|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 23, 2021 22:06:23 GMT
...actor? For instance, while John Wayne is one of (if not) the most revered western actor, but he was often criticized for not really playing much outside the "rugged cowboy" persona.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Sept 23, 2021 22:16:02 GMT
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Sept 23, 2021 22:17:23 GMT
Mostly yeah. I mean it's great that they can pull off their typecast role again and again and still make it work, but it would be even nicer to see if they are able to pull off other things. It's what acting is all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Sept 23, 2021 22:20:31 GMT
Definately doesn't need to.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 23, 2021 22:22:34 GMT
No. To be a very good actor or a great actor they do though. To be a good actor you just have to be able to read lines and emote in a convincing way. Most actors have shown range to some extent during their career.
John Wayne had more range than he is given credit for though, it is just that he became one of the most typecast actors in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Sept 23, 2021 22:34:50 GMT
Depends on what you mean by "good".
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Sept 23, 2021 23:41:35 GMT
No.
The essence of acting is not range, it is truth, and the actor who convinces you that what he is saying and doing is true to the character and the situation at hand is a good actor.
That is why people like John Wayne and Gary Cooper endure and become icons. They don't force the issue beyond their capabilities, and you walk out of the theatre convinced of the sincerity of their performance. In the case of Cooper the emotional values are often conveyed so quickly and subtly (mostly through his eyes), they are gone before you take notice.
Not everyone is designed by nature to be a Dustin Hoffman or an Alec Guinness, adept at shapeshifting into an almost limitless variety of personalities.
|
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Sept 24, 2021 1:45:02 GMT
Range in being able to portray and convey emotions? Yes.
Range in being able to fill different roles? Not really.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Sept 24, 2021 5:19:23 GMT
Nope. Plenty of great actors play variations of the same character in all of their movies. Indiana Jones' personality bears some stark similarities to Han Solo's, for example. And you always know what to expect when you see Jeff Goldblum on the cast list.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason143 on Sept 24, 2021 9:42:54 GMT
Mostly yeah. I mean it's great that they can pull off their typecast role again and again and still make it work, but it would be even nicer to see if they are able to pull off other things. It's what acting is all about. Acting is about playing a character thats convincing to people. Robert Downey Jr, Ryan Gosling and John Wayne dont need range to be better actors.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Sept 24, 2021 11:12:31 GMT
Mostly yeah. I mean it's great that they can pull off their typecast role again and again and still make it work, but it would be even nicer to see if they are able to pull off other things. It's what acting is all about. Acting is about playing a character thats convincing to people. Robert Downey Jr, Ryan Gosling and John Wayne dont need range to be better actors. Looks like I'm in the minority with my opinion. I was led to believe that typecasting isn't really a good thing but at the same time, if they can play a character that's convincing then I guess it's no big deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Sept 24, 2021 13:07:46 GMT
Acting is about playing a character thats convincing to people. Robert Downey Jr, Ryan Gosling and John Wayne dont need range to be better actors. Looks like I'm in the minority with my opinion. I was led to believe that typecasting isn't really a good thing but at the same time, if they can play a character that's convincing then I guess it's no big deal. Typecasting is absolutely a good thing or usual thing for both the actor and the viewer. All actors are typecast you're hardly going to get Harrison Ford play a black lesbian onscreen are you. |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Sept 24, 2021 13:29:25 GMT
I say yes. I really like to see actors getting out of their comfort zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Sept 24, 2021 13:41:30 GMT
Acting is about playing a character thats convincing to people. Robert Downey Jr, Ryan Gosling and John Wayne dont need range to be better actors. Looks like I'm in the minority with my opinion. I was led to believe that typecasting isn't really a good thing but at the same time, if they can play a character that's convincing then I guess it's no big deal. There's nothing inherently wrong with typecasting. It can lead to steady work if an actor's looking for it. Typecasting only hurts if the actor wants to branch out into different types of roles and can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Sept 24, 2021 15:49:13 GMT
Looks like I'm in the minority with my opinion. I was led to believe that typecasting isn't really a good thing but at the same time, if they can play a character that's convincing then I guess it's no big deal. There's nothing inherently wrong with typecasting. It can lead to steady work if an actor's looking for it. Typecasting only hurts if the actor wants to branch out into different types of roles and can't. That is true, and I don't believe typecasting is all bad, just when it gets in the way of the actor's versatility.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebayharborbutcher on Sept 24, 2021 15:55:19 GMT
I don’t think you need to have range to be good. I do think you need to have range to be considered great.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 24, 2021 16:32:15 GMT
By now you see your mistake.
You're asking what is either a bunch of immature, uneducated, new age dorks (no offense) or one such uneducated fool with a lot of sock puppets, a question about a subject they either know nothing about or they want to change the definition of the subject.
I'd have more respect for just one person giving stupid answers with a bunch of sock puppets than a bunch of people deciding to be "dorks" and just try to follow what they think is the "in" trend.
The answer to the question is "Yes". An actor has to have range. That's why it's "acting".
It's because of the "dorks" that major stars can't afford to be actors. Maybe they could act, but they dare not. If they "act", they lose most of their fan base.
If Eastwood ever decided to act, and it's only from his Rawhide days that we see any effort to act from Eastwood, and give more than one expression and one character, his fans would dump him. He's trying to do this in a very subtle way, but he's still not daring to "act".
All of Eastwood's expressions, all one of them, depict someone always sure, never wavering, never in doubt more than a second. He always plays a demi god or a god. Only a liar would cheer and think that's a big difference.
He can't afford to play a mortal. His dork fans would turn on him in a heartbeat. They're already proven that they're morons. No offense.
If Eastwood ever played a character who panicked, or who shook under pressure, or who froze and stuttered when he saw a giant tarantula, over half of the people who enjoy watching him would claim he isn't worth watching any more. That's how out of touch with reality these people are. No difference at all between them and Donald Trump. They may as well get I D cards that say "Donald Trump" on them.
Some actors try to subtly make the move through a comedy. Stallone and Arnie tried comedy, for example, to give them a chance to at least give one degree out of 360 degrees of a change. Even that will lose some of the dorks from their fan clubs.
Lets take John Wayne. He got a chance to show a little range with Comancheros and El Dorado, and a lot of range in True Grit. He was falling off horses, stumbling, making stupid mistakes, at least up to a point. He knew he could never afford to play a character that Elisha Cook would play, though. The dorks would never accept it. His career would end.
Same for Eastwood. I think Eastwood is wanting to change that, but he doesn't have time.
It's unfortunate, but the dorks of the world, mostly the U.S., have made it so that people in entertainment dare not "show range" and dare not "act".
|
|
