Seite - 50 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Band 03/01

50 | Theresia Heimerl www.jrfm.eu 2017, 3/1, 45–57 self, through clothing and behaviour, as non-heterosexual.11 this stigmatisation of the villain as embodying an alternative sexual orientation is certainly not a prerogative of comic book screen adaptations, but rather emblematic of nu- merous other villains in many action movies, ranging from Bond antagonists to Philip Seymour Hoffman in Mission: Impossible III (J. J. Abrams, Us 2006).12 suppressed and misguided if perceived from the angle of heteronormativity embraced by Hollywood cinema, this sexuality furthermore finds expression in a sexually charged sadism that manifests itself through violence and power plays involving female victims, often with the ulterior motive of breaking down the hero’s composure.13 in this respect, however, the cinematic adaptations of Marvel and DC comics mostly limit themselves to hints which the audience may be able to decipher, but which do not require a higher age rating; thus the symbolic language of sexual violence is not implemented as real, graphically depicted sexual violence. Unfettered desire is a central trait of the villain, which derives its destructive effect not least from the fact that it represents sexually deformed desire finding expression in violence that may also be sexualised vio- lence. the hero distinguishes himself from the villain perhaps in no other respect as much as in this one. he does not desire, at least not in the way the villain does, whose voracity is written into his face and body, fully in line with the spirit of graphic stylisation inherent in his comic book origins; conversely, he strives for noble ideals like justice and freedom. Neither does he feel sexual desire as an expression of animalistic lust. he could fall in love with a woman or even does so. in this, the question of whether he will vent his romantic feelings through a sexual relationship with his beloved or will choose to abstain is resolved in various ways. some heroes like superman or spiderman spend their cinematic life languishing and pining for their lady, while others like thor are at least al- lowed a long-distance relationship with their love interest. Others – ironman is a case in point – engage in a rather promiscuous lifestyle before following their heroic vocation but then change track to embrace option one or two. this largely celibate existence of the hero is often expressly thematised and justified with the argument that he is bound to dedicate himself entirely to his calling as saviour and opponent of evil, leaving little time for amorous entanglements, and above all by emphasising that a romantic attachment would tie him down 11 A classic example of this is the Joker in the different Batman films, but Lex Luthor in the Superman movies or Loki in the two cinematic adaptations of Thor likewise embody a (at least latently) fluid sexuality. see Winstead 2015, 572–585. 12 see Beson-Allott 2012, 215f. 13 for example, the scene between the Joker and rachel Dawes, Batman’s love interest in The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, Us 2008), where the villain’s words, gestures and way of touching the female protagonist’s face with his hand wielding a knife represent massive invasion.