A bit, yeah, but I don't necessarily think it's wrong for Roger to be a "lack luster" individual. That would definitely make it harder to tell if it's the actor's decision or not, but Roger isn't... he's not someone whose actions would be very exciting, you know? He's sort of, for a while just... there, everything welled up inside of him. Certainly he has to have emotion and pain and anger, but he's not exactly too enthused about life, either. I'd be more upset with Cary if he was truly emotionless, which I really don't think he is. Sebastian was emotionless, and had the completely wrong vocal tone for Roger. He's my least favorite. And I'm still caught up, though, in how we know that it's him truly not caring (though likely, I suppose) about his performance as much as he used to, or if it's just his portrayal of Roger - one of total indifference. He probably was better earlier on; he has it in him. And I think he has a great voice. I just don't know that we can so easily say the flat-ness is all because Cary's lazy or his performance is bad whatever. That's part of who Roger has been made to be. Every time we talk about this, I feel like we find ourselves trying to see the line between a flaw in the actor and his performance, or of his underlying interpretation, or just because of who we like and don't like.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Updated On: 7/12/05 at 05:10 PM