While I don't think there is anything wrong with the Pirates of the Caribbean scene, it doesn't really scream "Nick is bi" to me. At the time I read it as Nick was realizing that it was Bloom that he was into, not Knightley and that his mom's assessment of his 11 year old desires was just her assuming in a clueless mom way. But it works fine with Nick being bi too.
It's hard for me to imagine Ben as an unequivocal villain or simple foil. His whole deal seems to come from pain rather than cruelty.
If you go back and watch it, the visual language is more direct than that—there's clear cuts between closeups of both actors and the closeup of Nick's face.
And yeah, I was struck right away by how different Ben seemed, and a lot of it is in performance—the dialogue is often the same, but whereas in the comics his face is often twisted and angry, none of that really comes through as anything other than pain.
Sorry to necro this, but I have a more general question about entertainment journalism and LBGT media. I was planning on saving it for the Love Victor article, but I'm impatient.
This is something I thought about first when I saw an interview with Jacob Tremblay and Jack Dylan Grazer after Luca came out, and again when I read an interview with Rueby Wood for Better Nate Than Ever. What should the rules be for talking to young (under 18) artists about the LGBT content of their projects? I certainly think asking anyone about their own orientation should be off the table, except adults in very limited circumstances. But there was a lot of talk about whether Luca was an LGBT story (it is). Doesn't it make sense to ask its stars what they think about that, and not just what their favorite flavor of gelato is? In the case of Wood, he made a statement about how starring in Nate let him be himself. Isn't the natural follow up to ask if Nate got to be himself, and whether it matters that the word gay is never said in the film?
I get wanting to be especially respectful of minors and not wanting to subject their personal lives to scrutiny, but when a vocal minority of the public wants to pretend there are no queer kids I think it's important for everyone who can to push back. I'm curious what you think as someone who writes and thinks about TV professionally.
I think it's a matter of what we feel is achieved by doing so. In other words, do we feel like they are going to offer an answer that helps us or anyone understand the issues at stake?
To me, these are fundamentally questions to ask of writers/directors, and not of actors, who don't control their characters' stories and ultimately have no say in the matter. I don't think it's about not wanting to subject their personal lives to scrutiny, and more about respecting their lack of agency in telling that story. Things shift a bit more when you're talking to bigger stars—like, say, Anthony Mackie being asked about the slash fic community around Falcon/Winter Soldier—who have more agency, but a voice actor/child actor are just not really going to be able to provide enough meaningful insight to justify the discourse involved.
Thanks for responding. Fair enough. But adult actors who don't have any creative control (at least officially) get asked about their takes on the characters they play all the time. I'm just not 100% convinced that a different standard for teen actors is warranted.
I saw the closeups. From the acting I got that Nick was reacting to and noticing his reactions to both actors, but I didn't see anything that read unequivocally as attraction to either (if only he were a cartoon wolf). I think a lot is what you bring to it. If you know he's supposed to be bi you can see him as into both, but if you think (as I did) that his arc was going to be a gay awakening then it can be read that way too.
Sorry, I not trying to quibble over a tiny point but I thought of a better way to describe my interpretation of that scene. I think the key is that Nick is surprised by his reaction to Bloom but not by his reaction to Knightley. So it comes down to whether you take the claim that he was attracted to Knightley as an 11 year old at face value. To me that seemed like such a corny mom comment that I dismissed it.
Ah, yeah—to me the closeup of Knightley was pretty explicit, but I take your point that I KNEW to read it as a bisexual awakening in context in a way you didn't.
While I don't think there is anything wrong with the Pirates of the Caribbean scene, it doesn't really scream "Nick is bi" to me. At the time I read it as Nick was realizing that it was Bloom that he was into, not Knightley and that his mom's assessment of his 11 year old desires was just her assuming in a clueless mom way. But it works fine with Nick being bi too.
It's hard for me to imagine Ben as an unequivocal villain or simple foil. His whole deal seems to come from pain rather than cruelty.
If you go back and watch it, the visual language is more direct than that—there's clear cuts between closeups of both actors and the closeup of Nick's face.
And yeah, I was struck right away by how different Ben seemed, and a lot of it is in performance—the dialogue is often the same, but whereas in the comics his face is often twisted and angry, none of that really comes through as anything other than pain.
Sorry to necro this, but I have a more general question about entertainment journalism and LBGT media. I was planning on saving it for the Love Victor article, but I'm impatient.
This is something I thought about first when I saw an interview with Jacob Tremblay and Jack Dylan Grazer after Luca came out, and again when I read an interview with Rueby Wood for Better Nate Than Ever. What should the rules be for talking to young (under 18) artists about the LGBT content of their projects? I certainly think asking anyone about their own orientation should be off the table, except adults in very limited circumstances. But there was a lot of talk about whether Luca was an LGBT story (it is). Doesn't it make sense to ask its stars what they think about that, and not just what their favorite flavor of gelato is? In the case of Wood, he made a statement about how starring in Nate let him be himself. Isn't the natural follow up to ask if Nate got to be himself, and whether it matters that the word gay is never said in the film?
I get wanting to be especially respectful of minors and not wanting to subject their personal lives to scrutiny, but when a vocal minority of the public wants to pretend there are no queer kids I think it's important for everyone who can to push back. I'm curious what you think as someone who writes and thinks about TV professionally.
I think it's a matter of what we feel is achieved by doing so. In other words, do we feel like they are going to offer an answer that helps us or anyone understand the issues at stake?
To me, these are fundamentally questions to ask of writers/directors, and not of actors, who don't control their characters' stories and ultimately have no say in the matter. I don't think it's about not wanting to subject their personal lives to scrutiny, and more about respecting their lack of agency in telling that story. Things shift a bit more when you're talking to bigger stars—like, say, Anthony Mackie being asked about the slash fic community around Falcon/Winter Soldier—who have more agency, but a voice actor/child actor are just not really going to be able to provide enough meaningful insight to justify the discourse involved.
Thanks for responding. Fair enough. But adult actors who don't have any creative control (at least officially) get asked about their takes on the characters they play all the time. I'm just not 100% convinced that a different standard for teen actors is warranted.
I saw the closeups. From the acting I got that Nick was reacting to and noticing his reactions to both actors, but I didn't see anything that read unequivocally as attraction to either (if only he were a cartoon wolf). I think a lot is what you bring to it. If you know he's supposed to be bi you can see him as into both, but if you think (as I did) that his arc was going to be a gay awakening then it can be read that way too.
Sorry, I not trying to quibble over a tiny point but I thought of a better way to describe my interpretation of that scene. I think the key is that Nick is surprised by his reaction to Bloom but not by his reaction to Knightley. So it comes down to whether you take the claim that he was attracted to Knightley as an 11 year old at face value. To me that seemed like such a corny mom comment that I dismissed it.
Ah, yeah—to me the closeup of Knightley was pretty explicit, but I take your point that I KNEW to read it as a bisexual awakening in context in a way you didn't.