4. The implications of having a non-disabled actor play the character of Auggie in Wonder reflects what Henley and Rattray explain as a form of exclusion and misrepresentation in disability narratives. Henley states, “. . .casting a non-disfigured child for this role represents. . . .every time someone with a disfigurement has been passed up for a promotion, not hired for a job, because of their appearance.” This gives us the real-life tie of this not just being a movie casting issue but a worldwide issue of a disfigured individual being passed up based on appearance only. This shows us how the character in Wonder is excluding those with a real disability for the job as well as not having true representation in the film. Rattay also states how non-disabled rarely understand how disability works, and their portrayal is stereotypical causing devastating consequences for real disabled people (2). This statement shows how mentally hurting the audiences by providing the wrong message to able-bodied people and misrepresentation for the disabled people is detrimental. This effects societies views and opinions due to media being most of the influence society is exposed to, putting disability in a dark place.

Wonder shows inspirational or overcoming narratives as discussed by Peaty, Alice, & Ellis; Henley; and Young because the movie makes Auggies appearance as an experience for those around him to see disability as an emotive mechanism compared to treating him like any other human being.

Throughout Ariel Henley’s article she fights for Auggie as the film presents him as “a prop to teach those around him about acceptance and compassion.” This is an example of what scholars describe inspiration porn: a character being known as inspirational because they overcome a challenge. As the movie progresses, we see the hardships that Auggie faces especially bullying as a challenge for him to overcome which leads the audience to feel empathetic. Henley explains “the mere existence of individuals with facial disfigurements or differences is not inspirational. We are so much more than the props we’ve been turned into.” The movie centers Auggie’s persistence as a story of victory instead of a depiction of social barriers that construct exclusion.

Henley additionally points out that the actor who played Auggie was non-disabled, and they used prosthetics instead of choosing a child with an actual condition. This proves what author Rattray calls “disabled mimicry,” where non-disabled actors make use of disability to obtain admiration, while disabled actors are not included. Bryan Cranston guarded his cast in The Upside by saying that there were no famous disabled actors. As author Rattray states, “the only people who gain from disabled mimicry are non-disabled people,” since non-disabled actors get special honor while disabled people “lose every single time.”  

4. What are the implications of having a non-disabled actor play the character of Auggie? Refer to the Henley and/or Rattray readings. 

The implications of having a non-disabled actor play the character of Auggie are outlined in the articles wrote by Ariel Henley and Jay Tee Rattray. Henley describes that choosing a non-disabled actor without any facial differences is harmful because it tells the audience that the films are being made about them not by them. Author Ariel Henley writes how she is devastated that the authors would rather have a healthy normal looking child that has a bunch of makeup and prosthetic compared to someone who looked like them. This shows how the media excludes those with disabilities represent themselves and their own stories. Henley tells us that these choices demonstrate her same exclusion that she and many people have everyday especially when they are “passed up for a promotion, or not hired for a job, because of their appearance.” Hollywood is one example of marginalizing people with differences.Rattray states that nondisabled people “rarely understand how disability works. So their portrayal is stereotypical and without nuance.” Wonder shows that he is depicted for inspiration rather than his experience of life. As Henley says, Auggie becomes “a prop to teach those around him about acceptance and compassion,” which shows that is identity is shown as inspirational rather than showing him growing up and getting the experiences that every other child his age gets.

In the film Wonder, the character of Auggie, who has a facial difference is played by a non-disabled actor. While the film attempts to promote empathy and understanding, this casting decision carries serious implications when explained by Henly and Rattray. Both highlight the problems with non-disabled actors portraying disabled characters, pointing to issues of authenticity, representation, and power of the media due to the stereotypes.  

One implication is authenticity of representation. How can one truly understand what it feels like to have a disability if they are not disabled? Rattray describes this practice as “disabled mimicry”, where non-disabled actors imitate disability through makeup, prosthetics, or performance. In Wonder, Auggie’s facial difference is created by a makeup artist  that the actor can remove at the end of filming. This is showing that disability is something that can be turned off and on, something that can be fixed. Non-disablied actors are following the stereotypes that everyone is known to. Instead of doing their homework or just hiring someone with this disabled it feeds into the stereotypes that disabled people don’t want to be put in. This implication is that disability is something external that can be fixed, that it’s a problem with a solution. 

