A child of my time, throughout my life I have on occasion taken to imagining my daily humdrum existence in cinematic terms. I’d think about lighting, angles, character arcs and plot development. This was no more prevalent than in those blissful days of University. Not very healthy, perhps, but it managed to pass the time when all one had to do was drift into university, crap on a bit, and then back home for an extended session of Syphon Filter 2 on the Playstation with a glass of cider set to one side and a jazz cigarette at the ready.
In those heady days of youth (well, early-twenties), life was terribly easy: lots of reading; writing the odd poem or bit of prose; waxing lyrical on the subject of political theory and historical understanding a few hours a day; exceptional [if I do say so myself] marks and – most importantly – scholarship money.
Of course, this lifestyle afforded moments of deeply serious reflection amongst a select group of esteemed colleagues, very few of them anarchists (no shortage of nihilists, however). This reflection often entailed formulating and considering complex and drawn-out moral quandaries that frequently involved obscene acts with obscene people for obscene dollars. Another petit amusement and (more aligned with my actual point with this post), casting the movie that could be made of that specific place and time. The general consensus at the time appeared to support the casting of one of Robert Downey Jr, Hugh Grant and (cruelly) Ben Affleck in the role of Mr McCracken. Of course, I dismissed these out of hand as completely unacceptable. For one, they are all far too short, and lack the required gravitas to pull me off.
Thus, we (finally) find ourselves at today’s question!
In those heady days of youth (well, early-twenties), life was terribly easy: lots of reading; writing the odd poem or bit of prose; waxing lyrical on the subject of political theory and historical understanding a few hours a day; exceptional [if I do say so myself] marks and – most importantly – scholarship money.
Of course, this lifestyle afforded moments of deeply serious reflection amongst a select group of esteemed colleagues, very few of them anarchists (no shortage of nihilists, however). This reflection often entailed formulating and considering complex and drawn-out moral quandaries that frequently involved obscene acts with obscene people for obscene dollars. Another petit amusement and (more aligned with my actual point with this post), casting the movie that could be made of that specific place and time. The general consensus at the time appeared to support the casting of one of Robert Downey Jr, Hugh Grant and (cruelly) Ben Affleck in the role of Mr McCracken. Of course, I dismissed these out of hand as completely unacceptable. For one, they are all far too short, and lack the required gravitas to pull me off.
Thus, we (finally) find ourselves at today’s question!
If you were a character in a motion picture – and it does not matter if you are the central character, comic relief or merely a fleeting extra – who do you feel would be most appropriate to be cast in your role?
Now I don’t mean “who looks like you?” (although it could be that), but which actor – alive or dead – do you think might best capture the very essence of you?
[Please don’t forget that I am still open for answers on previous questions. If you haven’t revealed your favourite accent, or thought about your ideal gang name, or if you are unsure of your opinions of all things vexillology, you still have time.]
Comments
An interesting choice...
Stan says it should be Sandra Bullock or the girl that played Caitlin on Degrassi. Not as impressive, but probably more accurate.
Perhaps a gender bending Oscar winning female plays a male performance from Kelly Ripa?
Either that or Celia Johnson (Brief Encounter).