Actors and Acting

I recently mentioned that I normally stay away from Oscar controversies unless they’re near and dear. I obviously used that line to discuss “No Other Land”, but it applies to general concerns too. Because someone had criticized Guy Pearce for wearing a Free Palestine pin while playing a Nazi who sexually assaults Jewish women. It was ignorant, but it got me thinking about how people accuse Hollywood celebrities of being the characters they play. Because it happens frequently.

Let’s clear this up now: similarly to how actors are allowed to have political views, as they’re not puppets, they’re also not necessarily the characters they play. Robert Downey Jr.’s a high school drop-out, yet he’s played educated geniuses on multiple occasions. Samuel L. Jackson has no personal connection to slavery, despite him playing a slave in Django Unchained. Actors are in the business of pretending. That’s why it’s called “acting”.

Many people don’t seem to get this. Gal Gadot served in The IDF? Her role in Wonder Woman 1984, particularly the scene in The Middle East, is therefore “autobiographical”. Kevin Spacey was outed as a sexual predator? His role in American Beauty was also “autobiographical”. This isn’t to pass any more judgement than has been already, but come on!

Why does this belief get tossed around? The most-obvious answer I can surmise involves politics. People have a bone to pick, and an actor might be the face of an issue. Ideological purity tests are the flavour of the day, so it’s easy to place people into boxes. Why not also do it with the rich and famous?

This leads to my next possible answer: scapegoating. In-tandem with politics, scapegoats provide an easy out for people. I’ve seen this frequently with The Nova Festival Massacre and the hostages in Gaza. Ignoring the war for a minute, any celebrities daring to speak out have been labelled mouthpieces for “IDF propaganda”. Specifically, Gadot was singled out for planning a screening of the footage from October 7th, made worse by her not attending. She had legitimate reasons for that, namely safety concerns, but many people were calling her a “plant” anyway.

The unwillingness to be critical of biases allows for scapegoating, linking an actor to their filmography, to thrive. Never mind that actors are paid to play characters, some of which contradict other roles. Essentially, being a specific character doesn’t mean they agree with or believe what they espouse. It simply means they’re willing to embody the character’s headspace. Ergo, scapegoating’s unhelpful.

Perhaps the biggest reason’s that most moviegoers, and even some film enthusiasts, aren’t movie literate. If they are, they choose to ignore film literacy to serve an agenda. I touched on this with my dissection of movie villains, but a good performance brings life to any role, irrespective of beliefs. That’s not “selling out”, it’s “being authentic”. That’s part of being film literate.

Does that mean actors can’t sometimes bring in personal experiences? Not at all! Jason Isaacs recently stated that the Antisemitism he experienced in his youth helped prepare him for villain roles. The late-Rita Moreno’s trauma with rape prepped her for both adaptations of West Side Story, as both Anita and Doc’s Wife. Actors can, and should, embrace their life experiences. It’s how we end up with great performances.

However, that doesn’t automatically mean that they’re the characters they play. Not only is that impossible, it gives them too little credit for being able to pretend. Actors are pretenders, fakers who can fool people into believing they’re not faking. That’s a real skill, and audiences conflating that with reality is a further testament to it. Regardless, actors should be given the humanity to not be what they play in movies.

I’m not saying you have to like or agree with everything they embody. There are many actors in Hollywood that I don’t like, and I’ve made that clear before on this blog. Actors are people, and people are flawed. Sometimes, those flaws are so great that I can’t support them, even if they’re talented. You absolutely are allowed to not like an actor’s personal beliefs.

At the same time, actors need room to be human. Because like I said, they’re not puppets. They’re also not necessarily the characters they embody, and conflating the two is disingenuous. I know that that’s not easy to hear considering that “in group/out group” is an easy out for people, but it’s true. And I don’t think that can be stressed enough.

So yes, Guy Pearce playing a sexual deviant isn’t necessarily related to his Free Palestine pin. Do I agree with his decision to wear it? Not really, especially given his personal views. Do I like him as a person? I honestly don’t know anymore. But that doesn’t mean him playing a Nazi who assaults women on film also makes him a Nazi who assaults women in real-life. He deserves more credit than that, and it’s high-time other celebrities in Hollywood are given that same benefit of the doubt.