The End of the Moviestar?

[happycanadian]

this has been a topic that Hollywood has been talking about alot recently. and after going through Jake Gyllenhaal's thread -- i posted this message. hopefully this will bring about a discussion on here.

Do you think the moviestar is dead?

Hollywood wonders why they haven't got anymore genuine Moviestars --- well take a frigging LOOK! a Moviestar is meant to be a celebrity who lives this glamourous, incredible life that all us normal folk wish we could have. it allows for people to have nice escapism from their own worries and problems, by projecting their own lives onto these stars. there has to be a bit of mystery, a bit of allure and at least a touch of glamour!

all these candids of Jake or Ryan Phillippe or Ben Affleck or Leo DiCaprio or whomever --- they're just so blah. so pedestrian. they've allowed for the celebrity weeklies to print a constant stream of "Stars: they're just like US" effectively destroying that bit of grandeur that was always special about Moviestars.

and WHY is Clooney the exception? BECAUSE HE'S GLAMOUROUS!!!!! and mysterious! he's a genius with the way that he is so "open" with the media. only the bits he'd like us to know --- Italian villa, bbq's on Sundays, dating hot women, friends with Brad Pitt, etc.

everyone wants to either BE clooney or be WITH him. even the guys. they'd love to be his friend.

Jake just isn't as clever with the press. or he doesn't care enough. and i think that's perhaps part of it as well. there used to be a distinction between MOVIESTARS and ACTORS, in the sense that someone who was a Moviestar related to the audience directly through their films -- someone went to see a Julia Roberts movie, because they wanted to see Julia Roberts. she effectively played herself in each movie and made millions. she was the biggest female Moviestar in the world. Or Tom Hanks. Yes, he's an excellent actor -- but ultimately there is something in common between literally every one of his characters: they're always the one you are rooting for. even when he plays against type and plays a villain, it's still the villain who you are rooting for. SO, the public connects Tom Hanks with all the guys that they wanna see win. he's the Good Guy. the one they all like. and don't think for a second that this isn't an image that hasn't been cultivated with great care. same with Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, Will Smith, etc etc. Moviestars. Actors were the ones who played all the gutsy roles and who, even if they were still famous (Sean Penn, Robert DeNiro) -- there was part of their allure that was of the "artist", and it didn't have the same effect on the public. they were fascinating, sure, but not in the same "wish i were them" way.

this whole thing has changed. and it's because of twats like Paris, Nicole, Lindsay, Mischa, etc that entire crew. they've tried to capitalize on the idea of celebrity itself, so now it is a notion that has become ridiculed. the Moviestars have been replaced by tabloid fixtures.

proof? look at the successful films of the past couple of years. the MOST successful, in terms of box office --- and then the most critically acclaimed. how many had genuine moviestars in them? exactly.

the whole crew of young Hollywood trainwrecks has irreparably tarnished the idea of what it means to be famous and have destroyed any glamourous allure that used to be associated with it. that affects the actors who were the actual MOVIESTARS -- because now it seems their space has been replaced. people don't go to the movies to see their favourite star anymore -- they're already oversaturated with celebrities in the magazines. people go to movies only to see huge event movies, "Transformers", "Shrek", "Spiderman", etc. or to see the indie films that are critically acclaimed, "Juno", "No Country For Old Men", etc. the place of the star-driven film is gone, and thus the place of the STAR is gone.

my POINT in all of this rambling --- is that what Jake represented was a potential return of a moviestar. he could've been it. but he's evidently not up to doing it. whomever will be the next moviestar is going to have to play the game as well as Clooney .. or Tom Cruise (pre-split with CAA and all the couch-jumping madness) ... or Tom Hanks ... or Will Smith.

Scarlett Johannson does a pretty good job of keeping herself OUT of the press altogether. the only time we see pictures of her is if she's at a premiere, doing some other promotional thing, or at a glamourous party of some sort. so the only images we see of her life are those that resemble what it used to look like to be a moviestar. THIS is what separates her from the rest of the pile. but i really can't see an equivalent male counterpart.

 

[Stamoholic]

^ Completely agree.
When you see a picture of a celebrity drunk off their face and stumbling about, helpless and pathetic, you almost DONT want to see them in a movie, because you can't make yourself believe they're anyone other than this extreme, troubled character that is presented by the media.

They loose something. They're not movie stars anymore. They're just tabloid filler.

Rather than looking at celebrities nowadays and thinking, " God, I wish I had their life!", I think the majority of people look at them now and think, " God, look at that! Phew, well, at least my life isn't as messed up as hers\his is!"

But who do we blame? The actors themselves for not taking their art seriously enough, or the media for exposing their personal lives and destroying their creditability?