Secondly, the casting has implications for opportunity and for their audience understanding. As Henley explains, representation matters because it affects how marginalized groups are understood in society. By not casting a disabled actor, the film denies someone with lived experience the chance to represent their own community. This casting is part of a larger pattern in Hollywood movies, where disabled actors are often overlooked even for roles specifically written for them, which is sad. Disabled actors can show more of an understanding because they are living it, instead non-disabled actors are revising it into stereotypes that are already known.  The implication is that non-disabled perspectives are considered more valuable, leaving disabled people silence in their own stories about themselves. 

Finally, this choice reinforces harmful stereotypes and tropes. Disabled characters played by non-disabled actors often become symbols of "inspiration" for non-disabled audiences, such as the solution for disability. For example, death, mental institutions, a non-disabled persons' help, and more.  In wonder, Auggie’s role is to teach others lessons about kindness and acceptance. While this message may seem positive, it risks Auggie's character into a stereotype lesson rather than portraying him as a main character with his own life. The implication here is that disability exists to make non-disabled viewers feel moved, rather than to reflect authentic disabled experiences. 

Casting a non-disabled actor as Auggie in Wonder carries deep implications, it undermines authenticity, excludes disabled actors from opportunities, reinforces ableist tropes, and privileges non-disabled performers with recognition and power. As Henly and Rattray argue, authentic representation matters not only for fairness in casting but also for shaping cultural understanding of disability. When disabled people are not allowed to represent themselves, the media fails to challenge stereotypes and instead continues to privilege non-disabled voices over lived experience. 

In what ways is Winder similar to the Elephant Man (a different story about a person with a facial/bodily difference)? In what ways is it distinct? How do both films misrepresent facial differences, as discussed by Rattray? 

Both Wonder and The Elephant Man tell stories about characters with an appearance difference, and they share some key similarities. In both films, the character’s difference is the central focus of the narrative, and much of the plot revolves around how others react to their appearance. Both also fall into the “inspiration” narrative that Rattray argues about, where the disabled character exists largely to teach non-disabled people lessons about compassion, morality, or even humanity. In wonder, Auggie's difference inspires those around him to be kinder, while in The Elephant Man, John's story becomes a move for others to reflect on their own humanity. In both cases, the audience is encouraged to feel moved by the suffering and dignity of the character, which risks reducing them to someone symbolic rather than fully developed individuals. 

At the same time, the films are distinct in tone and emphasis. The Elephant Man is framed as a tragic story, while Wonder is framed as a happy story. John's life is defined by suffering, pity, and the cruelty of society, giving us the idea that being different is considered being a monster, while Auggie is shown as a child with agency, friendships and a family who loves him. While this seems more positive, the film still places much of its weight into the stereotypes that are already portrayed in society, also his difference affects others rather than making it about him. 

Rattray argues that both films misrepresent facial differences in key ways. In each case, non-disabled actors play the characters, relying on prosthetics and performance to imitate the difference, which is an example of “disabled mimicry”. It shows disability is only a costume rather than presenting it as a lived reality. The films sensationalize it- through tragedy in The Elephant Man and through inspiration uplift in Wonder. The implication is that people with facial differences are either objects of pity or inspiration, but never simply ordinary individuals.. 

4. There are many implications to having non-disabled people playing roles in movies where they portray disabled. The obvious would be misrepresentation, they can do as much research that they want but nobody with a disability is the same. Even if it is two people with the same disability. Now I can understand a counter point: how can they find a disabled person who is willing and wanting to do a film to showcase their disability. But there are 8.1 billion people in the world. According to UNDRR 16% of that 8.1 billion are diagnosed with a disability. Can they not find a single person who would be willing to do a film that has the disability? Or is it the directors do not want to do the extra work, because it is unusual. But just like the article And The Winner Is… Disabled Mimicry they used to not allow women in the theater. But like it said on page 2 “But would we really sit through a film where a man played Queen Anne?” This is where society is bringing us, yes right now it is considered ‘normal’ to have able bodied people play disabled roles. But hopefully in the future it changes because it is making people devastated. Wonder is a real-life experience that the author R.J encountered. In the article by Ariel Henley it had a quote stating "It was devastating to realize that the directors involved with Wonder would rather cast a healthy, 'normal' looking child and put him in makeup and prosthetics, rather than cast someone who looked like me." If this method of casting does not change then people are going to start avoiding watching these films, and that will cause misrepresentation to get worse.

