Someone once told me that the hardest character an actor can play is a believable portrait of a bad actor. I don’t doubt it, but I wonder if it isn’t even harder to be a great actor and do a meaningless character? Like Olivia Dunham was in »Fringe«. Who’s there to see you’re really good when the character is bleak?
When »Fringe« premiered as a hyped J.J. Abrams show, I was so disappointed in the casting for the Olivia character. I thought that Anna Torv was utterly dull.
Except for when playing with her niece, she was perpetually concerned and sad, and her plain FBI clothes didn’t do much to improve the impression. »Why didn’t they find someone better,« I thought.
Fast-forward about 20 or so episodes. Dunham’s dark past begins to surface, for the viewers and for herself. Suddenly, it becomes clear why her mood only shifts in grayscales. It dawns on me that all other characteristics than worried resignation would have been ridiculous for her.
Fast-forward again. The alternate universe. The Dunham there is bad-ass. Leather jacket, self-confidence, takes no prisoners. The way Anna Torv handles the transitions between alternate Olivia and »our« Olivia is brilliant.
I can’t stop thinking: How hard mustn’t it have been for Anna, who wasn’t a particularly well-known actress when »Fringe« started airing, to portray the dull Olivia Dunham for all those episodes, appearing to do a bleak performance to millions of tv-junkies worldwide just because her character unknowingly carried around dark demons from the past.
It’s performances like Glenn Close’s Patty Hewes in »Damages« that win awards, but I think delivering dialogue in Dunham-esque season 1 dullness is more of an impressing performance. Really.
