Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Actors Who Always Seem to Be Playing Actors. Specifically, Themselves.
Note: I’m going through old drafts, trying to clean them up. Here’s one. It doesn’t look worthless enough to pitch, nor bad enough to say, “I think I’ll save this one, and clean it up sometime in the future”. I’ll just mash the Publish button, and have one less box of stuff in my Ricochet basement.
To be honest, I’m afraid that I’ve actually published it at some point. I don’t care. It’s not staying in the basement.
= = = = = = = =
We just watched a post-WWII film, Clementine, directed by John Ford. It stars Henry Fonda.
Whenever Henry Fonda is in the scene, I forget the story and the character he is playing, and I see Henry Fonda playing the part of an actor who is portraying Henry Fonda acting in a film.
Robert Redford is another actor like that. Did he ever do what an actor has to do in a movie, get you to suspend disbelief and get into the story? Forget that he’s acting?
Not that I recall, but if he did, let me know. I may be forgetting or I may have missed the movie. If your reply mentions Butch Cassidy or The Way We Were, The Horse Whisperer, or the one about the cute Mountain Man, do not expect a response.
There are other actors like that, though I can’t think of them at the moment. If you do think of one, your comment will get at least a Like. Promise.
There are other actors who started out that way, but grew in their skills and put on some age, and got to be pretty good actors. I’m thinking of Richard Dreyfuss as an example, but don’t quote me on that. I could probably come up with some examples of movies where he did not play Richard Dreyfuss after he got older, but I would have to fall back on doing a Lifetime Database Query (asking Kate) to name one where he played the role, not the self.
[EDIT: That sentence may be the reason that I decided to save this for necessary fixes before publishing months ago. But I have no regrets. It is one less box in the Ricochet basement, and if the writing quality is horrid enough to earn me a job writing under my own byline on the front section of the WSJ, bring it on. They pay good money.]
Jack Nicholson got famous for Easy Rider. Barf me back to the Sixties. But I think he got better, and that I’ve seen at least one flick where he performed well, an old actor playing an old guy. The Marine Colonel one maybe yes, but the lefty propaganda nature of that movie prevents me from thinking of it as a movie, instead of as a brainwashing project. But if I force myself to think of it as a movie, I have to admit it was a great movie, and Nicholson did a masterful job of playing his role, with not a moment of distraction from the story. One reason is that he wasn’t playing himself, the impudent counter-culture Jester.
[EDIT: I fixed an error. Memo to self: Henry Fonda. Not Henry Ford.]
Published in General
While not your point, it is also amazing how often movies are about actors or stage performers or musicians, etc.
Cary Grant said that he was very good at playing himself.
Meryl Streep.
It’s close enough for me.
(The more I think about it, the more close it seems. There’s a common thread there.)
Leading men tend to be like that. Sean Connery didn’t even bother with an accent while playing a Russian submarine commander. Tommy Lee Jones is calmer or wilder but always himself. Morgan Freeman rarely swerves. Mel Gibson.
I like both kinds of actors. Some good character actors include Geoffrey Rush, Ben Kingsley, Johnny Depp, and Dustin Hoffman.
Au contraire, Pierre. Cary Grant was a true actor, the opposite of the distracting kind I refer to. He instantly and totally submersed the viewer in the story and his protagonistic character, intellectually and emotionally. If there was ever a better one at this, I can’t think of who it was.
Note: Re-reading that, I am confronted with the harsh reality that I have presented my personal opinions as if they were facts.
In this case, I’m ok with that because they are facts, so I am going to go ahead and mash the button now.
Katherine Hepburn.
I have a Ricochet basement too! It is crowded. And it may stay that way. Should I punch up that screed about Kilauea from a few years ago? The one where I marveled at the assiduous/neurotic translation of every single reported English measure into metric, as well as the pedantic/prissy application of diacritical marks to every reported Hawaiian term? Nah.
But speaking of movies…another thing I likely will not and cannot get into shape has to do with movies where radioactivity is contagious. I mean in such movies, someone becomes radioactive, and he touches someone or something and it becomes radioactive too! Aaah, everybody in the 1950s is gonna die! But since they didn’t, and since I cannot actually remember such a movie, I mean name it, the story is too poorly developed to take off. If I’m just hallucinating this, why should anyone care?
Hm. I promised a Like and I’ve given it. But I’m on the fence, a little.
So I’ve consulted with The Database, and also my son who happens to be handy. I am informed that I like her (as an actress only, of course…I don’t know why I can’t stand her as a person, but will inquire if you are interested).
I will admit that it’s hard not to notice when you watch Meryl Streep acting that it is Meryl Streep that you are watching acting.
Anyway, Right Angles, give me a movie where this actress played herself in your view, and I promise to reconsider (after consulting with The Database, who overrides me on all matters concerning my memory).
Thanks for the reminder. You get a Like.
How about a story where people get so used to radioactivity that they can no longer even detect it?
As I wrote, it occurred to me that I was surely not the only one.
This sounds like a rich untapped vein of cultural commentary. Publish it, definitely!
