Type-casting and Superman's Curse

[Permanus]

The one thing few superhero stars HAVE done, of course, is gain respect as "serious" dramatic actors.  But with Christian Bale that may be changing.

And, I guess, Tobey Maguire, who hase enjoyed a pretty diverse career.

[nightwing]

Permanus wrote:

And, I guess, Tobey Maguire, who hase enjoyed a pretty diverse career.

Another good example.  But like Bale, Tobey had a busy and critically praised career before taking on a superhero role, so those guys weren't quite as "unknown" as guys like Reeve and Routh, who were basically just minor soap stars before wearing the cape.  On the other hand,  there's no denying both Bale and Maguire are a lot more recognized now than they were before doing superhero work.

Personally I'll always remember Tobey first and foremost for his work in "Pleasantville," just as many moviegoers may remember Bale for "American Psycho."  I think the key is to catch a young star on his way up, someone who's proven his talents but hasn't quite become a household name yet.  Otherwise you're sticking your neck way out on a total unknown (you might get an Errol Flynn in Captain Blood, but then again you might get a George Lazenby in OHMSS) or you're casting an established actor who brings a lot of baggage with him (to this day, I still don't know why Tim Burton went for a 37-year-old Micheal Keaton).[/b]

[JulianPerez]

I don't think there's a danger to being typecast at all if you're Superman, because...and this is not meant as a slight to some of the really impressive actors that have played the character...the role of Superman is one that really any male actor can pull off, as long as they're athletic and within a very wide age range. In other words, because Superman is so straightforward a role, there's a type of invisibility to the actor that plays him.

Compare this to, say, Eddie Haskell, who pretty much can only really play Eddie Haskell. Being a Superman actor is a little bit like being an inker: unless you really blow it, nobody notices what it is you do.

Superman as a character is "uncomplicated," a straightforward action hero not unlike the Hercules played by Kevin Sorbo, and as a character, has a wide range of possible interpretations. There's no "right" way to be Superman. We have Reeves and his impishness, naivete, humor and sensitivity, George Reeves and his wisdom and paternalism, and so forth. An actor can bring a lot of their own personality to the part. This is important because most film studies define a "movie star" as being someone that seeks to develop and make their "trademark" personal traits and idiosyncrasies, different from, and sometimes at odds with whatever from the part they're playing. Saying "I'll be back" made Arnold more of a star than the Weiders behind the scenes ever did, for instance. For this reason, I don't think Superman is a hindrance to stars trying to figure themselves out.

This is not to say, though, that some people just aren't flat out WRONG to be Superman. My estimation of Justin Timberlake, for instance, was raised enormously when he told some clueless producers that wanted him to be Superman that "Whatever you're smoking, I don't want any."

As for Christopher Reeve...well, he was perfectly happy with the career he chose, which was centered on lots of quieter, quirkier films instead of Hollywood action pictures. I don't think it would be fair to say that he was "typecast" because he did a big movie and then spent a career doing smaller ones.

Then again, there is a danger of some actors with stalled careers who fetishize their one role in frightening, Norma Desmond-esque ways. A textbook example would be Richard Hatch from the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, whose entire existence is centered on reviving BSG and writing Galactica novels - didn't he actually make a pilot episode with his own money?

The really hilarious part about all this is that nearly everybody I've ever met likes Starbuck better.

[Permanus]

the role of Superman is one that really any male actor can pull off, as long as they're athletic and within a very wide age range. In other words, because Superman is so straightforward a role, there's a type of invisibility to the actor that plays him.

I was going to say "Yeah, exactly", but then it occurred to me that Superman's actually a fairly complex character to play, given the fact that the actor also has to get Clark Kent right. Most actors always tend to overstate Clark, who is really a character requiring quite a lot of subtlety, not the Jerry Lewis-type fellow you often encounter onscreen. One actor who I think completely failed in this regard was Dean Cain, whose Clark was basically the same guy as his Superman (this is also due to the fact that he was portraying the John Byrne version). Just to be weird, it would have been interesting to see how a character actor like Alec Guinness or even Peter Sellers would have done it.

[nightwing]

I don't think there's a danger to being typecast at all if you're Superman, because...and this is not meant as a slight to some of the really impressive actors that have played the character...the role of Superman is one that really any male actor can pull off, as long as they're athletic and within a very wide age range. In other words, because Superman is so straightforward a role, there's a type of invisibility to the actor that plays him.

