Rejected By Hollywood For Playing Jesus?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Maybe I'm just really tired-but where did you see the last part, about the same group that wanted Jesus dead...? I can't see it in the Sentinel article. I saw the 2000 years part.

Nothing deep? Or did you just add that part

 

[80sU2isBest]

Ah Desmond. . .

His portrayal of Christ in the Gospel of John was quite good I thought. I really liked that film.

Oh, I forgot that movie. That is actually my favorite Jesus film, a few steps above Jesus Of Nazareth.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

This was just meant to be about an actor and a movie and those issues-can we not make it about something else..like anyone's personal beliefs or thoughts or sex life ? If it's going to get into all of that I just want it closed.

I don't want anyone to feel judged about that.

 

[80sU2isBest]

This was just meant to be about an actor and a movie and those issues-can we not make it about something else..like anyone's personal beliefs or thoughts or sex life ? If it's going to get into all of that I just want it closed.

I don't want anyone to feel judged about that.

You're right. Sorry for my part in derailing it. If I want to discuss this further, I'll participate in another thread.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

You're right. Sorry for my part in derailing it. If I want to discuss this further, I'll participate in another thread.

That's ok- I just remember you talking about this before and how deeply personal it was, and I don't want you to have to get into all of that. The thing did get derailed and off topic so if you want to talk about it somewhere else that's up to you

 

[I Move in Mysterious Ways]

Hollywood casts based on type. Jim Carrey is a type. Harrison Ford is a type. Denzel Washington is a type. Julia Roberts is a type. When actors rebel against type, generally speaking, they get nowhere. (Julia in dramas, Jim Carrey dramas, Harrison in a Russian accent, etc.) This is true not just of actors, but of roles, a few of which become iconic types unto themselves. As a result, whoever plays those roles becomes forever associated with them, and can't get out from under the weight. Christopher Reeve in Superman. Mark Hamill in Star Wars. I would add Caviezel to that list.

Nor do I think Caviezel is whining. Mark Hamill has talked about his frustration at not getting other parts in interviews, as did Chris Reeve. It's hard to be an actor who wants to be stretched creatively, only to find that Hollywood will only let you stretch so far.

If I remember correctly from an early 90's interview, Reeve turned down some roles that could have been career boosters (Body Heat was one, as I recall). As for Hamill, I'm more tempted to think he should be thankful that he's such a huge pop culture icon. He could after just as easily faded into obscurity by the early 80's if it wasn't for Star Wars. I think some the actors who whine about being typecast overestimate their talent and where their careers would have ultimately gone without the huge, high profile film roles.

 

[nathan1977]

If I remember correctly from an early 90's interview, Reeve turned down some roles that could have been career boosters (Body Heat was one, as I recall). As for Hamill, I'm more tempted to think he should be thankful that he's such a huge pop culture icon. He could after just as easily faded into obscurity by the early 80's if it wasn't for Star Wars. I think some the actors who whine about being typecast overestimate their talent and where their careers would have ultimately gone without the huge, high profile film roles.

I don't disagree -- I would actually say that such iconic film roles (Superman, Luke Skywalker, etc) are usually played by "unknowns", because having a star would overwhelm the role. The producers of Superman, for example, both in the 70s and this decade, didn't want an established star in the role, because "no one will buy Redford in tights." But, as a result, they usually wind up casting lightweights in the part, young actors who won't overwhelm the role. (And who probably won't have much of a career afterwards.)

I think that Caviezel is, generally speaking, okay -- probably better than your average actor, and he was quite good in "Frequency" and "Deja Vu." But he's not really a star, he's never asked to be and he hasn't made the career choices that would allow him to be. Plus I'm not sure the audience would accept him as one. And Hollywood doesn't have a lot of incentive to let him be one. It's a confluence of factors, really. I have no doubt that there are some producers who view "The Passion" in a pejorative light and won't meet with him or consider him based on that film, but casting is a mercurial process anyway. Tough to isolate one thing as the reason.

 

[I Move in Mysterious Ways]

I like Caviezel as well, and I would think that Hollywood still views him as a capable supporting actor. I haven't seen all his work, but I think he works best when directors try to keep his performances subtle - I still like him best in "The Thin Red Line."