​Title

This was cut-off earlier and I thought I’d continue here – feel free to engage with me on this topic if you like – I give topics like this my full attention because there is usually more to them than meets the eye. 

Here’s why Alycia Debnam-Carey could absolutely play Poison Ivy:

She’s an actress.  She’s female.  

Here’s why some people might not like that idea: they don’t want to see her in a silly costume playing an overtly-sexy character in a dumb movie (regardless of their own attraction to her and how they discuss her in their own spaces).

Here’s what is missing: 

1. Some people absolutely could see her playing sexy in a silly costume in a dumb movie.  No harm, no foul.  

2. The character of Poison Ivy could be changed up for a film, making her less likely to wear a goofy costume and ‘ooze sex’ like they did in the Batman and Robin film with Uma Thurman – The X-Men films proved it was doable and even necessary to change up certain characteristics from the comics. 

 3. It’s all hypothetical anyway because we don’t know if the character will ever be brought back to screen. If she is, though, ADC could very well be a contender: she’s a hot commodity in the up-and-coming category, professional and by all accounts, well-liked and connected. 

4. Casting is almost always down to who you know, who likes you and if you fit their ‘vision.’ Ability is a plus, but it sometimes is only a small part of the process. If you have the look or attitude a filmmaker wants, overlooking ability does happen (quick trivia: name all the models who became critically acclaimed film stars).  

An argument for why she couldn’t play the part?

1. The character is POC (please feel free to add on this – I thought about age range, but that sort of thing is easily canceled out).

Here’s the ‘more.’

Is Halle Berry a bad actress? She’s won an Oscar, but she was universally panned for her performance as Cat Woman.  You can blame others on that, too, really – a performance is not created by an actor alone. There is a script.  And a director.  Camera angles.  Music.  Editing choices. No performance exists in a vacuum (awards are confusing to me for this reason).

Meg Ryan spent 20 years in rom-com hell before someone saw she could act and cast her in a role she never would have got in her 20s: a tough soldier/pilot on a doomed mission in the Middle East (Courage Under Fire).  Anna Paquin was 11 years old when cast in The Piano and despite having no acting experience prior – won an Academy Award.  For the new Star Wars film, The Force Awakens, JJ Abrams cast an unknown actress, Daisy Ridley – though she had some small parts in television prior.  Margot Robbie was also largely unknown before being cast in The Wolf of Wall Street and, thusly, Suicide Squad.

Recently, Brie Larson was announced as the new Captain Marvel – the tempered response included those who felt she is too young for the part (Carol Danvers is a Colonel in the Air Force – a rank held by older officers, not someone in her 20s).   Does it mean she can’t play the part, does it mean she isn’t appropriate?  

We could go on about the fact that actresses her age are often cast as the romantic interest of a character played by an actor twice her age – and that is seen as completely fine by Hollywood standards – but casting a young actor in a role that might better suit an older one?  Tsk. Tsk.  

The point? Ability is only a small part of what gets you cast in a role.  Previous success can get you a part, just as, at times, a lack of experience is what a filmmaker might be looking for.  It depends on the part.  It depends on the filmmakers choices.  Was Halle Berry right for the role of Cat Woman? I was looking forward to her take on the part, but so many things were wrong with the film that we’ll never know if she could have delivered something better. Maybe she did, but we never saw that performance because of the filmmaker’s choices. Who knows. Meg Ryan did play in a little-seen film called When a Man Loves a Woman as an alcoholic struggling to recover her self-respect and her family.  I thought she was great in it.  She’s done other dramas, too, but kept returning to the rom-com, like Kate and Leopold.  Did her delicate looks and goofy smile limit her appeal?  Or is it the lack of imagination by those who get to make films? 

I don’t think any of us would want to be limited to what we can do based upon our looks, or by the ‘vibe’ we give off – I recall an interview with Eliza Taylor decrying her annoyance with being cast as the dumb blonde and grateful someone saw something deeper in her (she never auditioned for The 100, was cast outright).  Perhaps ADC does give off a ‘vibe’ of youthful innocence, but I found none of that in her performance as Lexa (she was also cast outright, without an audition).  Even in various interviews she comes across as something of an ‘old soul’ and is described as being ‘wise beyond her years.’  She also has been acting since childhood (as have many of the other actors I’ve mentioned). A lack of experience could not be a legitimate reason to dismiss her from any role – is there truly a reason that could (aside from a POC or an age-based character)?  

Looks really aren’t everything – and what you see isn’t always what is true.  The photograph, the film you saw, the telly you watch – it’s all deceptive.  It’s designed to be, even if there is a greater truth lying underneath.  If you want it, you can go looking for it, though it might require a little introspection, a little work. 

When we learn that the thing we love can be more or different from what we thought, from what gives us comfort – can we accept and grow with it?  No one can really tell you that.  How you go through it and how it helps you relate to others is up to you.  Do you stay in the bubble or let it be burst?  

I guess it depends how much you really like that bubble. 

It’s a shame that bubble is built around so many women who might otherwise have more to offer.