Re: the chapter by Anne Dunn on "The genres of television." The aspect of casting (or "stars") deserves a closer look. We respond to many characters because of the "semiotic baggage" they bring to their roles. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Their characters have a resonance, or layers, due to previous roles they've inhabited, So the ultra serious Asian guy in Fastforward carries with him some tiny bit of Harold in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. One episode had him staring down some disheveled perp, saying, "I know what a bong is." lol! If I was more screen literate (see the article you're to read in the near future), I would find that scene in that episode, copy it, and embed it right here. But sadly, I'm not, so you're stuck with my verbal description. Anyway. Do you think some actors have TOO much embedded history? Do they know it and wield it in interesting ways, or not? I'm thinking of Morgan Freeman, who is forever "Morgan Freeman" even (or especially) when he's playing Nelson Mandella (coming soon, folks, coming soon). He was on Jay Leno last night (another layer), but I swear to god the only thing that kept me paying attention was remembering that mysterious car accident he was in not too long ago (after his wife divorced him? was it in Florida?) I didn't expect the matter to be discussed on Leno; in fact, I don't think I was even conscious of that at the time, but now I know that's what kept me watching.
Somebody like Neil Patrick Harris, albeit considerably younger, is wearing/wielding his layers with considerable aplomb. (I hardly ever get to use that word, so color me happy). Doogie Howser, of course, what else? How does it work that he plays a ladies' man on How I Met Your Mother and is an openly gay actor, not to mention fabulous host of the Tony Awards, SNL, etc? And how does Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog figure into the entity/brand that is NPH?
One of the reasons I like indie films is because the actors are usually transparent and I can see the character.
I was watching the view this morning with my mom and they were discussing something like this topic. They were talking about with some actors or actresses you can't see past who they really are or roles that they previously played or will play and how it affects the way you see them in film. They were talking about some actor and his sexuality and how it wouldn't be the same if it were some big macho star like Brad Pitt or George Clooney. They said that the feelings wouldn't be the same if they had to play a homosexual role instead of a macho romantic man role. I do think that actors and actresses roles in previous movies and shows do play a part in how we see them.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about Morgan Freeman is that he wasn't always Morgan Freeman, the character. In his first Academy Award nominated role he played a pimp with an attitude, and rest assured it was menacing.
ReplyDeleteThe film was Street Smart, and also starred Christopher Reeves as Superman. Well, not exactly Superman, but we always think of him as Superman, no matter what he's in. (Goes along with this topic doesn't it?)
This film had none of that grandfatherly wisdom we've come to expect from the waterfall of knowledge that is Morgan Freeman, unless you count his speeches on how a "bitch better get his money" or he'll "cut her" as something deep and profound.
So, I'd say Morgan had the tendencies of a great actor: the chameleon ability to blend into any environment he set his method acting mind to. Instead, he found his niche and continued to do it for a paycheck. My assumption is that this started when he was nominated for Driving Miss Daisy. He was now "in" Hollywood as a Movie Star rather than an Actor.
The same can be said for some of the better actors of yesteryear. People like Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino (definitely Alllll PACINOOOO) and even Robert DeNiro have all descended from great, method acting, transforming actors to caricatures of themselves. So now, our generation views their older work as just another "Jack/Bobby/Al" movie because their so accustomed to the star's work when they've phoned it in.
Take Jack Nicholson for example. When you think of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest you begin to correlate it to The Last Detail, but you miss that Five Easy Pieces and Chinatown, alongside the first two films, showcase what a phenomenal and diverse range this actor has. That's one of the best five acting jobs an actor has given, let alone in a row. But his days of serious acting (with the exception of the Departed) are probably over and he's forever brand as "Jack Nicholson" (the character) in our mind, rather than R.P. McMurphy (Cuckoo's Nest), Jake Gittes (Chinatown), Robert Dupea (Five Easy Pieces) and Billy "Badass" Buddusky (The Last Detail).
But you realize that Morgan and Jack, even Robert and Al, all started in indie films. This is where they were able to be the method actors they wanted to be, and strive for artistic and emotional expression rather than phone-in, hollywood film star hamfesting. Indie films just feel like actual efforts in filmmaking rather than monetary ones. It feels as though art is trying to be achieved on every level: cinematography, acting, directing, audio, screenwriting and the like.
