[liberallarry]

I don't think Robeson was a scumbag. I don't think Ali was a scumbag. But Mike Tyson certainly was...and there are plenty of others who's talent I greatly appreciate.

[91B]

Well sorry, I just don't see things that way. Crawford is a good example: if they can't be trusted to do the right thing (or even know the difference between right and wrong in her case) then I've got no use for them, regardless of what other great talents they might have.

[FLAUSA]

An actor's job is to have the people watching him (or her) believe in the part they are playing. Behavior that the actor engages in off the screen sometimes affects the on screen perception. If an actor is a known gay activist, then it is hard for him to portray a straight man in a loving relationship with a woman. People just don't believe it.

The actor's off screen behavior overshadows his on screen charactor. And it doesn't have to be bad behavior. I recently watched a rendition of Joan of Arc. In a story about a Catholic (Christian) saint, God was played by a Jewish actor. Jews don't believe in Christ, let alone saints. So his performance was overshadowed by him being Jewish. He was therefor, unbelievable in the role he played. Is he a good actor? Yes. Was he a good actor in this role? No, because his off screen persona conflicted with his on screen role. The same is true of many of these actors, if they played the role of socialists or communists, they would be believable, but they don't. They try to play Americans who love their country, but their off screen persona conflicts with that.

If an actor can not convince the people watching him that he is who he is playing, then he is not a good actor.