|
| One aspect of Heath Ledgers life that a lot of reviewers agree on is the loss of potential or the belief that better was to come. I wonder if potential may actually be a burden to a young actor, like a pressure of expectation. When I think of other young actors with potential and see how it turned out I wonder if the result was their inability to cope with that expectation. Kevin Costner comes to mind, he was excellent in 'Silverado' became a star with 'Dances WW' and then what? I wonder if a slow start is better when I think of Tom Wilkinson. Of course some actors arrive at a comfortable plateau and seem content with that, like Sean Connery, Harrison Ford who gave up acting a while ago, compare them with Michael Caine. I seem to have strayed off my point but is it possible that reaching ones potential may be too much to ask especially if this demand comes from a sensation seeking media? |
Follow-Up Postings:
|
| There is bound to be a conflict between acting potential and the demands of stardom; also a lot of pressure on a talented young actor to fulfill that promise or risk the wrath of the critics. Richard Burton and Marlon Brando were always held up as examples of unfulfilled promise. I find it sad that some obituaries focus on Ledger's potential only - surely he had already proven what he could do in 'Brokeback Mountain'? He had also already shown enormous versatility in his too-short career. One couldn't ask for 'better', only for more of that calibre, in my opinion. |
|
| Yeah, it is odd how people refer to Ledger's death generally noting what potential he had. I never saw him that way. I thought oh, my gosh, he was so young and I liked him so much; I never really thought of missed potential. I saw him as a young actor who had done well in numerous roles. What he could have achieved (better or worse) is always unknown. And as much as I did like him, maybe his death actually opened the door for an even better actor to emerge. You just never know. Obvioulsy, part of the problem of some more poplular actors is them choosing bigger (probably well paying) parts in blockbuster type films instead of choosing usually better parts in smaller films. I remember studing in film class the difference between movie stars and actors. Movie stars were the ones that brought in the big bucks and the ones people would want to go see regardless of the movie. They are able to mesmerize people on film and have maybe more of a charisma than a real acting ability. (Julia Roberts comes to mind for me) Actors, well, were often the people that really made the movie, but weren't as popular with the general public. Maybe not as pretty and not on all the magazine covers (The Tom Wilkensons of the world). Sometimes, you get a movie star that can act well, but usually their stardom leads them to choose big roles that really don't show off their talents. Movie stars also tend to be type cast over and over in the same type of roles (yes, the Cary Grants and Harrison Fords of the world). It's nice to see actors nowadays often trying to do smaller films for little money and branching out into different parts. Who do you think is a movie star versus a actor? Anyone you think who is both a great actor and a big movie star? One guy that comes to mind is Edward Norton for me. A great actor but he may be leaning towards becoming more of a movie star. His earlier stuff seems so good. I guess only time will tell how well his talents are used. |
|
| "how well his talents are used" is a very telling phrase carla, whether referring to Ed Norton or any other actor. 'How' and 'who' is doing the using is often a sad tale. If you have read Peter Guralnick's biography of Elvis and have seen the way 'Colonel' Parker 'used' the talents of your man Presley you will know what I mean. Interestingly this fits in with your distinction between a star and a performer/actor, Elvis had both but his manager saw more dollars in the star so denied him his potential. |
|
| Movie star vs actor - Nicholas Cage could have been the latter (his early roles e.g. in Raising Arizona and Wild at Heart showed promise), but instead built up his muscles and took the action hero route. I actually think Julia Roberts can act - but they don't usually let her. Two excellent actors who can't help but be movie stars because of their extremely good looks: Johnny Depp and George Clooney. Both refuse to just coast on that, and keep picking interesting and challenging roles, constantly pushing into new territory. Brad Pitt has a foot in both camps - most of his movies are easy star vehicles, but now and then he breaks out and reminds us how good he can be, e.g. in 12 Monkeys or Fight Club or the always underrated Snatch. One wonders which way Ledger would have gone. All three options (star, actor, bit of both) were open to him. |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Circle Theater Forum
Instructions
- You must be a registered member and logged in to post messages on our forums.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review the contents and make changes.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- It is illegal to post copyrighted material without the owner's consent.
- HTML codes are allowed in the message field only.
- No advertising is allowed in any of the forums.
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
|
|