UPDATED: Death of the Movie Star, Part 7,382…

Somewhat related: how long do you think Hollywood has under the current system.  Will the bottom fall out in a big bang or will studios slowly start to fold?  I doesn’t seem like the major studios are doing anything to change their business mode.

I can’t even remember when I was last in a movie theater.

Saying, “If you exclude the Ocean’s and Bourne films, Matt Damon isn’t a star,” is like saying, “Sean Connery was a nobody once you overlook James Bond.” Nothing like picking and choosing data points to make a case!

All this really drives home is that lower production costs offer a better chance at making a profit. Who woulda’ thought, huh?

I think I’d define “movie star” as someone who most people know by name and/or face at any given moment, they know they act, and can probably list three or four titles of theirs, minimum. Under those rules, yeah, Clooney is a star, although he’s not as visible as he used to be (granted, I haven’t followed current releases in so long that I may be mistaken about this last point). (And yeah, he’s a vile creep, so its not like I’d be going to his movies anyway.) Craig is a star in this sense, almost totally because he picked up the Walther PPK and got his double 0 rating. I’m not saying the guy has no fans from other sources, but taking the role of James Bond all but demands world-wide fame and becoming a household name. The test will be to see if this condition lasts very far beyond his stint as the world’s greatest spy. I can’t really comment on Damon, as he’s one of those guys I know by name but not face. Certainly, none of them are of the Cary Grant/Bob Hope/James Stewart/John Wayne/James Cagney/Henry Fonda level of stardom, I wouldn’t try top argue that.

I have to agree, I won’t watch anything with Alex Baldwin either. And I don’t like Damon much either- other than ‘Saving Private Ryan’ I’ve never watched him in anything.

I can’t argue with you, but that’s an evolution of what a movie star is, at least in industry terms. And Hollywood is still paying people as if they were ‘movie stars’ in the sense I mean–i.e., a concrete box office advantage when they star in a film–rather than in the sense you mean.

Not that this is going to change your mind in any way, but Clooney didn’t say Heston “deserved” the disease. He made a joke about the disease, then when questioned about it, he said that as the head of the NRA he deserved what anyone SAID about him. Still not classy, but miles apart from wishing a disease on him.

Soon. DVD monies, which until recently were bigger than box office monies, were covering up the huge basic problems with Hollywood’s business model. Now that money is largely dried up, and there’s nothing to take its place. 3-D is already clearly a wet fart.

This is why Hollywood is still pretending ‘stars’ mean something major. Because that’s the way it used to work, and nobody is brave enough to completely try something new.

Also, we know the kind of narcissists who get into show biz, even on the business side. If there’s no star system anymore, there’s far less glamour to go around. Those two reasons also sum up why Vanity Fair is still doing ‘movie star’ covers.

Ken, I don’t know that your argument hadn’t kind of always applied. I’m too young to go back to the 50’s and 60’s, but when I was a kid, and I thought of “movie star”, I though of Burt Reynolds. But if you apply these same rules, take out “Smokey and the Bandit” and “Cannonball Run” movies as outliers, were his movies making any money? I think “Hooper” did OK, as did “Sharky’s Machine”, but I though “The End” was supposed to be a disappointment, along with “Paternity”, “Starting Over”, “Best Little Whorehouse..”, “The Man Who Loved Women”, “Stroker Ace” and a few others. In other words, he wasn’t infallible. Maybe guys like Bogart and Cooper and Grant were, but I don’t think there has been anyone who has been a star, in that sense, in a long time.

You’re realy splitting hairs there, the implication was clearly one of he deserves what he gets. I never said Clooney wished the disease on Heston, just that he thought it was appropriate that Heston had gotten it.

Anyway, the actual point I was trying to make, is that these guys (more Hollywood in general) need to stop biting the hands that feed them, that is, the paying audience, if there are to ever be “movie stars” again in future. Trust me, my list of people I will no longer pay to see includes a lot more people than just Clooney. He was just particularly heartbreaking to me because he ruined any future viewings of “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou” for me. I can still love the soundtrack though.

Natalie Portman is about there too, I feel like a heel every time I watch her after her vocal support of Polanski.

I guess it just seems to me that the definition is hard to define. Even in Will Smith’s case, ID4 established him, MIB proved he wasn’t a fluke, but then almost immediately Wild Wild West set him back, Legend of Baggar Vance put a stake in him, and box-office wise, Ali did nothing to help. Only his franchises (MIB, Bad boys) were guaranteeing him box office success. Hitch and Pursuit of Happyness and Hancock all made money, Seven Pounds, I am legend, not so much. Certainly he was successful, certainly one of the most successful of my lifetime (Hanks is on another level altogether), but even he couldn’t guarantee a hit, as they alternated.

Wild Wild West DID have a huge opening weekend. Business just fell off right away because the movie sucked, but Smith delivered what the producers expected of him.

2008’s Seven Pounds was a rare Smith that didn’t open well, and followed after a nice series of giant hits.

Indeed, and this is weird to realize, but Smith hasn’t appeared in a film since then! (Although he’s gearing back up, though.)

I Am Legend was a rather gigantic hit, by the way. Hancock was a giant hit. I, Robot was a big hit. Note that while while Smith had a few films that didn’t perform well in the 2000s, he had quite a few major, major hits. And not franchise pictures. They were huge largely because they starred Will Smith.

Note that I did write that “Cruise, Hanks and Smith are not Cruise, Hanks and Smith” anymore, because my entire premise is that the definition of a ‘movie star’ as now used in Hollywood is functionally dead. The difference is that none of these guys were ever movie stars in the sense that those three were, and only Clooney can really be logically called a movie star, and then in a comparatively minor and older sense of the term.

