So the discussion raging around our place tonight concerned actors and whether or not they made the roles they are famous for or they were handed well developed characters that they made their own.
In other words, could any actor fill a particular role or are certain characters so well developed that any actor could play them?
Certain characters have been played by more than one actor and fans have their favourites. Some roles are so well developed that actors can be switched around and no one really sees a lot of difference except for the physical appearance. Comparing the written character to the one the actor brings to life we have to look at the physical description as well as the personality.
James Bond is one example. Fans are split on whether Sean Connery or Roger Moore played the best Bond with some fans holding out for some of the other actors. If you read the books, some of the actors match the physical description of Bond but the personality is just vague enough that each actor has been able to take the character and build as they see Bond. But the essence of Bond is his role as a secret agent and the stereotype associated with him - dashing, brave, inventive, a lover and a fighter, and asking for a martini, dry, shaken not stirred. Bond is a stereotype character and any actor can play him.
Captain Jack Sparrow is a character that is a bit stereotypical, the drunk pirate, but his personality is so lively and rich in detail that it is hard to see any one but Johnny Depp playing him. Yet that very richness of detail makes it possible for another actor to assume the role. Will they be as good at it as Depp is? Probably not just because he is a very talented actor and makes each role uniquely his in some way. Imitators can't seem to capture that easy flowing wit and movements that are so much a part of the character of Jack Sparrow. Johnny Depp was able to change his appearance to match the description of Jack so there's no discrepancy between the written character and the one portrayed by Depp. In this case the written character and the actor are perfectly matched and no other actor would be able to do as well in the role.
In the Harry Potter series, the role of Dumbledore was played by two actors because Richard Harris unfortunately died. Richard looked and sounded like Dumbledore as he was written. He was replaced by Michael Gambon who wasn't as tall and had gray hair and a shorter beard. Physically, Micheal did not match the character of Dumbledore and he received criticism because he didn't match the character. As an actor, he did an excellent job showing us Dumbledore's personality and spirit. Yet, because his physical appearance was so well defined and such an integral part of his character, he wasn't a good match for it. Richard Harris was and is considered the essential Dumbledore by fans. This is a character who can not be portrayed by any actor who can not match the physical description.
There was a series of TV movies done on the Richard Sharpe books written by Bernard Cornwall. His two main characters, Richard Sharpe and Patrick Harper, are well written and described in the books. Yet the actors don't match teh description. Sean Bean is taller and has lighter hair than Richard Sharpe while Daragh O'Malley is much shorter than Harper's seven foot height. Yet, having seen the actors in the roles, one can't imagine any other actors filling those roles. In this case the well written characters were taken by talented actors and made to fit them instead.
So what does this show? Judging by these examples (btw this is a bad thing to do, using a small sample base to form opinions), a well written character will be the standard by which any actor filling the role will be judged. Yet a talented actor can take any character and make it their own even if it is well written to begin with. Even if given a bad script and poorly written lines, a talented actor can still make the character he or she is playing stand out. Provided, of course, that the director lets them act and doesn't hold them to precisely what's written.
But then, most good actors learn to spot good scripts from bad ones so they can stay away from those roles once they get themselves established.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Colour Stereotypes
I often wonder when we developed the concept of stereotyping. While we seem to have always had a tendency to categorize people, places, and events, stereotyping has really exploded in the past century or so. All you have to do is look at history to see how things have changed.
Take colours for example. Although we have been trying to move away from stereotypes, certain colours are still thought of as gender specific choices. Pink is still a girl's colour and blue is still a boy's colour. Yet, there are more fashions utilizing blue as a colour of choice in female clothing than pink in male clothing.
Certain colour combinations make sense. I don't and never will like pink on a redhead. To me the colours clash. Yet I've seen some shades of pink that can work well with certain shades of red hair. So I will never tell a redhead not to wear pink. It simply isn't my choice.
There are few colours I don't like, mostly sickly looking colours or neons. I'm not a big fan of pink but I like little touches of it. My favourites tend to blues, greens, copper and golds. So my house decor tends more to those shades than any others. But if you look around, you'll find almost every colour represented someplace.
Colour preferences are very personal but I've known people who won't wear certain colours because they aren't "girl colours" or "boy colours". Kind of silly, in my opinion, but it's something they take seriously. So I try to remember that.
But, still, I wonder how the current stereotypes got set in place. Pink used to be a popular colour worn by men before it became known as a "dandy's choice" and eventually became acceptable for women only. Blue has always been popular for both sexes yet somehow it became a boy's colour.
I can understand certain shades becoming associated with the two genders as well as they are extensions of the colour chart from the base colour. Yet red has been considered a boy's colour more than a girl's despite how close to pink it is. Which simply shows once again that logic does not apply to the actions of humans.
Personally, I like the fact that we're moving away from at least one stereotype in life. Although, it still is a bit of a surprise to see men wearing pink it is also nice to see it happening more often. Especially since some of the shades being produced are so gorgeous. It almost makes me willing to wear pink shades. Almost.
Take colours for example. Although we have been trying to move away from stereotypes, certain colours are still thought of as gender specific choices. Pink is still a girl's colour and blue is still a boy's colour. Yet, there are more fashions utilizing blue as a colour of choice in female clothing than pink in male clothing.
