In 2004, the success of Napoleon Dynamite launched the career of actor Jon Heder. After watching the trailer for his latest movie, The Benchwarmers, in which he is very good by the way, I found it hard to imagine him one day playing a character different from that Napoleon Dynamite declension.

The same is true for Kiefer Southerland, who plays Jack Bauer in the critically acclaimed Fox series 24. It is almost impossible to think that he might be able to play a different character. He actually became Jack Bauer the same way Jon Heder became Napoleon Dynamite. In fact if i see him one day I'll call him Jack. I can't imagine Jacky Chan in another type of film either. And I can't figure out how Stallone will escape his Rocky/Rambo persona either. Believe it or not his next films are sequels to Rocky and Rambo!!

What happens to all those "type-cast" actors who can't actually play anything but their typical role? Is it because the producers don't want to take risks? Is it because the directors don't know how to direct? Or is it simply because those "one-role" actors bet everything on the same horse?

An actor is supposed to be like a chameleon when it comes to his role; no matter what, he should be able to adapt. Ask a good actor to play a tree, and he'll make you believe he is a tree better than any oak. Acting is not about being what you already are, it is about becoming what you are not. There are a lot of talented actors who truly embody their character on-screen. There are a few great actors who then abandoned it. If you take Kiefer Sutherland, whether you like 24 or not, he is doing a great job becoming tough-guy Jack Bauer. The question is: is he able to play a gay poet in the nineteenth century? I don't mean that every actor has to play a gay poet to be considered a great actor, I am just saying that playing one role is a great performance. A great actor on the other hand could play hundreds of them.

And if you really think about it, there are just not that many great actors.