C3PX said:Ziz said:Actors are only typecast in the minds of people who are too lazy or stupid to separate the actor from the character (s)he portrays.
Not really. Good way to turn it around and blame the audience, but that isn't very fair. Some actors really are typecast to certain roles. Why? Because they play the same sort of role over and over again. Is that the audiences' fault that they have a hard time imagining that actor in any other role, when that is the only kind of role they have seen them in? Hardly! If an actor doesn't want to be typecast, all they have to do is branch out a bit. You see some actors and are blow away at their ability to do different things, and then you hear Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler have a new comdey out, and decide to skip it because you have seen the last five movies he has been in and can barely distinguish one from the other.
It is not the duty of the audience to not be "lazy" or "stupid" and suspend their belief that this character played in the same way by the same actor as a character different movie are two entirely different and unique individuals. If and actor is worth his salt he will convince you of this, regardless of your level of intelligence or your incentive to work at convincing yourself.
I agree this is a fair way to say that roles are given to certain actors who play certain types of roles. But their are always those audience members who see Tom Hanks as forrest gump in every movie he does, or harrison ford as han solo and indiana jones in every movie he does as well. Which is not quite fair. But usually if an actor gets a once in a lifetime role and then flaws it so flawlessly and memorably that is the character people immediately see the actor as. Some times directors even cast to type like lucas did for star wars. Mark Hamill is indistinguishable from Luke Skywalker, as is Harrison Ford as Han Solo and Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia.
Anyways convincing the audience comes after they first have to convince the casting person on a movie. And some actors regardless of talent get trapped in their roles. Like Mark Hamill did as Luke Skywalker. And really only got the respect he deserved after years of voice over work. People still claim he is and was a bad actor even though he was nominated for a tony award for appearing in the broadway play amadeus as mozart.
Without him i don't think i would be a fan of star wars. The character he created on screen i totally bought as a kid because of the humanity of the performance and his character was the easiest for children to identify with. He made the movies real to me.
Hayden on the other hand could not sell the concept of Anakin Skywalker and the later 2 prequel films if he even tried. I mean i have seen him in enough other films to say imho he is an awful actor. He might be a decent person and a nice kid as the production team said he was. He had the physicality for the role and he had the look. But he could not do anything except look sullen. He even looked like he was bored. Lucas should have involved him somehow in the creative process to at least get him into the role.
I still believe with a better character director an actors director could have gotten a good enough performance out of hayden. Lucas "faster and more intense" means a lot of nothing and hot air. Wow he can do manic action. But he can't make us care for his characters.
The first prequel film while far from perfect at least had some humanity to it and emotion. What little there was. The later 2 films are emotionally barren on a purely human level. the films are sterile and without life. But are perfect special effects reels. Or great to splice into video games as cut scenes.
And when i say emotion i mean to get the audience involved in the story. I don't mean the emo thing with whiny hayden. Or the over the top music that demands you feel something in these lifeless excercises in colors, movement and sound. Episode III missteps quite a bit but feels alive at some points but not enough it is towards the end of the film and the good parts are intersparsed with sillyness and ridculouslness on a grand scale. Plus there were maybe one or 2 moments in episode II. But still that is the weakest of the three films and is a dud.