Search Results: screen guys

I pose the question for good reason, in that some performers, more often men, take roles that cast them as a very bad/evil person, who does some unspeakable crimes, that, to me, gives them a bad 'screen image' '

Clint Eastwood cast an actor, (can't recall his name) in one of his Dirty Harry films, in which the character, was terrorizing San Francisco, when he killed a priest in a church, shot and killed a young black kid at the beach, and eventually hijacked a bus full of kids in an attempt to extort money from the city.

The end result when the film was released was, that Eastwood would NOT CAST that actor an another film because he WAS TOO GOOD IN THAT ROLE, and the role he played was so effectively played as the evil criminal, it gave him a very bad 'screen image', and Eastwood would not cast him again. I thought that was appalling!!

Point being: Can you be so good with a role that you ruin your 'screen image" and nobody will touch you again for another part, or at the very least, the public has a bad image of you as a performer?

Russell Crowe played an absolutely sterling role, in my opinion in GLADIATOR, and I often hoped the real life Russell Crowe, was just that kind of man. Later he played some really dirt bag roles, which made me wonder about his true character and what he wanted his public image to be.

I, for one, could never play a role that had me as the murderer/rapist'sadist etc. I got to play a small training video in the Sheriffs Academy, where I was the bad guy that stole from his company and got fired and refused to leave the premises until he got paid. Playing the bad guy is easy to play for most of us.

How do you feel?