I Don’t Understand the Love for Henry Cavill’s Superman

I’ve seen a lot of passionate people on Twitter grieving the loss of Henry Cavill’s superman role. The Hollywood Reporter released a fresh scoop detailing how Warner Bros. is allegedly releasing Cavill from his contract. It’s honestly not very surprising.


On top of the Mustache-gate debacle featured in Justice League, DC just simply took Cavill for granted. They thought he had a debt to them for building up his career in a major way with “Man of Steel” and that they could do no wrong. They mistakenly thought he was a team player, a DC-Lifer in the same way that Robert Downey Jr. is for Marvel.

The reality is that Cavill wasn’t that great as superman because the movies both weren’t very good and even, oddly, chose to use him as an uninspiring, emotionally void supporting character. “Man of Steel” was a subpar movie, poorly directed and slam-packed with so much corporate advertising that it felt sleazy and desperate.

The premise that Cavill has the “potential” to be a great superman if he were used properly is unknowable. He’s a stiff American Eagle model with the jawline of a God but the personality of an Olympic announcer. He says all of his lines clearly but there isn’t any real passion or character-building behind it.

It’s as if Henry Cavill had been built by James Lipton in a film factory that produces A.I. performers. The dialogue is written in a stilted and boorish manner, sure, but the choice in actor didn’t help, either. Let’s give our comic book characters personalities again, even if it means returning the diaper.

Why not give him a Kansas-style accent? Make him espouse American values, even if it’s slightly at odds with his morality or short term decisions/choices. The most engaging thing about superheroes is their imperfectness. The whole intrigue, at least for me, is the concept of ‘what would you do if you were suddenly granted god-like powers?’


People have always claimed that fame reveals or amplifies a person’s true identity. Multiply that by ten or a hundred if that individual not only instantly became world famous, but also had the power and ability to spite his enemies with no recourse?

That’s an interesting dilemma and the angst surrounding such an issue was not believably brought out or portrayed by Henry Cavill. He looked contemplative and thoughtful when he was supposed to feel hesitant and broken. Neither the character nor the actor ever truly understood the magnificent impact of their powers.


Film Review: Winnebago Man (2009)


Winnebago doesn’t ask the internet-era philosophical questions straight-on, but rather takes an approach that is not discomforting, but still funny. It is about the Winnebago man, Jack Rebney, a trailer salesmen who has a series of rage-fits while filming a commercial for the trailer company; his camera-men find it comical after-the-fact, and it becomes an internet sensation, the Winnebago man being watched and re-watched with hilarity. The documentary hopes to find him, who is now similar to¬† J.D. Salinger with his enclosed wilderness life, and ask him how he feels about his life and what the out-takes of the trailer commercial has done to it: The filmmaker is never pushy, nor do we sense him restraining laughter behind the camera, and because of this it is a great study in the Winnebago Man’s true character, who is now very much blind.

He writes about the wrongness and spends time with his dog; he gets in a scary episode when he loses his track while walking in the forest, and he is often blunt and insensitive to the filmmaker, his shouting partly being done one senses out of his still-remnant desire to fill his character. The director says at one point “I feel like I’ve stepped inside the Winnebago outtakes”, and I instantly felt a sense of wrongness: Why give the internet-hounds what they want? Why can’t he be like Roger Corman, who seems like he’d be a pony-tail wearing madman, but instead is a quiet, intellectual-like figure; why can’t we exploit! But wait, how is that any different then what has been done? Nothing. We cannot change to please, nor change to displease, without it being untrue and disembodied: This is difficult in a world that adores, brands, and cherishes personalities. What is Youtube doing to culture? We’ll, not to worry I believe, because within a small amount of years people will be so practiced in the art of adoration that all the popular Youtube videos will be manufactured: Shaky camera, laughing in the background, all the necessities of a home-video will be remade in a studio: Why? For views. Commercials have already begun: Flo from progressive, the state farm danger man, and more are their for familiarity and laughs.

The movies ends on a strong note when the Winnebago man decides to talk at a fan-expo, and he realizes that them loving him is not so much out of ridicule, but genuine like of his character; how this could be possible, considering he was raging all over the place, we don’t know, but don’t question it. It will last as a strong, albeit multi-faceted, study of the man, but we must decide which character he plays is truly real: Will he hate that he spoke in front of people the next day? Who knows.