sia
Though more than one of the most recent, high-profile “cancellations” we’ve explored have involved random social media users ganging up against a celeb after a minor misdoing, the case involving musical artist, Sia, is markedly different.
On November 19th, Sia released the trailer for a feature film titled Music that she had co-written and directed. Eventually dropping in theaters and on on-demand platforms a couple months later, the musical movie follows Zu, a newly sober, former drug dealer who suddenly becomes the guardian of her half-sister, Music, a young girl with nonverbal autism.
While some were excited to hear that the story of a teenager with autism was going to be told on the silver screen, in a major move for representation, others, however, remained hesitant and apprehensive. Many autism and disability advocates, in particular, began voicing their concerns about the film on social media, within op-eds, and through various non-profit organization blogs — worried, after seeing the depictions within the trailer alone, that in releasing this movie, Sia would be misrepresenting the autism community in monumental ways.
First, the individual set to portray the character, Music, within the film was Sia’s dance protégé Maddie Ziegler, an actress who does not have autism. Many feared that this casting was not only inequitable, stripping a huge role away from one of the many talented actors with autism, but a form of appropriation, with the potential to perpetuate harmful stereotypes and inaccuracies about those with autism. They were concerned that non-disabled people were telling their stories for them, at risk of being undereducated and misrepresenting experiences with autism. Additionally, after viewing some leaked scenes of the film that were circulated online, it was revealed that Sia had chosen to include a scene where an upset Music is placed into a prone restraint by her caregivers in order to calm her, which is a technique that many within the autism community view as dangerous and unacceptable to use.
So, back in November, autism rights activists urged Sia to cancel the release of the movie all together, citing its “inaccurate and hurtful betrayal of the community.” After that didn’t happen, a change.org petition, which ultimately gained over 150,000 signatures, was started, calling for the Golden Globes to rescind its two nominations for Music in a sign of allyship. And simultaneously, on Twitter, majorly as a result of her inaction and lack of comment on the situation, users began deeming Sia “cancelled.”
As word of her “cancellation” spread and the overwhelming amount of backlash accumulating online increased, Sia took to her own Twitter account to try and defend Music and provide more context on her creative process. But, ultimately… this engagement only made matters much worse.
In response to one critic who expressed frustration over Sia “allowing an able bodied and neurotypical [person] to represent the disabled community,” Sia responded that she had originally cast a young girl who was “non verbal and on the spectrum” for the part of Music, but switched to Ziegler after “she found it unpleasant and stressful.”
She continued on this Twitter rant alleging that she “spent three years researching” for the construction of this role, angrily urging people to “watch [the] film before you judge it.
Yet, perhaps, worst of all, Sia also got into a fairly heated exchange, replying harshly to an actor with autism who argued that “zero effort was made to include anyone who is actually autistic” like her with saying “Maybe you’re just a bad actor.” Now, that’s just cold.
It was ultimately the culmination of these insensitive, clapback tweets, along with her overall lack of remorse or willingness to listen or educate herself, that really set Sia’s “cancellation” in stone. It’s one thing to make a “mistake” and get “cancelled,” but it’s how celebrities act in the aftermath that seems to really get scrutinized these days. Sia’s reaction to her “cancellation,” for instance, just made people want to cancel her further.
In a change of tune (somewhat), and after a few more weeks of reflection (hopefully), Sia sent out one final series of tweets. They read “I’m sorry” and revealed that she planned to add a text advisory at the beginning of the film to warn viewers in advance of the restraint scene. She also promised that she would cut that scene out from any future retail publications of the film — but purchasers kindly let us all know that she didn’t. And then, just like that, Sia deleted her Twitter account for good.
Was she trying to avoid further criticism? Was the hate getting to be too much? Whatever the reasoning behind it was, this tweet-and-run move definitely came off as sketchy. It was as if she was merely making an apology to make an apology, without wanting to engage further in conversations or really take any kind of accountability. Yet, this is something that we see happen often in cancel culture — the use of empty apologies as a sort of stepping stone for celebrities, to escape the avalanche of criticism and quietly continue on with their careers.
Thankfully, others have begun to pick up on that idea. In fact, most people didn’t fully buy Sia’s “apology” here. And I don’t blame them. Think about it this way — Sia is still making money off of the film.. and off of the accompanying ten-record album that she created. So, though she may be “sorry” for her misrepresentation and may have “acknowledged” the lack of research and discussions and listening that needed to be done and had before creating a film like this, she stays profiting off of those “mistakes”.... and consumers aren’t blind to that. That's why so many who held strong feelings against the Music trailer and Sia's alleged ableism either refused to actually pay for and see the full film, or chose to watch the movie to be able to report back and explain more in-depth online (in blogs, social media posts, etc.) why it is inaccurate and should not be further supported.
In this way, one major takeaway from Sia’s situation is that cancel culture, here again, was used as a serious vehicle for advocacy. It largely opened the doors for so many to start having important conversations about ableism, appropriation, and equity — especially within popular media. Would a topic like this have received so much mainstream press and attention in absence of the "cancellation?"
Before starting my research for this very case study, I was largely unaware (and admittedly ignorant) of the hardship disabled artists and actors face. Disabled people make up 18.7% of the population, and as a 2018 study by the Ruderman Family Foundation argued, "it is tremendously unlikely that out of those 55 million people, there are no people who are remarkable actors." While we’ve known for decades now that Hollywood is seriously un-inclusive and lacks in authentic representation of minority communities, the study found that some 80 percent of all disabled characters on the small screen are portrayed by non-disabled actors. Further, the report noted that “even where disability is present in television and films, it is almost always portrayed as an undesired, depressing and limiting state.” Therefore, to me, it is an even more pronounced shame that Music did not star an actress on the autism spectrum. Not only would it have led to a more authentic portrayal of what it’s like living with autism — for an audience, many of whom this movie could have been one of the first times they “met” somebody on the spectrum — yet it also could have been a life-changing role for an emerging actress.
So, keeping that in mind, is it true that cancel culture can be somewhat productive? A step toward self-education and introspection? A way to start discussions and get people talking about important topics? Speaking from my own experience in this case… I, for one, don’t see why not.