HENRY CAVILL – Half-Witcher, Half-Superman, and Nothing More?

It would be nice if Henry Cavill became half-Highlander too, but then that would make him one-third. However, even creating these two already iconic roles should be enough for his career, as many actors don’t achieve even that, yet still manage quite well on average. After turning fifty, there will be time for some “dramatically artistic” role that will sum up Cavill’s career and possibly earn him an Oscar nomination or even the award itself. I always wanted him to play Bond, but that’s not necessarily a high point in the world of major films. It’s more about roles like Marlon Brando in *A Streetcar Named Desire* or Robert De Niro in *Taxi Driver*. So what’s the problem with Henry Cavill? I don’t have any problem with him, but I see that viewers want to see him as a cinema icon and place immense responsibility on him for the characters he portrays, which can lead to disappointment—not so much for Cavill, but for the viewers who can’t control their expectations.

Signs of such disappointment or dissatisfaction spread online recently when it was revealed that Cavill would no longer play Superman and that Liam Hemsworth would replace him as Geralt of Rivia. Hemsworth as the Witcher has already appeared online, dispelling some doubts that he would be a cheap Cavill imitation. As for Superman, a reboot of the character was decided, meaning the role couldn’t go to an actor with a history of playing well-known characters—whether from superhero cinema or any other genre with significant mass appeal and archetypal hero creation in pop culture. The new Superman had to be played by an actor without such a past but with the potential to build a new narrative in this superhero story. Thus, David Corenswet passed the casting process successfully, which brought about similar complaints as when it was revealed that there would be no sequel to *Superman Returns* with Brandon Routh and that the character would be rebooted by Zack Snyder with Henry Cavill as Kal-El. So the question should be asked: For both actors and viewers—looking at the history and characters of the Witcher and Superman—is it not good that Cavill was replaced after a sufficiently long period in both roles?

In the case of Superman, DC had hit a wall in the character’s development, and it’s hard to imagine that a reboot could happen with the same actor. In the Witcher, Cavill built a fantastic character aesthetically, physically, and dramatically, convincingly capturing the literary essence of the character—a role he shouldn’t feel confined in from a career standpoint, especially with Immortals on the horizon. He could successfully leave the iconic role of Geralt of Rivia to Liam Hemsworth, who will undoubtedly rise to the challenge. We have evidence in the form of his role in *The Hunger Games* and the materials from the fourth season of *The Witcher* already published online. There’s no point in being critical and disparaging, as these reactions attempt to judge subjectively based on personal biases what hasn’t yet existed as any basis for criticism. It’s sheer nonsense to criticize Hemsworth as the new Witcher. Regarding Cavill’s role, about which we still know nothing, as Connor MacLeod in Chad Stahelski’s *Highlander*, there’s no reason to doubt the potential success of the collaboration between the *John Wick* director and the *Man of Steel* star. Cavill really doesn’t have to and has a real chance not to be just half-Superman, half-Witcher, even if, throughout his future career, he only continued to play at a good but not outstanding entertainment level like in *Argylle*, he could still say he brought many valuable moments to film pop culture. We should also remember that even leaving iconic roles gives the opportunity for a cult return to them years later, when appearing as mentors, archetypes, easter eggs, etc. So Cavill has nothing to lose, even if his departure from the roles of Superman and Geralt is considered dramatically.

A completely different issue, though related to the online commotion, is the assessment of the actor’s talent. If fan communities mourn Cavill’s absence in the much-hated *Witcher* series and the DCEU standing with one foot in the grave and the other in the sewer, he must be a genius artist, as without him, only ruins and despair remain. It seems logical but not necessarily true. Liam Hemsworth will likely prove this, as he will be criticized only because he’s not Henry Cavill, since the main aesthetic reason has already fallen—he looks great as Geralt. Or his acting will be questioned—there’s always something to find, as Hemsworth has no protection in the form of other legendary roles behind him. He only has Cavill behind him, who had the audacity to leave. Hatred towards fictional characters or the actors portraying them can easily be redirected. Returning to the talent, which seems obvious for Cavill due to his success in such important pop culture roles. But maybe that talent isn’t so obvious? I’m not saying Cavill doesn’t have it—I watched *Argylle* for the second time today to ensure he does, not just in action scenes. With today’s technological advancements, Cavill doesn’t have to be a brilliant actor. He could be average, and the rest is filled in with CGI, sound post-production, stunt doubles, catchy dialogues, editing, and other, better actors who take on the supporting role’s burden to divert attention from the lead actor’s shortcomings. Who knows, maybe the much-criticized *Witcher* series, sometimes almost like the Rejtan painting but safely online where anyone can tear their shirt while sitting in their underwear, isn’t such a bad series. And that’s because a team of professionals took care of Cavill, striving to achieve the highest level, to make him the best of all and create the impression in viewers’ minds that he owes his excellence in the role of Geralt of Rivia solely to himself and his congenial dedication to acting. Consequently, that’s why entire fan communities and the loudest shouters, always the psychofans, can’t imagine the continued existence of *The Witcher*, not to mention Superman, without him. As for the DCEU, they needn’t worry. With Cavill on board, the universe would still fall into ruin. Nothing could stop the degradation except for at least a 10-year break and rewriting this world anew.

So, I would recommend a rational view of Henry Cavill, who is real, unlike the characters he portrays. It’s healthy not to get too involved. In short, I don’t really care who plays Geralt of Rivia and Superman, as long as I enjoy the fourth season and the new Superman. That’s the most important reason for my future assessment of these productions, not the name of the hired actor or the one who left and why. In short, it’s worth living strongly and realistically in your world before judging any other, especially a fictional one.