How important is physical resemblance?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Biography
FletcherofLocksley — 13 years ago(September 14, 2012 01:21 PM)
How important is an actor's physical resemblance to the character they are playing? If they don't look anything like the person they are portraying, does it make it harder for you to "believe" the biopic? Does it depend on whether the person depicted is recognized for their looks/deeds (like Lincoln, Lennon, Monroe) instead of just their deeds (like Darwin)?
Personally, I want the actor to look like the person they are portraying. Sounding like them is a bonus.
Geronimo -
sarizonana — 13 years ago(September 14, 2012 06:15 PM)
Not so much.
It's all about the performance and how the actor or actress disapeears into the Person they are portraying with a good script and sometimes research of the character.
The example I can talk about is Geoffrey Rush as the Marquis DeSade.
He didn't look a bit as the marquis we believed he was the marquis thanks to his acting and the script he was working with. -
Iridescent_Phantom — 13 years ago(December 20, 2012 01:41 AM)
Not very important.
James Cagney didn't remotely look like Lon Chaney, Sr., but gave an excellent performance.
Sometimes an actor need only adopt a particular characteristic of their subject (a mustache, glasses, etc.) to give a surface impression, but the acting is paramount and no level of physical resemblance can equal that.
To God There Is No Zero. I Still Exist. -
Harold_Robbins — 11 years ago(September 26, 2014 06:56 AM)
With the kinds of makeup available today, and the countless hours of films and interviews available on many biographical subjects, it's possible for today's actors to give highly accurate impersonations.
In
my
case, self-absorption is
completely
justified.