Just to be clear, I didn't mean to talk for anyone except myself, so sorry if anyone feels I mis-stated his/her point. (Is mis-stated a word? I am cooking on the imaginary words today.) I was just trying to brighten up my otherwise dull and dreary first day back at work. I will now take my icons out back and make them participate in a deathmatch with a sack of hammers and some large kitchen knives. There may even be oil, although not boiling because Denzel is involved and I wouldn't want to mess up all the pretty.

I can think of several actors with personas who were nonethelesss fine actors. You knew what you were getting from a Humphrey Bogart perfomance; you knew what to expect from a Jimmy Stewart performance. (Except for that one Thin Man movie). The joy was in seeing how you got there. Both of them were fine and effective actors, as well as iconic movie stars.

I just heard that Fay Wray has passed.

t puts on corset, fishnets, and Too Much Makeup

Whatever happened.... to Fay Wray?

Thanks for the earworm, damn it.

Just got back from seeing "A Home at the End of the World," based on the Michael Cunningham novel. Definitely worth seeing. CF is incredible, playing a character as far from his persona as possible. Really liked Robin Wright Penn, and, the third character is played by Dallas Roberts, someone I haven't seen before who was very impressive. Speaking as someone who lived through the times in the films (I think the characters are about my age--40s) it really rings true throughout. There is hoyay galore--not just kissing and dancing and physicality but in the looks of such profound melting love and desire that the CF character gives his male friend. Yeah, go see it.

Sidestepping the icon discussion to take issue with one point from the Cruise article:

In the new thriller "Collateral,"Cruise plays his first out-and-out bad guy, a hit man who hires Los Angeles taxi driver Jamie Foxx as his chauffeur for the dusk-to-dawn schedule of murders he has planned and then precedes to force Foxx into his schemes.

So I guess his Lestat wasn't an out-and-out bad guy because he was polite while teaching the little girl that he'd previously turned into an undead monster how to murder people indiscriminately?

So I guess his Lestat wasn't an out-and-out bad guy because he was polite while teaching the little girl that he'd previously turned into an undead monster how to murder people indiscriminately?

Hey, Lestat was showing some good family values there!

Hey, Lestat was showing some good family values there!

The family that slays together, stays together?

Too easy.

You knew what you were getting from a Humphrey Bogart perfomance; you knew what to expect from a Jimmy Stewart performance. (Except for that one Thin Man movie). The joy was in seeing how you got there. Both of them were fine and effective actors, as well as iconic movie stars.

I might add Rope for Jimmy Stewart.

But part of the issue is that things have changed a great deal since the heyday of the Bogarts and Stewarts in two interrelated ways. Back then, the studio controlled the stars -- and tended to pigeonhole stars in formulas that worked. Warners wouldn't let Bogart be a romantic lead or comic foil because audiences liked him as a tough guy.

Also, the studios worked their stars. Filming only took a couple months, and it wasn't unusual for stars to make several movies a year and dozens in a career. Counting bit parts, uncrediteds, and the like, Bogart made over 75 movies -- and Stewart over 90. (Loretta Young -- over 100.) That pace isn't going to happen today. (ETA: By contrast, Collateral is only Cruise's 27th.)

I'm watching Prime Suspect on BBC-America -- Comcast claims it from this year but David Thewlis, Helen Mirren and Ciaran Hinds all look suspiciously young. So, I go to the IMDB to see when it says that David Thewlis was in Prime Suspect . 1993. Huh.

And found an entry for this film by Terrence Malick about Jamestown with Christian Bale as John Rolfe, Colin Farrell as John Smith and Michael Greyeyes playing somebody named Wobblehead. Interesting.

And there I was thinking I'd noticed you discussing something different from my starting point, Sean. It just looks like we have a different definition of icon. If icon isn't the word you use to describe what I've defined, switch icon in all my posts for what your word is.

I don't have the urge to defend my usage of the word -- it's lightly supported by dictionaries and things like icons in UIs, but it's hardly worth going to war over.

So, to be clear -- got nothing to argue with you about. Just defining my terms.

Robin, did you feel the lack of his penis?