I think Christian Bale is one of the only real movie stars of this generation, because he avoids the harsh light of celebrity and seems to take his acting very seriously.

I'm not sure how many other actors really do that today. It's pretty sad.

If I can pinpoint the problem, I'd say it is this: there are too many young girls and boys today pursuing acting as a means of fame, NOT because they want to be actors and adore the craft.

I agree with you that the celebrity girls, e.g Lohan, Barton etc., have been actings biggest downfall of late. They call themselves actors but if truthfully they are, I think we need to reevaluate what it is to be an actor today.

 

[ChloeFrancoise]

If I can pinpoint the problem, I'd say it is this: there are too many young girls and boys today pursuing acting as a means of fame, NOT because they want to be actors and adore the craft.

I definitely agree with this. I was just thinking about this this weekend when I was watching TCM at my aunt's house. Celebrities today just don't have the appeal of actors from the past, especially when you see them in sweats and some celebrities look sloppier than I do when I go out because I actually make myself look more presentable even if I'm just in jeans and a tshirt. I have a hard time labeling anyone a real movie star, even though I would probably agree that George Clooney comes closer than others.

 

[Mchunu]

maybe Shia LaBeouf?

& i understand where you're coming from. However, times change. & i do think we are moving into the era where we see that even the glamorous celebrities, as you noted i.e. George Clooney, even as alluring & mysterious as they may seem are just like us. they're still just normal people.

Intersting point you made. i really enjoyed it

 

[happycanadian]

well, i would add that we HAVE reevaluated what it means to be an actor today. an actor is someone like Christian Bale, or Ryan Gosling, etc. people who look at acting as a career and take it very seriously. they are the ones who are respected as "actors". however, i don't think that either of them are actual MOVIESTARS.

if Marilyn Monroe were acting today, would we consider her a great actress? or a celeb? what about Julia Roberts even? or Harrison Ford? or whomever --- they certainly were able to convey emotion in a film, and they played their roles well. but really, what made them MOVIESTARS was simply what made them them. it was their own innate charisma and charm (and good looks) that made them into genuine moviestars. people didn't want to see them in transformative acting roles, because then they wouldn't be able to connect with their actual persona onscreen.

SO. i think that all those trainwrecks have effectively replaced the moviestars - as the most talked about celebrities - and there's no place for the actual stars now, since they're not the intense actors that are getting cast in all these popular, challenging indie films ... nor are they necessary in a HUGE budget flick that relies on visual effects and fan-following more than a star presence.

i think the problem comes from the weekly magazines and the paparazzi and the gossip shows alike. here's why i say this:

1 - the weeklies have changed our relationship with stars to being one of "i wish i had their life" to one of "wow. they're rich and famous, but i'd rather have my simple life, thanks." it's still escapism, but of a different variety. this is the fault of these tabloid papers for constantly portraying stars and d-list celebs alike as being totally F*&%ed. they have convinced the public that that's what we want to see. but it's just so negative. i'd rather see razzle dazzle and glamour, any day of the week.

2 - the crazy ubiquitousness of the tabloids has fueled the paparazzi craze. and they're not looking for the same shots that they used to. and they're also doing it in totally different ways. previously to 2004, these photographers would be paid only for the pics that they got that were worth while. the rest would effectively be trash. but NOW, with huge photo groups like TMZ or X17 or whatever, they pay per image, regardless of it's quality. obviously there are still HUGE sales of image exclusives -- but they would have been taken by a contracted old-school photographer, not by one of these wild paparazzi. SO what this means is that the companies send out literally HUNDREDS of these "photographers" (*and i put it in quotations because most of them are either illegal immigrants, or recent ex-convicts --- due to a taxbreak system in california that rewards companies who hire people who are within 6 months of their release from prison*) ... and since they're getting paid PER IMAGE, they just stay ON the celebrity literally 24/7. a pic of them outside Starbucks will make as much as one in their car, or on the beach, or stumbling out of a bar drunk. it's all the same. it's simply about quantity. so because of this, these celebrities are getting stalked 100x worse than they ever did before. and this leads us to see more into their personal lives than we ever would have in the past.

 

[Stamoholic]

maybe Shia LaBeouf?

& i understand where you're coming from. However, times change. & i do think we are moving into the era where we see that even the glamorous celebrities, as you noted i.e. George Clooney, even as alluring & mysterious as they may seem are just like us. they're still just normal people.

Intersting point you made. i really enjoyed it

^ Well most of the tabloid queen of 3 years ago are steadily loosing public interest.
Two years ago, Lindsay Lohan was everywhere, but now people are pretty sick of her and you really don't hear a lot abotu her unless you go looking. Eventually, people get sick of hearing the same old persons problems.

