Batman, Edward Cullen, and the Mythic Actor

Robert Pattinson

Last week, Warner Brothers announced their tentative casting of British actor Robert Pattinson as Batman—and the Internet collectively flipped its shit. People posted wrath to social media, shared windy YouTube videos, and even started an online petition to revoke this casting. The screeching eerily resembles the same anger that followed Ben Affleck’s announced casting in 2013. Internet users apparently have nothing to do except get pissed off by popular culture.

The Pattinson-related outrage relates heavily to his prior prominent role, Edward Cullen from Twilight. Some criticism is explicitly sexist: because he headlined a “girl” franchise, he’s tainted for a boy-friendly property like Batman. Others dog-whistle their bigotry, talking about how an actor carries past roles into new ones (then complaining about shparkles). These complaints probably are the minority, but are voluble enough to sound more prominent than they are.

I’m tempting fire here, but I’ll say it: there’s something to this.

Djoymi Baker, lecturer of Cinema Studies at the University of Melbourne, writes that actors playing multiple roles serve functions similar to retellings of classic myths in ancient times. Homer could tell myths about Odysseus, say, possibly composing them fresh; but he could also throw in something comparing Odysseus to Jason, and audiences would respond immediately. Understanding one myth made understanding other myths simpler thereafter.

Actors do something similar. When William Shatner, say, appears as Denny Crane in Boston Legal, Dr. Baker writes, his bodily presence carries past roles, like Captain Kirk and T.J. Hooker, onto the screen with him. Every actor contains elements of past performances. Baker calls this an “intertext,” a critical term which usually refers to ways one text comments on another, like Marvel interpreting DC. Except Baker’s model makes the actor personally a “text.”

Every character Robert Pattinson plays will draw comparison to Edward Cullen, just as every Bill Shatner appearance draws Captain Kirk comparisons. Some actors resist this: while Shatner has embraced being Kirk forever, Leonard Nimoy resisted being Spock for decades, and failed. Other actors, like Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Robert Patrick (T-1000,), and Anthony Perkins (Norman Bates) were forced to accept their lifelong association with just one role.

Dr. Baker, however, specifically cites Batman as a modern mythological figure that, like Achilles, gets transformed through successive retellings. Each new Batman telling, including the 1960s television series, the Burton/Schumacher movies, Christian Bale’s version, and the DCEU, has referenced and commented upon previous manifestations. Simultaneously, they’ve also differed from whatever came before, thus advancing our appreciation of the character.

Pattinson as Batman will bring the role a youthful sexuality it hasn’t previously had. Though previous big-screen Batman portrayals have been both attractive and sexual, like Michael Keaton or Christian Bale, the sex has always remained at a tasteful remove. Because Pattinson’s persona involves the first adolescent fumblings toward romance, any attempt to not address this history in his Bruce Wayne portrayal would merit condemnation from fans and critics alike.

Three actors, one role: Michael Keaton, Adam West, Christian Bale (click to enlarge)

Directors wanting to avoid actors’ prior history have only one realistic choice: cast actors with no history. Legendary screenwriter William Goldman describes the decision to cast Kathy Bates, a relative unknown, in Misery: James Caan, the male lead, had a history of personal struggle and substance abuse that meshed with his character. But we know nothing about Annie, nothing. Kathy Bates was, for the audience, a complete blank slate, capable of shifting like a storm.

Studios know actors have professional histories. Sometimes they even bank on that: Brad Pitt, Sandra Bullock, and Samuel L. Jackson are bankable properties whom audiences expect to propel stories in certain directions, and purchase tickets specifically to see that happening. We know what we expect from these actors, and they pretty consistently deliver—with occasional minor diversions and surprise reversals.

Having said that, however, I must acknowledge that actors sometimes reset their histories altogether. A seismic rift exists in Michael Keaton’s career between everything that came before Batman, and everything after. When discussing earlier movies, like Mr. Mom and Beetlejuice, it sometimes feels like discussing a completely different actor. Batman so completely changed Keaton’s career that he never shook it, which he acknowledged with 2014’s Birdman.

Such reversals, however, are rare. 1989’s Batman reset Keaton’s career, but forced Jack Nicholson to redouble on a character type he’d been playing, to greater and greater degrees of caricature, for twenty years. So yes, Robert Pattinson will probably meld Edward Cullen into Bruce Wayne. If they’re smart, his producers will lean into this. Because actors are, themselves, the carriers of modern mythological form.