Should Dave Bautista Embrace Drax?
Drax, Guardians of the Galaxy (Walt Disney Studios)
Greg Ehrhardt, OnScreen Blog Columnist
Dave Bautista weighed in today on the concept of legacy, specifically regarding his desire to be seen by movie audiences as being more than just the goofy and loveable Drax in “Guardians of the Galaxy”.
Bautista said in an interview to the press: ““I’m so grateful for Drax. I love him,” he says. “But there’s a relief [that it’s over]. It wasn’t all pleasant. It was hard playing that role. The makeup process was beating me down. And I just don’t know if I want Drax to be my legacy — it’s a silly performance, and I want to do more dramatic stuff.”
My thoughts immediately turned to Leonard Nimoy, who famously wrote a book called “I am Not Spock”, where he made an explicit attempt to define to his fans who Leonard Nimoy was so they didn’t just know him as Spock. Nimoy went on to say he liked playing Spock (and of course would go on to play him several times in non Star Trek movies not involving the original crew), but he was going through a crisis many actors have gone through, being known purely as a character and not as an actor.
I’m not a super famous tv or movie actor, so I can’t possibly relate to this dilemma. But that won’t stop me from weighing in!
Dave Bautista is a legitimate movie star, but he will never be a box office mega star like The Rock, Tom Cruise, etc. Is he better off being a movie star with one iconic role or being known as a good to sometimes great versatile movie actor?
In short, does he want to be Daniel Radcliffe, or does he want to be Phillip Seymour Hoffmann (RIP)?
It really depends on what he wants. If he wants his memory to last as long as possible with as many people as possible, he should embrace Drax.
If he wants respect amongst the film community for the next 50 years and be remembered as a true movie actor instead of a former wrestler who found the perfect character for his talents, then he should take the Johnny Depp route and transform into as many different characters as possible for the next 10 years.
The Daniel Radcliffe model is interesting, because he has certainly tried to branch out with different film and movie concepts.
But he will always, ALWAYS, be known as the boy who lived.
And he will always be loved for it.
Character actors like Hoffmann will always be respected for his work. But they won’t be loved, outside of cinephiles of course.
Not everyone wants mass adulation of course. But that’s not really what we’re asking.
If you’re an actor, do you want to be remembered for a singular dynamic character performance, or be remembered as an actor, if this is truly a choice.
If I was Bautista, I would embrace Drax. Sure, it would be great for the ego to be known as a versatile actor, and I could make movies to prove it, but in all likelihood, I’m going to make movies that will in 20 years pop up on Netflix in the back catalog with people born in 2024 saying “What movie is this?”.
Its too much to say Drax will live forever, but he will persist in millions of peoples’ hearts and minds for many years to come.
That is rarified air.
So to that I say, embrace the accomplishment that so many have strived for, and so few have accomplished.
It’s ok for Bautista to be Drax, just like it was ok for Nimoy to be known as Spock.
Its ok to be known as one of the most likeable movie characters ever.