At what point does the reality of the person impede your enjoyment of the actor?

I think it comes down to a few things that all come together: acting ability, a good script, and being in a good film that really sucks you in.

And for me, it's not just the public antics of an actor or their political beliefs or whathaveyou. I have a really hard time separating most film characters from the actors playing them because the actors playing them often aren't really "acting" much. They're just "With [actor] as [character.]"

Here's a perfect example: Leonardo DiCaprio. I'm sorry, but I have seen ONE movie in which I could honestly forget that he was Leonardo DiCaprio and that was Inception. I was totally lost in that film and didn't think while I was watching it "This is Leonardo DiCaprio playing a character." Every other film -- EVERY ONE -- that I've seen him in, all I see is Leonardo DiCaprio. Since about, oh, the early 90s, I feel the same way about Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. These guys don't "act" anymore. They play themselves in a role. I mean, I'm sure Pacino acts when he's doing Shakespeare on Broadway, but when he's just paying the bills? He's STILL basically doing a mix of his Scent of a Woman and Devil's Advocate schtick. Bruce Willis does Bruce Willis most of the time, too.

And it's not because these people can't act, either. They all have genuine range. But people don't really let them use that range, I guess. Bruce Willis CAN do comedy -- and quite well at that. He's terrific in Death Becomes Her. He can do melancholy and drama, as in The Sixth Sense. But most of the time, if you stick him in a movie, you're saying "Ok, Bruce. Now give me your best John McClain/Bruce Willis thing...aaaaaaaaannd......ACTION!"



I think the more that someone does that, and the less they honestly get lost in a role and let the audience get lost in a role, the more difficult it is to separate their personal lives from their characters. The more they just "play themselves", the less able you are to pretend they're someone else.

So, this is why when a guy like Schwarzenegger -- such a larger-than-life personality as it is -- pulls something like this, it's REALLY hard for the public to see anything other than the maid-boffing philanderer on screen. Why? Because Ahnold does not act. Ahnold is Ahnold on screen. Maybe he's fighting martians, maybe he's blowing up robots, maybe he's lying to Sully and dropping him off a cliff to find Chenny. But he's always Ahnold.
 
Good thread topic, outlander.

Very few people have crossed the line for me because of their private lives. He's not an actor, but I think Polanski might be the only one who readily comes to mind.

Solo, I'm 100% with you on DiCaprio and Inception. As for Bruce and comedy, it's a shame; he was amusing in Hudson Hawk and Fifth Element, too. Nobody remembers; it's as if Die Hard came along and somehow erased all traces of Moonlighting from the universe.

Keanu is in that Ahnold bracket too; can't see him as anything but Keanu.
 
Well, I used to have problems with DiCaprio because he was such a pretty boy. But as he has matured and grizzled a bit, I have started to like him in roles a lot more. Shutter Island is a hell of a noir style flick.
 
For me, some actors just produce so many movies that it's hard to not see them as an actor, even if their work is really good. Anthony Hopkins is a good example for me. I love the guy as an actor... he's a fantastic actor but I've seen him in so much, most of the time when I see another movie coming out I don't see the character, I see Anthony Hopkins.

It isn't because he has personal issues or media blowouts like Mel Gibson or that I think he's a bad actor, it's just that it seems he's EVERYWHERE sometimes.

All that said, when they find the right role, they can still disappear into their character.

While watching Thor, I never once thought to myself "hey, that's Anthony Hopkins!" and it was nice to see something where I could just appreciate his work again and not be distracted by how often I've seen him in other movies.
 
dualedge said:
For me, some actors just produce so many movies that it's hard to not see them as an actor, even if their work is really good. Anthony Hopkins is a good example for me. I love the guy as an actor... he's a fantastic actor but I've seen him in so much, most of the time when I see another movie coming out I don't see the character, I see Anthony Hopkins.

It isn't because he has personal issues or media blowouts like Mel Gibson or that I think he's a bad actor, it's just that it seems he's EVERYWHERE sometimes.

All that said, when they find the right role, they can still disappear into their character.

While watching Thor, I never once thought to myself "hey, that's Anthony Hopkins!" and it was nice to see something where I could just appreciate his work again and not be distracted by how often I've seen him in other movies.
Click to expand...

