Hey 3.5 readers.
Sigh. Another ginned up social media controversy.
First, tweeters were angry that Jack Whitehall was cast as a gay character in Disney’s upcoming Jungle Cruise because he isn’t gay.
Now tweeters are mad about the idea of Ruby Rose being cast as Batwoman because she isn’t gay enough.
Whitehall is a straight fan and like yours truly, is a fan of snootch.
Ruby Rose is bi, so to borrow a line from that famous commercial – “Sometimes she feels like having some nuts….and sometimes she doesn’t.”
First, I’d argue that women looking to be empowered shouldn’t look to female superhero sidekicks, which is what Supergirl and Batwoman, formerly Batgirl, are. Female versions of popular superheroes have always been cash grabs, ways for comic book companies to make more money by rehashing a popular character. “Oh, you like Batman? Well, what if Batman has a vag.”
Think about it. How many Batgirl or Batwoman fans do you know? The most popular female superheroes stand out on there own, i.e. Wonder Woman. And no, no one has ever yearned to see a Wonder Man.
Second, I get why they wanted to changed Batgirl’s name to Batwoman, but I preferred Batgirl’s backstory. Batgirl was Commissioner Gordon’s daughter and a librarian who dons a batsuit to fight crime. Seems like a way to appeal to book nerds.
Batwoman is a policewoman by day and caped crimefighter by night. Cool idea but seems redundant. Seems like she could just work free overtime and leave the mask at home since she has the badge already.
Also, Batwoman is gay which is an interesting development and I, for one, support her right to fight crime and penis.
Third and most importantly, I wonder if people have ever heard of the concept of “acting.” Yes, acting – that old art form where people get up and pretend to be people that they aren’t.
Have we retired that concept now? Does every actor have to be exactly what a character is? Ruby Rose likes vags and peens but she can’t play a woman who only likes vags? Seems silly.
If we’re going that route, then fire Adam Driver because he can’t really use the Force to make objects fly around the room. Fire Hugh Jackman because he really isn’t the Wolverine and steel claws don’t pop out of his knuckles in real life. Fire Robert Downey Jr. because he doesn’t own an actual iron suit that he can use to fly and shoot missiles out of his hands.
I get some of the point. There are gay actors and actresses who feel discriminated against and for all I know, they are.
However, sometimes moviemakers are privy to the ideas they have in mind and sometimes we don’t see the method to their madness until their work hits the big screen.
Examples? The public at first widely rejected the idea of Heath Ledger as the Joker. He was a serious, almost stuck up dramatic actor and surely a comedian was needed to play the clown prince of crime. However, he had a vision of the Joker in mind and the people who cast him were aware of that and when the movie came out he was the best Joker ever.
People didn’t like the idea of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine either. He was a Broadway show tune singer. Surely, he was too happy go lucky to play such an angry man…but he nailed it.
How did a serious man play a funny man? How did a happy man play an angry man?
In other words, I don’t think, at least in the case of Jungle Cruise and Batwoman, that studio execs are actively trying to discriminate against gay actors. I think they have a vision of the role and have put in some work behind the scenes to see what certain actors or actresses can do and perhaps know more than we do about how those actors and actresses can fit that vision.
Neil Patrick Harris is gay. He played one of the greatest womanizers of all time on “How I Met Your Mother.” Acting, people. It’s all about acting.