Well in the strictest sense, you can't be "typecast" as Superman because Superman isn't a "type,"  he's a very specific character.  I guess you could be typecast as a "superhero" but really the only actors I know of who could fall into that category were working in serial days (Kirk Alyn was Blackhawk and Superman, Tom Tyler was the Phantom and Captain Marvel, Kane Richmond was Spy Smasher and Brick Bradford, and so on).

I think the more correct term would be "pigeon-holed."  Sean Connery didn't want to be limited to "gentleman spy" roles any more than Flynn enjoyed spending his career in tights and swordfights or Jim Carrey wants to be known as "just a comedian."  Conventional wisdom over the years has been that George Reeves' career was torpedoed when audiences saw him only as Superman, and certainly Adam West had a lot of dry years trying to get out of Batman's shadow (and he wore a mask in that role!).

Anyway I think in a way you're arguing the other side; yes there is "a type of invisibility to  the actor" who plays Superman, which is the whole complaint in the first place.  Put on the costume and it takes you over; it's bigger than you are.  An actor has to have a great deal of charisma and star appeal to achieve the same success out of the suit that he does in it.  More than that, he needs to find someone willing to take a chance on him.

From a producer's point of view, I certainly see the appeal of casting unknowns. You WANT the character to be bigger than the actor.  Donner was wise to fight the pressure to hire a Redford or Reynolds back in 1978.  If an A-lister had taken on the role, people wouldn't have said, "Hey that's Superman!"...they would have said, "Hey, look -- Robert Redford in a Superman suit!"

Compare this to, say, Eddie Haskell, who pretty much can only really play Eddie Haskell. Being a Superman actor is a little bit like being an inker: unless you really blow it, nobody notices what it is you do.

Ha! Good point...I rarely single out an inker except for scorn (hi, Vinnie!) so it is a thankless job.  But again you're just pointing out how hard it is to be Superman.  Do it right and the character gets the credit, screw it up and you're the worst actor ever ("Geez, how awful must a guy be to ruin even Superman!")

Superman as a character is "uncomplicated," a straightforward action hero not unlike the Hercules played by Kevin Sorbo, and as a character, has a wide range of possible interpretations. There's no "right" way to be Superman.

Yes and no.  I grant you Sorbo (to use your example) could have acted out the scripts for "The Adventures of Superman" as competently as George Reeves (though I'd argue less charmingly), but we are in a new age now, one where some actors have a say in the script itself.  And there definitely ARE wrong ways to *write* Superman.  Case in point is the thankfully aborted Burton-Cage project, in which Nick Cage would have played Superman as a dark, haunted "freak" (his word).  When a star is big enough, projects get written to fit their "strengths" and personal style even when it means destroying the character and concept the whole thing is based on (see Will Smith in "Wild Wild West").

This is not to say, though, that some people just aren't flat out WRONG to be Superman. My estimation of Justin Timberlake, for instance, was raised enormously when he told some clueless producers that wanted him to be Superman that "Whatever you're smoking, I don't want any."

Dumping Britney was a smart move, too.  

Too bad Nick Cage doesn't have the same grasp of reality.  Or maybe more to the point, too bad he doesn't value the character more highly than his personal aspirations.  Heck, I'd love to play Superman myself, but I'm mature enough to know I'd sink the franchise.  (And besides, no one's asking...)

Then again, there is a danger of some actors with stalled careers who fetishize their one role in frightening, Norma Desmond-esque ways. A textbook example would be Richard Hatch from the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, whose entire existence is centered on reviving BSG and writing Galactica novels - didn't he actually make a pilot episode with his own money?

Hatch is an odd one.  The weird thing is, I stumbled across a Galactica rerun last week and was surprised to see he was a lot better looking than I remembered.  He should have been able to do lots of stuff after that show, and if he didn't it's hard to imagine it was because everyone thought of him as "Apollo."  How can you be "typecast" by a role in a show that failed?  Dirk Benedict seemed to get plenty of work after that.  And Lorne Greene became the face of Alpo.  :lol:

[Criadoman]

Regarding the point made with Hatch above - that was actually my point on the whole "pigeon holing" thing.  Taking Chris for example - just shortly after Superman he was offered and accepted "Somewhere in Time" which was a very good movie.  Why he chose the quirky and odd roles later - too bad.  Per him, he was offered all those roles the Richard Gere ended up getting - where would things be now?

