“Hollywood” is really more or less apolitical. Decisions to be wary of Kristen Stewart being bisexual and being cast is because the Marvel movies are all supposed to be huge, block buster hits with broad appeal with a large minor audience. Which means they have to take the audience into consideration when making and promoting the films. As stupid as it is, a casting choice might cause enough controversy to get it black listed among some groups and harm the movie’s performance. Is it bullshit? Yes! But it is something they have to factor in because the world is still full of bullshit. Can you call it a cowardly? Sure. But I wouldn’t call it any one political leaning, it’s just “business”.
Now there are 101 other movies where casting a bisexual woman wouldn’t even be a blip on the radar because of the intended audience and appeal.
You may note there have also been moves to make movies more China friendly. Their theater market is huge and more than once a flop in the US has been a hit there. It is believed their decision to cast Tilda Swinden in Dr. Strange for a character that was supposed to be a Tibetan Mystic was to get it to play better in China by removing the Tibetan elements.
Art is a reflection of society. But for every corporate entity making slimy decisions to make a film have more mass appeal, you have a couple dozen indie film makers experimenting and pushing boundaries and aren’t afraid to make niche films about controversial topics. It’s why something like Moonlight won an Oscar for Best Picture, but a Marvel movie never will. And as social norms shift (which they are rapidly doing) eventually questions about casting someone like Kristen Stewart won’t even be a thing.
This line of thinking never comes up when people argue the propositions that when actors demonstrate progressive, queer, or otherwise “PC” qualities, that they’re only doing it to “promote their movies”, or to “be popular with the younger generation”…
It’s somehow box office poison at the same time as it’s a surefire path to cynical box office success.
That’s the same model for those that argued against the possibility of Black Panther and Captain Marvel’s breaking even before they came out (the idea of skitterish bigoted white crowds), but who then used the idea of “diversity-pandering” as the reason they did well after they actually did.
I have never seen the Twilight films. I did see Snow White and the Huntsman and Jumper…and well…she’s a block of wood.
I am not saying Disney/MCU are falling over themselves to have an openly gay/bi character on screen; but they have had some dabbling in that area and I have the feeling her not being in one of their films has zero to do with her sexuality and a lot more to do with her lack of acting ability.
One thing you cannot say about the MCU suite of talent is that any of them are bad actors. Everyone from major to minor roles bring a lot to the table.
Like I said - it’s mostly bullshit. In chasing “broad appeal” they end up alienating others.
In the case of the Tilda Swinsen example, it is a little less bullshit because China controls which movies can be shown in China, and given their history and current problems with Tibet, they would have likely passed on it.
Tilda Swinton is gender fluid. (Edited later to add: Not directly identifying, but perceived as such by the supposed potential ticket-buyers that would alienate.)
She’s actually one of the leading example that casting non-binary people isn’t box-office poison. The idea of a bigoted mainstream avoiding movies because of out LGBT actors isn’t as plausible these days. Did the LoTR movies ever make any money?
(They did duck having a Tibetan actor in a fairly unprincipled way. They could have done better.)
Is she? I know she plays plenty of gender fluid characters, but I had not heard that she identified as such? As far as I’ve heard or seen, she’s cis-gendered and straight in her personal life (which as far as I know, she keeps fairly private).
To be absolutely fair, who wasn’t in those films? Chris Hemsworth played a stunned fish, and I can’t even remember what Samuel Jackson did in Jumper and I think he’d otherwise be watchable in security cam footage.
Yeah people tend to forget that. In fact, Hope Hicks is now one of the higher ups at New Fox while on the other side of the 21st Century Fox purchase by Disney sits Marvel exec and close Trump ally Ike Perlmutter.
You’re right, I shouldn’t speak for her. She hasn’t said how she wants to be labelled, but she has addressed that she doesn’t and hasn’t always seen herself as a woman exclusively.
She’s great, and I was just saying she’s a good example that big box office films aren’t hurt by the possibility of bigots whispering and gossiping about gender non-conformity.
I just hadn’t heard that, but she seems like the kind of person who is very private.
Her first big film had her changing gender, so there is that.
Agreed. Although, most of her work is in indie films, and I’m going to guess that the audience for those films are probably more likely to open to themes about non-conformity in gender (among other things). I’m glad that she’s taken roles like that into more mainstream films as well.
But honestly, I’d love to see more of stuff like Pose, where the characters who are LBGQT+ are played by people who are LBGQT+.
After seeing Twilight:
Me: “That actress is terrible. There was no character. It’s like she was just a blank slate.”
My Wife: “The main character in lots of movies is a blank slate. It’s so the viewer can project themself onto them. You just don’t notice it because most main characters are men like you.”
Me: …
For anyone doubting Marvel would have had an issue with her sexuality, it would depend a lot on when this happened. If it was when Ike Perlmutter was still CEO, I could believe it. It is no coincidence that Black Panther and Captain Marvel both happened after he was no longer CEO of Marvel Entertainment.
