When an actor is cast as 'onseself'–as in, in a role very similar or even directly resembling his public persona–does that diminish the artistry behind the performance?
Interesting idea, CalvinLaw. It might be worth expanding on this in the title after a ":". Also, are there some specific examples of theater or movies you were thinking of, or would you like to leave that up to the writer? I hope this helps. – Jordan9 years ago
Probably leave it up to the writer, it's a vast topic to explore so some freedom might be appreciated! – CalvinLaw9 years ago
Likely yes, it does diminish it. Because playing yourself, likely as a cameo, can usually lead to mugging, quoting famous lines of yourself, or just being rather dull. Although in some unique cases, I've seen biopics where actors portray people from a persons life, even though they themselves knew the person in question. So rather than play themselves, they play more integral characters, which allows them to contribute more to the project. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I'd actually take the side that it enhances the role. Who better to play you than you? The actor would know all the motivations and thoughts of the person they are playing. I would however note, that acting in a role like this is dangerous... Playing who you are repeatedly shows you limitations as an actor and also would keep you locked into the same role and forever seen as the one role. And people tend to get bored with these sort of actors. – Tatijana9 years ago
A great one to look at (popular in the UK but perhaps not so much elsewhere) is <i>Extras</i> by Ricky Gervais. It had lots of famous people (Patrick Stewart, David Bowie) playing versions of themselves that went against the public perception. (Patrick Stewart in genral does quite a lot of him-but-not-quite-him roles.) – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
in most cases a cameo of yourself only enhances the public persona because people enjoy recognizing parts of the real world in film or tv. – thereisnojosie9 years ago
This is a great concept. I've always wondered if the actor is truly playing their own self or just who they think they are. To be completely honest, I think this may delve into a deeper concept of who we define our own self as and whether it is who we are or just who we think we are. Anyway, back onto the subject, no, I do not believe that an actor or actress playing himself or herself ruins and/or diminishes the artistry of acting. I believe it may even enhance it and bring it to a new level. One in which the actor or actress may even become confused with who they really are. Think about it, an actor or actress plays a number of different characters in a given time. When they play the characters they are paid to play they become the character. Some may slowly roll into the character and some might dive in head on. Regardless, the actor or actress becomes the character and sometimes they lose their own self in order to play the character. With respect, take Heath Ledger for example. A great actor who played arguably the best joker of all time as well as many other roles that are and will be very well remembered. However, the argument could be made that he "lost" himself by taking on the role of the joker and became the Joker. Who really was Heath Ledger and who would he have been after playing the Joker? Would he have changed? Would he have known who his own self was or would he have to recall and push to retrieve who he was after taking on the dark role. The world will never know. – shaynezamora9 years ago
I've wondered about it... Well, like in the Goosebumps movie the real R.L Stein makes a cameo while his "character" is actually played by Jack Black. Why is that? It could be that they were looking to make him younger or because the acting skills were more important.
– Candice Evenson9 years ago
They still have to do a performance, though. I mean, there is a script they have to follow, and lines to memorize. That is still acting. – T. Palomino2 years ago
A dystopia is commonly an unpleasant or bad place commonly due to totalitarian governments. In the Anthony Burgess novel (or the Stanley Kubrick film), the protagonist and his friends terrorize innocent people, but this doesn't appear to support an actual dystopia. There is a government who isn't overbearing, there are prison systems, and it is stated that there is a sufficient educational system. It seems like an average future – portrayed through an unreliable narrator, the criminal Alex. The story gives the interpretation that criminals are too prevalent in the society but there are only two gangs and most other characters are living their lives. Compared to most dystopian literature, the concept is inverted along with the protagonist who is normally an underdog rebelling against their government. Alex doesn't mold a bildungsroman or feel like an underdog rebelling against the unruly. Analyze and interpret the dystopian elements and the contradictions within the book/movie and define if this can really be called dystopian or if it is actually a parody or something else entirely. Would this be a satire or parody? This is considered a black comedy so there is still humorous aspects to consider.
I like the idea. I'm not sure parody is quite the correct word--maybe satire or something similar--but the idea behind it is very interesting. – nsnow9 years ago
It's interesting that you say that, I originally brought this topic up to one of my professors as a satire and they said that it would be less of a satire and more of a parody. I agree with you, and would love to hear more opinions in regards to which would be a better term for A Clockwork Orange. – Connor9 years ago
Just looking at the definitions, parody's goal is comedy and humor through imitation and exaggeration. I wouldn't call Clockwork Orange a comedy or humorous book/movie. Satire uses humor and/or exaggeration to criticize a concept, which I think is closer to what you are getting at. Both words are closely related and I could see an argument for either one. – nsnow9 years ago
Agreed, although A Clockwork Orange is classified as a black comedy which I know isn't as common in American works but has been popular among Kubrick's other works (ex. Dr Strangelove). I look at it as more of an inverted version of dystopia showing that the common dystopian story can be flipped and more horrific (sounds more satirical to me in that sense), but I can see both sides. – Connor9 years ago
I recently watched both of these films, and I am really interested in how they might relate to each other, and what they say about individual justice. Both films involve a dark, complicated, rather twisted pursuit of revenge by someone whose wife was murdered and is failed by the law. In Law Abiding Citizen, the protagonist is brilliant, analytical, and always miles ahead of everyone else, until the last scene. However, in Memento, you pity the protagonist, because he seems very helpless and manipulated by those around him, until the very last scene, where he asserts his autonomy. It would also be interesting to look at how favorably the film portrays each man's brutal pursuit of justice, whether in how disturbing the inciting moment is, or how sympathetic their character is. To what extent is this personal pursuit of justice permissible, or even admirable? What does it do to the people who try to carry it out?
