"good" guys vs. "bad" guys

these distinctions are getting old, as is the often repeated refrain of the actor: "it's always more interesting to play 'bad' guys."

really?

it's not just that the line of demarcation between "good" and "bad" is old; it's no longer serving to accurately articulate the human condition as portrayed in either the written or visual narrative structure.

when actors miss the complexity in the noble men they've played (often the roles that have endeared them to any following they can boast), and mistakenly disparage those roles (even if only slightly) for not being "interesting," it vexes.

the first thing to realize is that everyone's motivations, in the moment at least, seem rational to him or her. no one is thinking "i'm a bad guy," but rather "i'm a guy who wants something and here is the course of action i've plotted out to get that." yes, there are levels of self-awareness or the lack of it, there's redemptive merit, etc., but really, in the thick of the plot, no character wants what he wants outside the scope of what he perceives to be reasonable.

"good" guys (or at least ones that aren't leveraging overt malice in the lives of others) can and do struggle with complex motivations, bouts of irrationality, a skewed self-concept, occasional meanness, and the high-handed belief that they know what's best for everyone in their lives. this is to say nothing of a duality of motivations between good on the one hand and another good on the other.

perhaps you've heard of the fatal flaw. every good man has one.

i understand that "good" can code as boring, but the inherent thing that makes a character interesting comes from within the performer. it's important to separate action from persona here. no good guy has ever been boring simply because he was on the side of right. if you've got the aura of tepid, watery tea, no script will ever change that. if daring and innate swagger is in your dna, no ostensibly mild actions will ever hide that.

i'm taking the time to put this in writing because i've read Jack Wagner say one time too many that he favors the role of Dr. Peter Burns above all others because it was more interesting and "sexy."

i can't take issue with the man's personal preferences, but i do take issue with his perhaps missing the point that his first tenable fans were not lured by the ostensible structure of Frisco Jones as written on the page. nothing on General Hospital was ever so compelling or so milquetoast that we inflated or ignored the essence of his performances. We were tuning in for all that stacked potential energy that thrummed because of who he is.

if 'Frisco Jones' had been portrayed by any other actor, the character would have meant nothing, and certainly wouldn't be anything to hang a career on, but rather the cardboard cutout i fear Jack thinks he is.

This can be said with a degree of authority because we had the unfortunate opportunity to see what that would be like for two weeks at the end of 1984 into the first week of January in 1985, and it left a fairly bad taste and a decided feeling of ick behind for everyone who was subjected to it.

Jack brought complexity, a sexy irrationality, paradox, simultaneous gravitas and lightheartedness to that character because of who he is, and there is nothing that emerged in Dr. Peter Burns that wasn't evident when he was Frisco. The energy gets directed differently perhaps, because of distinctions in character perception and motivation. Setting and direction of narrative, too, bring something to bear on it all, but come on.

i can't bear to have melrose place, nighttime serial, and perpetuator of cut-outs and archetypes get more credit than it's due.