What is type, and what goes into making "persona?" Well, accrued casting choices, for one thing, but other performances in the public eye, as well as the performer's natural attributes. Let's enjoy a look at one of All About Eve's cast members' persona.
Yes, "The George Sanders Touch: Songs for the Lovely Lady." That's the real title of his album.
Before All About Eve, George had already been published as a mystery author, though the books were ghostwritten. The George Sanders brand, sophisticated, intelligent, dangerous, debauched, was established. The jacket text is pretty wonderful.
Devastating, is a good word here.
What other peculiar things did the old boy get into? Well, he was husband #3 (of 7) to Zsa Zsa Gabor...
... but did you first meet him here?
After that, at age 65, he checked into a Barcelona hotel, took five bottles of pills, and wrote:
"Dear World, I am leaving because I am bored. I feel I have lived long enough. I am leaving you with your worries in this sweet cesspool. Good luck."
I find it fascinating that we associate the classic personas' roles with the personal lives they held. I don't know if today we really keep up this perspective; for example Angelina Jolie is notorious for playing highly sexual, manipulative villains (Grendel's Mother, Maleficent, etc) yet she is known personally and identified for her humanitarian work. I think that actors have a "type" they play, but today we recognize that it's acting more.
ReplyDeleteTypage is the casting of actors who look or act like the characters they play. Though well-known actors are often "typecast" in a certain persona, "typage" generally refers to non-professional actors playing roles similar to their personalities. Examples of this are Gabourey Sidibe in Precious and Thomas Horn in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
ReplyDeleteBecause of recent events, I've become fascinated with Philip Seymour Hoffman and his body of work. I regret to say I haven't seen as much of his moves and roles as I should, but in doing some research this weekend I've become familiar with the general consensus, which says he was one of the major character actors of our time. I would agree. I remember watching CAPOTE for the first time, and caring more about PSH than about the real Capote by the time the film was over. Put simply, I was blown away by Hoffman's portrait of the writer in that movie. And it's almost hard to believe that he was the same actor who played Lancaster Dodd in THE MASTER. But although his roles seem to be disparate and wide-ranging, his ability to go dark and deep into the characters he played was constant, and it seemed to be inextricably tied to some of what was going on behind-the-scenes (not necessarily a problem with substances, but more with what critics and reporters have called a reckless or troubled desire for fulfillment — something that pushed him — onstage and onscreen — to become "one great guarantee of modern American cinema"). I agree with Ariel, I find it fascinating that we associate the classic personas' roles with the personal lives they held. PSH might not be the best example of this, but he's definitely relevant when it comes to the conversation of persona vs. behind-the-scenes. And on a personal note, he's an actor I'm definitely going to look more into. Here are some interesting things I found over the weekend I wanted to share: one of his last interviews (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/sundance-philip-seymour-hoffman-christina-hendricks-on-making-gods-pocket-video-1201064561/) and a pretty honest article about a reporter meeting him offstage (http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/feb/02/philip-seymour-hoffman-death-interview).
ReplyDelete