Clooney clearly has a regular audience that shows up and will generally make money as long as he works in (by today’s standards) low-budget movies. Calling Damon and Craig movie stars, though, is a bit of a stretch. Neither comes close to guaranteeing success for the movies they star in.

And history will ultimately bear out why. Cagney, Bogart, Gable, etc. were Men. Eastwood, Reynolds, Moore, etc were Teenagers who eventually Grew Up, and the current crop is made of Children. Sadly, pop culture reflects society as it develops. Centuries from now, the Men will be remembered, there will be a fan base for the Teenagers, and the Children will largely be forgotten. So too will be this phase of our history, save for being a “don’t let this happen to you” (or, “how it all ended” should we not be able to pull ourselves back from the brink) footnote in text books.

I saw True Grit in the theatre and really enjoyed it, but the whole time I couldn’t tell who was playing the Matt Damon character.  It was only after the credits rolled when I said O RLY?  I guess that’s a testament to his abilities, though.

I think the older stars were not so much “actors” as they embodied characters.  You know what to expect when you’re going to see a movie with John Wayne or Cary Grant, whether it’s a serious film or a comedy.

Nowadays, stars want to show their “versatility” so much that you don’t know what you’re going to get when you see a Matt Damon film.   That makes it more of a risk.

Probably Harrison Ford would be the last “character” type actor (not counting Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Actually, reading what you wrote, I think all I did was to say what you were trying to say much, much longer than you.

I think what we’re getting at here is that people have always gone to the movies to see characters that they like (or at least like watching).  In decades past, those characters were “John Wayne,” “Jimmy Stewart,” “Martin and Lewis,” “Katherine Hepburn” or “Arnold Schwarzenegger.”  They went by different names in each movie but were basically the same person.

Now, people still want to see characters, but now it’s the characters themselves–people want to see “James Bond,” or “Ethan Hunt,” or “Jason Voorhees” or “Peter Parker” and it doesn’t matter who plays them.  Actors, by wanting to appear “versatile” have taken themselves out of the equation.

IMDB has I am legend grossing 270 on a 150 budget, which would make it a smallish bomb, right? Regardless, I see what you are saying, I just am saying that I’m not sure things are so very different now than they were 20 or 40 years ago.

Most actors are basically the same in every role.  The ability to sink yourself so completely into a character that you are unrecognizable from one role to another is an extremely rare talent.  The only person I can think of who is capable of doing that is British actor Tim Piggott-Smith, who is scarcely a household name.  Maybe they are others, but as you don’t recognize them , you don’t realize its the same actor in different parts.

I’m unconvinced. While some actors always played similar roles (John Wayne frex, but even he wasn’t just a cowboy – I think his best movie was The Quiet Man), others did not. Jimmy Stewart is a “movie star” I would argue, but the characters he played in Harvey, The Philadelphia Story, Shenandoah, and the tortured hero of It’s a Wonderful Life are IMO exceedingly different. The same applies even to someone like Katherine Hepburn. Is her character in The African Queen really the “brassy modern woman” extolled by Mr. Rational?

Some actors stick to a role. Others don’t. It was true in the good old days and it’s true now. It’s easy enough to find people who play the same roles again and again in modern films.

Baker’s theory that the old-timers were Men and the moderns Children has some truth in it – at least in part because the characters who are the Men in the modern movies (if there are any) are often the bad guys. Being strong and rigid and unwilling to fall in love easily and having a strong code are Manly ideals in 50s western culture, and they are largely rejected today. At least in Hollywood. Not in reality – look at our politicians. No matter how spoiled and childlike they are in reality, they attempt to project an image of steely determination because they know that’s what we want.

 Well, to be fair about Katharine Hepburn, I did say that stars had defined screen personas “for the most part.”  I don’t really think she was playing the brassy modern woman in A Lion in Winter, either, just as I don’t think Tom Hanks was playing the all-American average Joe in The Ladykillers.  But one or two roles that are exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the rule.

As for Jimmy Stewart, maybe he’s the exception to the rule.  He did all sorts of pictures, you’re right about that.  Rear Window and Vertigo, How the West Was Won and Winchester ’73, and of course The Philadelphia Story with our good friend Kate Hepburn.  But I think Stewart too has a character type…a plain-spoken idealist, the sort of guy who believes in the essential goodness of the small town and the American way of life.  Admittedly, though, in Stewart’s case I’m not sure whether that’s more of a retroactive and selective interpretation of a staggering body of work.

And as for your comment about politicians, well, if one exception is enough to knock down a general rule, I gots three words for ya, Sandy:  Sheila.  Jackson.  Lee.

I think Stewart is pretty consistent in character.  His most “out of character” role was probably Vertigo, and as I recall, that one was not a box-office success, showing that maybe audiences were looking for “Jimmy Stewart” and not finding him there.

Likewise, Cary Grant, even when as a heel (Suspicion) or cold calculator (Notorious) still projected a kind of “I go to get what I want and generally get it” type of character.

There’s plenty of actors who do this, even today.  But they’re almost exclusively character actors who flesh out a film, not leading men and women.  Mike Starr comes to mind; the man has 182 listings under Actor on IMDB.  Stephen Tobolowsky has 210.  There’s tons of people like this, but because they don’t lead films and because they completely disappear into their roles, they aren’t thought of.

Also, because they’re almost always side characters, nobody’s going to go see a movie they’re in.  Who wants 110 minutes of some yahoo star just for 5 minutes of character acting gold?

Hugh Grant always plays an irritaing buffoon who somehow manages to attract women who hate him at the start of the movie.
Zooey Deschanel always plays an annoyingly ‘quirky’ hyperactive lunatic.
Jason Statham always plays a gritty Cockerney violent geezer.
Martin Freeman always plays a bewildered-looking ‘everyman’ who can’t close his mouth properly.

They’re not the biggest of names, but they’re there.