Therefore, imo, it's really up to the next gen of young actors. If they're focused then they'll maybe make a positive difference but if they're just looking to be famous then we're definitely headed for an even greater downwards spiral.

It's ashame because the media stealing, non-talented actors get much more attention these days than the ones who avoid the spotlight and take their art seriously.

 

[ChloeFrancoise]

There are recent ex convicts working as paparazzi? That's a bit disturbing and that's even more reason why I don't envy famous people.

 

[Mchunu]

^ Well most of the tabloid queen of 3 years ago are steadily loosing public interest.
Two years ago, Lindsay Lohan was everywhere, but now people are pretty sick of her and you really don't hear a lot abotu her unless you go looking. Eventually, people get sick of hearing the same old persons problems.

Therefore, imo, it's really up to the next gen of young actors. If they're focused then they'll maybe make a positive difference but if they're just looking to be famous then we're definitely headed for an even greater downwards spiral.

It's ashame because the media stealing, non-talented actors get much more attention these days than the ones who avoid the spotlight and take their art seriously.

Well.. i don't think that's necessarily in terms of whether or not they are a "moviestar" or not. It's just in terms of a celebrity period having a downfall. Whitney, Mariah, Britney etc. all had them. There will be more to come. It just happens; A lot of celebs, who are really just normal people like you & i, can't handle the pressure of continually being in the public eye. & imagine how hard it is for certain actors who are so critically acclaimed to stay out of the public eye. Their lives are probably similar to walking on eggshells.

 

[Luxx]

I think the chief limitation with regards to this is the fact that we have so much more information on celebrities than we did in the days before the internet / paparazzi / etc. Its hard to create a glamourous image of someone when there are pictures of them taking out the trash and getting their car washed in every magazine. I think there are several separate entities and an actor can choose which he or her wishes to represent. You have tabloid fodder ala Lohan and co. wherein no one cares (or even remembers) what their last film was , you have actors like the aforementioned Bale who are very serious about their craft but lack a certain glamour to their personas - Christian Bale is very attractive but he's a really character actor with the face of a leading man. Not to knock that because he does a fine job in ever film but he's not someone I'd call him an actor.

Then you have movie stars like Clooney who have this great aura about them that transcends almost everything else. George Clooney has found a way to remain mysterious while projecting this very slick cool aura that appeals to men and women.

Being a movie star is a separate job and not everyone really has the charisma for it. There are a lot of actors who just don't have that extra spark of personality. I think being a good movie star is something very different than being a good actor and while its not all tied to being glamourous there has to be a sort of added allure / a clearly defined personality attached to ones name. I feel like with a movie star you should say the persons name and very defined things should come to mind readily. They're really more of a cultural avatar than anything else.

But on the whole the nature of films being made is changing. Films are going for niche markets now and the movies making the most money aren't really star vehicles so there isn't incentive in that respect.

 

[Luxx]

There was an article in Time about this as well.

Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2008
The Post-Movie-Star Era
By Richard Corliss

A few months ago, I sat with three of the most popular actors of the past few decades — Robert Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise — who were promoting their new film, Lions for Lambs. I posed to them an indelicate question: Are movie stars obsolete? Consternation erupted as the three quickly and forcefully dismissed the idea. And why shouldn't they? They had nearly a century of movie history on their side.

The notion of star quality, of the famous face and magnetic personality that get the mass audience into theaters, has been an article of film-industry faith ever since Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford became worldwide sensations in the infant medium back around 1914. Over the years, almost everything else about movies changed, but one tenet held firm: the name above the title sold tickets. That's why the top stars could earn $25 million a picture — because they were the surest guarantee of a return on investment.

Except now they're not. Indeed, we may be in Hollywood's first poststar era. If you judge movie stardom by the actors who headline the biggest hits, then the top stars of 2007 include Tobey Maguire (Spider-Man 3), Shia LaBeouf (Transformers), Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) and Gerard Butler (300). Each of these films took in more than $200 million at the domestic box office, or more than three times as much as the political comedy Charlie Wilson's War, with a cast headed by Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. Among actresses in the year's releases, the big star was Ellen Page, whose low-budget Juno has made $138 million domestically. Doesn't she deserve an eight-figure contract for her next film? No, because even studio bosses know that, appealing as Page may have been, what drew crowds to Juno was story and attitude. Those are the lures of indie films, as surely as comic-book grandeur is the sine qua non for today's franchise blockbusters.