But before you do. Are there any imperfectly formed sentences? Can’t you think of a little hook to add in that second paragraph? Are you SURE that you haven’t published something similar? Did you possibly have a thought at the time of the original draft that you’ve lost, but might come back to you if this just ages a few more months in the basement?
On second thought, don’t Delete it, but don’t publish it. Just keep it a little longer, just in case.
These are pretty deepish thoughts, and there are lots of them, and so I have a lot of replies aborning. On Sean Connery in that movie and the subject of accents, I have a reply that I’m almost ready to write.
I guess all of my replies might go down to the basement while I sort them out.
Mainly this: Thanks Aaron for these good thoughts and observations. I hope someone else is sharp enough to give them the timely replies they deserve.
I feel like Anthony Hopkins is always playing himself and the other character. Same with Morgan Freeman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5MEJk5ZCQ
This is turning out to be more wildly subjective than I had imagined! I have always regarded myself as a hardened skeptic when it comes to movies. Let the slightest false note sound every so quietly, and my tenuously suspended belief crashes to the ground, a heap of tangled wreckage.
But my all-time favorite ever, Most-Likely-to-Suspend-My-Disbelief actor has been mentioned here as an example of the sort of unsuccessful actor I was looking for. I don’t want to mention specific films, like The Edge, which might reveal which actor I am thinking of (the bad guy in that flick was really really bad, which means he was also a really really good actor, and if he weren’t so good at being evil, the other guy, my guy, would not have appeared to me as a metaphor for Christ.)
Mark,
Executive Suite was on TCM this evening. After watching it, but before reading your post, I thought to myself that William Holden always seemed to be playing the same type, or played his roles in the same manner. Now, I really like William Holden and cannot think of a movie he was in that I did not like (he was especially good on I Love Lucy). But I just always knew I was watching William Holden in whatever role it was. Then your post came along, and I had to write.
On the other end of the spectrum is Daniel Day Lewis. Even though you know it is him playing a role, you see the character first, then the actor.
Tim
Gee thanks I can die happy now.
See The Last Detail (1973) and Goin’ South (1978). With a language warning, a search for “I am the shore patrol” will get you to the definitive “Jack” scene of the former.
I found Jack Nicholson in The Shining to be extremely scary. He was so scary I felt as though I too was shut up in an empty over-sized hotel with a psycho who wanted to murder all of us. Plus he had to be nuts, because what right thinking man -or woman – would wanna kill Shelly Duvall?
He made himself scary through his eyes. If you play his more psychotic moments in slow mo, you notice right away how his eyes zoom Left-Right-Left in absurdly supra human quickness.
In many of his movies in the Eighties, he became a type: the narcissistic middle aged playboy who is blase about relationships. He nailed his performances, but acting from a template established over several years is not as impressive as nailing a character the actor has not attempted before.
Tim,
Regarding William Holden, I’m going to have to consult with my external storage device for cultural questions (and people’s names), the BoatWife.
But meanwhile the main idea of your note resonates with me. My example of a William Holden will be Morgan Freeman. When someone mentioned him as an example of my “actor playing himself”, I understood right away. Morgan Freeman is always cast as a character who is…Morgan Freeman.
But I like Morgan Freeman in his movies, just as you like Holden (maybe I like Holden too…I will get back to you on that once my inquiries are completed…”Honey, which one is William Holden, again?”)
There are two different things going on here. Robert Redford bad, William Holden good. But for some viewers, they switch places. I think in the morning I could explain it. But if I know me, I will be thinking about something else, econ or science or music or something.
Mark,
It is usually referred to as playing against type. You will be branded as a “type” and cast in roles deemed appropriate. You are quite correct that an accomplished actor can play against type. You are taught to prepare three auditions. One right down the middle of your “type” and the other two showing your versatility against type. If you do the auditions against type as one dramatic and one comedic, then you will show super versatility.
Some movie stars are accomplished actors. However, some stars are just stars and always play according to their type. The directors simply tap them for a part that agrees with their type. Redford was so successful with his looks and counter-culture rep that they just did it over and over. Redford didn’t need to prepare much for the parts because people just wanted to see Redford anyway. Jane Fonda was like Redford. It was always just Jane Fonda, not the character. Putting them together was just a double gimmick.
Regards,
Jim
I have just been reminded of who Holden (Bridge Over the River Kwai) and Lewis are.
It turns out that “we” agree completely with your assessment. My son also chipped in. He looked up Lewis and found a Web reference describing him as perhaps the greatest cinematic actor ever. Only male actor to win three Best Actors.
Robin Williams, when he didn’t have good direction, always played himself. Sometimes it worked (Mrs. Doubtfire, Aladdin); Sometimes it didn’t (Popeye, Patch Adams), but you always knew it was Williams. When he had a director who controlled him, he could be a very good actor (The World According to Garp, Good Will Hunting, One Hour Photo).
Mark,
I feel smarter already!
Did your “external storage device” get the I Love Lucy reference?
