This is not a thread to list actors who took jobs for the paycheck. I just want to make that clear.
I saw this brought up in the Wall Street discussion, and also in the Ford thread, but saying "that actor takes jobs for the paycheck" is one of the laziest criticisms you can make about an actor. Yes, there's a big difference between The Mosquito Coast and Extraordinary Measures, between Dreamgirls and Imagine That, Adaptation. and The Sorcerer's Apprentice, and between Wonder Boys and Wall Street. But I think to criticize an actor for taking a job just for the money is silly, and often unfounded, if not insulting.
I think that, especially in America, especially since the rise of the Method actor and the Actors' Studio, you've seen a fetishization of the idea of acting as a calling, as something noble. And I agree -- I've blabbed a half-dozen times about how I love actors, love listening to them talk about acting, that it's comparable to a kind of magic. But it is also a job. It is also something done for an audience -- without it, all that Methodology would be for nothing. I think it's funny how we revere Christopher Walken for taking any job that comes his way, simply because the man likes to work. See also: Caine, Michael, up until he won his second Oscar.
A job is something you do because you have to sometimes, even if you don't like it. I think this explains De Niro's career as of late, and, to a similar extent, Nicolas Cage's. I'm sure De Niro's not happy appearing in some of the movies he's done -- especially something as low-rent as Righteous Kill -- but the man had bills and divorce settlements to pay. It's clear Cage likes spending money.
As for the money issue, I keep coming back to something Moltisanti said about Jackie Earl Haley being Freddy Kruger: "Let the man buy a nice house." I think for a lot of these actors, not necessarily movie stars, but guys we like, that sentiment is valid.
Finally, I think that there's a lot to be said for finding out why an actor took a role that might seem like a paycheck role. I've read a lot of interviews with actors who have remarked that they took this job because they wanted to work with a particular director, a particular actor, or go to a particular location. Joseph Gordon-Levitt took G.I. Joe because he liked how his character looked.
Obviously, I think the best actors are able to find a balance between taking high-paying jobs where they don't have to challenge themselves much and lower-paying jobs where they can, or actors who "always show up to play" (Stanley Tucci springs to mind, as does Matt Damon), regardless of the movie they're in.
Anyway. Just some rambling thoughts on this.
I saw this brought up in the Wall Street discussion, and also in the Ford thread, but saying "that actor takes jobs for the paycheck" is one of the laziest criticisms you can make about an actor. Yes, there's a big difference between The Mosquito Coast and Extraordinary Measures, between Dreamgirls and Imagine That, Adaptation. and The Sorcerer's Apprentice, and between Wonder Boys and Wall Street. But I think to criticize an actor for taking a job just for the money is silly, and often unfounded, if not insulting.
I think that, especially in America, especially since the rise of the Method actor and the Actors' Studio, you've seen a fetishization of the idea of acting as a calling, as something noble. And I agree -- I've blabbed a half-dozen times about how I love actors, love listening to them talk about acting, that it's comparable to a kind of magic. But it is also a job. It is also something done for an audience -- without it, all that Methodology would be for nothing. I think it's funny how we revere Christopher Walken for taking any job that comes his way, simply because the man likes to work. See also: Caine, Michael, up until he won his second Oscar.
A job is something you do because you have to sometimes, even if you don't like it. I think this explains De Niro's career as of late, and, to a similar extent, Nicolas Cage's. I'm sure De Niro's not happy appearing in some of the movies he's done -- especially something as low-rent as Righteous Kill -- but the man had bills and divorce settlements to pay. It's clear Cage likes spending money.
As for the money issue, I keep coming back to something Moltisanti said about Jackie Earl Haley being Freddy Kruger: "Let the man buy a nice house." I think for a lot of these actors, not necessarily movie stars, but guys we like, that sentiment is valid.
Finally, I think that there's a lot to be said for finding out why an actor took a role that might seem like a paycheck role. I've read a lot of interviews with actors who have remarked that they took this job because they wanted to work with a particular director, a particular actor, or go to a particular location. Joseph Gordon-Levitt took G.I. Joe because he liked how his character looked.
Obviously, I think the best actors are able to find a balance between taking high-paying jobs where they don't have to challenge themselves much and lower-paying jobs where they can, or actors who "always show up to play" (Stanley Tucci springs to mind, as does Matt Damon), regardless of the movie they're in.
Anyway. Just some rambling thoughts on this.
