Hal Jordan here again and today I present to you fellow CBM members an article 3 times in the making, literally. I first contemplated writing this after my article on how to do the Justice League movie correctly, but I ended up setting it aside. My next attempt came from wanting to do another “How to…” article for the Man Of Steel sequel. However, after reading Khan’s well written article that featured very similar ideas, I decided there was no need to reword, so to speak, an already published article. Then I saw the straw that broke the Kryptonian’s neck…well, it was more of a bicep, really...never mind. The point is that, while scrolling through the comments, I saw a number of people talk about his choice of Matt Bomer as Batman in a negative light, with the majority of them being based upon the fact that he is gay. This angered me quite a bit, but for reasons other than just simple disagreement. Allow me to explain.
In my opinion, one of the best ways to explore a topic of controversy is to look closer at the aspect of, “Why?” Political or religious views aside, what is it that allows some to have doubt in actors with a different sexuality than their characters? I respect that it may fully be because of that person’s political or religious views. However, I think it is important to nip that argument in the bud right away, at least for this context, by reminding those people of whom they doubt: actors. An actor’s job is defined by the character they are assigned and the direction they are given. Hell, the Greek root, from which “actor” derives from, is hypokrites, which means “one who interprets.” I’m sure we all don’t go and see a film, such as Goodfellas, and think, “I can’t believe Ray Liotta ended up in witness protection for pursuing his dream!”
Wait a second, who am I kidding? This isn’t the mafia, this is the comic book world! Well, alright, ask yourself this, “Did you watch The Dark Knight Rises and wonder how Tom Hardy was able to recover from the fight in Gotham, so he could work on his next movie?” Of course not. These are characters brought to life through actors who asses, understand, and portray their interpretation of the character for our entertainment. The actor’s define the character, not vice versa. Now, I know you may be wondering what this has to do with the topic of the actor’s sexuality. Well, this all shows that an actor’s personality, although it may relate or be used in some way when interpreting a character, does not directly reflect their portrayal. They
will change and-get ready to be taken by surprise-
act for the project, regardless if the character is completely different than the actor’s true self. “But, what about the fact that sexual preference is a big part of both the characters and actors in real life and entertainment? Surely that’s something that can’t just be suppressed or ignored; it’s bound to affect their portrayal!” Allow me to direct your attention to a man many of us know as, Neil Patrick Harris.
That’s right, the Golden Globe nominated, Emmy award winning, homosexual actor is the perfect example of a successful, talented Hollywood name. He is also the perfect example of why the sexuality of an actor does not matter when referring to their character. I mean, have you guys seen
Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog or
How I Met Your Mother? The man is a comical genius and, despite being openly homosexual, can portray the most heterosexual womanizers to ever hit the public’s eye. Hell, he even made fun of everyone’s surprise to his sexuality by parodying it in the
Harold and Kumar movies. In fact, at one point, you may all recall he was a big fan favorite for the casting of Edward Nigma/The Riddler in Christopher Nolan’s third Batman movie, back when it was still in development. The same applies to my fan favorite for Batman: Matt Bomer. The Riddler is not a womanizer, he is not extremely funny, and his sexual preference is never bluntly specified. However, Neil could have easily nailed that role by tapping into that talent of his and using it to portray the character, regardless of how different it has been from his other roles or his own persona. Bruce Wayne/Batman is a womanizer, quite psychologically intriguing, and is much darker than other heroes. Bomer, if judged on his talent and past roles, seems to fit that character pretty well. Saying that NPH can’t play Riddler or Bomer can’t play Batman because of their sexuality is irrelevant; especially once this is all taken into account. How about Zachary Quinto, who played Spock in the last two
Star Trek films? He is also openly gay, but you couldn’t tell from the way he portrays his character on screen. Still skeptical? Imagine if, tomorrow, Andrew Garfield came out and said he was bisexual? Would that change your opinion on his performance in The Amazing Spider Man/future installments? Would it change his performance in future installments? It shouldn’t and it wouldn’t.
A gay Batman? A bi-sexual Spider Man? Well, it sure is an interesting idea to think about, to say the least. However, it’s also a controversial one that relates back to the question being debated a lot lately, “Does an actor’s sexual preference matter for their casting in a comic book movie?” Well, the answer is no. Personally, I see no legitimate reason as to why an actor should be automatically written out by the fans of the character simply because of their sexuality. It’s our jobs to look at the plausible and exampled attributes of an actor, when tossing around cast ideas, just as much as it is the film studio’s job. Because, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, if the character is portrayed by a talented actor, are we as an audience looking at a gay Batman or a gay whomever? No; we may see gay
actors portraying the characters, but, regardless of their true sexual preference, we are simply seeing the character for what they are, not who they’re portrayed by. I hope this was worth the read and, if you would like to discuss it, feel free to comment below. Thanks for reading and, until next time, this is Hal Jordan signing off.