Martin Deer on the reaction to the potential change of gender for Superman’s pal Jimmy – or rather Jenny – Olsen…
Now that I have your attention, breathe… I like that Jimmy is now a Jenny – if that is even actually the case.
A few months back a rumour was started on a fan site suggesting that Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel would feature a pretty substantial change to one of Superman’s main supporting characters – Jimmy Olsen would now be a Jenny. In the second trailer for Man of Steel, Lawrence Fishburne’s Perry White can be seen running for his life through Metropolis with young actress Rebecca Buller, and now further to that a new publication due to be released as a tie-in to the movie features a set photo of this particular scene and has again pushed opinion in overdrive, as it lists Fishburne and Buller as Perry White and Jenny Olsen respectively. The site that posted the rumour later stated that they were advised Jenny Olsen would be Jimmy’s sister, however the geek community continues to freak out that Jimmy might actually be a Jenny.
So, is there really a problem here? No, of course not, and I’ll get to why there isn’t in a moment, but first I do want to say that if Jenny Olsen is in the movie, she could very well be Jimmy’s sister. We aren’t going to see much of Daily Planet Clark Kent in this movie as that’s likely going to come at the end once Clark has stepped up as Superman, having traveled the world and decided what he wants his destiny to be. And so, quite conceivably, we could see Jimmy Olsen in a sequel. A Jimmy Olsen who has been inspired by Superman, or perhaps even a Jimmy Olsen who admires his sister who gave her life in Zod’s alien invasion. Who knows? We don’t know anything yet!
But let’s assume that the gender change rumour is true and that Jimmy Olsen has been changed to a woman. Well, frankly, so what. I’ve seen some of the negative reactions to this news and to be honest, it is pretty shameful. Man of Steel is a new interpretation of the Superman mythos and when new interpretations come along, all we really deserve as fans is for the creative team involved to remain as true to the characters as possible – that they keep to the characters core characteristics. When Christopher Nolan re-interpreted Batman, he took the characters and fir them into his own world, whilst remaining true to the characters he used. Take The Joker – Nolan removed the perma-white face and made him fit into his world as a more chaotic anarchist. But he still stayed true to the character, it was just his interpretation – which is arguably the greatest depiction of The Joker. The core characteristic of Jimmy Olsen is not what dangles between his legs.
So IF Jimmy is now a Jenny, why the change? Well, since everyone is making assumptions about it being for headlines (there has been no official statement at all, FYI) or that it is down to Nolan tinkering with the mythology again (Nolan wasn’t the only one involved on this project you know) or that hell, “Jimmy can’t be a WOMAN”, I’m going to make my own assumptions – but I’m going to be a bit more logical about it. Why would David S. Goyer and Chris Nolan want to change Jimmy to a woman: what logical sense does that make? Nolan isn’t even known for writing women that well, is he? Well, he changed that with Selina Kyle last year, and what if he and Goyer in a film packed with strong male characters (Superman, Jor-El, Jonathan Kent and Perry White), wanted to write a young strong female character for women to look up too alongside Lois Lane and Martha Kent – the latter of whom seems to be involved just as much as her husband. That’s the only reason I can logically think of; with Nolan everything has a reason and with Goyer we should trust that they are going to stay true to the mythology. If Jimmy is now a Jenny, it will have a purpose in the story or it will be because they thought it was a refreshing change which could bring something new – perhaps it says something about journalism today? The fact is we just don’t know.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop some sections of fandom unleashing their venom. Only a few weeks ago the internet went in to meltdown when rumours emerged that Michael B. Jordan – a black actor – was up for the role of Johnny Storm – a white character – in The Fantastic Four reboot. Further back than that, Shailene Woodley was horrifically and despicably hit with a barrage of insults when many thought she wasn’t “hot enough” to play Mary Jane Watson in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. In 2011 it was Anne Hathaway receiving those kind of comments, and I’ve even seen people complain that Amy Adams, A RED HEAD, was cast as Lois Lane. Forgive my bluntness, but if you are one of these people, you’re a disgrace to us all. I’ve even seen women talk about Hathaway and Woodley’s quote unquote hotness; the very same women who fight for sexual equality, are complaining that an actor doesn’t have the required level of sexiness to play a fictional character. It’s absurd. Aside from being downright vulgar, what actually matters most is what is integral to making a good film – acting ability. Not looks, hair colour, accent, nationality or race, but ACTING ABILITY. Can these actors actually do a good job in bringing these characters to life?
Most baffling to me of all is that fans of superheroes – especially Superman with his outstanding moral goodness, who respects others and always does the right and just thing – can be so morally deplorable. One of my favourite moments from the Man of Steel trailers are the words spoken by Russell Crowe’s Jor-El, which have been taken from Mark Waid’s 2003 comic series Superman: Birthright: ‘You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders’. Race? Clearly most of us haven’t even sat up yet….
Martin Deer
