BvS Henry Cavill IS Superman - Part 3

[charl_huntress]

I think there are two aspects to this. Yes, an extremely beautiful person often isn't taken seriously if they're doing something that does not depend on their looks. Charlize Theron having to "uglify" herself in Monster for the Oscar is probably the most obvious example. Heath Ledger hiding his face under layers of makeup for the Joker is another, but a weaker example.

Another aspect is that Henry simply hasn't taken on any extremely challenging acting roles. Uglified or not, Charlize in Monster had an extremely challenging acting role. Heath was Oscar-nominated for Brokeback Mountain before TDK, when his face was in full view the whole time.

I'm not sure if the MOS franchise is the vehicle for Henry to show that he's a serious actor. Christian Bale is probably one of the best actors in our generation, and Nolan took him to pretty extreme places as Bruce Wayne/Batman, probably more extreme than every other Batman actor has had to do, but most people didn't take note of his performances in TDKT. It's simply not a showy role, and Superman I'd argue is even less showy.

It's up to Henry to take his newfound fame (and money) from MOS, like Christian did, and choose roles that will be challenging for him, if he wants to be taken seriously as an actor.

The "too pretty" to be taken seriously spreads out further then just Hollywood, but I think people tend to apply this to actors as well because of the casting couch, and for a time during old Hollywood the pretty ones were cast just to be pretty...and not to act. So this has a long legacy; however, I think Cavill will overcome this in time because he's British and will have more opportunities outside of the states for serious roles where he won't be typecast. If he were American then I think this would be harder for him.

What I mean by allowing Cavill to stretch himself as Superman/Clark is I want to see him given more to do with the role. I do not think this is the role to establish his "serious" acting credentials; yet, I do think he is talented enough to do more with the role then what he did in MOS. I definitely think he could bring something new to the table. He didn't really do a lot in MOS, though, he did have a few moments to shine.

I'd argue Superman is a very showy role. The simply fact it takes so much to physically embody the character is partial proof. Cavill is talented though and he could bring something very unique to the table if they let him. No, it's not going to be a performance which wins him any Oscars, but he's certainly capable of it... That's my point.

 

[Anita18]

The "too pretty" to be taken seriously spreads out further then just Hollywood, but I think people tend to apply this to actors as well because of the casting couch, and for a time during old Hollywood the pretty ones were cast just to be pretty...and not to act. So this has a long legacy; however, I think Cavill will overcome this in time because he's British and will have more opportunities outside of the states for serious roles where he won't be typecast. If he were American then I think this would be harder for him.

What I mean by allowing Cavill to stretch himself as Superman/Clark is I want to see him given more to do with the role. I do not think this is the role to establish his "serious" acting credentials; yet, I do think he is talented enough to do more with the role then what he did in MOS. I definitely think he could bring something new to the table. He didn't really do a lot in MOS, though, he did have a few moments to shine.

I'd argue Superman is a very showy role. The simply fact it takes so much to physically embody the character is partial proof. Cavill is talented though and he could bring something very unique to the table if they let him. No, it's not going to be a performance which wins him any Oscars, but he's certainly capable of it... That's my point.

Is it? Batman is not a showy role because he's supposed to be the rock in his movies. Superman even more so. That's why neither character can really be all over the place that a showier character can.

And being able to bulk up doesn't mean you're showy, or even partial proof of it, IMO. Tom Hiddleston stole the show from Chris Hemsworth in the Thor movies, after all.

 

[MrsKent26]

I think superman can be showy because its one of those roles that requires presence. People expect superman to project his aura of authority or general superman-ness even when he's doing nothing but standing there.

Also, superman deals with situations that no one else does or could. The fate of the world is in his hands. MOS dealt with some of this and I'm glad. Superman needs to be written like a character that rises to greatness and becomes an ideal, but getting there wasn't easy. Showing these struggles makes it interesting.

 

[charl_huntress]

Is it? Batman is not a showy role because he's supposed to be the rock in his movies. Superman even more so. That's why neither character can really be all over the place that a showier character can.

And being able to bulk up doesn't mean you're showy, or even partial proof of it, IMO. Tom Hiddleston stole the show from Chris Hemsworth in the Thor movies, after all.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "showy"; though, Bale's performance in the TDKT is very underrated.

As for Superman... No, he's not going to be acting crazy like Mac in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", but the actor has to physically embody the role. He also has to have the ability to make the audience believe he is capable of fantastic feats, which are not possible in real life, and he has to have charisma so you actually like him. To top that off he has to portray another persona where he is nearly the exact opposite of all that, but then make the audience believe he is able to fool people so they don't think he is that other guy. So...I do think the role is showy, and in some sense it's more showier then Batman/Bruce Wayne.

Thor, IMO, plays a bit of dope in the first movie. I haven't seen TDW, so I can't speak on that, but I'm not surprised his character is easily overshadowed. Thor is not Superman!

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I would argue that portraying Superman in a major film is a difficult role to play mainly because Superman is so ingrained in the cultural consciousness.

Everyone knows who Superman is and has their own personal idea of the character -- how he should walk, talk, or act in a certain situation. The fact that other actors have played the character in a way that defined him for a generation -- most notably, George Reeves and Christopher Reeve -- makes it even harder for new actors to live up to that standard. Brandon Routh, for example, ultimately failed to step out of Chris Reeve's shadow, although I blame Singer more for that.

Balancing all those fan expectations and satisfying everyone is a very tough job, but Cavill pulled it off. Even harsh critics of MOS acknowledge that Cavill pretty much embodied the character.