                  According to Stella Young and Peaty, Alice, and Ellis, inspiration porn is a type of representation of disabilities that is to motivate non-disabled people (p. 393). An example of this is, “… inspiration porn offers is that these images reinforce disability stereotypes and exploit people with disability for the advantage of people without disability” (p.393). Building upon this, the motivation is for non-disabled people only. So, this type of representation defines inspiration porn. Another example in the text describes the cultural imagery that is the result of inspiration porn: “Yet the dominance of inspiration porn in cultural imagery suggests little alternative, and so it becomes difficult to imagine people with disability as anything other than inspirational” (p. 394 – 395). This example shows that this type of representation gets rid of the disabled people’s complex personality in order to inspire people. Some examples of inspiration porn can be found in movies like Wonder where, “Auggie is used as a prop to teach those around him about acceptance and compassion,” according to teenvogue article, What “Wonder” Gets Wrong About Disfigurement and Craniofacial (p. 5). Inspiration porn can also be found in advertising. Peaty, Alice, and Ellis referenced that inspiration porn is used by brands like Nike or Target where they feature disabled models in “a inspirational” the ads also typically have music or text that makes us feel good (p. 395).

Prompt 2: In what ways is Wonder similar to The Elephant Man (a different story about a person with a facial/bodily difference)? In what ways is it distinct? How do both films misrepresent             facial differences, as discussed by Rattray?

                   In both Wonder and The Elephant Man the main characters both had Craniofacial disfigurement. They were not played by an actor with this disability. Both movies had inspiration porn. The movie made it seem like Auggie and John living their daily lives was inspirational. It should not be considered impressive that someone with a disability can lead a normal life. They have feelings and challenges just like non-disabled people do.

In Wonder people in the school and community were not accepting of Auggie at first but then grew to love him. In The Elephant Man people treated John Merrick very poorly throughout the entire movie. They found him gross. The only people who were understanding and kind to Merrick were the doctor and the women. The doctor helped him communicate more and in the end, he had a bouquet to show off John Merrick to help people better understand him as a person. This actually helped.

Overall, I strongly agree with many of Jay Tee Rattray’s points in his article And The Winner Is … Disabled Mimicry. I believe both movies would have been more inspirational if the actors were both people with Craniofacial deformities. By using actors who are not disabled it doesn’t really allow people to understand how the disability works. He indicates “most of the audience is as clueless as the actor or their director, so not only is a terrible performance not criticised it is often lauded and rewarded” And The Winner Is … Disabled Mimicry (p.2). I think if directors looked hard, they could differently people with disabilities to fill roles in films about people with disabilities

Inspiration porn is when a character with a disability is shown mainly to motivate others instead of being more seen. Inspiration porn is mostly portrayed in films, for example, the non-disabled characters are usually the ones who grow or benefit, while the disabled character is reduced to their condition or made into a side character. Stella Young, in her TED Talk, also describes inspiration porn as objectifying disabled people for the benefit of non-disabled people. She explains that having a disability does not automatically make someone special or “exceptional.” Everyone is just living their own life and doing the best they can, so treating disabled people as inspiring just for existing is unfair. This view often makes non-disabled people feel good about themselves while ignoring the person with the disability. Additionally, Peaty, Alice, and Ellis (2023) also define inspiration porn as a “concept that describes the representation of people with disability as inspirational with the purpose of motivating or inspiring non-disabled people” (p.393). These authors also discuss how inspiration porn is not just seen in films like “Radio” or television shows, but also in advertising. For example, ads that show a “tragedy to triumph” theme often use disability to make others feel hopeful. While these may seem positive, they actually reinforce stereotypes and limit how disabled people are seen (p. 395). This trope reduces disabled individuals as symbols for other people’s growth and are not just seen as human beings.

