When we saw Now, Voyager last week, it felt very interesting watching an actress, whom I had read and heard about via readings in class and the internet as typically playing very strong characters, go against her 'persona', playing a very subdued, and nervous character. Even saying this now, it feels slightly strange, as an actor's job is to play any part given to them, and it should come as no shock if they decide to do something different. But, when I think about it in context with the Star as an established persona, created and exhibited by the films/other media forms that they star in, it does begin to make sense. In short, it feels strange seeing stars play a role that seems to go against their own persona.
Once I started thinking about playing against type, I kept on thinking about examples I have noticed in recent movies that I have seen. Examples that come to mind are Steve Carrell in Foxcatcher, Charlize Theron in Monster, and Adam Sandler in The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected). While I haven't seen the latter two, I have still seen significant attention given towards the roles that Theron and Sandler played in their two movies, most often when I stumble upon a Wikipedia article, or in a list compiled by Rotten Tomatoes. In any case, there always seems to be a buzz about actors choosing to go against their 'type', whether it's comedy, drama, sci-fi, etc, mostly because we don't expect this of them, and are surprised to see that they are more than what we believe them to be.
In a way, seeing actors today go against 'type' almost seems like a way for them to demonstrate that they are dynamic human beings, not just character tropes that we see on the screen and expect to be exactly the same when we encounter them in real life.
Ben, I think this tension arises from the difference in 'actor' and 'star'. An actor is expected to take on any role that comes to them with enthusiasm. Furthermore, they're expected to be able to excel in any kind of role, regardless if it's against type, if they want to succeed and gain stardom. Many actors have a 'type' of character they excel in or prefer, but work vigorously to expand their range for this reason. Conversely, the star does not carry this expectation. They've somehow (whether earned or not) transcended their duty as a versatile performer. Sometimes, this is because they 'paid their dues', and went through the traditional actors plight. Many times, however, they are pushed to the top of stardom after one-to-a-few type-casted roles, and consumers learn see them only in that light. Because of this lack of expectation stars hold, we are shocked whenever we see a star in a new light. This works even more for the star and grants them even more stardom, because we automatically gain a new respect (even if unwarranted because most actors should be able to have range) for them 'venturing' into a new role. Is it not the actors job to do so? Why do we forget this when it comes to stars?
ReplyDeletePresley Wilson- supplemental response 2
Hi Ben and Presley,loved your posts. I wonder though...since the audience knew there was a glamorous, bombshell Davis under the mousey, insecure Charlotte, don't you think that part of the pleasure in watching the film was knowing she would gain her freedom, self-confidence and beauty through an amazing makeover? Also, at the end, I love that Charlotte not only bucks consumerism as a cure-all but she is able to reject Jerry's desire to continue having an adulterous relationship. She is going to live her life on her own terms. Love it!
ReplyDelete