Quote:
Originally posted by Clodfobble
I think you misunderstand why I think he may have fucked up his career. It has nothing to do with the possibility of people "blackballing" him over the subject of the movie. Working actors take roles whenever they can get them, and inside the industry they understand that. The problem is typecasting in the public's eye--people will never be able to think of him as just Jim Caviezel the Actor, they will think of him as That Guy Who Played Jesus, and as such no director will want him in their movie that's not about Jesus. It's the same reason why Christopher Reeve got so few roles, despite being a brilliant actor.
|
Yes, you're right, I did misunderstand you. I guess I just assumed that the controversy of the film outweighed the risk of him being typecast.
Infact, I had read a review on the movie that suspected Caviezel might have risked being typecast as Jesus. This was further played on by all the added oddities surrounding him & the role...ie: his initials JC, the fact he got hit by lightning, blah blah blah.
I don't imagine he'll be blackballed the same as, say, Norman Bates in "Psycho"...but there's always that potential, I guess. Anyway, his true fans won't give a rat's ass
Other than that, I'm not actually obsessed or anything...as I said before, the article just boiled my blood. And no, I'd no idea who Paul Freeman was before I'd read the article. Now I know he's an asshole with a big mouth. As for me, I'm 26 & from *GASP* Canada. Annnnd...the "welcome to the board James" comment actually would have been funnier...if I was a guy
Nice to meet you all. And, again, thanks for letting me rant.