Talk:Character actor/Archives/2016

Contradictory phrasing

"Some leading actors, as they get older, find access to leading roles limited by their age," has contradictory interpretations. That a) actors find opportunities are limited as they get older, i.e., reducing opportunities with increasing age, or b) actors as they age find opportunities which are limited to older players, i.e. increasing opportunities with increasing age. It could be fixed by "Some leading actors, as they get older, find that access to leading roles is limited by their increasing age". Better? --Rfsmit (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sharp editing suggestion.  Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Character Actor / Supporting Player / Typecasting

There's still a lot about this article that seem to miss what a "character actor" is - or perhaps which confuses two slightly irreconcilable definitions (from two sides of the Atlantic?). The sort of actor who tends to play similar roles throughout their career, whether in leading or supporting roles, would be considered a character actor in the UK, whereas the article seems to mix this with actors who subsume themselves into whichever particular role it is they happen to be playing at the time - the sentence "Actors with a long career history of playing character roles may be difficult for audiences to recognize as being the same actor, if they play such roles convincingly and memorably", for example, is very much at odds with the public personae of such British character actors as Margaret Rutherford or Deddie Davies, who were always instantly recognisable to audiences(at rather different ends of the spectrum, both made a career of playing slightly dotty old ladies), or Alastair Sim, who mostly portrayed eccentric men. This Uk version of the character actor might seem to fall under Typecasting (acting), except that many such actors were very successful and often more fondly remembered than some leading actors - the typecasting article, as it is currently, does tend to imply a certain sadness or even failure on the part of actors who find themselves in similar roles throughout their careers. Is that a fault of the article on character actors, or on the part of the article on typecasting? I know it's been discussed here before but it doesn't seem easily resolvable.Ghughesarch (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Good points. I think if the story is that there is ambiguity (character actor => different characters --vs-- character actor => same character type over long career), then that's what we say -- that there are several senses of this, it varies, a US version, a UK version. Sources? Might be tough to find.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC) but I'm agreeing that we should add something to this article along these lines, that is, it seems a reasonable proposition, based on my earlier research into this topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)