Meanwhile, star vehicles keep tanking. One reason is salutary: being in a string of hits no longer matters much to many stars. They have a taste for the off-Hollywood project that wouldn't be made if they weren't in it and that can stretch their talents even as it challenges their fans. Bravo for all this pro bono work. Still, you have to ask why The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, with Brad Pitt as the outlaw hero and Oscar-nominated Casey Affleck as his nemesis, should cadge a mere $4 million domestically or why The Good German, a spy thriller starring Maguire, Cate Blanchett and George Clooney — "the last movie star" — should earn a pitiful $1.3 million.

Every trend needs an exception, and Hollywood still has a guy whose movies are sure-shot smashes: Will Smith. (Matt Damon and Adam Sandler are also reliable hitmakers if they stick to their respective action and farce genres.) And yes, it's always possible that we're at the dawn of a new star era — that LaBeouf and Page will be the Hanks and Roberts of the next decade.
But with Hollywood getting most of its revenue from no-name epics and nonstar animated features like Ratatouille and Alvin and the Chipmunks, the moguls will realize that big names no longer mean big grosses. Just ask Redford, Streep and Cruise (but not to their faces). The movie they starred in last fall earned only $15 million domestically. Which suggests that the industry should stop paying for the pricey lions and place their bets on a flock of fresh lambs.

 

[Mchunu]

I think the chief limitation with regards to this is the fact that we have so much more information on celebrities than we did in the days before the internet / paparazzi / etc. Its hard to create a glamourous image of someone when there are pictures of them taking out the trash and getting their car washed in every magazine. I think there are several separate entities and an actor can choose which he or her wishes to represent. You have tabloid fodder ala Lohan and co. wherein no one cares (or even remembers) what their last film was , you have actors like the aforementioned Bale who are very serious about their craft but lack a certain glamour to their personas - Christian Bale is very attractive but he's a really character actor with the face of a leading man. Not to knock that because he does a fine job in ever film but he's not someone I'd call him an actor.

Then you have movie stars like Clooney who have this great aura about them that transcends almost everything else. George Clooney has found a way to remain mysterious while projecting this very slick cool aura that appeals to men and women.

Being a movie star is a separate job and not everyone really has the charisma for it. There are a lot of actors who just don't have that extra spark of personality. I think being a good movie star is something very different than being a good actor and while its not all tied to being glamourous there has to be a sort of added allure / a clearly defined personality attached to ones name. I feel like with a movie star you should say the persons name and very defined things should come to mind readily. They're really more of a cultural avatar than anything else.

But on the whole the nature of films being made is changing. Films are going for niche markets now and the movies making the most money aren't really star vehicles so there isn't incentive in that respect.

COMPLETELY AGREE!

So, let me get this straight. We're just recovering from the "Death of The Supermodel" just about a decade later & now we have "The Death of A Movie Star"?

Are the musician artists next?

 

[Luxx]

Ok even though I posted that article. I have to say that star quality and being a movie star =/= bankability. The real problem in my opinion for Hollywood is taking advantage of its resources and creating films that people actually want to see. If you put someone like Brad Pitt or Will Smith in a movie that is actually interesting with a wide appeal people will see it.

Some of the films they deride in the article were not films with large distribution or subject matter that could be marketed successfully to a wide audience. Corliss disses Lions for Lambs (a long political drama about the current war) The Good German (a black and white film for goodness sakes) and The Assassination of Jesse James (which opened in limited released and was almost three hours long) these aren't movies that are going to break box office records regardless of who the cast was. Especially if he's comparing them to things like the Spiderman films and Harry Potter. Yes stars are picking the wrong roles but its unfair to expect any of these movies to perform on the level of say a 300 or a Spiderman.

I'm not saying that the end of the movie star era isn't a viable phenomenon but he needs to compare something valid as this article is talking about apples vs. oranges as far as I'm concerned. A more apt comparison could occur later this year when they check the numbers on the latest Indiana Jones film vs. some of these other big summer films. That will be an interesting test I think - the trailer looks good but Ford might be past his prime. We'll see though.

I love Harrison Ford but I see him running around like that and I worry for the safety of his hips.

Anywho, I think its is all about balance. When you put the right people in the right project its going to work. Take someone like Tom Cruise and have aliens attack him (art imitates life) and it will make several hundred million dollars. Put Brad Pitt alongside Angelina Jolie and give them weaponry people will go see it.


Also I love when they say "indie" film for something like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine Irony is hilarious...

 

[LUXXX]

Yeah, the fact that actors are so exposed now, not always be choice, is what took the allure of the movie star away.