Very interesting. You could also look at how the performances of Gerard Butler and Guy Pearce are so interestingly differentiated, Butler's more overt and scheming approach that's gradually brought down by the efforts of Jamie Foxx's character grounding him in the harsh reality of the world, whereas Pearce's enigma is constantly on the move and confusing the viewer, playing on our sympathies before ruthlessly tearing them all to shreds in that final scene. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
It is interesting how at the end of Memento it is no longer about revenge for Leonard, but about the possibility of meaning. Memento reveals how essential memory is to identity. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
Why are we so fascinated with time travel? Time travel movies offer film makers unique possibilities, yet they also inevitably create confusing and contradictory plot malfunctions. Someone should consider the role of time-travel in such films as Back to the Future, Looper, Edge of Tomorrow, Project Almanac, Groundhog's Day, Interstellar, Primer, Star Trek, Predestination, The Butterfly Project, Men in Black 3, and About Time. Which films simply use time-travel as a convenient plot device and which actually make it integral to the story? Why do some directors fail to account for obvious plot holes introduced by time-travel?
On the anime front The Girl who Leapt through Time, The Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya and also Steins Gate also talk about time travel. I'm happy to add my own thoughts to the discussion as well. – Jordan9 years ago
A simple answer is that time-travel, and the nature of relatively, is an ever advancing series of theories and understandings. We may never truly know how it all works, why it works, or what it's full limitations are. The two prevailing theories in regards to time-travel plot holes are that either 1: if you go back and change the past which changes the future, this new future is a fractured timeline that is separate from the original, meaning a different universe. Or 2: if you change the past, that past directly affects the future, and there's only one linear timeline. "Back to the Future" actually considers both of these theories to be one and the same. But who's to say that the timeline Marty found himself in after the events of the first film is actually the same universe he left from? A few other theories to consider are that A. if you go back and try to change the past, you are not actually messing with time, but are a direct participant in it, because the universe "wants" you to change the past. And B. Anything that you attempt to do in order to stop something from happening, no matter what point in time you are, the universe will conspire to stop you, or will conspire to cause you to do something, no matter how hard you try to avoid it. Yes, there are obvious plot holes in some cases, but you'd have to get pretty creative and perhaps even technical in a discussion on this in order to really cover all of the possibilities regarding the logic and methodology behind creating a time-travel concept, and how it applies to a linear story. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Of course time travel as we like to think of it is entirely impossible at this point in our history. Time is relative all over the universe, and time is always going forwards. There are ways to speed up time: to speed up the flow of it relative to another location. But we have yet to fully discover a direct way in which something or anything can travel backwards in time, let along a phone-booth, a police-box, or a Delorean. So all time-travel plots are completely fictional to begin with. The only logic we can really give them is logic that is likely archaic by this point, but only makes sense because we are naturally taught to understand things by a "cause & effect" relationship. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I think people are so obsessed with time travel because we as human are so full of regret. I'm willing to bet most of us don't easily "move on" so to speak. What if scenario's plague us, and therefore, it's pretty natural that we obsess over the idea of going into the past and undoing all the things we regret or messed up. – Tatijana9 years ago
I believe time travel has continued to be a popular motif in contemporary film because it is one of the notable science fiction concepts that remains an impossibility in today's high-tech world. – mcmarkowitz9 years ago
Interesting...one might say that the story-telling potential for time travel outweighs the need to correct plot holes. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
Analyze the stark difference between Episodes 4-6 and 1-3 in terms of the lack of a Han Solo-type character. Perhaps Harrison Ford's acting carried the first three films, but the absence of this sort of character weighed heavily on the other films and put the burden on Hayden Christensen's Annakin. If the same would have happened in 4-6, Luke Skywalker would have had to carry the weight, and it doesn't appear he could have pulled it off. The Han Solo story and characterization appears to have added more interest for the audience, leaving Luke's grander story in the background, where it effectively progressed.
Great article idea. Han Solo is one of the most important parts of the original trilogy and the prequels put less focus on the archetype and more on comic relief, mostly from Jar Jar. – Austin Bender9 years ago
I've always thought that Anakin's characterization would've benefited a lot more if he'd started off as a swashbunkler-esque rogue young man, instead of a whiny little child. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
I think there is some truth to this. However, I think the larger problem with the prequels is the poor writing, campiness, and bad acting, with the exceptions of Liam Neeson, Samuel L. Jackson, and Ewan McGregor. Ewan McGregor's amazing performance in Episode III almost single-handedly rescues the film. It is also less campy because of the dark tone. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
Interesting....but the prequels had more problems than just that it was missing a scoundrel. Wrapped within that character is humor, risk, adventure, etc. Luke was the perfect angel, it seemed, so Han Solo was more fun? The prequels lacked characters like Han Solo who we cared about. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
Absolutely. The prequels also lacked something worthy of fear. The robots were comical, as were the Trade Federation. Darth Maul LOOKED scary, but almost to an exaggerated sense. – damfer219 years ago
There has been 7 high grossing film titles for the Fast & Furious sequels. Look into the appeal of these films and maybe even go deeper into a psychological understanding of the viewers of the film.