Currently, thanks to indie films, my favorite actor is Ryan Gosling and I feel he is an actor that cannot be pigeonholed or stereotyped as a certain style or method. I never think of his previous roles or characters when I'm engulfed in whatever of his I'm viewing. He has phenomenal range and I feel we've yet to see his best work.
Good responses, Brooke and Jason! Full pointage for you both. Very nice history of The Leading Men. I was reading in the NYTimes the other day that DeNiro has now moved into Geezer territory, and listed all the mannerisms thereof.
ReplyDeleteI watch FlashForeward as well and remember that part too! I laughed to myself because with John Cho, even when he was in Star Trek, I always think of Harold and Kumar. Some actors lie you said bring with them what I call star presence. They are only hired for a role because of their name and what they have done in the past. Look at Nicolas Cage, he had some great movies back in the day, Raising Arizona anyone? But lately he puts out movies like Knowing and Bangkok Dangerous that just make me confused. Its gotten to the point that I know people, not just me, expect something specific when an actor or actress is in a movie. With Cage we all expect his method acting and a movie that may or may not revive his career. I think this is why we see some stars back off and step into an indie role. This allows them more free reign and can stretch their acting muscles in different ways. I usually think of Crash when it comes to this It essentially started out as an indie movie that had actors like Brendon Fraiser, Sandra Bullock and Don Cheadle in it that were all big names. This step back to an emotional indie drama helped them, maybe not Friaser as much. Bullock had the movie The Blind Side recently which has gotten very good reviews and Cheadle is now going to be in Iron Man 2. So yes with some actors there can be baggage that comes with them but it is up to them to shed it and convince us, the audience, that there is more to them. Jim Carrey was able to do it in Eternal Sunshine and Adam Sandler was able to do it in Punk-Drunk Love soit is possible.
ReplyDeleteI like your comment on Indie movies and how you can see through the actor and to the character. This is a good point when considering more serious television programs or films; I don't think Jim Breuer will ever be able to shed his persona as the lovable stoner, Brian, in Half Baked. So my answer to your question is yes, I do feel like some actors have too much embedded history. Actors seem to have created and maintaned their own molds. They've become variables used to solve character and story equations to fill scripts for production. During fall quarter I took a script analysis course with Eric Williams, and in the second half of the course we had to come up with a production plan for a script of our choice. When it came to picking actors we wanted to fill roles, typecasting made our decisions quite easy based on actors prior roles. For example, we chose Brad Garret to play a role similar to that of Frankenstein's Monster. Hollywood needs more talent! Casting shouldn't always be as easy as a flip through the roladex or scan through IMDB.
ReplyDeleteI think that typecasting and pre existing connotations of a characters prior roles is an everyday part of media consumption. Whether its good or bad depends on the actor, and the character they are stuck with. Sometimes its good for both the viewer and the actor. I think David Duchovny makes for an excellent example of this. I am a huge fan, loved him in X Files and every movie he has ever done. He stars in the show Californication as Hank Moody but to me he is the same character as Moulder, without the trench coat and gun, and that is why I love this show. Its because me, and many other people, want to see more Moulder. Even more interesting though is that the character Hank Moody, is actually just Duchovny playing himself essentially... a wealthy, hollywood sex addict. The point is, that no matter what David Duchonvy is in, I only see him as himself, or Moulder....and that works great, because thats what I want.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this semiotic baggage doesnt always work out so well. Jason Alexander for example, talented actor that played George on Seinfeld for many years. I have seen him in a few movies (very few) and again in some tv shows (even fewer), but he is always playing "george" or he just comes off as George to me. He can't escape it, and because of it he cant get much work. He is either typecasted as George, or overlooked because hell just end up acting like "george". Even in Curb your Enthusiasm, whether he is playing Jason or George, they are the same person...which is odd becuase "george" is supposed to be Larry David, which is a whole other layer of semiotics.
So, it seems that sometimes it works well and other times it doesnt. I think the best chance of a star being successfully typecasted is if their original role was successful and is something they are proud of. Otherwise I think it will just be a sad burden for them to bear...always being George from Seinfeld. A lot more these days though we see actors playing as themselves in their character roles. I think that this can be a good way of alleviating the negativity of typecasting....just be yourself.