Yeah, again, I think it depends on the jobs they take and the direction they're given. How many times do you figure Anthony Hopkins has been told to just "be more like Anthony Hopkins" or something? :lol

I think that, often, unless you're taking roles where the delivery and character are so RADICALLY different that you end up really having to stretch, it's pretty easy for well known, A-list actors to end up just being themselves on screen or at least seeming very much the same as in their last ten roles.


I think overexposure can do that to you, though. But when you do get to see these folks play in roles that are VERY unlike what they've done before...well, it's a rare treat.
 
I have tried, but many times it goes the opposite way instead.
Neil Patric Harris is even better as Barney Stinson now that I know his gay,
and Sylvester Stallone's Rocky is even better considering the same guy did the POS called John Rambo (seriousley the first film was really good, the second alot worse, the third was incredibly stupid, but it amazed me that the 4th could be so bad. Well, until I saw Disposable Heroes, or whatever it's called...)
and when it comes to scientology...
I loved Tom Cruise in Tropic thunder....and I hate myself for it. Not too mention that other presumed(<-now they can't sue me , can they?) gay scientologist in Face Off.

In general, being an ******* does not stop someone from doing a good job, and I see that at work too.
 
It's when the actor/actress takes certain things public that it effects their jobs... sometimes, their talent cane overcome their own crusades/liabilities, sometimes it just makes them a joke.

The personal issues that the press exploits doesn't effect me as much.
 
So far, it has only happened with one person: Roman Polanski. We all know why he should be vilified.

Paul, I am right there with you on Rogen/Rogan/Rogaine. How does he keep fnding work and when does his deal with Satan expire?

As to Arnold, that is a fine example of "You can't turn a hoe into a housewife". If Maria thought she was going to domesticate The Oak, she was kidding herself. It doesn't affect his body of work in MY eyes.
 
Actors who get on a soapbox tend to annoy me or actors who are pushing a religious or social agenda. It can get to a point where I am so annoyed that when I see a movie of theirs all I can think about is what they are constantly pushing. Tim Robbins and Susan Surandan come to mind. Both are phenomenal actors but I am sick to death of hearing about their politics and agendas and it makes me not want to watch them. Maybe it is a double standard but when I think about someone like Arnold or Mel Gibson, it doesn't bother me as much, even though Mel Gibson is clearly nuts and I strongly disagree with his personal beliefs it doesn't feel like he is constantly trying to push them on the world or trying to tell the world how they should be... maybe that is just me.
 
JD said:
It's when the actor/actress takes certain things public that it effects their jobs... sometimes, their talent cane overcome their own crusades/liabilities, sometimes it just makes them a joke.

The personal issues that the press exploits doesn't effect me as much.
Click to expand...

I should have read this before making my post. Perfectly stated.
 
I read the question differently, and my answer is not exactly what the OP is concerned with, but it's closely related. Since about 5 years back, I've been finding that the reality of all actors impedes my enjoyment of all movie characters now, even all my old favourites. Watching Clint for instance I just see a grown man - who in reality isn't a big hero - waving a toy gun around, playing at cowboys or cops and robbers like some kid. As Steve McQueen said, 'I'm not sure acting is something a grown man should be doing'. McQueen is easier to take; at least he does all his own stunt driving in Bullitt, so there's some reality there...

This sudden inability to suspend my disbelief came on, I think, after I wrote a novel. Having created a fake world from the inside, so to speak, I could suddenly see all the joins in all novels, all films, all theatre. It's terrible, it really is, this loss. It's crazy, I mean, I was actually happy to find out Burt Reynolds broke his back while making Deliverance because I love that film so much I needed it to be REAL, lol...

It's had me reflecting at length about the never-questioned process by which we do and can suspend our disbelief. I mean, to be moved by what we KNOW is an ILLUSION is a slight psychosis, no? But it's a doublethink we slip into at a very early age and which most of us never slip out of...

I'm trying to recover my belief in these illusions, delusions, lies and dreams we call films, stories and novels, and with some success thankfully (I want my Dirty Harry back!). But I think I'll always be happier while watching a tough guy character if the actor is a hard case in real life, preferably with some small criminal form for bar-brawling, lol.

So, yeah ,Tom Cruise. If the film has a nutjob role in there, please, yes, give him a call and let's get him in there. Let's use the real life features and failings of the actors, and fit them up to the characters so I at least can start believing in movie characters again like I used to.
 