Tim
Yes, I agree that it’s subjective.
First, the absolutely blatant ones for me are Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, and Steve Martin. All comedians, two of whom are talented and funny.
Robert De Niro pre… 1985… was a good actor. Now he’s just Bobby De Niro.
Jack Nicholson is a very good actor IMO.
I think Streep is very good too.
A great actor? Sean Penn. Yeah, really.
What absolutely ruins an actor is too much exposure as themselves, unless they are really, really good. If they over-associate themselves with a political cause, they are killing people’s willing suspension of disbelief.
Most people leave off the ‘willing’ part, but it’s crucial to the concept. Audiences come to the theatre knowing its fantasy, a play. And there’s a tacit agreement: You create something I can get lost in, don’t insult my intelligence, have internal consistency, in other words, don’t shake me ‘awake’ from the reverie you create, and I will enjoy myself and give you credit.
But if an actor is all over TV as themselves (Whoopi) and then put on a nuns habit and read lines… that’s what it looks like.
So my take on actors promoting causes is not their opinions -whatever- my attack on them is they have no respect for their art ( craft?) and no respect for their audience. Great, have your political opinions, but don’t pretend you are any kind of artist.
A real artist transcends politics. Art – theatre- is a higher form of expression than a political essay, no matter how well written. So descending into daily politics shows an ignorance of the power of art. I lose respect for them.
Both kinds of actors are good, and we need ’em both to keep movies and TV shows at high quality. Snobs used to insist that John Wayne wasn’t a good actor, because it was hard to picture him playing Renaissance fops or Greek orators, but as time went by more and more writers and critics came to disagree. Yeah, Wayne couldn’t do those roles. But few who could do those roles could be John Wayne, either. There’s a legitimate place for the star who plays himself.
Sarcastic film critic Joe Queenan once hilariously took Lawrence Olivier to task for his paycheck roles, the ones where he clearly had fun hamming it up while being paid to bring an awed air of high class. Olivier’s heavily accented rabbi in The Jazz Singer is a classic of the genre. Offended by his son eating bacon, he piously declares, “I heff no son!” The LA Times critic sourly added “He keeps this up and he will heff no reputation either”. Or in The Betsy, another movie of less than Shakespearean ambition, he plays an obvious ripoff of Henry Ford, as Queenan puts it, “As a mixture of Jed Clampett and Scrooge McDuck”.
Charlton Heston was once at one of our luncheons, talking earnestly with fellow conservatives Kevin Sorbo, Jim Caviezel, and Clint Eastwood. No press, no cameras allowed, just friends talking. But it sure looked like Moses was joking around with Hercules, Jesus, and Dirty Harry.
Gary,
How we could use this team now. Seriously, I wasn’t putting down the pure movie star who plays his type supremely well and makes the fans happy. However, on occasion, one might want more.
Regards,
Jim
My two cents.
Certain actors always play themselves but they are a very distinctive actor with a certain gravitas that few can play and they draw good if not great box office. They are cast because that gravitas is what the role demands . John Wayne, Sean Connery and Clint Eastwood come to mind. They are also very bankable which is very important for the Producers.
Katherine Hepburn was kinda like that too.
Meryl Streep at times can be great, like when she played Julia Childs, but we have seen her so much we pretty much now know what we are getting so we always see Meryl Streep now. Ditto Robert De Niro.
Jack Nicholson was a good actor from A Few Good Men backwards; One flew over the Cuckoo’s nest, Chinatown etc. But since the late 80’s he always plays a caricature of himself and it is now really annoying.
But I must give a special commendation for playing oneself to Lucas Hedges in the 2019 film Honey Boy. Hedges was nominated for an Academy Award for his 2016 role in Manchester by the Sea, which I wasn’t that impressed with. Honey Boy is probably not for most Ricochet people; it is a very personal autobiographical film about Shia LaBeouf’s painful childhood experiences as an actor. LaBeouf plays his own very abusive father in the film . All the acting is very good except for Hedges. There are certain roles where an actor can play himself and get away with it. This is not one of those films. We know he is supposed to be Shia LaBeouf, but he does come close to looking like him and worst of all he doesn’t even try to act like LaBeouf which is very distracting in an otherwise good but disturbing film.
Regarding Robert Redford … there is one film where it is not obvious that he is himself rather than the character. It is the first film I believe I ever saw him in. Since the obnoxious ignorant idiot shtick was appropriate and genuine for the character, it was not obvious or important that theses might be personal character traits of the actor.
That is the secret. Only see one film per actor and you can accept them as the character.
(It was The Sting.)
James Cagney. Amazing actor, but had enough mannerism that you are always aware that you’re watching Cagney.
Fred Astaire, always played the same guy, because that’s all he needed to play. But you can’t take your eyes off him when he’s on the screen.
On a different spectrum of the question: Just before The Joker came out last year, one of the guys on the SubStandard/SubBeacon podcast made a comment about Joaquin Phoenix, that you could expect to see a lot of “Actoring” from him in the role, which is a good way to describe a very self-conscious kind of method acting.