifice, but the whole show feels rooted around Zendaya. Like Rowlands before her, Zendaya is carrying the weight of something on her back. Still, both actresses handle it with total grace and leave their audience in awe. I find myself, each week, texting my friends with the same simple worlds: Zendaya really is the best actress of her generation.

Also Read: Did High-End TV Replace The Mid-Budget Indie Film?

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post How Film Changed Me: On Euphoria appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Big population, a small representation

Better representation of disability on screen isn’t only incredibly important for diversity and originality but it also gives actors with disabilities more opportunities. Despite there being 13.9 million people in the UK with some type of disability (the current population is 66 million), eight in 10 disabled people say they do not feel well represented in the media so there’s clearly something wrong when it comes to disability representation.

It becomes even more clear when you put statistics next to it. In 2016, only 2.7 percent of characters in the 100 highest-earning movies had a disability. Last year only 2.1% of the characters in primetime TV series were disabled. It’s not only the numbers that need to change but also the way disability is being represented on screen. Disabled people in media always come with stereotypical roles such as being the object of pity, victims of violence or the evil person.

A long fight that’s still not fought yet

The battle to see disability better represented on screen is being a hard one but luckily many art institutes don’t give up on it. One of the most important ones is the casting studio VisABLE, which helps to create professional opportunities for actors, presenters and models with disabilities for over more than 20 years. Their highly skilled professionals were already part of television series and films such as Doctors, Casualty and Holmes and Watson. Some of the films might even appear on the ‘Disabled Britain on Film‘, a part of the online BFI Player. Thanks to this initiative, you can watch many films for free that are about the on-screen representation of disabled people over the past decades.

Another big institute supporting the representation is the BBC. Last year, they pledged to include more actors and entertainers in their television programs such as shows, documentaries, and dramas. This might have been the outcome of the angriness they caused in 2018 when they cast Charlie Heaton (a non-disabled actor) in the role of Elephant Man. If the new pledge of BBC is coming off the ground, it would be a massive step in the right direction. Hopefully, many important broadcasters will pledge the same.

104 Films production company is an example of a film production company leading the way, as they’re hoping to create a shift in the representation of disability both on-screen and off. Many production companies should follow their example without a doubt.

Film festivals such as ‘Together! Disability Film Festival‘ in London the ‘Oska Bright film festival‘ in Brighton also don’t stay behind when it comes to wanting to represent more disability on screen. The films that are part of the festivals are made by deaf/disabled filmmakers and feature a strong central deaf/disabled character.

Casting the right people is key

Whether we want to admit or not, there’s whitewashing going on in film. Think about the backlash casting decision such as Kiernan Shipka in The Silence or Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club. The comments about that last example were about the fact Leto portrayed every stereotype of a transgender woman and that the portrayal was wrong on so many levels. So tell us, why do we still allow non-disabled people to portray disabled characters if that indeed also results in stereotypes on screen? That casting disabled people can turn a gorgeous film into an even more beautiful and important one became clear over the last few years. Think of the Oscar-winning short film The Silent Child. If a film like that, with a relatively small budget, can hire disabled people and making them feel at ease, then why can’t big blockbusters?

Old problem, new mindset

How can we start to solve this old problem? According to reelhoney.com, one of the measurements that a production company can take is to make auditions much more accessible and to meet the access requirements. It would literally make the threshold lower for disabled people to start in the film and television industry. A few years ago, actress Sarah Gordy (Call The Midwife), who has Down syndrome, mentioned that directors and producers didn’t think she would be able to play a part because of her learning disability. However, after giving her a chance, she was able to prove them wrong in the best way possible. Another measurement is probably the best and probably also the easiest one production companies, producers and directors can take: Just give people with disabilities a chance!

Also Read: When Great Video Games Become Lacklustre Movies

The post Eight in 10 people In The UK with A Disability Don’t Feel Represented In The Media appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.