I was watching the movie, The Last Run last night. It's a 1971 film that stars, George C. Scott. I remember the first time I saw that film when it was initially released. I watched it at the Embassy theater on Western a few blocks north of Wilshire. I saw a lot of films at that theater and at Wiltern back in the day. And, of course, on Hollywood Blvd. The thing I found interesting about this movie is that the film was released about a year after Scott’s performance in the seminal movie, Patton. Which is truly an incredible piece of cinema. Watching him, and watching his performance in, The Last Run, which certainly wasn't bad, but it just made me rethink about the whole process of acting and what roles an actor takes on.
 
Not a great movie, certainly. But, the film does show how with a very small cast of talented actors, the portrayals can be presented very realistically. But, back to the point…
 
A year or so before, he filmed the movie, Patton. Which was truly an influential piece of cinema. And, the role he performed in that movie was incredible. He did a great job. Watch it, if you haven't. It's a really good film.
 
Kind of like when Ben Kingsley performed in the movie, Gandhi. Another incredible movie. You really need to see it. Plus, his performance was unparalleled in that film.
 
The thing is, what movies did he do after that? He's done a lot of acting since, Gandhi. But, no movie has come anywhere near the groundbreaking exhibition of incredible cinema that was that film. This is the same with, Patton. George C. Scott performed a number of roles after that movie. Yet, none of them came anywhere near the spectacle of that film.
 
So, the question has always arisen in my mind, should an actor go on and do other roles, knowing that they are so much less than the film they had previously done, when that film was such an influential piece of cinema?
 
I get it, both of these men were relatively young when they completed those two films. But, every film they did after that was nowhere near what they had accomplished in those films. I also get it, people need to make money. You’ve got to pay the rent! And, of course, a true actor possesses a pure love of the craft. But, just think about it, if the last movie George C. Scott did was, Patton, that's the only film he would have been remembered for creating. This is the same with Ben Kingsley, had he stopped his acting career with, Gandhi, that's the only film he would have been associated with. And, in some ways it is. Because all of the films he's done since then have really not hit anywhere near the mark of that film.
 
There have been some actors, probably most notably, people like Paul Newman, maybe Robert Redford, Humphrey Bogart, Robert Mitchum, and a few others, that they have done some really incredible films, and after that film, they went on to do other incredible roles. But that's a rarity. Maybe it was the era? Maybe they were offered better opportunities? I don't know? But, in the condition of say, George C. Scott and Ben Kingsley, they worked—Kingsley is still working. I have seen a lot of his films.  But, nothing has come close to what he achieved in, Gandhi.
 
So, this is the question for all of us. Certainly, I know I ask myself this question all the time. When is it time to hang up the towel? When is it the time to know that what you've done is your best work? When is it time to know that it is time to leave what you've done as your signature, and move on to other elements of your life and perhaps exist a little bit more in the shadows?