Certain colour combinations make sense. I don't and never will like pink on a redhead. To me the colours clash. Yet I've seen some shades of pink that can work well with certain shades of red hair. So I will never tell a redhead not to wear pink. It simply isn't my choice.
There are few colours I don't like, mostly sickly looking colours or neons. I'm not a big fan of pink but I like little touches of it. My favourites tend to blues, greens, copper and golds. So my house decor tends more to those shades than any others. But if you look around, you'll find almost every colour represented someplace.
Colour preferences are very personal but I've known people who won't wear certain colours because they aren't "girl colours" or "boy colours". Kind of silly, in my opinion, but it's something they take seriously. So I try to remember that.
But, still, I wonder how the current stereotypes got set in place. Pink used to be a popular colour worn by men before it became known as a "dandy's choice" and eventually became acceptable for women only. Blue has always been popular for both sexes yet somehow it became a boy's colour.
I can understand certain shades becoming associated with the two genders as well as they are extensions of the colour chart from the base colour. Yet red has been considered a boy's colour more than a girl's despite how close to pink it is. Which simply shows once again that logic does not apply to the actions of humans.
Personally, I like the fact that we're moving away from at least one stereotype in life. Although, it still is a bit of a surprise to see men wearing pink it is also nice to see it happening more often. Especially since some of the shades being produced are so gorgeous. It almost makes me willing to wear pink shades. Almost.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Perspective
One of my favourite quotes is "Perspective is everything." Because it truly is.
We have to be aware of the fact that we see everything, and I do mean everything, through our values, our opinions, our expectations, and especially our experiences. One factor that few people consider is how our culture and language affect our values and our perceptions of what is important.
A person from a Third World country views the standard of life very differently from a First World country and for a good reason. To a person from a country where living on a few hundred dollars or less a month is considered to be living well the amount of money a person in the First World country is phenomenally wealthy. Whereas the person from the First World country is amazed at the absolute poverty the people in the Third World countries live in.
I heard of a family that saved for five years, yes years, to buy a bicycle. A bicycle. One that cost the equivalent of fifty dollars. To anyone in the First World countries a bicycle that costs a hundred dollars can be saved for in a couple of weeks to a few months maximum (thinking allowances saving here for this time period). To us that bicycle is a luxury item. To that family, it allowed the father to take three times the amount of goods to market in one-fifth the time so he was able to increase the standard of living for his family.
There is literally a world of difference in the thinking of people in the First World countries from people in even the Second World countries let alone the Third World countries. We can afford to concern ourselves with issues of ethics and religion and human rights. Even the poorest person makes more money and, in countries with universal health care, have access to better health care than the upper middle class of the Third World countries. Their rich class is comparable to our rich class unfortunately. At least on the lower and middle levels.
So it's no surprise that conditions that we wouldn't stand for in the First World countries are accepted as part of the working conditions in Third World countries. But what we don't look at is the fact that people survive on less money in those countries better than our citizens survive in our countries. Yes, the quality is lower but the people actually living below the poverty lines are fewer in those countries. That's using a poverty line that takes into effect the health of the family unit as well as it's income. The poverty line for a First World country is a higher financial figure than for the Third World country.
Which goes to show just how messed up the economics of our planet are. Well, along with several other factors. But, try to imagine it, a family can afford to buy enough food to feed them for a year in the Third World country for less money than a family in the First World country spends in a month.
Perspective, people. Perspective.
We have to be aware of the fact that we see everything, and I do mean everything, through our values, our opinions, our expectations, and especially our experiences. One factor that few people consider is how our culture and language affect our values and our perceptions of what is important.
A person from a Third World country views the standard of life very differently from a First World country and for a good reason. To a person from a country where living on a few hundred dollars or less a month is considered to be living well the amount of money a person in the First World country is phenomenally wealthy. Whereas the person from the First World country is amazed at the absolute poverty the people in the Third World countries live in.
I heard of a family that saved for five years, yes years, to buy a bicycle. A bicycle. One that cost the equivalent of fifty dollars. To anyone in the First World countries a bicycle that costs a hundred dollars can be saved for in a couple of weeks to a few months maximum (thinking allowances saving here for this time period). To us that bicycle is a luxury item. To that family, it allowed the father to take three times the amount of goods to market in one-fifth the time so he was able to increase the standard of living for his family.
There is literally a world of difference in the thinking of people in the First World countries from people in even the Second World countries let alone the Third World countries. We can afford to concern ourselves with issues of ethics and religion and human rights. Even the poorest person makes more money and, in countries with universal health care, have access to better health care than the upper middle class of the Third World countries. Their rich class is comparable to our rich class unfortunately. At least on the lower and middle levels.
So it's no surprise that conditions that we wouldn't stand for in the First World countries are accepted as part of the working conditions in Third World countries. But what we don't look at is the fact that people survive on less money in those countries better than our citizens survive in our countries. Yes, the quality is lower but the people actually living below the poverty lines are fewer in those countries. That's using a poverty line that takes into effect the health of the family unit as well as it's income. The poverty line for a First World country is a higher financial figure than for the Third World country.
Which goes to show just how messed up the economics of our planet are. Well, along with several other factors. But, try to imagine it, a family can afford to buy enough food to feed them for a year in the Third World country for less money than a family in the First World country spends in a month.
Perspective, people. Perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)