Is Typecasting A Thing Of The Past?

[Pirate]

I showed a friend of mine the trailer for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which is hitting cinemas in a few days. When the trailer ended, my friend made this comment: "that poor bastard. He’ll never work again." After I berated him for taking during the trailers, I paused the disc to ask him why he thought that. He gave me the Christopher Reeve Superman spiel. That got me thinking. Does typecasting still exist?

Think about it. Who was the last actor to get typecast after playing a major role? We still have issues with not letting comedians be anything but comedians (Chris Tucker), but I can’t think of someone who played a big role and then never worked again because they were offered nothing but. Will Brandon Routh never work again besides in Superman sequels? Will Hayden Christensen ever play anything buy angsty, asthmatic villains? Will Danny Radcliffe be nothing more than an equine-loving stage actor, never again to grace the silver screen as a non-magical being? I don’t think so.

I think audiences have (in some cases) matured beyond typecasting. Perhaps it was the initial cinematic wizardry that so solidified the actor in their perspective roles, but as amazing FX become more commonplace, perhaps the actor’s wardrobe are now less emblazoned in our minds. But, maybe I’ve wrong. Maybe Radcliffe will never be anything but our favorite bespectacled wand-waver. Maybe there are forms of typecasting left that I’m leaving out, but it seems that in today’s cinema, all one needs is to do an edgy independent film to break through or re-break through.

Whatcathink?

[limacharliewhiskey]

It will depend on the choices that he makes on what future roles he selects. But I don't think his problem will be typecasting, it will be the transition from doing teen roles to doing adult roles. Will audiences accept him in roles as a young adult? From what I've read, though, Radcliffe is a very humble young man, very down to earth, and gets along well with crew members and such. If he makes good decisions on what roles he picks, he can have a long and healthy acting career, because he is getting better as an actor with each film. I've read great things about his theater performance that he's been doing recently while waiting for the next Harry Potter production to start.

4 child actors come to mind on how their careers have turned out, in very different ways. Leonardo DiCaprio started out with This Boy's Life with a rave performance, then peaked early with Titanic. Hit a few bumps afterwards, but has resurged in his career with his roles in Martin Scorsese films.

Macaulay Caulkin, hit it big with the Home Alone movies, has struggled since. Has had small roles in indie films, and still working in Hollywood.

Edward Furlong, burst onto the scene in Terminator 2, appeared in several movies as a teen, still getting roles in smaller movies, but nothing like T2.

Haley Joel Osment, almost won an Oscar in Sixth Sense, haven't seen Secondhand Lions, but heard he did well in it, haven't heard from since.

It will be interesting to see how Radcliffe's career goes after the last Harry Potter film, which is slated for a 2010 release.

[ganthc]

Does typecasting still happen? Hmm...ask Jessica Alba, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, etc.

But, I think that given a different role choice actors can branch out from their childhood images. Look at Christina Ricci, Shia LeBeouf, Ben Foster, Claire Daines, Anna Paquin, Kirsten Dunst, among others. Typecasting can be avoided.

[Pirate]

Do you think that’s really a case of them being offered nothing different or is it that they choose bad roles? Paul Walker has branched out a bit with films like Running Scared, but I’m not convinced that Rodriguez and Alba are even looking for quality roles. Rodriguez’ first film (Girl Fight) is the best thing she’s done to date and I have a hard time believing that she’s been offered nothing comparable. Alba has purposely chosen the sexpot roles, but let’s not get into the Alba debate again.

My point being that I don’t necessarily think that these are true cases of typecasting.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

Do you think that’s really a case of them being offered nothing different or is it that they choose bad roles? Paul Walker has branched out a bit with films like Running Scared, but I’m not convinced that Rodriguez and Alba are even looking for quality roles. Rodriguez’ first film (Girl Fight) is the best thing she’s done to date and I have a hard time believing that she’s been offered nothing comparable. Alba has purposely chosen the sexpot roles, but let’s not get into the Alba debate again.

My point being that I don’t necessarily think that these are true cases of typecasting.

True, Paul Walker did a good job in "Running Scared" but it wasn't really a stretch from some of his other roles. It wasn't a Heath Ledger type stretch. As far as Alba is concerned, she could definitely have been just choosing a paycheck over quality film, but she should be coming out in some other types of films that might broaden her portfolio. It will depend on how "The Eye" is converted over for American audiences. Gellar did a great job with "The Grudge" so we'll see if Alba can do the same.

But I think that when it comes to serious acting roles, tough dramas, Alba is probably not on the top of the list of choices. She has been typecast as the sex kitten, maybe partially by the roles she has chosen initially, but also by Hollywood's view of where certain actresses need to stay in their type in order to make money at the box office. Or that's my opinion.

[rixrex]

Typecasting will always exist for these reasons:

The public likes the appearance, persona and charisma of certain actors when they play their typecast characters.

Some typecast talent actually bring publicity and money to the production because they are cast to type, especially those as described above.

Typecasting lessens the burden on production crew to develop secondary characters thoroughly as the talent is able to handle it without needing loads of direction. Sometimes they even have a wardrobe ready to go.

Many times "casting against type" does not work, though occassionally it does, but not many studios would like to take that risk.

The biggest percent of active talent in film and TV productions have a certain type that they can play easily and prefer to play as well, as they like to work and earn money regularly like anybody else

Leading men and ladies even as such still tend to have a "type" of character they play, but their roles are usually more in depth and the typecasting is much less evident. They also have much more opportunity to play against type, but even with such powerful positions, it is risky and not always accepted by the public, so the money-holders are not eager to let go of the production cash.