Last edited:
A while back Harrison Ford said during one of his few interviews that he preferred to keep his personal life to himself because the more you knew about him, the less you'd see of whatever character he happened to be playing at the time. Made sense to me.

For seriously talented actors, I try to put their personal lives and outspoken viewpoints aside, if they'll let me. However if they insist, often and loudly, on linking themselves to causes I don't support, I don't feel the need to enrich them just for my own entertainment.
 
outlander said:
I guess I'm thinking of the Sperminator in particular, but a lot of people have a serious problem after listening to Mel Gibson's rants.
Click to expand...

I don't think the problem with Gibson comes from what he said - but the fact that the media keeps reminding you how "terrible" he is. So far he's lost out on three movies, not because people didn't want to work with him, but because the studio wouldn't let them work with him - which is just plain stupid. Stern must bring him up at least 5 times a week (which is now just 3 days for him). The director of The Hangover 2 was on Stern today talking about how Mel was supposed to be in the film - Stern laid into him about how Gibson was the worst human being on the planet and went on and on about it forever. Gibson is a talented actor and I would even say a better director - his films are amazing. I hope one day he's able to make people eat it.
 
Too much of this crap finds its way into "the news". When did "So-and-So got voted off American Idol" become top of the hour news? Too much of this info that is shoved down our throats when it should be resticted for the tabloids. But the problem is that Americans have a sick facination for this stuff and CNN and others large news organizations are a slave to ratings.

So what if Charlie Sheen is nuts or Arnold is a horn dog. Robert Downey JR was a train wreck years ago and now everyone loves him. I don't care what they do, what they said, who they are adopting, what political view they have, or what their cause is. All I care about is if they can entertain me. If they can't, then move over and let someone else get a chance.
 
Last edited:
When they let Michael Vick back in to the NFL, I quit watching. I wasn't an Eagles fan, but I was convinced that the severity of his abuse and the initial public reaction would never allow him to play the sport again. I'd watched football all my life. I can say I have less friends that watch sports because they're interested in music and the two are often polar opposites. I can say I usually don't have much in common with sports fans anymore. I can say I never had much interest in other sports besides hockey occasionally. There's a lot of truth to those things. There's also a part of me that can't believe or accept that public opinion matters so little that they'd let this animal abusing monster have a free pass back into the game. Yet someone like Pete Rose was banned for life. You can argue the semantics, but I don't buy them.

I understand the vitriol directed at Roman Polanski 100%, but I think he's a phenomenal director all the same. I'd rather watch one of his movies than one of Michael Bay's and Michael Bay's crime is only that of sins against quality by abusing toilet humor, explosions, the U.S. Military, hyper-editing resulting in confusing fight sequences and stretching the boundary of suspense of disbelief beyond credibility. It doesn't mean I want to take coffee with Polanski.

Charlie Sheen makes me sick. He had it all and he flushed it down the toilet through a self-destructive jag. I don't want to ever give this jack off another dollar, but that has more to do with me having so little and him having so much he can jerk it all away like it doesn't matter.

I think what a lot of it comes down to, is most people appreciate not only the schadenfreude from seeing someone high and mighty get kicked down a peg, they also like to see that person rise up again. Not all of us can appreciate the latter, but it sure seems like the press loves these successful rises once someone has done that to themselves. I can't think of too many actors who've successfully managed to do that in my eyes, though Robert Downey Jr. comes to mind. I don't view drug addiction the same as other people and I consider a lot more things destructive drugs than most people do.

Mara Jade's Father has a good point in his first paragraph. I don't care about celebrity scandals. That's why I watch independent news and BBC News. I believe it's little more than a distraction from news that matters. If I cared at all about that stuff, I'd watch TMZ, Entertainment Tonight, or read People Magazine.
 
Last edited:
i like to take an all encompassing look at my fave actor/actress's life, and tailor mine to match there's exactly....i get beat up a lot
 
When they Die. That's when I quit going to their new stuff.

But really, that's the test. When the hype machine dies, did they leave anything good that will be watched years later?

Usually I quit watching their stuff before they outed themselves as weirdos. They only 'do projects' to make money for all the hangers-on that surround them.
 
I don't pay attention to 'actors' lives off screen. I don't care. I just care that the movie that I paid hard earned money to watch doesn't suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top