What are the implications of having a non-disabled actor play the character of Auggie? Refer to the Henley and/or Rattray readings. 

In many movies, non-disabled actors play disabled characters, and this causes many problems. Ariel Henley (2017) discusses the movie “Wonder” and explains why it is harmful to cast a non-disabled actor as Auggie, a boy with a facial disorder. Instead of hiring someone with a craniofacial condition (that is portrayed in the movie), the directors used heavy makeup and prosthetics (para. 4). This is upsetting because, as Henley points out, about 600,000 people in the United States live with craniofacial disorders (para. 5). It just seems unfair not to cast someone with genuine experience and to be truly represented on screen. Rattray (2019) also challenges the idea that hiring disabled actors is “too expensive” because of accommodations (para. 11). If directors believe correct representation costs too much, then maybe the movie should not be made at all. Choosing non-disabled actors takes away opportunities from disabled actors, who already have very few chances to be hired. Both Henley (2017) and Rattray (2019) point out that when non-disabled actors play disabled roles, disability gets treated like a performance or a way to boost an actor’s career (Henley, para. 11–12; Rattray, para. 14). Real representation is important, and it needs to be correct. Otherwise, these roles just end up spreading stereotypes instead of showing true experiences.

6. Peaty, Alice, & Ellis discuss devaluation as a key issue in inspiration porn and devaluation in this sense is described as something that is common (like going to school) turned into this big achievement just because said person is disabled (2023, p. 394). We see this devaluation when Auggie goes to school for the first time and his family makes it such a huge accomplishment for him, even though it is a common thing to do. Another one of the key issues with inspiration porn is objectification, and it is described as when a disabled person isn’t seen as an actual human being but an object (2023, p. 394), we see this in the film Wonder multiple times, like when Julian and his friends called Auggie an orc because of how he looks and when the seventh graders find Auggie and Jack in the woods they say “maybe its an orc” as a way to objectify him. We see the whole school on his first day kind of just stare and move away from Auggie like he was some disgusting “thing” they were afraid of but couldn’t stop looking at. In the comic written in the Washington Post it says “staring is an emotionally charged act of ableism that people do, often without realizing they are being ableist at all” (p. 8).

(3) Did freak shows truly end? No. In the article, Garland-Thompson talks about how as soon as the freak shows ended, the people who were involved in the freak show were sent to hospitals and institutions (Garland-Thompson, 2005). While they were hidden from society, they were then broadcasted on television for telethons. An event where those who threw them into these institutions, had the chance to better themselves by giving them pity and money. Because those are the two things that makes anything better. Anyways, we do still see telethons to this day, or things like it. However, it is more geared towards people who are sick. The modern-day freak show is the abuse and misuse of social media. There have been many amounts of accounts who use their child’s disability to make money off it. Social media influencers such as Joanne Marie Tew, or “autism_mom_life.” She has sparked wild controversy over sharing her son’s autism story, even exploiting his aggressive behaviors. I have even seen some social media influencers posting their child who has a physical disability getting ready, including getting dressed; showering; and showing mildly inappropriate and concerning content of these things. This leaves the children with little to no privacy. While these parents may say that these are for educational purposes only, there is no need to be posting their most vulnerable moments.

While from Garland-Thompson’s article, it seemed as if the freak shows were not as terrible as it may seem (audience-wise). Same could be said for the modern-day freak shows, social media. Social media influencers such as lewisempire6. This is a family social media account that features their daughter with autism. They like to show her positive, her love for things, and how their family functions. This does by not showing Preston’s (daughter with autism) vulnerable moments, not showing her getting dressed/bathing, and featuring how her family treats her. While I believe that no child should be exploited on social media, unless they are able to give correct consent, this is content that is used for more educational and fun purposes.

2.     What is an inspiration narrative, or "inspiration porn," as described by Stella Young and Peaty, Alice, & Ellis? Define it in your own words and provide examples. 

