Most actors play a plethora of roles in film and on television shows. Some actors though, are best remembered for one or two iconic roles, even after the film has been out for years or the show gets cancelled. Examples include Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen, best known for their portrayal of Michelle Tanner, Jaleel White (Steve Urkel), and Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter). More examples: Juliette Binoche (Vianne Rochet, Chocolat), Julie Andrews (Maria Rainer, Mary Poppins), and Leonardo DiCaprio (Jack Dawson).
Does being associated with an iconic role help or hurt an actor's career? Does it make a difference whether the actor was a child or adult at the time of the role (s) in question? Do viewers prefer that actors stay in iconic role "molds," or would they rather actors create new characters/avoid typecasting? Explore these and other questions, as well as any examples you might choose, to determine the positive and negative aspects of associating actors with very specific roles.
The best actors would tend to belittle any type of impact, I would say. Take my childhood idol Clint Eastwood: traded his spurs for a holster, plays good guy or bad guy with equal tact; and still going strong in politics of all things--makes it seem as just matter of dusting off the layers of script material and moving on to the next being thing (nothing to it). Not convinced? Then, there is Arnold Schwarzenegger: Mr. Universe, Mr. Titanium, and Mr. Dream Teacher; still turning heads in politics. Positive and negative in Hollywood, not these guys. – LFreire7 years ago
Yet another interesting topic suggestion from Stephanie. I suppose there are examples of iconic roles that have helped an actor's career and others that have hurt a career. Off the top of my head I could mention just how long Sean Connery took to shake off the '007' tag, as some people actually confused the actor with the role, but he has gone on to more interesting roles, even if he did revisit Bond in 'Never Say Never Again' (1983). Conversely there's the controversial 'unsimulated sex act' that Chloë Sevigny performed in 'The Brown Bunny' (2003), which she will no doubt be forever remembered for and appears to have damaged her standing as a serious actress. Remaining in an iconic role certainly helps with the bank balance, but doesn't stretch an actor in any way - the actor Adam Woodyatt, who plays the character, Ian Beale in the long running British soap 'Eastenders', lives a few miles away from me and is often seen around in his Maserati (No, I'm not envious!...Well, maybe a little). The locals all refer to him by his on-screen character name. However, for me, the best example of someone who has never let the grass grow under his feet is Sir Patrick Stewart - perhaps best known for Captain Jean-Luc Picard in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation', who has since returned to his Shakespearean roots with vigour as well as delivering one the best performances as Ebenezer Scrooge in the 1999 version of 'A Christmas Carol'. – Amyus7 years ago
I think being strongly associated with a role is probably harmful for an actor in terms of their future career prospects. It's difficult to be type-cast and if an actor is type-cast than I suspect it would be very displeasing for them to have to struggle to break into new roles and in new genres. That being said socially it's probably neat for them to be strongly associated with a type of character or genre which would be cool if it didn't also impact what casting agents and directors think of them. – LucianoTheWriter7 years ago
This is actually an interesting discussion when you consider the discussion around the death of Heath Ledger. The industry is actually starting to look at improving the mental wellness of actors and the support network required for them. Consider also the anorexia issues of the Olsen twins. Actually an interesting discussion when considered also from the lens of mental health. – SaraiMW7 years ago
"A Cure for Wellness" is a movie filled with loosely defined answers in need of a good article to analyze it's potential hidden meaning. The movie is saturated with the presence of eels; why eels over any other aquatic life? A quick google search says seeing eels in a place they aren't meant to be is a sign one is out of their depth (as the protagonist clearly is on multiple occasions) and the touching of an eel represents a missed opportunity. This fits well enough with the protagonist's experience/character but that leaves the question, how often were these sightings real? The movie tries to throw watchers back and forth between believing whether everything is real or in the protagonist's head. At the end when the Baron is confronted it's assumed for a short time that all the strange happenings were real and influenced by a degree of brain washing, however, in the last frame of the movie the protagonist is seen smiling with a full set of teeth when earlier in the movie he lost two. When asked about this the directors remained ambiguous on the significance, if there is any at all. Can it be deciphered how much of the film is based in reality or illusion, or is the it an unanswerable question?
I believe the film is supposed to be a combination of reality and illusion, especially considering that the majority of it takes place in what appears to be some sort of institution. – Sarah Bish7 years ago
A work of fiction is considered to have passed the Bechdel test if it features two women who talk about something other than a man. In many cases, it also requires that the women have names. Nearly half of films meet this requirement. Does this test truly examine the portrayal of gender in media?
