4 ms·
The explanations I've seen reduce this phenomenon to financial incentives. A movie studio is going to spend a lot of money on making a movie, and know that star
by nescioquid 4y ago
The explanations I've seen reduce this phenomenon to financial incentives. A movie studio is going to spend a lot of money on making a movie, and know that star X will ensure some level of box-office returns. In turn, lead actors have a "brand" and if they were to actually take on new personas for every role the "brand" would be diluted and the lead would not command quite so much money.
FWIW, I agree with you aesthetically.
- jfengel 4y agoIt applies to non-leads as well, and it's not just money. When they know a certain actor can pull off a certain "type" in a way that the audience connects with, they'll cast that actor for that over and over. The actors themselves might prefer to show more range, but they give the directors what they ask for, and the director can worry about a million other things. There are a few actors whose brand is versatility -- Daniel Day Lewis, Meryl Streep, Johnny Depp, etc. -- and audiences go precisely to watch them be different. As an actor I have mixed emotions about that. The performances are sometimes more showy than good, to my understanding of "good". But if audiences connect with it, and directors want it, that's the only metric that matters.