If you were an actor/actress, would you prefer putting on a great acting performance, or would you rather be a memorable character for the ages? I bring this question up because I've always been curious about some actor's priorties. This isn't to say that one characteristic is mutually exclusive from the other. There are actually several examples in which a great acting performance is coupled with a memorable character (memorable being defined as easily identified by a majority of movie-goers). These examples include Marlon Brando's portrayal of Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather and Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. Ask common man or woman on the street, and they can easily identify these people. But there are great performances, but nobody will be able to recognize the characters in ten to twenty years. We all know Jack Nicholson's turn as R.P. McMurphy. But can some cashier at a drive thru in McDonald's know that question? There are great characters for the ages. There's Han Solo of the OT Star Wars fame. There's Indiana Jones. There's even Ash from the Evil Dead series. But does this qualify as great acting? Certainly not, but that doesn't mean the acting is terrible. The acting is very good, but not great. So what will it be? Great performance or great character?