By Jennifer Asencio
| Published 46 seconds ago
Supergirl star Milly Alcock is already worried about her movie. The actress told Variety that she’s already expecting “backlash” for playing the character, given that she’s a woman in a superhero role.
“It definitely made me aware that simply existing as a woman in that space is something that people comment on,” she said in the interview. “We have become very comfortable having this weird ownership of women’s bodies. I can’t really stop them. I can only be myself.”
Alcock was a little more fair to classic directors Ridley Scott and Martin Scorsese for their derisive comments about superhero films, offering a nod to their “phenomenal films” and admitting that “Not every film is for everyone.”
Variety Is Not A Trustworthy Source
As much as Alcock’s statement about women in superhero films has faced backlash of its own, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here. After all, the story was presented by Variety, who recently attacked both Chuck Norris and Brigitte Bardot after their deaths with posthumous hit pieces.
The magazine has also been happy to amplify and invent accusations of bigotry against detractors of bad shows from popular franchises like The Acolyte and Starfleet Academy. So, I’m not sure how much of the interview was arranged to give the impression that Alcock was making the activist statement the publication is eager to imply.
Milly Alcock Should Be Used To Body Scrutiny
After all, Milly Alcock is a veteran of the Game of Thrones franchise, known for its graphic sex and nudity. The actress did have a few racy scenes on the show. Being associated with that character would organically subject the actress to scrutiny. In that respect, women’s bodies are definitely “commented on.”
However, so are men’s. The most recent addition to the Game of Thrones franchise, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, shows men in various states of undress, even graphically waving around parts that only Game of Thrones fans can tolerate.
As much as we comment on how sexy women might be, we comment on men just as often for six-pack abs and handsome faces. The superhero space is full of peak-fitness characters like Thor, Wolverine, and Superman himself. A well-dressed, well-groomed man is lusted over just as much as a sexy starlet. When it comes to actors, audiences, and even the productions themselves do “claim ownership of… bodies,” but Alcock is wrong to suggest that it is exclusively women’s bodies.
The Difference Between Catwoman And Storm
It’s also not like other superhero roles haven’t been played by women. The X-Men and The Avengers movies feature lots of female superheroes, like Jean Grey, Black Widow, and Storm. Actresses like Famke Janning, Sophie Turner, Scarlett Johannsen, and Halle Berry never received unusual scrutiny from those roles that Alcock is projecting about; Berry did receive it for another superhero role she played: Catwoman.
What was the difference between Catwoman and Storm? The Catwoman movie was a critical failure because it had a weak story that didn’t resonate with fans. That’s not the fault of the actress, either.
Wonder Woman didn’t have that problem, but Wonder Woman 1984 did, so the first was a critical success and the second a critical failure. Since Gal Gadot played the role both times, what made it different? The same things that made Halle Berry’s roles different: Wonder Woman 1984 was just not a good movie.
The Real Reason Milly Alcock Faces Scrutiny
The main reason Alcock’s rendition of Supergirl is receiving so much “commentary” isn’t really because of Alcock herself. The first trailer introduced a character who was gratuitously dysfunctional and literally urinated all over what the Superman franchise represents. The movie’s slogan, “Truth. Justice. Whatever,” also spits in the face of Superman lore because the character is like an alien paladin with a strong moral compass.
To top it off, the recent Superman movie was also not well received by many fans, who felt the character was subjected to presentism and modern identity politics; the initial Supergirl trailer hinted at more of the things fans hated about the Superman movie and none of the things they liked.
There’s Hope For Supergirl
After the release of the second trailer, some of these concerns seem to have been dispelled. What seemed to be a gratuitously absurd take is shaping up to be a strong story that has the potential to offset the concerns left over from Superman. I’ve been told it follows the canon storyline and introduces a Kara Jor-El who is dealing with consequences that the Melissa Benoist, Sasha Calle, or even Helen Slater renditions never really addressed.
Kara was a young adolescent when Krypton was destroyed, unlike Clark, who was an infant. She remembers what she lost. A portrayal of her as something other than a plucky female version of Clark’s optimism is deeply within the realm of the comics.
If the movie is good, Alcock will probably enjoy the “ownership” fans think they have over her body, as she seems to have with House of the Dragon. If it sucks, it probably won’t be blamed entirely on Alcock, even if she takes it the same way the Starfleet Academy cast who have invented “other reasons” their show wasn’t a hit.
However, given the unreliable source, potential viewers should remain skeptical that Milly Alocock’s words were printed as she intended and not presented in a way that makes her look more controversial than she is.