The inspiration narrative that I would like to describe is the misinterpretation. Misinterpretation as an inspiration narrative is when you take someone with a disability and you make this great, over-achieving person. It is saying that if a person with no legs can push through all their obstacles and climb Mount Everest, then so can everyone else. While yes there are people with disability who do want to approve everyday, whether it be mentally; physically; or just personally, it is not as realistic as the films make it. Some people with disability may not even have the motivation or want to improve every single day (Alice & Ellis, p. 395). And that is ok too, as humans, sometimes getting better is by doing nothing. This misinterpretation also misleads audiences into thinking that they can overcome their disability, that it is something with a “cure.” I think a great movie that shows the opposite of this inspiration is “Triumph.” Now, this movie is based off a true story and does feature the main actor as someone who does have cerebral palsy. It is a wreslting movie set in high school. The main character wants to join the wrestling team but was denied by his parents. He worked his butt off for it, he tried out and lost his first time. He kept pushing, lifting, going to physical therapy, eating more, etc. He wrestled off again for the starting spot and won. His goal was to win at least one match before he graduated. It was the last match of his career, he is wrestling this one guy from their rivalry team, he scores, other man scores, he scores again. Then at the end, he loses. While he it is inspiring to see someone work hard for their dreams, it is also nice to see that it does not always happen how you want it to be. That movie is inspirational but does not meet the misinterpretation of inspiration that other films have produced.

6.  Devaluation is referred to in movies for how disabled characters are praised for doing things that quote “normal people” do on a badly basis. The disabled are then seemingly downplayed as to not having a high ceiling for winning or accomplishing big things in life. What this means to me is that when people praise someone with a disability for doing something like taking care of themselves or not asking someone for help when doing things in public, it makes these people with disabilities seem like less. They are people just like the rest of the world and are capable of great things. If we assume it is a big deal for someone with a disability to do an everyday errand or just by taking care of themselves/providing for themselves, the impression given is that there is little thought that someone with a disability can amount to much nor can they achieve something significant or extravagant. A person with a disability does not need to be told they are doing great doing something normal just like someone without a disability also does not need to be told the same thing. Like the article explains, when someone without a disability is told they are doing amazing after going to the bathroom, they are left confused and even offended if they think they are being mocked. This goes hand in hand with people with disabilities, they are just as “normal” as we are. Individualism is described as the physical or mental disability as something to overcome rather than live with. Essentially, individualism is saying that the only issue in a person with a disabilities life is their disability. This discredits once again someone with a disability as being a normal person. Just because someone has a disability does not mean they don’t have other problems like not being as good at video games or not knowing how to talk to a crush they may have

5. Wonder and elephant man are similar by the ways they show peoples reaction to someone with a facial/body difference. People’s first reaction to seeing Auggie or The Elephant Man was to make a face, stare, or make fun of them. There were also a few people who looked past their conditions from the start and treated them well. Another way they were similar was by the way they tried to inspire people to treat everyone the same and change their outlook on people with disabilities. Peaty, Alice, and Ellis make a great point right at the start of the article saying, “When performed by people with disability, everyday tasks are often celebrated as heroic or even superhuman.” In both movies, the main character is praised for the things they are able to do that are normal to most people including them.  Both also used able-bodied actors to inaccurately tell these stories. There were distinct by how they were treated. Auggie was still treated like a kid that just looked different from everyone else. On the other hand, The Elephant Man was treated like a monster that needed to be hidden from the public. Wonder and The Elephant Man both misrepresented facial differences by casting able-bodied actors to portray the disabilities with prosthetics and makeup. Wonder partially represented the condition Auggie has while The Elephant Man made Joseph Merrick’s features more extreme than they actually were.

