If you’re hip to the movie news, by now you know that British actor Henry Cavil has been cast as Superman in Zach Snyder’s upcoming reboot. That’s right, a man born and raised in the British Isles will be portraying an American icon. When it was announced, many in the blogosphere assumed that we “wingnut fascists” would be outraged at the thought of an non-American playing the Man of Steel. They assumed that our narrow-minded jingoism would prevent us from endorsing a solid actor nabbing the lead role in a highly anticipated film. As usual, they were wrong. We true film buffs could care less where the actor hails from, we just want a movie that is true to the character and kicks some ass. Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns” had an American Superman, but failed miserably in the aspects that mattered most. It wasn’t true to the character and didn’t really kick any ass.
But the casting does reveal a couple of interesting things.
Contrary to the propaganda coming from the Hate-America crowd, we are far more open to such things than other cultures, especially the British. There was a lot of snark when Gwyneth Paltrow and Renee Zellweger applied their best British accents to their portrayals of Emma and Bridget Jones. Plus, I doubt that the producers ever entertained the idea of casting an American Harry Potter or a Dr. Who born in Iowa. What about James Bond? Not only have they never considered Americans for the lead role, but they’ve turned down both Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino as directors. Every Bond director has hailed from a Commonwealth nation. Apparently, it’s okay for other countries to maintain “national treasures” and “cultural icons,” but for Americans to suggest doing the same means we’re racist, nativist, and generally close minded. You see, to the rest of the world, we don’t actually have a culture. How can we? We are a nation made of other nations, a population of hyphenates who lack a common identity.
Well, this Prussian-American filmmaker calls foul.
Not only is Superman a Brit, but as NBC points out, so are Batman, and Spiderman. NBC mistakenly lumps Wolverine into the group, but any geek worth their salt knows that Wolverine a.k.a. Logan is Canadian. And Hugh Jackman who plays Wolverine is Australian, not British. Oh, well, more quality fact-checking from NBC. We should be used to this by now.
But it begs the question: Why are we outsourcing all of our iconic roles? How can it be that we can’t find American actors up to the task? Well, it’s simple. Our current system isn’t set up for it. It’s a closed, tightly controlled system, that doesn’t emphasize talent. The path of an American actor differs greatly from their counterparts across the pond, mostly to their detriment.
In the U.S. actors need to be in the actor’s union SAG if they want a good agent or the ability to get in front of big casting directors. To get into SAG, they have two options. They can be extras on several shows, racking up “vouchers” or they can somehow convince a producer to pay a hefty fine and admit them to the union through a process called “Taft-Hartley.” This is difficult because most producers who are making SAG shows exclude non-SAG actors from the auditions. If they opt for the voucher route, they have to buddy up to the production staff because the number of vouchers per show is limited. This means that personal contacts and nepotism often play a bigger part than talent in an actor’s career path. In the U.K., there are no restrictions. Directors and producers can hire whomever they want, seeking out the best talent possible. Once an actor gets a paying gig, they are eligible to join British Equity, which is their version of SAG. See how that works? In the U.K., it’s the creatives who pick the talent. In the U.S., it’s completely backwards, with union membership being the first roadblock an actor must cross.
Once an actor gets past the whole SAG issue, they must now secure an agent. I have an actor friend who’s been in the business for 15 years. He’s had at least six agents and a dozen managers during his career and he notes that not one, not a single one, ever made him audition or even asked if he could act. It was all about his “look” and his prior experience. Serious acting chops are not a priority.
Besides agents, managers, and SAG standing in the way of allowing strong talent into the system, we have the actual product made in the U.S. Independent films, where young actors get their first breaks, generally fall into two categories. There are the types of films I used to make, full of monsters, guns, and fakes breasts. At the other end of the spectrum are unwatchable, pretentious festival films. Unfortunately, most casting directors and agents don’t take the genre films very seriously. Running from a rubber monster doesn’t warrant their attention, no matter how convincing. That limits the potential pool to the “art house” films, films that usually cast strong, but quirky character types.
The British produce tons of period pieces and serious dramas, both independently and for their state run television networks. They also don’t snub their noses at genre productions (“Dr. Who” and “Torchwood” are two of their most popular shows). This broadens the pool of potential actors, providing more visibility for “leading” types because there is no premium on “character actors” or people who are only adept at playing drug addicts, prostitutes and victims of domestic violence.
Combined with these factors is what I call the “accent effect.” American casting directors and agents aren’t the most intelligent, creative or intellectually deep lot on the planet. They are incredibly shallow. For the same reason these people think Sarah Palin is stupid or lacks “gravitas,” people think British actors are smarter and “better.” It’s all about the accent. To the shallow casting director, who can’t be bothered to watch a great performance in a low-budget horror movie, the long “a”s and slightly rolled “r”s of the English accent are the mark of superior acting talent.
Since the end of the studio system, Hollywood has been engineered to output substandard talent. It’s no accident that when filmmakers need quality, they turn to the Crown. I personally hate the whole SAG thing, and the agent thing, and the casting director thing so I go out of my way to try and find unknown, great young actors. But, I’m a malcontent. I really like British actors, but I believe that there are legions of talented Americans shut out by a faulty system (and I don’t like paying for transatlantic flights). I don’t blame big time directors. They are only choosing the best talent from the limited options presented to them by the studios, agents, and unions. When given the choice between a reality TV “star” or a charismatic, well-trained stage actor, I’d go with the Limey too.
I have no problem with a British Superman. Now, if he doesn’t stand for “truth, justice, and the American way”, we’re gonna have some issues.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.