I've thought about this lately. How Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey for example both made audiences laugh through their absurd humor, yet the critics often thought of them as annoying, giving many films which are now considered classics or at least inspires nostalgic memories negative reviews. Sandler in particular struggled with this considering his films often follow a similar formula (Dopey outcast meets girl, some wacky friends support him along the way, wins her over in the end), plus he wasn't quite as respected comedically as Carrey. Even today he is one of the more polarizing comedic actors, though not quite as much as Seth Rogen.
However, when both went to prove everyone they had dramatic chops as well, Carrey coming out with The Truman Show, Man On The Moon and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, then Sandler with Punch-Drunk-Love, Reign Over Me and Uncut Gems, they did more than just unlock some of their own potential, they finally gained widspread love from critics, something that was never really there before.
Look, I'm not gonna lie and say I don't love seeing them act in dramas (Reign Over Me is my favorite Sandler performance after all), but the fact that they could only be taken seriously from an artistic sense once they could do more than just make people laugh doesn't sit quite right with me, and is also inconsistent from a historical sense.
Look at Charlie Chaplin and Gene Wilder for example. These two are some of the most respected actors of all time. But although they do inject passion and heart into all their characters, they received widespread acclaim despite almost never having any straight-up dramatic roles. Wilder did star in two made-for-TV detective movies as Cash Carter, while Chaplin directed (But didn't star in) the romantic drama A Woman In Paris. However, these efforts are rarely brought up in conversation when their work is being discussed, despite diverging heavily for the norm. In other words they never needed to prove themselves, people and critics took them fully seriously as artists based on their comedic versality.
I even see this strangely separatist attitude when it comes to things that are widely adored. Curb Your Enthusiasm is considered a modern classic in terms of observational humor, yet I still see comments like "Larry David may not be much of an actor, but he's still funny". That doesn't really make sense considering it still takes charisma and talent in order to make a parody of yourself entertaining. Imagine the same premise, but the actor playing "themself" is stiff as a board and makes no attempt to make you care about who they are. People clearly adore the Larry character and it's thanks to David's flawless comedic timing they manage to laugh both at and with him, so what's with the elitist sentiment that he's not an actual actor? It's bloody mindboggling. Even less true considering he's had parts in other projects as well, such as Whatever Works, The Three Stooges (2012) and Sour Grapes.
Am I reading too much into it? Do we simply live in a different era where we demand more from actors, or is the reasoning much more complicated?
However, when both went to prove everyone they had dramatic chops as well, Carrey coming out with The Truman Show, Man On The Moon and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, then Sandler with Punch-Drunk-Love, Reign Over Me and Uncut Gems, they did more than just unlock some of their own potential, they finally gained widspread love from critics, something that was never really there before.
Look, I'm not gonna lie and say I don't love seeing them act in dramas (Reign Over Me is my favorite Sandler performance after all), but the fact that they could only be taken seriously from an artistic sense once they could do more than just make people laugh doesn't sit quite right with me, and is also inconsistent from a historical sense.
Look at Charlie Chaplin and Gene Wilder for example. These two are some of the most respected actors of all time. But although they do inject passion and heart into all their characters, they received widespread acclaim despite almost never having any straight-up dramatic roles. Wilder did star in two made-for-TV detective movies as Cash Carter, while Chaplin directed (But didn't star in) the romantic drama A Woman In Paris. However, these efforts are rarely brought up in conversation when their work is being discussed, despite diverging heavily for the norm. In other words they never needed to prove themselves, people and critics took them fully seriously as artists based on their comedic versality.
I even see this strangely separatist attitude when it comes to things that are widely adored. Curb Your Enthusiasm is considered a modern classic in terms of observational humor, yet I still see comments like "Larry David may not be much of an actor, but he's still funny". That doesn't really make sense considering it still takes charisma and talent in order to make a parody of yourself entertaining. Imagine the same premise, but the actor playing "themself" is stiff as a board and makes no attempt to make you care about who they are. People clearly adore the Larry character and it's thanks to David's flawless comedic timing they manage to laugh both at and with him, so what's with the elitist sentiment that he's not an actual actor? It's bloody mindboggling. Even less true considering he's had parts in other projects as well, such as Whatever Works, The Three Stooges (2012) and Sour Grapes.
Am I reading too much into it? Do we simply live in a different era where we demand more from actors, or is the reasoning much more complicated?
__________________
Bird Bod