I watched the most interesting movie the other night — Daybreakers. The plot basically revolves around a world in which vampirism has infected almost the entire human population and only a few uninfected people remain to feed the majority of the planet.
It was simply an intellectual playground and I was thoroughly impressed with the casting of Ethan Hawke in the lead role as a vampire scientist trying to find a cure for the limited-resource issue plaguing the vampire and human races.
However, there was another actor in the film that almost gave me more pleasure to see on screen than "Mr. Before Sunrise." I speak of course of Green Goblin/Agent Alan Ward/Lt.-Cmdr. Virgil "Tiger" Cole/Sgt. Elias — also known as Willem Dafoe.
With his intense and expressive face, pushing out a slightly nasally-yet-documentary-narrator-quality voice, Dafoe has been the exceptional actor in a plethora of Hollywood films over the decades. He's just one of those male performers one sees on screen and the viewer knows there's at least one reason to enjoy the movie.
However, in all honesty I cannot think of a movie in which this household Hollywood figure has ever played a leading part.
Dafoe comes from a proud tradition of actors who built their careers on small-but-interesting roles — the character actor.
Steve Buscemi, Joe Pesci, John Malkovich, Paul Rudd, James Wood — there seems to be certain type of intense performer who, despite carrying a lot of charisma and name recognition, can only advance as far as the secondary character or main antagonist in a movie.
Heck, even in the 1999 fictional film titled Being John Malkovich, Malkovich really wasn't one of the main characters.
Aside from his 2004 Sideways success (in which he was the obvious leading man), Paul Giamatti is also one of those favourite people to see in a movie who isn't necessarily the reason people are going to see that movie.
So why is it these famous film characters rarely seem to take the lead? Is it due to a lack of physical attraction? Is it a fear issue surrounding responsibility of carrying a movie's failure or success? Is it laziness?
Whatever the reason, I like character actors just as they are.
It seems all these dwarf stars have a certain intensity that makes them shine brighter and boost the glow of a film's protagonist.
From the list of names mentioned in this column, it seems the one thing they all have in common is that I can easily imagine what it's like to hear them yell — probably because all have yelled or at least spoken with awesome anger on multiple onscreen occasions.
Perhaps one might be tempted to feel sorry for these non-leading individuals, constantly playing sidekick or comic relief to the John Cusacks, Leonardo DiCaprios and Will Smiths of this world.
However, I think the success of a character actor speaks volumes of that individual, who recognizes the strengths he brings to a film and doesn't go off on any selfish grab for cinematic glory that extends beyond his perfect role. Besides, I imagine it's a lot more fun (sometimes) to play the comic relief, villain or some interesting minor/secondary character than it is (sometimes) to do lead.
Character actors are kind of like French fries at McDonalds. It's true that rarely does one grab a bag full of Golden Arches goodness strictly for the salty and delicious potato strips. However, the Big Mac or two double-cheeseburger experience is nonetheless hardly worth the trouble without those amazing fries.
Likewise, Buscemi, Rudd, Malkovich, many others and, of course, Dafoe are the delectable side dishes to a well-prepared Hollywood hit flick.
Carter Haydu can be reached at 691-1265.