One other thing I would like to mention in regards to the strength and success of a typecast actor is Kelsey Grammer. For years (7 maybe) he played the character Frasier on the show "cheers", then he spun off and did "Frasier" for another 11. Then he did a few more less successful shows where he essentially had the same role. Say what you will about typecasting but it made Kelsey Grammer a net worth of $120 million as of 2006.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDont know why that didnt have my name, but that was my comment above
ReplyDeleteI can definitely agree that some actors have too much of an embedded history. I could list a bunch. Some that come to mind have to be Matthew Broderick (AKA BUELLER... BUELLER?). He was in some movies after that, like Inspector Gadget (terrible) but all I can think of when I see him, even standing next to Sarah Jessica Parker is "BUELLER!" Speaking of Sarah Jessica, that is another member of Hollywood that has a lot of "semiotic baggage." Her role as Carrie Bradshaw lives on, and it is hard to separate her acting ability from that role.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting one that could go both ways is Johnny Depp. He is so closely associated with Tim Burton and his films that it is hard to see him step out of those gray-lensed off the wall films. But, we have seen him do it in his Disney escapades of Pirates of the Caribbean, and one of my favorites, Blow. He is an actor that does not have one specific brand to him.
I almost believe that it is actors like Johnny Depp, and Jim Carrey (good one Logan), that do not let the baggage consume them. They are constantly delving into different roles to change up their status in Hollywood. Unfortunately, then you have people like Will Ferrell, who can transform into ANY funny man on the big screen, but would probably be shunned by fans if he dare stepped into-- say a movie like Jim Carrey did- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
I think its about the dedication these actors have, and their management teams. It is about knowing what these actors are capable of, and what they are not. That makes for successful tv, movies, etc...
Yes definitely I think that actors get stuck in a role or you really seem to think that the characters that they play are themselves because you see them all the time. Morgan Freeman has a long history and I usually see him as Red from Shawshank Redemption and I will always see him that way. Bruce Willis seemed to always be a tough down to earth kind of guy and that is how I see him or a cop from a bunch of his movies. Sylvester Stallone reminds me of a punch drunk idiot.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if this is a bad thing, I think that people like to see their favorite actors doing what they do best. The thing is the really great actors seem to be able to change for all types of roles. I would have to say that these actors or actresses know that they have these roles I mean they are in a business and they are going to keep doing what they know and get paid for. I think that NPH is hilarious and really has the multiple layers and does a great job in his acting to conceal certain layers when he has to. I seem to see a lot of passed roles in actors and actresses but I think it is good overall to see that because when they are in a new role you can relate and decide if they did a better job at this one than the last.
I think the actors/actress's embeddedness depends on the situation. If you go see a movie with Samuel L. Jackson in it, you're going to expect to see Samuel L. play a character that acts like Samuel L. However, there are people that can play a character and make you believe it is a different person altogether. Kevin Spacey is good at this ; as he had me convinced he was a serial killer in Seven and also had me convinced he was a middle aged man with a major midlife crisis in American Beauty. I wasn't just watching Kevin Spacey, I was watching a different character in itself.
ReplyDeleteI feel that some actors will forever be linked to a character and never be able to let it go, much like Jon Heder of Napoleon Dynamite, Mark Hamil as Luke Skywalker, and McLovin from Superbad(see: I don't even know that actor's real name). I think that character emdeddedness is human nature, it is natural for people to familiarize themselves; in a way to feel comfortable. Hollywood likes character embeddedness because it sells tickets. People are gonna pay money to see a Will Ferrell movie instead of seeing an unknown comedian act.
I agree that characters are more transparent in Indie films, because you have not yet known the actor or actress playing the character. In an Indie film, you do not think about the other movies the actors have been in because you do not know them yet. It is easier just to see the character instead of the actor. If you went to see a Tom Cruise movie, you might spend half of the movie thinking about his performance in Top Gun; but if you haven't seen the actor yet; you can just focus on the character because you have no familiarity with the face onscreen.
I feel you are right by saying a lot of actors can't get past these small layers they start to build up as actors, but at the same time this helps shapes who they are and why different types of people like/dislike them. This may be a very far-fetched idea but this relates to sponsorship in my eyes, for many reasons. Many professional athletics choose to get sponsored by companies. From this they get payed and get free stuff, for promoting the company's name and logo. This relates to me as the idea of different actors building up there layers and trying to sell themselves to other productions and the people. But how much control do these actors and/or athletes have in the final outcome. I'm sure the big actors that have built up these layers have a final say but when they are just starting I feel a lot of this has to do with the writers and directors choices on how they think the actor/actress will be best suited to interact and be pleasing to the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe best example I always think of when I see "embedded performers", whose you only think of in one role are the cast of Friends. Anytime I see Jennifer Aniston or Matthew Perry doing a movie I only think of Rachel or Chandler on Friends. No matter how different of a role they star in compared to Friends, they just can't seem to shake the Friends role. I guess being in a hit show for 10 seasons can do that do an actor/actress.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen too many Morgan Freeman movies so I am not able to properly discuss his role as being "Morgan Freeman" in every movie he does, but him portraying Mandela does interest me a lot and I will be willing to dish out a few quid to see that movie.
