By Brenda Franco
Benedict Cumberbatch became an international celebrity because of his role on Sherlock. But according to Dailymail, it was announced yesterday that Cumberbatch almost did not get the role because he was “not sexy enough”. The shows screenwriter thought it was risky for Cumberbatch to have the role because of this strange looks.
Steven Moffat spoke yesterday at the Hay Festival saying he was glad he chose Cumberbatch because he made the show what it is today. Moffat said his decision was between Cumberbatch or David Tennant from Doctor Who. Tennant was also not considered sexy enough.
Being a big time Doctor Who and David Tennant fan, I can see why Moffat, who also created Doctor Who, would be hesitant. Tennant was probably the best doctor the remake of Doctor Who has had so far. He’s a good actor and isn’t ugly. However, having Tennant be the main role in Sherlock would have in a sense made the show into Doctor Who with a different story line. That wouldn’t have been right.You don’t want your audicne to be thinking about another show when watching a new one due to the actor. But not giving Tennant the role for not being sexy is stupid.
This whole fascination with looks to cast actors illuminates how important they are. It also demonstartes that the quality of an actors skills aren’t the most important thing, in reality is his appearance. Cumberbatch is known for looking a little odd. Like I wrote in my last post, someone went out of their way to compare Cumberbatch to Butt-head. But why is that? Why is there so much fashination with Cumberbatch’s looks. My roommate loves him and tells me he’s a good actor. But people don’t talk about that, it’s mainly how he looks. I don’t know of any other celebrity that gets so much media coverage on his looks. This illuminates just how fixated our society is on physical appearance. That people are more interested in seeing a pretty face on screen than phenomenal acting. It’s quite sad really.
I very quickly polled both my roommates on the sexiness of Cumberbatch and both agreed that no, Cumberbatch was not particularly sexy. As in, they agreed that Cumberbatch had “a weird face” and praised him not for his looks, but for his acting abilities. Perhaps then, it would be apt to call Cumberbatch not-unattractive, as he may have not conformed to the generic standard of attractiveness, but was clearly not so unattractive that he couldn’t achieve the role of Sherlock. I would argue that because the (albeit biased and limited) sample of our roommates (yours enjoy his looks and mine appreciate his acting) isn’t even remotely unanimous in deciding whether or not Cumberbatch should be valued for his looks or his acting, one could not definitively say one way or another, if Cumberbatch should be prioritized for one or the other, because it seems to depend on the person.
More interesting to me is the introduction of this news to the audience about the decision to have Cumberbatch play Sherlock, a character we agree that should focus on intellect rather than appearance, was wavering because Cumberbatch “wasn’t sexy enough.” While there is a certain level of ‘attractiveness’ needed to pass the initial filters of the actor picking process, there have most certainly be instances where main characters are not the ‘ideal’ attractive image. For example, Melissa McCarthy by no means fits into the stereotypical size 0 actress model (and very recently talked about how she was disappointed when shopping), but has found a career in acting based on her performance. Therefore, it would be implausible to say that one always needs to fit the ideal in order to act, but rather that one needs to fit the image that the directors have in mind for the character.
Therefore, the onus is on the directors for Sherlock’s casting and to prioritize Cumberbatch’s looks as the defining feature for the character, rather than the ability for the actor to convey Sherlock’s personality (which would be his defining trait), brings into question the ability of the casters to see beyond the Hollywood stereotype of “sex sells.” I am reminded, in particular, of the criticism that followed “On The Road” that dealt with the choice of cast – that while I’m sure they were attractive people, critics claimed that the actors chosen couldn’t convey the essence of the characters well enough to support the movie. I then would conclude that Cumberbatch’s apparent ‘sexiness’ may or may not exist, but his ‘attractiveness’ certainly appeals to the audience, regardless of whether it comes from his looks or his acting, and that the casting crew was lucky Cumberbatch passed the “not-unattractiveness” tests.
The media has always been obsessed withe people’s looks especially women. Cumberbatch, if not famous, would probably not have made a blip on the radar if walking alone on the street. His looks are above average, but it would not be hard to find someone more attractive walking around on a busy street. However, coupled with his fame and some stylist, he has become seemingly more attractive. It is not wrong for these executives to think this way since it is a billion dollar industry and the attractiveness of their actor could make an impact on their profits and longevity of the show which they are pour money into. To have more attractive actors will reduce the risk of losing their money, however, it is more important for the actors to have talent and chemistry in order for a show to flourish. The obsession with looks ultimately begins with the public rather than the producers since the producers are simply doing what will make them the most money and the cliche that everyone knows still holds true “sex sells”.