Maybe an additional question you could also ask is, what kind of insight does applying the Bechdel Test on films give us about particular filmmakers (and give some examples) and has the introduction of the Bechdel Test changed the industry at all? – Kevin8 years ago
I think another important question might be, does a film that fails the Bechdel Test always portray gender negatively? Does a film that passes the Bechdel Test always portray gender positively? If not, what does the Bechdel Test truly show us? – C8lin8 years ago
You probably already know this, but there are a lot of films, such as Showgirls or films by Russ Meyer, that pass the Bechdel Test despite the fact that they are FAR from positive portrayals of women. – jsanoff8 years ago
This could open up a really interesting argument into how low the bar is set for feminist media these days. If so many meet the requirements, are the requirements strict enough? Are they asking for enough? What would be a better test? – Mariel8 years ago
It's important to recognize that the Bechdel Test is a bare minimum of what should be required for female representation in media, not a be all end all. – Laura Andrea8 years ago
Good topic, because in my opinion, the Bechdel test sets the bar too low. Just because two female characters are named and have conversations unrelated to men, does not make them strong or memorable people. Films aimed at girls and women are particularly guilty, from Disney princess movies to Jane Austen adaptations to modernized "chick flicks." – Stephanie M.8 years ago
I've always wondered what the Bechdel test is trying to achieve. Is it trying to divide the genders, or empower females? Star Wars failed the Bechdel test, but Leia Organa is a stronger character than anything in the Ghostbusters remake. It also limits roles for women. If a women is playing a devoted parent, if her child is female, she passes; if her child is male, she fails. Surely that character would have the same level of strength regardless of the gender of her offspring. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Maybe you could also look at other tests that measure equal representation in film and media (but it would be a good starting point!). – AnastasiaS7 years ago
Spiderman is a superhero who has had several on screen adaptations, each of which offers a unique take on the character. This article will discuss and compare these adaptations, what aspects of the hero each of them envisioned and the success they had in doing so.
Hmm...might need to consider a question or theory that you are really wanting to tease out to avoid this just becoming a review of the Spider-Man films. – SaraiMW7 years ago
Perhaps you could approach this topic by examining the circumstances for the various reboots of the franchise in such a short amount of time. Was there an underlying sociopolitical context that had an impact on the films and/or reboot? You could also consider juxtaposing the Spiderman movies with the different iterations of Batman or Superman on film. – bcurran7 years ago
The last two films by Damien Chazelle have both included ideas of dreams: Whiplash and La La Land; another favourite is Black Swan, directed by Darren Aronofsky. You could possibly explore the differences and similarities between such a theme in these films (or others, these are just suggestions); what makes these characters so willing to sacrifice things for their dream; in what ways dreams are presented differently in various films; the idealistic view of dreams vs realist depiction of them. It could also be titled something like 'The Presentation of Dreams in Film'.
Nice suggestion. Movies, especially Hollywood movies, are in themselves the product of the dreams of the creators, hence 'The Dream Factory', so we could consider movies that address the escapist dream theme as dreams within dreams. It might also be worth noting that Aronofsky was influenced by another great dreamer - the Japanese anime director Satoshi Kon, whose 1997 film' Perfect Blue' heavily influenced Aronofsky's 'Black Swan'. – Amyus7 years ago
"Dream" must be defined in a more precise way here. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Humanities graduates get a bad reputation in this time of increased attention being placed on STEM fields that will surely drive our technologically-advancing economy. Mainstream U.S. films have been a contributing factor to this poor image in representing humanities graduates as aloof and/or struggling writers that are haunted by addiction and manic spurts of genius or inspirational educators that set the bar unrealistically high for actual teachers. Titles such as Stuck in Love and The Dead Poets Society circulate these narratives of humanities graduates, perpetuating a single image of what these graduates can actually do in society. Arrival was released in 2016 with great critical acclaim, and one of the most interesting aspects of the sci-fi epic comes in the form of a humanities vs sciences debate between the two leads – Amy Adams as the linguist Louise Banks and Jeremy Renner as Ian Donnelly – a physicist. Banks makes it clear early in the film that they need to focus on learning to communicate with the titular arrivals before working out the physics of their space-travel, placing the linguist in a position of privilege, but does this narrative manage to correct the one-sided image of the humanities, or does it fall short of shedding a positive light on a field that has been traditionally relegated to narrow, stereotypical representations?
