I have two words to say in disagreement with that idea: Katharine Hepburn.
There, do you feel better?
Well, Jennifer Aniston certainly is no Katharine Hepburn, and no one else is either.
I would argue that even when they were great actors anddidhave range, the principle still holds.
Take James Stewart, who I often think of as my favorite American movie star.
InCasablanca, Humphrey Bogart isnt just playing a cynical saloon keeper named Rick.
Hes playing a tough, thick-voiced brooder named Humphrey Bogart whos playing a cynical saloon keeper named Rick.
Thats part of what sears their souls into ours.
Its the perception that the performance has overstayed its welcome, that it has grown predictable and tiresome.
Except that she keeps doing it because people, more often than not, keep going to her movies.
It wasnt just a one-time thing, either.
Sure, Cera played Scott without giving himself a complete and total personality transplant.
But that doesnt mean he wasnt acting, or that he wasnt different than before.
Yet I think I have an idea about whats driving some of them.
These days, though, the thing thats on everyones mind iscred.
Not just whats fun, but whats smart and cool to like.
Acting, in other words, is cool; just being, on the other hand, is lame.
But isnt that false to the way that weve always watched, and enjoyed, certain movie stars?
Okay, maybe Jennifer Aniston reallyisthe same character in movie after movie.
I, for one, like that character.
Who, in fact, are always the same?
Who are your favorites?
And who are the ones who you thinkneedto change?
