All adult viewers understand that the actor is not the character. Kids don’t get this at first, of course. Remember as a child how disorienting it was the first time you saw, say, Judy Garland in some other movie and didn’t understand how the character was not Dorothy of Oz? Then you learn, and while it may always be a little hard not to think of Dorothy whenever you see Judy Garland, you still understand an actress can play various roles.
But times have changed, in terms of how well we know the personalities of actors. This complicates matters. Once upon a time, we hardly knew the actors at all. In the Silver Screen era, the star system produced actors whose “real-life” personas were as much made-up characters as the ones on the big screens. The personas were carefully crafted and curated by the studios, not the actors. Further, the actors and actresses were discouraged from deviating from their given personas – “elegant” people couldn’t ever appear in public without being dressed elegantly, everyone gave interviews to the movie magazines but stayed “in character” as directed by the studios, and so forth.
And now… the studios have lost power, and the stars all have Twitter accounts. The media aren’t deferential to the studios, and half the time the actors themselves spend a lot of time aggressively promoting their true personalities and politics and beliefs. It’s a different world, and one where we sometimes can’t fully disengage with the actor’s true personality, because so often they won’t ever shut up about it. They’re out there pitching Trumpism and anti-vax theories or whatever, or else (hopefully) working for the good and performing great acts of justice and personal humility. But either way their real selves are way more visible to us, the viewing public, than ever before. This inevitably makes it harder to see only the character on the screen, and really forget about the human being playing the role.
I wish a Hollywood expert, like the beloved former poster @Eve, would weigh in on this topic.
Sadly, a disturbing large number of adults really don’t.
The most egregious example that comes to mind is the group of Castle fans who insisted that Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic should get married in real life. The two actors really did not get on well off set.
I’m inclined to agree. If we insist on judging art by the moral character of the artist, we’ll have very little art left to appreciate.
I realize artists like Louis CK, Kevin Spacey, among some others already mentioned, are lacking morally as human beings. But I can appreciate the work they’ve done and will likely continue to enjoy it.
I was watching The 40-Year Old Virgin and read that one of the minor supporting players is in prison for an attempted murder of his ex that rivaled OJ for ferocity.
You’ll admit that sort of thing takes you out of the movie. Even if it’s just a smirk at Lita Grey as a nymph in Chaplin’s The Kid
Was in prison. He was released on parole in 2018. And it is a flat-out miracle his victim survived (she purportedly lost half her blood supply) and he isn’t still in prison.
The survival of his ex really was a miracle, given that she not only lost about half of her blood supply, but also both her lungs collapsed. That’s something that a 200 lb. whitetail deer dies within 30 seconds of.
It’s been years since I’ve seen it, but wasn’t his character a sympathetic one? You’re still entitled to your opinion, of course, but I thought it was a story of redemption(?)
I was talking to someone about actors over the weekend. He mentioned that Ryan Reynolds seems to always play the same character. I think there’s a difference between actors who have one type that always comes through and the chameleons, like Gary Oldham perhaps, who melt into a role.