We all know that actor! That one actor that we’ve always seen in every movie but yet we really don’t know who he/she is. You don’t know his name, you don’t know his… you just don’t know anything about him/her and for the most part it really doesn’t seem important that you know them. So you know them without knowing them in that you know that he/she is a familiar face as opposed to a newcomer but you are really not bothered to know anything else about them.
Let’s call them the perpetual supporting actors (aka always the bridesmaid, never the bride)
For the title, I was going to use examples and say maybe always Prince Nwafor, never Mike Ezuruonye. But then I realized that the point of always being the bridesmaid is sort of kinda that no one knows your name. So had I used that title I would have gotten a bunch of blank stares.
Then I thought I would allude to an American movie, but apparently even I fall prey to that when it comes to Hollywood movies. I mean I know of the Tom Cruise’s and the Angelina Jolie’s but everyone else is just the girl with the eyes and the guy with the hair.
But then comes the question: Is the eternal-supporting actor role really that bad?
Before I settled on the title ‘Always a bridesmaid’, I was thinking of alluding to Bollywood and going with ‘Forever Johnny Lever, Never Shahrukh Khan’, and that seemed valid (except, well many people don’t really watch Bollywood movies and I’d again be all alone on that one). However, I’m bringing up the Johnny Lever topic here for a reason so bear with me for a second…
There are some actors you’ve seen in lead roles so many times and you think “Oh! He does this role so well, it’s about time someone gives him a lead role”, and I’ve had that moment, oh so many of them.
For instance, with Prince Nwafor. I’ve seen Mr. Nwafor in movies since, since only God knows how long and I’ve never ever known his name until later last year (and that too was by accident). It doesn’t take that much to know an actor’s name really, all that’s required is looking at the closing credits but for some reason, it’s not something we feel compelled to do for many of the actors that fit this bill. Eventually, after one movie (don’t ask which) I found out his name and actually started looking out for him in movies and then I thought to myself and I also mentioned it in a review that “Nna, this bros can act, it’s about time someone gave him a lead”
You know what they say? Be careful what you wish for cos you just might get it and lo and behold someone gave him a lead in a movie (again, don’t ask which cos I don’t remember) and I ate my words. I don’t know what it was but it was terrible (not to say that all his lead roles will always be terrible, maybe it was something about that one movie… I don’t know).
So maybe, supporting actors should stay right there, in supporting roles.
To be honest, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. That adage does not apply here, more like one man’s meat is another man’s poison.
Maybe supporting actors are only so good in those roles because they’ve done it so many times, and I’m not denying the possibility that some supporting actors could break into lead and become absolutely phenomenal but the odds of that are really slim (and ‘no’, I am not talking of the odds of even being given that opportunity but the odds of actually excelling over time).
There have been quite a couple eternal-supporting actors who have made it into lead roles and fail for two major reasons: the obvious first being that they don’t have enough star power to hold a movie (yes, star power is an actual factor, stop living in a fool’s paradise by thinking it isn’t) and secondly, they just can’t do it.
In some cases most of these ‘bridesmaids’ really only seem so good at first because, well because they’ve been doing it for so long. I mean, practice does make near-perfect after all. But then to get them to transition from the best friend, or one of the girls, or eternal bad boy, eternal cultist, ndi-ichie (chiefs in the palace) to the actual lover, or the actual call girl, or the cult leader, or king is an entirely different topic. It’s not appealing.
And now back to Johnny Lever. Johnny Lever is probably one of the most popular supporting actors (though a character actor) in Bollywood, why? Is it because he has been doing it for so long? Or could it be because he is so good at what he does? Or maybe, the most obvious reason that he is in every single movie.
Whatever the case might be, the question doesn’t really arise as to whether or not Johnny Lever is the absolute best at what he does. Somewhere out there, there might be a better comic relief-supporting actor who can speak Hindi but odds are most people would rather go with Mr. Lever. Why? Tested and trusted
Being a supporting actor doesn’t necessarily have to be a stepping stone to lead. As in, “oh I’ve been playing this role for so long, isn’t it about time I became the main-man”. I strongly believe that if most of the eternal-supporting actors spent more time trying to cultivate that brand as the best at what they do, then they can and will exert the same influence on the audience as the leading man does.
And I think the only actor in Nollywood that comes to mind in this regard for me is Ime Bishop Umoh (it’s safe to call him a character actor too right?). He does kind of hold that Osuofia appeal but the difference is that he is not Osuofia (age-wise or otherwise), he is rarely in the lead. But I look at some movies with questionable leads, that also star Mr. Umoh and think “ok, no matter how bad it is he will make it worth watching”. And being able to exert that influence over the audience, I believe, is a treasure. It’s better to be a memorable supporting actor than an annoying lead.
INSIDE NOLLYWOOD!
The 10-of-10s series are now officially over (they’ve been over for a while lol), and now we’re going to take a look at Nollywood, inside Nollywood. Think of it as side notes from an observer.
Up next in the inside nollywood series: Star Power: Is it really a factor?
The general tone of your article is patronizing. I read it all.
Ok well then my apologies, my point was simply to embrace the roles and become the best you can be at it and if it comes off as anything else then it’s my bad
This article makes no sense. People should not be ashamed to play non leading roles and this article seems to want to make them feel ashamed. I don’t agree. Everybody cannot be a leading act.
Uhm… so maybe you didn’t read past the first couple of paragraphs but the article says just that. It says exactly that people shouldn’t be ashamed to play non-lead roles because sometimes they might excel in supporting roles more than they would in lead.