I recall looking thru bonus section of some DVD where the actress from
Buffy the Vampire Slayer says how many people on the street would act
afraid whenever they saw her.
I wonder how widely this effect is known, and what information exists out there.
We obviously have some persons in Hollywood that play the same role
from movie to movie, especially in action movies, but do you feel
anything when an actor who played an "evil" role in a previos role is
confronted? Do you fell the "kick him real good" thought unvoluntary
gaining support in your brain?

At least, I feel that any actor who played an "evil" role just once
should never be given any "good guy" role afterward. That will teach
them.

---

Request for Question Clarification by sublime1-ga on 17 Jan 2006 22:09 PST

The effect you're discussing manifests most visibly in
what's called typecasting and the bottom line is often
exactly what you've said. The actors, typically those
cast in evil roles, never manage to break free of the
image they've so successfully created in the minds of
directors, casting companies, and the public, and are
essentially doomed to playing similar characters for
the rest of their career.

A common example is Charles Bronson = tough guy,
following the success of his Death Wish trilogy.

Of course, sometimes an actor has a limited range,
which contributes to the likelihood that they will
be typecast, such as with Sylvester Stallone, Claude
Van Damme, Steven Segal, and so on.

Some more versatile actors manage to break the mold,
such as Clint Eastwood, who went from tough guy
Dirty Harry to the sensitive photographer in Bridges
of Madison County.

Is this the sort of discussion you're seeking?

Your question seems to ask for a subjective opinion
but perhaps it would be easier to create a concrete
answer if it were approached from the perspective
of typecasting.

Let me know what you think...

sublime1-ga

---

Clarification of Question by eestudent-ga on 18 Jan 2006 00:08 PST

You are right to notice that my question is more opinion based and I
am expecting a number or comments.
The answer you gave by providing a name to the effect is as close as
one could answer the question, and you can post it as an answer.
However, I would like other people to also comment, primarily on
whether they themselves (taking business and public image aside) feel
the same effect. Do movies fool our minds so much that the brain deals
with them the same way it would treat a person you saw do bad things?

---

Request for Question Clarification by sublime1-ga on 18 Jan 2006 01:06 PST

eestudent...

Deal. I'll refrain from posting an answer until the question
has had time to collect more comment, since, once it's been
answered, it tends to disappear from view more quickly.

If you post another Clarification when you're satisfied with
the comments you've received, it will alert me to post what
I provided in the Answer box.

sublime1-ga

---

Clarification of Question by eestudent-ga on 18 Jan 2006 22:37 PST

I think that we are done here.

eestudent...

Thanks for confirming my input as an answer for your question,
and letting me know when you had received enough comments to
satisfy your interests. I'll repost my remarks here for the 
sake of future readers:

------------------------------------------------------------

The effect you're discussing manifests most visibly in
what's called typecasting and the bottom line is often
exactly what you've said. The actors, typically those
cast in evil roles, never manage to break free of the
image they've so successfully created in the minds of
directors, casting companies, and the public, and are
essentially doomed to playing similar characters for
the rest of their career.

A common example is Charles Bronson = tough guy,
following the success of his Death Wish trilogy.

Of course, sometimes an actor has a limited range,
which contributes to the likelihood that they will
be typecast, such as with Sylvester Stallone, Claude
Van Damme, Steven Segal, and so on.

Some more versatile actors manage to break the mold,
such as Clint Eastwood, who went from tough guy
Dirty Harry to the sensitive photographer in Bridges
of Madison County.

Your question seemed to ask for a subjective opinion,
so I did no research beyond verifying the facts I 
presented (always a wise thing to do at my age), and
I (and all the researchers) appreciate that you have
honored your word in all respects on this question.

sublime1-ga

In fact, several actors made their reputations playing bad guys before
becoming goodies.

You are probably too young for the names Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney
or James Stewart to mean anything. Yes even James Stewart! In
'Rose-Marie' (1936) - one of Jimmy's early outings - he played the
no-good brother of the lovely Jeanette Macdonald. I think that he was
a killer on the run and Nelson Eddy was determined to hunt him down,
'Dead or Alive'.

sublime1

I invite you to look at 432492 and search on eestudent with special
attention to the expired questions and the questions which eestudent
admits are unanswerable.

Personally, I think most people see through the illusion and accept
the actor for what he is and not what he portrays. I have been
aqcuanted with several actors over the years however and one in
particular whom I know rather well is widely known in the private
sector by his sitcom character's name. While his recurring character
was actually a funny, but very unlikeable person rather than a scary
person it seems that people simply don't know him by his real name
therefore he is almost universally recognized as the man he portrayed
for a couple of decades on television. When we were together in public
I was often surprised at how frequently people walk up to him and
unknowingly, yet automatically call him "Mr. xxxxx" so I asked him if
that kind of typecasting bothered him. He told me that this sort of
thing bugs some actors to no end, but it doesn't bother him at all
because, as he put it, "I owe everything that I have to "Mr. xxxxx"
[referring to his character].

tutuzdad-ga

Yes, typecasting is the keyword.
The example of Clint Eastwood in Bridges of Madison County sheds some
light on his finally escaping his image.  This site says that Sydney
Pollack was original front runner for becoming director, with Robert
Redgrave in the lead role, but then Clint ended up with both jobs,
perhaps finally able to cast himself with a different image.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112579/

That's Redford....Robert REDFORD.

Let us move on:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=435299

THanks, Tutuzdad, I should have checked again.
Myo