Peaty, Alice, and Ellis define inspiration porn as “the representation of people with disability as inspirational with the purpose of motivating or inspiring non-disabled people” (Peaty, Alice, & Ellis 2023, p. 393). Stella Young famously explained: “I use the term porn deliberately, because they objectify one group of people for the benefit of another group of people. So in this case, we’re objectifying disabled people for the benefit of nondisabled people” (Peaty, Alice, & Ellis 2023, p. 393). A key example is how memes circulate with captions like “‘the only disability in life is a bad attitude’, ‘your excuse is invalid’ and ‘before you quit, try’” alongside images of visibly disabled children or athletes (Peaty, Alice, & Ellis 2023, p. 394). As Young observes, these images exist “so that non-disabled people can look at us and think ‘well, it could be worse … I could be that person’” (Peaty, Alice, & Ellis 2023, p. 394). This dynamic highlights two problems. First, objectification: “In inspiration porn, people with impairment are not represented as disabled subjects, but as objects” (Peaty, Alice, & Ellis 2023, p. 394). Second, devaluation: “The achievements depicted in inspiration porn may be commonplace acts (e.g., walking on prosthetic legs). People with impairment are thus represented as having a smaller scope for achievement than is the case” (Peaty, Alice, & Ellis 2023, p. 394). Rather than empowering disabled people, these narratives comfort non disabled audiences by turning ordinary lives into motivational lessons. The Wonder film, for instance, risks falling into this trap by presenting Auggie’s story primarily as one that inspires others, rather than valuing his experiences on their own terms.

In the movies Wonder and The Elephant Man, there are similarities because both main characters have facial differences.  In The Elephant Man and in Wonder, it showed them as something scary and not as an equal part of their community.  There is a representation that prompts fear and more uncomfortable feelings. The article by Rattray makes the point that a lot of people think that to have people with disability in a film, they would need accommodation, but a film company says that it is to experience, yet they have money for a lot of big projects and other actors who are just as expensive. Rattray also points out that it gives non disabled peolpe roles where they can say they were challenged by the role as if it is something so intense to be disabled. The Elephant Man is older than the movie Wonder, which might be why it is even more polarising and lacks humanity in its depiction of disabled people. There could be more representation of facial differences that show people just existing instead of creating stories about overcoming disability. Most people just exist in their own lives, and that is a more responsible representation. 

3. “Given our country’s current social and political climate, I can only hope that going forward, Hollywood recognizes the fact that there has never been a better time to celebrate beauty and diversity in all of its forms” (Henley). There is no better way to start this off or describe the issue than this quote. Henley phrased it beautifully. There is no world where you are going to accurately portray a deformity through prosthetics and CGI. “Oh, but you can get the accurate look, the rest is called acting, they’re actors for a reason” I hear some annoying people in the back saying. This is true that you could theoretically make someone LOOK disabled for a story, but by not casting a disabled actor for the part being played you’re missing a very key detail, the accurate representation that comes from living with a disability. Your mentality about what you personally have been through and put into your performance the exact message that you need to get across at that moment. Only someone that lives with that specific disability can offer that authentic performance. Not only is there that issue of accurate representation, there is also an actual systemic issue being brought to light here, “It represents every time someone with a disfigurement has been passed up for a promotion, or not hired for a job, because of their appearance. It represents every time someone with fewer qualifications was chosen over someone like us, simply because of what we look like” (Henley). It is ridiculous to think that you can make a movie about the hardships of being disabled but then turn your back on hiring disabled actors thus contributing to those hardships you’re supposedly fighting against. It’s a fascinating case study in hypocrisy, well, the whole of Hollywood is that, but I digress. This choice for casting an able-bodied actor for Auggie shows a mentality that “well abled bodied people do it better, hell we’re even better at being disabled” and that’s a problematic way of thinking that only makes the problem worse.

As stated by Peaty, Alice, & Ellis, inspiration porn is the portrayal of disabled people as “inspirational” or “motivational” for the sake of inspiring or motivating non-disabled people (393). What makes this concept so problematic is the fact that it is being utilized as a tactic to objectify disability for non-disabled people’s benefit. This objectification is why the term “inspiration porn” was coined (393). The things that people with disabilities are often depicted doing are ordinary/common daily activities, and these activities are portrayed as “achievements,” thus shrinking the scope of what they’re deemed they can accomplish. It renders disabled people as lesser than those who live without a disability, like they should get a gold star simply for completing an average household task in a different way compared to someone who is able-bodied. If not already made obvious, this kind of disability representation is focused on what can be seen with the naked eye. Visible impairments and physically-related activities are the focus in inspiration narratives, often portraying their disability as a problem that needs to be overcome (394). In Stella Young’s words from her Ted Talk speech, she says, “I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve been approached by strangers wanting to tell me that they think I’m brave, or inspirational, and this was long before my work had any kind of public profile. They were just kind of congratulating me for managing to get up in the morning and remember my own name. And it is objectifying.” This example exemplifies the fact that disabled people have been placed on this mythical pedestal where they are seen as these shining beacons of hope for simply living their life like any other human being. The only difference is they may happen to appear differently to what might be considered a “normal” person.