The Neil Patrick Harris character in How I Met Your Mother is amazing. I think for an openly gay man to play the womanizing role that he portrays in the popular show is fantastic. I sometimes forget that he is gay because he seems like such a ladies man in the show that it is hard to imagine him not going out to the bar every night and picking up a new single lady(of any age if you saw him in Monday's episode you will know what I mean). The "Playbook" episode for example seemed like it was directly from his life, using all sorts of wild schemes to score with the ladies, but then I remembered, this guy is gay, he doesn't even like women. Talk about getting in character, now that is TRUE acting right there. I don't see him as Doogie Howser though simply because I never watched the show once in my entire life, so it is hard to imagine Barney from How I Met Your Mother as a Doogie.
I do agree with you about Indie Films, it allows cinema fans to see a more real side of actors. I think Steve McQueen portrayed this very well in his movie career. He played roles that he wanted to play as well as doing roles that he knew would be hits and make him a ton of money. But from his niche movie roles in films like Le Mans and On Any Sunday we saw the real McQueen, who he actually thought of himself as. Then he did "real" acting in his mainstream movies like the Thomas Crown Affair and the Cincinnati Kid. It was a nice mix of genres that he starred in and I think it is ultimately what led him to such great stardom, people saw his real personality, something rarely seen in top-level actors today. He created the stereotype of men wanted to be him and women wanted to be with him and in my opinion he did this through an amazing combo of niche indie roles as well as blockbuster hits that appealed to huge audiences. It would be nice if more actors did roles that they loved but knew wouldn't make them any money rather than doing movies they do not like but will make them a ton of money. Johnny Depp has done this mix rather well starring in a movie like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Blow as well as the huge big money hit Pirates of the Caribbean. it is a reason he has so many fans both men and women, he has a movie that a fan of every film genre can appreciate.
Dr. Nelson,
ReplyDeleteI completely understand the point behind your post because I had to overcome the same type of problem when I acted in high school... albeit I was by no means a 'star' but I definitely wanted to be!
Without sounding stuck up or snobby, I had a nitch for theater and performing, which I was able to foster even more throughout high school through plays and musicals. By the end of high school I ended up having some fairly large roles, all of which ended up being the same type of character... dumb and slutty (hey, I'm just being honest)...
After I did so well my sophomore year with this type of role, I was immediately type-casted for the rest of my acting career. I thought I could overcome this struggle by auditioning for Much Ado About Nothing (a Shakespeare play) and finally have a respectable role. I swear to God I kicked serious butt at my audition and even perfected my English accent but, of course, I ended up being casted in the role of a drunk security guard who was constantly making an ass of himself.
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to prove my point but the fact of the matter is that I completely understand the idea behind the semiotic layers of stars. It is my belief that each actor absolutely must learn to build upon the characters they have played in the past because subconsciously the critics expect that from them.
Will Ferrell did try to step into the drama arena (albeit comedy-drama) in 2006 with Stranger Than Fiction. But comparing a gross of 40 million for that particular film to his 100 million+ hits Talledega Nights and Step Brothers kind of pushes that particular venture back into the shadows. I really enjoyed that movie, but I think that others expecting to see Ron Burgundy or Ricky Bobby didn't so much.
ReplyDeleteIt's not necessarily a bad thing that actors carry their histories inherently; we can't always predict when films are going to be hits, and when we see an actor or actress in an amazing performance or memorable role we hope that they will continue to live up to that expectation.
I find NPH as an anomaly in this sense, as he isn't technically remembered for playing a specific role (forget Doogie!) but after Harold and Kumar, in which he essentially makes fun of himself, he became a caricature of himself, which is very unique. When I see him in passing on TV, or Dr. Horrible, I don't really think of the role he's playing so much as "hey, it's NPH!"
Another actor that I think of in this way is Samuel L. Jackson. While Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite movies, I don't necessarily always think of him as Jules, although he often plays his other roles in a similar style, cool-but-collected.