I have often wondered why it is that people are lionized for pretending to be something else (acting).
They are elevated as heroes, far above those who die in combat for the sake of this country.
I remember when Tom Hanks made "Philadelphia". I suppose he acted well; but it was one of the first movies to normalize homosexuality. So which is to be weighted more heavily...praise for the acting or criticism for the message?
Weighted most heavily...Criticism for participating in the film...(Philadelphia).... no matter how good the acting was.
Acting is a job — not a character reference. Tom Hanks is an extremely skilled actor who is able to play widely varying characters and make them believable. There is nothing heroic about that.
There are other actors (John Hurt, Sylvester Stallone, and Bruce Willis come to mind) who play the same character over and over again, barely changing the expression on their faces. They are not heros either — just less competent.
The actor does not choose the message in his vehicle — movie or play. The message is chosen by the writers and the director.