Prompt #5: In what ways is Wonder similar to The Elephant Man (a different story about a person with a facial/bodily difference)? In what ways is it distinct? How do both films misrepresent facial differences, as discussed by Rattray?

The most significant similarity between Wonder and The Elephant Man are their own uses of the inspiration narrative. By the end of both films, Auggie and John Merrick both get standing ovations in a crowded auditorium (or theater) for simply existing and responding how they can to the world around them just like any other person. The only “inspirational” thing they did was inspire/motivate the non-disabled characters around them to become “better people,” progressing their own character arcs while the disabled characters function as these static objects for the plot. As for how Wonder is distinct to The Elephant Man, I do think that Wonder portrays Auggie as a much more independent and capable human being than how John Merrick is portrayed. Yes, Auggie only has a facial difference while John Merrick’s disability extends to his body, but John is portrayed as helpless even when he is deemed “capable” by the non-disabled characters around him. Auggie has a lot more agency in his role, even if that isn’t used to actually progress his character development in any real shape or form.

As for how both of these films misrepresent facial differences, the largest flaw in both of these films, according to Rattray, is the fact that non-disabled actors play both Auggie and John Merrick. “Even outside of disability as an identity, non-disabled people rarely understand how disability works,” writes Rattray. The portrayal of these kinds of characters are often “stereotypical” and “without nuance,” and with the fact that likely much of the audience is clueless to the misrepresentation as well as the actor or the director, these kinds of performances will be often “lauded and rewarded” (2). The lack of proper representation with disabled actors in these films is heavily felt when put this way. Auggie, most of all, feels like a baffling choice to cast a non-disabled actor. There’s something very strange to me about the film constructing their own “disfigured” version of a face for his character. What was their goal in creating that particular appearance? Were they trying to make something that looked relatively tame, something that wouldn’t “scare” kids too much? Questions like these come to mind when I think about the thought process behind doing makeup for Auggie’s facial differences.

Described throughout the readings and the TED Talk, inspirational porn was mentioned as a lie to the community that these inspirational images with disabled people doing “normal” activities, such as running, create inspirational porn to the naked eye. Social media, as described in the consuming disability section, explains that our “social media represents disability as a failure into the category of inspirational porn, making non-able-bodied people seem superhuman” Alice & Ellis, pg. 12) To me, inspirational porn is creating a picture for a cultural group that is misleading and unfulfilling to a designated audience. Implications of inspirational porn can be advertised on social media and inspirational films, creating an image that this is an everyday experience for this designated group of people. Social media such as TikTok can increase the amount of inspirational content on the internet, allowing the world to see their day-to-day lives without any inspiration needed.

3. How does Wonder reflect inspirational or overcoming narratives, as discussed by Peaty, Alice, & Ellis, Henley, and Young? Provide specific evidence from the film and readings to support your answer. 

Wonder reflects overcoming narratives by Auggie overcoming his bullies, fear of going to school, and making friends. He wants to be seen as a normal kid in middle school, but doesn’t have that luxury. A side note of overcoming narratives was Aigues' sister overcoming her feeling of being an old child, reconnecting with her mother, and getting acknowledged by her family. As Auggie did have a lot going on and mountains he had to battle, so did other people in his family. Overcoming narratives discussed in the Vogue Journal, written by Henley and Young, explain the negative outlooks that Wonder portrays in their film. A specific piece that’s stuck out to me was the emphasis on “ existence of individuals with facial disfigurements or differences is not inspirational. We are so much more than the props we’ve been turned into, “ ( Henley and Young para. 7). Channeling back to Wonder, the film bases its development on inspiration that a little boy can fit in and make friends when he looks different. According to the disability studies Quarterly, “Don’t stare! Everybody’s mother” (lines 8 &9), a disabled person who looks different can overcome everyone else's thoughts and create an image for themselves.