Martin Scorsese said that marvel films aren’t cinema. He was highlighting the age-old problem of art vs commerce. The tension from creating something that moves people, yet if its too nuanced and niche no one will understand it and so it won’t make any money, or it is too broad you lose your artistic integrity but you make money. I think this dichotomy is too simple and things can be niche and bad, and they can be broad and emotionally engaging. Which brings me on to Supernova, written and directed by Harry McQueen.
Before we even get into this film, it has created a large controversy, which I thought I should address. As it’s 2021 I should disclose my privilege to start with. I am straight, white, male, tall so I have the main ones, I sustained an injury so I am no longer able-bodied if that counts, I walk with a cool limp now.
The issue around this film is that the two leads Colin Firth (Sam) and Stanley “the tuc” Tucci (Tusker) are straight but the characters they are playing are gay. This has generated a lot of think pieces about representation versus meritocracy. Can only gay people play gay characters? Does that mean you have to disclose your sexuality before auditioning for roles? Can you not perform as something you have no experience in, i.e only serial killers can play Hannibal Lecter? Shouldn’t the role go to the best person? Should representation be more important than talent?
I am lucky to have a lot of vocal gay film friends who have shared a lot of interesting and well thought out think pieces on this. As always, no group is a monolith so there are lots of different voices. As I have disclosed my privilege I just sit, read, and contemplate all of the ideas raised. Check out a couple for here and here and against here. But now to separate the art and the artists.
Supernova follows Sam and Tusker as they journey across rural England in their trusty campervan. We learn that Tusker is in the later stages of dementia. He is forgetting things, getting lost and losing motor control. Sam is struggling with how he is going to cope as the illness progresses.
Sam and Tusker on in the same vehicle but on completely different journeys. Sam wants to spend as much time and create as many memories with Tusker before he can’t recognise Sam’s face. A harrowing and noble act.
Tusker on the other hand is trying to show Sam that he has many people in his life that love him and that he won’t be alone when Tusker finally dies or disappears from his body.
Most movies, if we are following a traditional structure has a central question that gets challenged throughout the movie by different parties. This usually is introduced early in the film. Alternatively, films can be a slice of life where we just experience a small glimpse of the challenges people face in their lives.
If felt like this was a slice of life film until deep into the second half of the film when the central question was raised. At times it felt like it only had the story for a short film but it was filled with moments to increase the run time. While watching the film I thought to myself would this be any different with the leads being a male and female?
The bigger question for me goes back to the art vs commerce question. Would this film have gotten made without the big names attached? If they weren’t attached and it was just two non-famous straight actors would it have gotten all of the column inches? Did the commerce of requiring big named actors to get the film made ruin the art of the film? Would the film have gotten as much attention if the actors were gay?
We will never know. Unfortunately we can’t A/B test life like we do Facebook ads, but I do think representation matters, seeing stories of people different to you on the screen is good, I just don’t think this particular film is.
Luke McMeeken-Ruscoe
28 January 2021