Blurring the lines between actor and role

In the past, movie and television stars were revered for their roles much like the stars of today, but they were admired without the constant influence of the internet. 

Today, fan bases of all ages live online, and it’s becoming harder to separate fictional characters from the actors who portray them. When an actor plays a controversial, messy or unpopular character, criticism meant for the role often falls on the performer instead.

The latest example is the discourse surrounding the newest film adaptation of Emily Brontë’s “Wuthering Heights”, directed by Emerald Fennell. Even before its release, casting decisions — including Margot Robbie as Catherine and Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff — sparked intense backlash online. Fans argued the adaptation strayed too far from the original novel, criticizing everything from the actors’ ages to concerns about whitewashing Heathcliff, a character often interpreted as nonwhite in the text.

Critiquing an adaptation is completely fair. Film versions of beloved books have always sparked debate about accuracy and interpretation. Increasingly, however, the conversation drifts away from the adaptation itself and toward the actors personally. 

Criticism of the film’s explicit tone and casting choices quickly turned into attacks directed at the people portraying the characters, despite the fact that actors rarely control how a story is adapted.

This pattern isn’t new. Every few years, a film or television series becomes the latest target of what feels like a collective inability to separate a performer from a performance. 

Part of the problem is how media is consumed today. Online fandom culture encourages viewers to feel deeply invested in fictional worlds, creating parasocial relationships with celebrities. TikTok or Reddit discussions can turn book adaptations into battlegrounds before audiences even see the final product. 

Passion is part of what makes art meaningful, but it can turn toxic when criticism stops being about the work itself. Somewhere along the way, audiences forgot that acting, by definition, is pretending.

Actors aren’t their characters. They’re interpreters of scripts written and directed by someone else. When audiences attack actors for a role — whether they disagree with casting choices, dislike the actor or hate the adaptation entirely — they’re essentially blaming the messenger.

The same dynamic appears when audiences react to villainous characters. When an actor portrays an antagonist convincingly, viewers sometimes direct real-world hatred toward the performer rather than recognizing the role as a performance.

Adaptations make the situation even more complicated. Modern audiences want two contradictory things: something fresh and something identical to the original. When a film takes creative liberties, it risks accusations of being “fan fiction.” When it stays faithful to the source material, critics say it’s unnecessary or uninspired.

Those decisions rarely belong to the actors themselves.

Films and television shows deserve thoughtful critique, especially when adapting culturally significant works or making controversial creative choices. However, criticism should remain focused on the people responsible for those decisions, like the directors, writers and producers who shape the final product.

Blaming actors for doing their jobs doesn’t improve the conversation around controversial media. It simply turns performers into targets for internet outrage.

Ultimately, storytelling depends on actors who are willing to take on complex characters. If performers constantly face personal backlash for portraying flawed, controversial or disliked roles, the industry risks discouraging the very performances that make stories compelling.

When the credits roll, the character should stay on the screen, not follow the actor into real life. The actor goes home and we turn the television off.