Can we separate actor from character?

Can we separate actor from character?

There is a lot of confusion when people say what a brilliant performance by an actor, when instead it's the characterization which is strong and make us like it. I have seen it happening in my judgement as well. Sometimes supportive actors who doesn't have a major role in the movie leave better mark than the main character in the movie, because of the actor playing the role performed it brilliantly.

i feel Tabu Parash Rawal Pankaj kapoor Nazawuddin Siddiqui... are some examples of good actors who make characters real.

Take a recent example... Was it Datto character, which was funny and likeable by everyone, or Kangna performed it well?

I guess half half.. Up to a certain extent I can separate the two.. but I am more likely to enjoy and connect to a character played by an actor I like already.. so there is an influence..

But I can certainly separate when I can appreciate a character played by an actor I usually don't like..

In the example of Datto

and this is what I've gathered from people who talked about the film after watching it.. People were amazed by Kangna because she played both Tanu and Datto in the same film.

The two characters are quite different from each other, and Datto had even more unique characteristics that admittedly not many other actresses try out.

For me, TMWR was all about Kangna.

With that said, there DEFINITELY are other actors who play themselves in every movie they star (now), and get away with it because they b famous.

If you are speaking about the larger than life persona of the charecters in movies...yes, many people associate it with the actors itself. It's like if an actor plays a role of a messiah who wipes out evil from the society ( more or less) in many hit films...people start linking the charecterstics of the character to the actor only. 😆

A poorly written character can be salvaged by a brilliant actor but its never true the other way round. No matter how well written a character is, if the actor in question fails to deliver, then its of no use. Characterization does matter a lot, but ultimately, it is translated onto screen by a person and if that person doesn't do the job properly, then the character in question remains only on paper and never gets across to the audience.

I think its mostly the character. But unless the actor is any good,the character wont be portrayed well.

Sometimes some characters are good on paper while some characters stand out because of the actor making the role likeable. For eg in JWM, the role of Aditya is extremely likeable on paper, so anyone who did the role would have shone despite the movie being woven around from mostly Geet's character. Shahid was believable as Aditya because he fit the charm and calmness required for the role. Another person who would have excelled in it IMO would be Ranveer unfortunately he wasnt even in BW back then. Whereas if u compared with Geet role, it is good on paper. But Kareena made Geet her own. She made Geet extremely annoying in the start, though I suppose wasnt the intention of the character on paper. However she also made us love Geet towards the end. Its another story of how I actually became Shahid fan and couldnt find the same Geet wala spark in Kareena years after the film came out. People still identify Kareena as Geet shows how much good she was as Geet. I think same can be applied to Kangana and Tanu/Datto. Datto was extremely likeable character but it was Kangana's acting prowess which made audience appreciate an annoying and not so likeable character like Tanu.


ps : to put it simple in the datto tanu scenario, i feel Kangana deserves more credit for Tanu than Datto because she made me root for Tanu as well as Datto, in short she mademe like the guity and the innocent one.

Actor n character r 2 bodies.. one soul. Star n character r one dead body.