Lol, they're just actors. It's a job, it's not worth getting worked up about (You might argue that you're not getting worked up, but that's what I'm getting from the tone of your posts so let's just move on). She's made a living playing this type of character and she does it well, there's no reason to expect more. Acting isn't about playing every type of character. What's the point if she doesn't want to play different characters? Maybe she hasn't even been offered any other type of role.
Very few actors are given the chance to play a variety of characters once they excel in a particular role. And truth be told, not all actors want to have their fingers in every pie. It's not a part of the job description. Some want to make people laugh, so they do comedy. Others want people to be moved, so they'll go for drama. Some actors like spontaneity and instant audience feedback, so they'll do live theatre. An actor might choose a TV role for its long-term stability. They might only consider roles that will be filmed close to home so that they still have time for family. Comedic actors don't necessarily want to "grow" to become dramatic actors, they're happy doing what they do best. Some actors might aspire to be the next Brando, but most are happy with what they can get in this fickle industry and just have fun with it. People seem to think that if you can't or don't vary, you're not a great actor. I think that's a terrible assumption. Architects commonly have the same shtick; Frank Gehry anyone? But he excels in his trademark, and it's what he's known for. No one expects him to be more subtle and design a modest monastery for monks to show that he has range as a designer. No artist is expected to dabble in all mediums and art styles to be considered great.
This idea of "Range = Ability" does not hold in other occupations, and it shouldn't have to hold here just because we might know enough about these people who act for a living to care.
reply
share
whatkatedid
15 years ago
This is going slightly off the previous post, but i do think that the film made her contradictory and, therefore, didn't make her come off too well. I.e. she was talking about her ex and stated that he was too boring in that he was just content with his life - but she immediately states that he just left her one day and disappeared. So clearly she wasn't quite what she thought she was.
As for her as an actress, i think she is incredibly pretty but can see why she might annoy people. However, no matter how much they try, very few actors are different in their films so i don't really think about it - i just avoid films which involve those i don't like. Also, despite her trademark 'kooky and different and against the conformist masses' she still beats Kirsten Dunst hands down!
reply
share
ar87
15 years ago
Listen, very few film actors are different across movies. You need to look to stage actors to find actors who can play any kind of role and are different in each role they plan. She's good at what she does.
Carrey has been doing the same schtick for a while now, his movies seem to be blending into each other, but the guy has shown tremendous acting chops throughout his career, so don't diss him. I would blame the writing more than anything with him. People just saw Liar Liar and wanted to repeat that formula. Take Jim Carrey and have him be a normal guy who has something happen to him that causes him to go crazy, and become God, or say yes all the time. They realized all you have to do is say "dance monkey!" and Carrey will do anything they want him to do.
reply
share
rdsla
14 years ago
Liberalis,
Very well said....you made the essential point.
There are all kinds of actors, all kinds of ranges. Zooey will never be a Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren, but she does what she does and has had good performances. In this movie I thought she and all the actors did okay, but the movie felt weak, which I attribute to the poor writing, not the acting.
reply
share