Though I get what you're trying to say, your argument is based on the flawed premise that "English majors" (or, more accurately, "scholars," since the term "major" typically disappears from self-identification after undergraduate study) and "Linguistics majors" are one in the same, despite being entirely separate fields with completely different subject matters and methodological approaches to such. Though it is not uncommon for Literary Studies and Linguistics do occasionally borrow ideas and practices from one another -- as was common in the Russian, Czech, and French schools of Structuralism in the early to mid twentieth century -- the disciplines themselves remain distinct. I had initially considered suggesting that this could be fixed simply by replacing the word "English" with "Linguistics," but the stereotyped image of English majors -- "struggling writers that are haunted by addiction and manic spurts of genius" as you've put it -- is not so accurate a description of the general societal impression of Linguistics majors. Honestly, I'm not sure if there even is such a thing as a mainstream personality stereotype of Linguistics students and scholars, aside from the occasional internet memes made by the majors themselves (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/52/db/6452dbbec053cf36476c1edfb68b68fd--linguistics-major-teaching-phonics.jpg). Perhaps a more accurate fix would be to replace "English" with the broader category of general "Humanities," since (as you've observed) the film's central question boils down to "Humanities vs Sciences." That said, being such a broad umbrella term for a vast array of disciplines -- from English to Economic, Geography to Gender Studies, History to Linguistics, etc, etc -- it might be difficult to represent that entire scholarly demographic with any one or two (or ten) stereotypical images. I'm just not sure what can really be done with this. Sorry. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
I understand the issues you bring up, and the phrasing was probably not the best. The subject is definitely a bit too broad for a focused study, but I was hoping to get some insight through notes to narrow it a bit. I realize that English studies and linguistic studies are separate fields, but I've personally seen the stereotype of those in the humanities who study language in some way being incorrectly lumped together under the umbrella of "English." This may be a personal experience that does not translate well for others, so turning our attention to the humanities in general may be a slightly more beneficial direction to take this topic. Having said this, I do believe that there is a trend in mainstream U.S. popular culture to view those in the humanities as the stereotypical "struggling artists" without taking into account the intricacies of the humanities such as linguistic studies, technical writing, etc. Thank you for the note; I believe you provided some very important clarifications to my initial topic. – Aaron7 years ago
Thank you *so much* for this topic. In an increasingly STEM-driven world, I sometimes feel as though everything I am passionate about is irrelevant. Sometimes I want to say to people, "You do understand you couldn't pursue STEM careers if you couldn't read, don't you?" And you're right, films don't help anything. I don't think I've seen a humanities-based film since Mona Lisa Smile, and that was what, 2003? Anyway...the topic should probably be narrowed down, but you have the seeds of something that will spark a great discussion. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes; it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses" (Elwood Blues)
"Hit it!" (Jake Blues)
That legendary quote from 'The Blues Brothers' (1980) introduced the viewer to arguably one of the funniest and most notorious car chases in cinema history and exemplified the road movie as a metaphor for the desire for freedom. Freedom from oppression, freedom from authority and the freedom of self-expression. The comically manic, self-destructive joyride of 'Goodbye Pork Pie' (1981) saw the protagonist taking a thousand mile trip across New Zealand, in a progressively disintegrating mini, just to reconnect with his girlfriend, whilst David Lynch's gentle perambulation that was 'The Straight Story' (1999) was based on the true story of Alvin Straight's 240 mile trip on a lawnmower across Iowa and into Wisconsin to see his estranged brother. In more recent years we've had the eccentric British film 'Driving Lessons' (2006), the Bonny and Clyde-esque 'God Bless America' (2012), Inmtiaz Ali's loosely scripted and superb 'Highway' (2014) and the somewhat off-kilter 'The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun' (2015)…to list but a few examples. What connects all these films is that each is ultimately a life-affirming experience, even if the journey ends in disaster. It is the process of self-discovery, but in these modern times of ultra high-tech surveillance and ever encroaching self-driving vehicles, will we lose that chance to push the peddle-to-the-metal and engage with our thirst for a fleeting moment of automotive freedom?
I'd be really curious to know how the road trip movie fits in different cultures' cinema - I've assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it was a American connection. – Emily Esten7 years ago
With the rise of digital retail services like the recent "Movies Anywhere," is the age of owning films in physical formats coming to an end sooner than expected? With services like iTunes and Vudu, no one needs to buy a film in a store like Best Buy anymore. Is it for the best? Does owning a DVD or Blu-ray come with benefits, or is it now unnecessary?
Ah, verrrry interesting. I have a DVD collection of movies I consider favorites, but now that Netflix, DVR, and etc. exist, I definitely don't watch them as much as I used to and maybe should. For a topic like this, I think you'd have to think carefully about the upsides of owning a film. For instance, is it just the idea of ownership that makes us shell out hard-earned cash, or is there something else to it? – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I have also often pondered this question. One of my favourite weekly activities used to be visiting my local Blockbuster. I now fear that we live in an era of over saturation; there are too many choices when I browse my Netflix account. I don't feel the same commitment to watch something that I once felt when I paid a rental fee (and held the tangible product). For this topic, it might be interesting to revisit the time before home video. Perhaps people felt similarly when home video first came into existence and filmgoers were no longer forced to exclusively watch movies in a cinema. – bcurran7 years ago
We feel special affinity towards certain titles which may resonate with us deeply and thus, wish to associate with it in a tangible form. However, it is true that with leaks and videos available everywhere, there is less incentive for people to buy DVDs just to see the extra content being offered in terms of bloopers, cut scenes and behind the scenes interviews or alternate endings. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
