Acting vs. The Writing

I am a sucker for MSN and Yahoo articles. They give you a little teaser explanation to get you to click on the link, and sometimes it is misleading...and often thought provoking without meaning to be.

I stumbled upon this one today: http://tinyurl.com/cjdb3a

It's about Mickey Rourke and his acting career and how he's turned down so many roles that ended up being huge for the actors that accepted them.

You hear about this alot. How it was a big mistake for actors to turn down roles b/c the films ended up earing ridiculous amounts of money and defining careers. I always wonder, though, if the films would have been as successful had they accepted it. Think about it...apparently, Rourke was offered the role of Charlie Babbit in Rainman (which of course went to Tom Cruise). Can you see Mickey Rourke in that role? I admit I don't know much about him...just that he's sort of a 'bad boy' as far as Hollywood is concerned...competely the opposite of what Tom Cruise has always been (before he went nutso).

It also raises the question: Is it the actors that make the movie or the writing? Would Rainman have been as successful with any other actor? Would Titanic have been what is was with someone like Matt Damon or a complete unknown actor? Can the storyline and writing carry a movie or does it always rely on the acting? Had I put more thought into this before I started writing, I would have move examples...perhaps I will later...

Anyway. I don't know who reads this, but feel free to discuss.