There will never be stars like Marilyn, Ava Gardner, Lauren Bacall, Joan Crawford, Carey grant, James Stewart, Lark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, Greta Garbo...there's just too much information out there. No mystery is left...and if there is mystery we think they are boring. The closest anyone has come to being obsessed over that way was Brad & Angelina at the height of their affair because it brought people back to Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

I think studios losing control of the actors and publicity getting out of their control is also what did that. Studios used to really make stars...it was an amazing time in many ways. Now it's just so tacky the way things are done, anyone can get into a film just by making a sex tape. Years ago there used to only be 5-10 movies a month and it was a serious business...

 

[Stamoholic]

^ I agree!

Being an actor isn't so much affiliated these days with being an artist and living a good lifestyle, like it used to be. Now it's all about having fame and, often, nothing more.

What is there left to admire?

 

[happycanadian]

Being a movie star is a separate job and not everyone really has the charisma for it. There are a lot of actors who just don't have that extra spark of personality. I think being a good movie star is something very different than being a good actor and while its not all tied to being glamourous there has to be a sort of added allure / a clearly defined personality attached to ones name. I feel like with a movie star you should say the persons name and very defined things should come to mind readily. They're really more of a cultural avatar than anything else.

yes. with this, i completely agree, Luxx.

and the thing with todays' actors is that i don't see them wanting to play both games. either they're serious actors, who wish to be taken seriously, and who strive to keep their personal presence distinctly clear from the films they make...... ie: get the job done and go home. OR, they're stupid kids who only want to be famous and who don't have the talent or internal resources to actually make a career as an actor.

i think that in the past, the studios used to be much more involved in the actor's persona. stars were MADE, in a sense. they would take an actor, try them out in different roles and different small films, until they found the right pitch that hit home for that actor. the role that alligned itself perfectly with what that actor could represent. what role would allow the actual person to be both an actor, and yet show enough of themselves to present a recognizeable identity. then, the actor would portray this particular archetypal role throughout their entire careers, thus ensuring that the audience would always know what they were ultimately going to see when they went to see a Star's movie. everyone knew what a Julia Roberts movie was. or a Grace Kelly, or Tom Cruise.

the studios don't take the time to do this anymore. and they don't stay as invested with the PR and everything else as they did in the past. we don't have very many "studio-contracted" stars nowadays.



SO -- i do think that some people are trying to make themselves an exception. Scarlett Johannson, as i mentioned earlier, has a public image that is stylized in a very "old-school" manner. we very rarely see pics of her "taking out the trash" or any such mundane, normal activity. however, she suffers in many of her film roles, because she hasn't found that perfect niche for her persona yet. she hasn't found the right role to *click* with who she is as a person.

 

[LUXXX]

I thought Scarlett really shined in Match Point because she got to be a little more seductive which I think fits her best. But in life she does try her bes to craft a real public image of glamor...

 

[Stamoholic]

^ Well said, Happy Canadian. 100% agree with that last statement.

 

[happycanadian]

Anywho, I think its is all about balance. When you put the right people in the right project its going to work. Take someone like Tom Cruise and have aliens attack him (art imitates life) and it will make several hundred million dollars. Put Brad Pitt alongside Angelina Jolie and give them weaponry people will go see it.

i take too long to type. lol. i see you already made my point about the Studio's influence in the past v.s. now. haha. great minds ...

but it's this quote that i also touched upon in my post and agree with completely. this is why Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones will undoubtedly be a tremendous success --- because it fits. he IS Indiana Jones and it's a role that made us fall in love with him years and years ago. It will work, but has any other Harrison-driven film in recent years? not so much. perhaps it's because he's just past his prime.

 

[Mchunu]

but isn't this just about with everything in entertainment though? We've seen a significant decline in star quality in probably every industry (acting,singing,modeling). But why? i do think that the internet & papparazzi exposure is part of it; however, not only besides that but there is truly, WAYYYY less talent and relevance in careers now. Look at how models look now; some of them are unique, yeah, but there is a thin line betwen unique & being just plain OFF. Believe it or not, i constantly find myself in the shoes of the person of the "general public" saying "Geez, seems like anyone can be a model these days" & the same with actors & singers. Listen to what some of the singers are singing now. Same with the actors..How much true & raw talent is there really out here now? Not on the streets but in the actual business.

NOT MUCH. When it comes down to real talent, it's undeniable. Now i know we all hae our opinions, but in ever era in every industy you always have your selected few that are just undeniable intheir field. Each generation gets slimmer & slimmer.

 

[Stamoholic]

^ I actually wonder if a lot of talented actors refrain from doing movies and becoming famous because of the whole thing with fame and celebrity.

I'm sure there are a portions who would make fantastic movie actors but refrain and stick to theater due to what it means to be in cinema these days.