An Actor In Search of a Role

Some actors can fall into any role. Other actors need to find their role.

Sabrina Lloyd doesn't quite work as Don's ex-girlfriend in the first season of Numb3rs. She also isn't quite right as Wade in Sliders, a problem I write about here. However, she shines in the comedy Sports Night opposite the endearing Joshua Malina.

On the other hand, Joss Whedon alumnus Amy Acker slides effortlessly into nearly every role.

Granted, Amy Acker is something of a marvel but the issue here isn't acting ability but how various roles seem to suit actors or actresses best.

T.J. Thyne had a healthy and respectable career as a minor-guest-character-with-clever-lines for years before he landed Bones. His prior roles were truthfully all variations on a theme. This doesn't mean T.J. Thyne isn't a good actor; it means he plays a particular role exceptionally well.

Yup, that's TJ Thyne on Friends
Elsewhere, I mention that Joan Fontaine was less than perfect as Jane Eyre. Hitchcock, on the other hand, knew exactly what to do with her. She was nominated for her role in Rebecca and won for her role in Suspicion.

Do casting directors get awards for picking the right person for the right role? Because they should. 

Another interesting point about casting directors is that many of them tend to pick similar-looking actors for guest spots. I'm sure there's a kind of underground rumor mill in Hollywood: "Hey, that show on CBS is looking for a guest star right now, and the casting director always picks rangy blonds of about 5'10"--you should try out!"

In any case, this is one more reminder to me of how much, for these actors, their roles are jobs. Which is why I always feel bad when an actor loses a role, even if that actor wasn't very good. It's a living, people!

Finding the right niche is part of making a good living.

2 comments:

Joe said...

The problem with casting guest spots is that human beings do stereotype. The actor may also already have a reputation, major or minor. So, while casting against type may work for a lead role, where you can prepare the audience, it can cause unnecessary story/script/plot problems.

Bringing in Tom Selleck to play a genuinely dweebish nerd isn't going to work. Bringing in Richard Kind as a lethario, unless for comedic effect, would be a problem.

I'd also add that most actors really just play variations on a theme. The script, costumes, production style, editing and all the rest may persuade us the acting is vastly different when it really isn't; we just willingly go along with it.

Finally, one of the biggest challenges in casting is matching the skills of the actors. It is very jarring when you have one noticeably better actor, something common with low budget productions. Where this gets tricky is in long running shows, especially when the cast starts young and mature as actors at different rates. Buffy is a very good example of this.

(A related problem is when one actor ends up having an unexpected charismatic "break out" appeal, upsetting the balance of the show/movie/play. That said, a good show runner/producer/director quickly adjusts to the new reality and exploits it.)

Katherine Woodbury said...

"A related problem is when one actor ends up having an unexpected charismatic 'break out' appeal, upsetting the balance of the show/movie/play. That said, a good show runner/producer/director quickly adjusts to the new reality and exploits it."

Michael J. Fox in Family Ties is an excellent example. Yeah, the show changed to become less about the parents--and Fox was definitely showcased in many episodes--but it also managed not to lose its vision/theme.

This was helped by the producer/director being impressively willing to work with Fox's new career. And by Fox himself.