Well - for sure, I sincerely doubt we would have had Superman 3 and 4.  (Superman 2 was a given because most of the shots were done at the time 1 was filming.)

Who knows what Hatch was actually offered that he turned down thinking it was a bad idea?

Also - regarding the Sorbo point - you know, he was actually the other character in the running for Clark/Supes in Lois and Clark?  I forget if he pulled out for Hercules or they chose Dean over him.  Also - I read that Gerard Christopher was a candidate until they figured out he was Superboy.

What goes through the mind of some of the powers that be on things like this.  I suspect Gerard would have done a pretty nice job.[/url]

[Great Rao]

Regarding the point made with Hatch above - that was actually my point on the whole "pigeon holing" thing.  Taking Chris for example - just shortly after Superman he was offered and accepted "Somewhere in Time" which was a very good movie.  Why he chose the quirky and odd roles later - too bad.  Per him, he was offered all those roles the Richard Gere ended up getting - where would things be now?

Yeah, Christopher Reeve's lack of roles was his own doing - he kept getting offers, but he stated shortly after his accident that he had turned them all down because he didn't have the self-confidence to accept them.  Too bad, really.

Re: Richard Hatch:  I've met him, he's a great guy.  I think he likes Galactica, but I suspect he was also trying to use it as a vehicle to springboard to some sort of career.  Seeing how William Shatner managed to do books, etc, all based on Trek may have been an idea generator.  The major difference between Richard Hatch and William Shatner is that Hatch actually likes and understands the source material and respects the fans.  With Shatner, I'd say that's dubious at best.

[nightwing]

The major difference between Richard Hatch and William Shatner is that Hatch actually likes and understands the source material and respects the fans. With Shatner, I'd say that's dubious at best.

Wow, how'd I let this dig at the Shat-man go unanswered for over a week?  I'm going to have to turn in my fan club badge!  :shock:

I think it's undeniable Shatner doesn't eat and breathe Trek the way some of his co-stars do.  But then it's worth noting that those co-stars don't work very often and certainly nothing they've done has ever eclipsed or even equalled their work on Star Trek (I'm talking here about the "bridge crew" outside the "Triumverate".  You know, the ones Shatner lovingly referred to as his "seven dwarves."  :oops: )

Here we run into the actor's "no-win scenario".  If an actor has a success in a particular role, then turns his back on it to pursue other interests, he's labelled an ingrate and a fan-hater.  On the other hand, if he lives the rest of his life trading on the success of that role, appearing at conventions honoring the show, writing books and comics and what have you about his character, well then he's labelled a has-been and one-hit wonder.  You can't win, really.

Adam West is a good example; nowadays he has a certain renewed popularity, but it's largely based on his self-lampooning image as a one-time superstar who's living on past glories.  But notions of postmodern irony are a recent thing; for decades he was just "that pathetic old guy who opens malls in his Batman cowl."  Inside the fan community, he's revered for staying "faithful" to the show, but to the world at large he's mostly a figure of fun, and to the extent he's perceived as "cool" it's only because he's willing to laugh at himself (all the way to the bank!).

Anyway, I think Shatner likes Kirk well enough.  How could he not? But on the other hand, he had enough career sense to move on when he got the chance.  Similarly, his attention to his career and image often meant stepping on fellow performers, which didn't do much for his image as a sweetheart but ultimately it's kept him working while others from the show are not.

I have to confess to skepticism from both types.  When Shatner writes a book recounting his "Trek" days and how fun they were, I can't help thinking, "You don't really remember any of this, do you?  Your ghost writer researched it for you."  On the other hand, when Takei or Nichols or whoever writes a book gushing over how great Trek was and blasting Shatner for being a martinet, I have to think, "Of course you love the only job you ever got noticed for.  And if you wanted to work with saints, why didn't you enter the clergy instead of show biz?"

On the other hand (how many am I up to now?), I have to confess I'm constantly amazed and delighted by interviews with Roger Moore, who seems to remember at least one anecdote about every "Saint" "Persuaders" or Bond he did, and can tell fun stories about co-stars and even production crew from projects he did as far back as 50 years ago.  You get the impression he's a guy who loved his work, if not necessarily every script or role.  I sure wish he'd get over his aversion to writing a book about his experiences.