What is an actor's movie?
For instance when The Exorcist (1973) was made, the studio had some idea of who they wanted in a film.
They wanted Marlon Brando to play Father Merrin, but the director said he didn't want the film to be a 'Brando movie'
So Max Von Sydow played the role
I believe it was also said when Cary Grant was considered for Bond, it would just be 'another Cary Grant movie',
What does it mean when they say that? What is an 'actor's movie'
- Anonymous6 months agoFavorite Answer
They are very charismatic actors, and whatever movie they participate in, they become the focus of attraction, and that means other aspects, like the plot, get obscured, people don't pay so much attention to them. For example, "The Exorcist" is a very well built movie, with plenty of terrifying moments that screw with your head, but if Brando had acted, we would remember more his face, his pauses, his demeanor, than those moments. An actor of that kind "tints" too much a movie. Max Von Sydow is an excellent actor too, but he can become "part of the landscape" better. The fact that the actor is a bit more obscure for the mainstream public also helps build atmosphere for the character. (Maybe this problem has more to do with how each actor is promoted and publicized than with the actors themselves.)
- AthenaLv 76 months ago
In those cases the style of the actor made any film they did a center for their talent.
This is opposed to actors who blend into the whole world of the movie. Who become part of the entire storytelling. Kevin Costner in Draft Day, Albert Finney in The Dresser or even in Erin Brockovich . Zac Efron in Me & Orson Welles.
That sort of thing.
- dripLv 76 months ago
The Mission Impossible movies are just Tom Cruise movies. They are suppose to be about a team. It it just spotlights Tom Cruise being an action hero, For this movie I believe that was the intent,
But that could of happened with Grant as Bond.
It with some actors it is the strong presents of the actor. Some great actor can blend in. Some just can’t or don’t.
Some actors reach the height of their career and are so popular it is all about them, not the movie.
- A.J.Lv 76 months ago
It is when an actor or actress is so famous and well known that he/she draws audience attention away from the other actors and characters and story line. It is not as common today as in the past. Some actors have distinctive styles and that also affects the mood of the film.
Johnny Depp, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hanks, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert DeNiro have the affect, but not to the extent of Brando nor Cary Grant
It is difficult sometimes to look back at a time in books or descriptions if you did not experience it yourself. Emotional experiences can be special.
Those that went to the original Woodstock festival in 1969 know the feeling forever in a way that cannot be easily described. Seeing the planes crash into WTC on 9-11-2001 for the first time is another. The original TV series Star Trek in 1966-1969 today is seen as not special. It aired at time when American Westerns were popular and discrimination and bigotry were far worse than today. The Cold War with Russia was still active. Gene Roddenberry, the creator, was very insistent about keeping a certain vision.
Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock - Studio said to "get rid of the ears"
Nichelle Nichols as communications officer Uhura was a black woman in a lead support role
George Takei - An Asian in a lead support role
Walter Koenig - A Russian (the enemy of the USA at the time)
Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" could not be produced today as considered highly offensive even as a comedy, but Mel Brooks is almost radical left wing liberal and was making statements in 1974 about how silly it is to be racist or fear homosexuals. And Norman Lear's TV show "All in the Family" was also a social statement groundbreaking at the time.
If young, you cannot understand fully how an actor can "take over" a film by just being in it, just as you could not understand fully about the original Star Trek and All in the Family and Blazing Saddles. You would find Star Trek typically boring and nothing special, and the other two as making offensive bad jokes and nasty characters.
Per comment - Although Trek fans see the moral lessons, only the very oldest understand the character "shock"value meant to normalize people as people instead of someone of a certain race or ethnicity. It can be discussed, but not experienced is the point. The hardcore fans waited 10 years until the first Star Trek movie and it wasn't very good so 3 more years until Star Trek Wrath of Kahn saw there is value in the franchise.
I use these as analogies that it is hard today to understand an actor "making" a film, though I think it was more recently true in other countries movie industries.