Two-Bite Interview: Martian Child scripter Jon Tolins

A few weeks back we posted about the rather strange story of the book The Martian Child (by sci-fi writer David Gerrold) and the way that its lead character seemed to have lost his gayness in its translation to the soon-to-be-released film (John Cusack plays the lead). Gerrold himself had made some interesting comments about what might have transpired, and recently one of the screenwriters of the film, Jon Tolins, posted an explanation of the rather fascinating situation on his blog.

While fans of the book might be shocked to learn that the gay lead character (loosely based on Gerrold, who is himself an out gay man) is straight in the film, it doesn't appear to be as cut-and-dry as the character's sexuality simply being changed during development. As Tolins explains it, the screenwriters based their script on Gerrold's original short story, in which the character's sexuality is never mentioned.

Tolins, himself a gay man with a child, understands where the confusion is coming from but wants to set the record straight -- and he was kind enough to take the time to answer a few of our follow-up questions about what happened.

AE: It sounds as though you and your writing partner were working from an early version of the eventual novella that did not address that the character was gay. Gerrold noted that producers who optioned the book before Kirschner did had issues with the character being perceived as gay as well -- and eventually dropped the project -- which suggests that they had read the novella. Had the producers who brought you on board bought the rights to the short story or to the novella? Did they not know that the character was gay in the longer text?

JT: I do not know about any previous experience David Gerrold had trying to make a movie based on his story before our version, except that those efforts were unsuccessful. Seth and I were not working from "an early version of the eventual novella." We were working from Gerrold's award-winning short story that had been published in the 1990s. We had no reason to believe he was planning to expand the short story, which the producers provided to us in its magazine form. When we sold the project to New Line in 2002, the studio purchased the rights to the short story and also to the new novella to control all the rights for legal reasons. People involved did know that the character was gay in the novel, but that was not the story we pitched (because we had written ours based on the short story).

AE: Even though the character is not explicitly gay in the short story, you also entertained the idea that he could be?

JT: The character in the short story seemed to have no personal life whatsoever. (If anyone would like to verify this, they should read the original short story and see for themselves.) I brought up the possibility of the character being gay because, as a gay man, I know that some people are gay.

AE: You note that when you did consider making the character gay, you thought it might get in the way of the main story.

JT: Sure, I think there are questions raised by a story about a single gay man adopting a child. For instance, in some states, such an adoption is illegal. How does a person's sexuality (wrongly) determine his legal rights in this situation? What led this person to adopt as a single parent? What are the attitudes of this person's family? His community? His friends? In Gerrold's novella (which I read later and, I repeat, we did not use), many of these questions are left unanswered. If I were in the audience of a movie about a single gay man adopting, I would wonder about these issues, and I would want the filmmakers to address them accurately and fairly. That was not the movie we set out to make. And again, we had no inclination to go down that road because it was not in the source material we started from.

AE: Would it have been too risky to just not address the topic at all? Would any single man adopting a child in this day and age raise suspicion in terms of his sexuality?

JT: Risk was never an issue. We created new specific details about our character's life that were not in the original story to make him more alive and interesting. To leave so much of who he is a mystery would be unsatisfying dramatically. I also do think it would be difficult to produce a mainstream movie today about a single, possibly gay man who adopts a young boy without addressing the questions of legality and society's attitudes toward the child's welfare. (As a new gay father myself, though with a partner, you can guess where I come down on these issues. And why I am sensitive to them.)

AE: You mention that you "knew what was coming" when you realized what the reaction might be to the perceived "de-gaying" in your script. Have you come up against this kind of sensitivity before from the gay press and gay readers?

JT: My plays The Twilight of the Golds and The Last Sunday in June both had many gay fans but also some gay detractors. Some critics who didn't like them accused me of misrepresenting or being unfair to the gay community. The criticism got personal and was hurtful at times. So I was very sensitive to these issues. (Queer As Folk, on which I worked for one season, was also at the center of some controversy, but as a co-producer with little power, I can honestly say that credit and blame should go to the executive producers.)

JT: None whatsoever.

AE: In the end, your blog suggests that the evolution of the actual script that was eventually produced never included a gay lead character, from source material to screen. And all things considered, you're fine with that.

JT: The character of David was never gay in the original short story we read, in the treatment we pitched, or in any of the drafts of the screenplay that we wrote. (I do not know about any scripts Gerrold may have written himself in the more distant past.) All things considered, yes, I suppose I am "fine with that." The only disappointment I feel is that this confusion over the source material may interfere with people's experience and appreciation of the film.