Interestingly, most leading actors and actresses would love the chance to play a well-developed villainous role, as they get to expand their performances in these type roles and find such much more interesting. Most fans don't care a lot to see their favorite actors turn to do a villainous role, but sometimes it's successful. I am thinking about Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time in the West, doing a superb turn as a villain, but I don't recall if the public accepted it at the time.

Then there are the very few who can tackle any type of role and be successful regardless, Robert DeNiro for example.

I always think of fine actors like Vincent Price when it comes to typecasting. He was typecast obviously, but had a range beyond the material in which he appeared. He would create a deeper and stronger character than the films required. I always though it interesting that he seemed less strong when he did not have his moustache. Talk about typecast by appearance.

[suedelike]

type casting is very natural becuase some actors have a very narrow range. So to utilize theese actors effectively they must be typecasted. i.e. Guys like Gary Oldman have to be psychotic, Clooney has to play cerebral/ denzel does such a good conflicted authority figure that it doesent make sense to do anything else with him.

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by suedelike

type casting is very natural becuase some actors have a very narrow range. So to utilize theese actors effectively they must be typecasted. i.e. Guys like Gary Oldman have to be psychotic, Clooney has to play cerebral/ denzel does such a good conflicted authority figure that it doesent make sense to do anything else with him.

But don't you think that Oldman played well against his type in the Harry Potter movies? They tried to get us to think that Sirius Black was a crazed killer by casting Oldman. But I thought he played the role of "cool godfather" just as well.

[ganthc]

There are some actors that have done a lot to break typecasting. For example, comedians Robin Williams and Jim Carrey had their moments as serious actors. Other people have gone overboard in breaking their typecast, like Elizabeth Hurley.

It's not impossible to stretch outside your usual typecast. Perfect movies to do this are independent films, where you won't get paid as much, but you can really get a meaty role that redefines and stretches your capabilities. I think Hayden Christianson, and Daniel Radcliffe could get other roles. I could see either Radcliffe or Watson from HP fame being in a serious drama. Something tells me that the HP movie commitments are too much right now. But only two more movies to go on that.

[suedelike]

Originally Posted by Taxi

But don't you think that Oldman played well against his type in the Harry Potter movies? They tried to get us to think that Sirius Black was a crazed killer by casting Oldman. But I thought he played the role of "cool godfather" just as well.

I'm not as familiar with his Harry Potter roles but I have scene him in 1 or 2, but I think that the HP roles prove my point perfectly, although he(gary oldman) without doubt has the skills to cover the vast spectrum of roles, he does the "crazy" so well that it's tough to cast him for a role that doesn't in some way utilize what he's best at. Allow me use sports as a metaphor.Take Kevin Garnett or LaBron James for example, these guys have enough well rounded abilities and talents that they can effectively play any position, But they work so well as forwards that it would be an obvious procedural flaw and a blatant display of inefficient usage to not utilize them where they are strongest. So they get "type casted" into their roles. If you look closely most actors have their respective typecast which the majority of thier roles fall under. And its usually based around some emotion or a set of emotions that they have a particular knack for conveying. Yeah they get work outside the box but their best work usually happens in the box, because thats their bread and butter so to speak. To find actors like Elijah Wood, Johnny Depp, DiCaprio,Gosling,Day Lewis to name a few who can be completely unrecognizable without the necessity for makeup from one role to the next is rare! And it is only for actors of this caliber that the unwritten law fo necessary typecasting does not apply.

[Pirate]

Audiences didn't even flinch when Oldman played the very sane Jim Gordon in Batman Begins.

[umainebearman]

I just saw a perfect example of type casting tonight!! I don't know if the guys been in anything else but I just remember shaking my head at the commercial.

It was a herpes medication commercial and the guy at the end with the herpes had also played a cheating boyfriend on an episode of Scrubs that had gonorrhea!

Its good work if you can get it I guess.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Do you think that’s really a case of them being offered nothing different or is it that they choose bad roles? Paul Walker has branched out a bit with films like Running Scared, but I’m not convinced that Rodriguez and Alba are even looking for quality roles. Rodriguez’ first film (Girl Fight) is the best thing she’s done to date and I have a hard time believing that she’s been offered nothing comparable. Alba has purposely chosen the sexpot roles, but let’s not get into the Alba debate again.

My point being that I don’t necessarily think that these are true cases of typecasting.

I think you are spot-on in every argument you've made in this thread.

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by umainebearman

It was a herpes medication commercial and the guy at the end with the herpes had also played a cheating boyfriend on an episode of Scrubs that had gonorrhea!

"I'm not a guy who has an STD, but I play one on TV!"

[plissken99]

My personal take is that while type casting does still exist, it's not nearly as rampant as it used to be. The Hollywood stars of old(I'm talking Bogart and Monroe) seemed heavily type cast. And of course some actors just can't help themselves.

I get the impression Jason Statham has a problem saying no to people. He's been in some really fun borderline great movies, then does utter crap here and there. Other examples of actors who fell into the can't say no trap and Casper Van Dien, and Cuba Gooding JR. Jessica Alba... is not a good actress. I've seen her try, and she really should just have been a model. She'll keep doing the sexpot roles until the box office tires of her, then we'll finally get some nudity(or a Playboy spread) from her in a hope to revamp her career, and she'll dissapear.

I'm always happy when I see an actor in a role completley removed from his persona. Comedians doing serios acting(Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love), or vice versa(Robert De Niro Anyalyse This), always brings a smile to my face. Anymore typecasting is largely by choice, or lack of ability.