Great franchise to analyse. Franchise went from mindless racing movie to heist movie to being a film franchise that prided itself on a diverse cast that genuinely seems to get along with one another. It could also be potentially responsible for the current rise in car culture. – Austin Bender9 years ago
3D films have been dropping and out of vogue since the 1950's and have, in actuality, been experimented with prior to even then. But are 3D films really a viable mainstream form of film making, or are they simple a novelty act that evolves with each new era of moviegoers? This article takes us through the history of the art form and discusses how successful 3D films and 3D elements actually are in comparison to their 2D bretheren.
Honestly, unless the human eye is able to evolve to a point where it can withstand fake immersive 3D, I don't think 3D has a real future as the next step in theater evolution. VR will expand greatly in the next decade or so, allowing any number of mediums and applications to make use of it. But it will only be able to be enjoyed for reasonable lengths of time by those who do not contract headaches and bloodshot eyes from using either polarized glasses, or double-screen headsets. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
You could talk about how some films use 3D as a gimmick, and how other films like Avatar uses 3D to enhance the experience. I also think it would be worth while to talk about how long the 3D craze can last. For animated kids movies for example, parents don't want to pay extra money for 3D. 3D TV's where predicted to be the new big thing, but almost nobody bought them. It would be interesting to analyses the longevity of 3D in films – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Both good points. On the standpoint of it being a gimmick, I do wonder personally if using it sparingly (such as 'Freddie vision in Nightmare on Elm Street 6' works better as it doesn't overdo the effect. The headaches are also a good point because they're what prevent me from seeing modern 3D films. – mattdoylemedia9 years ago
I feel The Hobbit films would be worth mentioning and how the 48fps enhanced the 3D. Explore how other advancements affect 3D in films. – 44jeanette449 years ago
I agree, I think The Hobbit films would be a unique point of comparison. Great topic, would be interested to see where someone takes this. – emilyinmannyc9 years ago
3D will most likely always be a thing, and covering the history will probably show that, but if critic and movie-goers opinions are gauged, it seems to be that we are entering a time when no one really wants 3D at the cinema. – Austin Bender9 years ago
I have heard that 3D movies do very well internationally, even though here in the states they are commonly seen as a way to flush 2 more bucks down the toilet.
It is not as much of an "event."
I wonder why that is. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
In my opinion the situation is somewhat similar to when we switched from black-and-white to color - the technology was available since the beginning of the 20th century but it didn't really pick until the 50s and 60s. It was magnificently advertised purely for the spectacle, people thought it was awesome blah blah blah - and eventually things calmed down and color simply became another tool in the filmmaker's toolbox - no longer a novelty just to "flush 2 more bucks down the toilet" as Candice Evenson puts it.... – jmato9 years ago
It's that time of year again, the perfect time to cuddle up with a cup of something hot and binge out on horror movies. Much has been written about zombies and vampires reflecting social anxiety regarding mindless consumerism and disease; let's take it a step further and analyze movies with (anti-?)feminist themes. What do we learn about the pathologizing of young girls in "The Exorcist"? Or, to take a newer horror film, is the vampire in "A Girl Walks Home at Night" a rogue feminist? The possibilities are endless, and bloody, and endlessly bloody.
I often wonder about the significance of female characters as the protagonists in horror films. I remember reading Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell talking (somewhat shamefaced) about how, as college students, they thought Evil Dead would be scarier if it was so frightening, it would make a grown man afraid - hence, the rare male lead (Ash Williams). The contradiction of placing a woman in the role of "fear" (weakness) while also being the "hero" (strength) in the horror genre is very interesting and would be sure to generate a lot of conversation. I think about Alien, Scream...the female protagonist is often abused and exploited, but in the end, she is the one to makes it out alive. This certainly says a lot about cultural views of women. – risserca9 years ago
Great topic. I do think horror movies sort of reflect societies views on women, like the mention of The Exorcist and such. – Austin Bender9 years ago
This is interesting, I would be interested in seeing a point of comparison between the representation of women in American Psycho and The Quiet Ones. Another intriguing analysis could be in the early horror cinema, like Tod Browning's Dracula and other horror films of the 1930s. – emilyinmannyc9 years ago
I've never fully considered this before, but it might call into question the female presence in low-budget campy horror to add aesthetic appeal and remain in the background of the plot, but also the demonisation of female sexuality in things such as vampire movies. – OliviaBurgin9 years ago
I think it has much to do with innocence. Either innocence is something that should be protected from demons or innocence is terrifying when it is tainted by evil. – Candice Evenson9 years ago