The physicality of Superman, which Cavill worked very hard on with Gym Jones, is also more important for Supes than for most characters. I feel MOS got away with Clark saying very little in his first few scenes because the entire time, the audience is thinking "That guy is SUPERMAN!" The character's long history imbues Cavill's every small move or gesture with significance.

The role is not "showy" in the sense that the actor is still portraying a relatively straightforward, traditionally heroic figure. But I feel the legacy of Superman demands a certain gravitas from the actor playing him. IMO, Cavill had that, but Routh didn't.

Oh btw...nice to see you again Axl! t:

Nice to see you too, Charl.

 

[charl_huntress]

^^Well said Axl

 

[Anita18]

I would argue that portraying Superman in a major film is a difficult role to play mainly because Superman is so ingrained in the cultural consciousness.

Everyone knows who Superman is and has their own personal idea of the character -- how he should walk, talk, or act in a certain situation. The fact that other actors have played the character in a way that defined him for a generation -- most notably, George Reeves and Christopher Reeve -- makes it even harder for new actors to live up to that standard. Brandon Routh, for example, ultimately failed to step out of Chris Reeve's shadow, although I blame Singer more for that.

Balancing all those fan expectations and satisfying everyone is a very tough job, but Cavill pulled it off. Even harsh critics of MOS acknowledge that Cavill pretty much embodied the character.

The physicality of Superman, which Cavill worked very hard on with Gym Jones, is also more important for Supes than for most characters. I feel MOS got away with Clark saying very little in his first few scenes because the entire time, the audience is thinking "That guy is SUPERMAN!" The character's long history imbues Cavill's every small move or gesture with significance.

The role is not "showy" in the sense that the actor is still portraying a relatively straightforward, traditionally heroic figure. But I feel the legacy of Superman demands a certain gravitas from the actor playing him. IMO, Cavill had that, but Routh didn't.

That's exactly how I feel. Henry has gravitas, and gravitas can be easy to miss because it often isn't showy.

It's only when you see the role played without gravitas, that you realize how important it is. When the screen tests for Batman in TDKT were released, Christian's presence in the batsuit was unmistakable, especially compared to Eion Bailey's test. But I think most people overlooked it in the film itself. They just took it for granted.

IMO, Henry had gravitas to spare in the suit. Now it's up to the script to give him something to actually work with.

 

[charl_huntress]

IMO, Henry had gravitas to spare in the suit. Now it's up to the script to give him something to actually work with.

And we agree.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I have no idea what this gravitas is, I just know Brandon didn't have it and I don't just blame it on Brian or the script. I think Dean Cain had a little bit of it but not a lot; he wasn't as bad as Brandon in the suit.

 

[charl_huntress]

Cain wasn't the best Superman, but he had "something" in spades for Clark, which is my point that Superman has to be likable as Clark too. For as goofy as Reeve was he was also a likable Clark. Routh never got a chance to be anything but a poor man's imitation of Reeve, which wasn't fair to him I think.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I think we all know Dean was great as Clark but he was a decent Superman as well, not the best but decent and when he was on screen you couldn't take your eyes off him. With Brandon he blended into the background even when he was Superman, there was nothing awe inspiring about him. I strongly feel Henry put the man back in Superman but he still did have the Super/god like quality about the character.

 

[charl_huntress]

Yeah, poor Routh was...horrible and it's hard to say what sort of Superman he could have been because I don't think he was actually given the chance to be him. I feel for the guy in a way, especially since the joke in Ted about him is the best part of that movie.

I strongly feel Henry put the man back in Superman but he still did have the Super/god like quality about the character.

I strongly feel this as well. He was super in almost everyway. Axl made a good point about him not saying much in the beginning because he really didn't have to. He physically embodied the role without saying a word.

 

[MrsKent26]

It's so nice to see people appreciating Cavill. I hope he continues to get roles and people realize he can act.

 

[sf2]

I thought henry was really the only one who stood out in MOS. The others were good, but didn't outshine him or anything.

All the actors in MOS are fabulous! !! Especially the female actresses! !!

 

[MrsKent26]

^ I'm not saying they weren't. I just like henry the best.

 

[sf2]

^ I'm not saying they weren't. I just like henry the best.

Of course u r.
Btw, my earlier post tried to say that for us to see more his acting ability, he should do roles other than hero type.

 

[BH/HHH]

Henry was fantastic as Superman, I know he didn't have an awful lot of dialogue (he still had more than Routh) but I think that's just the interpretation they went for in the script. Remember when Goyer first came up with the idea he had been reading the original Superman stories in Action Comics and I think they went for that version, a mam of action which us what he was at the start in 1938.

On Routh, I do feel he got the shaft however I do wonder if alot of his dialogue was cut because Singer didn't like his delivery. Reading the shooting script there was some Superman dialogue cut out, so either they didn't shoot it or Singer felt he didn't do a good enough job. Says alot for me that Singer never used him in anything again afterwards. This isn't me been negative because I liked Routh but his acting ability is limited.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Back to fatty cavill.

Bro, do you even lift?

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Bro, do you even lift?

It could happen. Look at Val Kilmer.

 

[MrMaooz]

Fatty Cavill is so hilarious.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

No need, he'll look at us.

 

[BH/HHH]

No need, he'll look at us.

That is scary lol

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

That is scary lol

He sees into your soul. And it makes him hungry.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

That is scary lol

That was the last picture the photographer took. No one knows what happened to him.

 

[BH/HHH]

That was the last picture the photographer took. No one knows what happened to him.

Wasn't that taken before he was on Life's Too Short?

He sees into your soul. And it makes him hungry.