The End of the Moviestar?

[Luxx]

I don't feel like the studio system was that great. It created many beautiful images and notable stars but the way it existed was horrible for performers and creativity. It locked them into long contracts, limited the kind of work they could do and created an atmosphere wherein people could be blackballed for their ideologies and beliefs. Once the patina of glamor is taken away you've got a shipwreck of fake marriages, corporate monopolies and people being forced into doing things they didn't want to do. Plus it was bad for movies in general what with the limitations on the types of films that could be made. We would never have some of the most amazing films ever made if the studio system was still intact. I don't know - I wouldn't really want to go back to the days of that. I love the glamour of the stars of that time though.

I do feel as though more time needs to be spent in the creation of image. The problem is its is now up to the star and their management team to take this approach. They have to want to do this or be smart enough to do it. Will Smith has a great story about how he and his manager sat down and figured out that science fiction themed action movies with computer graphics consistently do well at the box office and that this was something they both felt he could do so he began doing films along this line. That was incredibly savvy as far as I'm concerned. I'm not the biggest Will Smith fan but for the most part he plays to his strengths and has become incredibly successful because of it.

Stars today rarely are aware of what they're best at - or worse yet have an over inflated idea of what that is exactly. The importance of good management is just so crucial - so many celebrities have been ruined because they fired great managers or PR people. Case in point Tom Cruise, who had a very clean cut reputation for years until he fired his publicist Pat Kingsley because she asked him to tone down the Scientology stuff. I think honestly that was one of the most ridiculously dimwitted moves in history.

Not to contradict myself directly but as much as the control level of the studio system was stifling there needs to be a certain level of control that lies outside the hands of the celebrity themselves. Problem is some people don't want any control whatsoever and what happens is you have a star running around saying or doing reprehensible things and their agencies are left running damage control instead of being there from moment one to prevent these incidents from happening. An ounce of prevention is really key.

 

[Mchunu]

^I actually don't even think Will Smith is that talented. It is a complete wonder to me as to why he's so popular & successful now. He doesn't really seem like a versatile actor IMO & for some reason he still seems like a goof, it's so hard for me t take him seriously when he gets certain roles.

He certainly is one of the very few movies stars though with his wonderful wife & children. He's achieved the american dream in the eyes of others so i guess that's why so many people like him.

 

[happycanadian]

I do feel as though more time needs to be spent in the creation of image. The problem is its is now up to the star and their management team to take this approach. They have to want to do this or be smart enough to do it. Will Smith has a great story about how he and his manager sat down and figured out that science fiction themed action movies with computer graphics consistently do well at the box office and that this was something they both felt he could do so he began doing films along this line. That was incredibly savvy as far as I'm concerned. I'm not the biggest Will Smith fan but for the most part he plays to his strengths and has become incredibly successful because of it.

yes. and also -- in the past, the studios had more power when it came to influencing the press. number 1 - there simply was less press. fewer television shows, magazines, no internet, etc etc. it was easier to manage and control an image from the creation of it all the way to the way it is presented to the public. it's an incredibly taxing job these days to try and do that, and i think that most actors either aren't capable, or aren't willing to do both fulltime jobs -- 1: the actual acting work, 2: the maintenance of a public persona.

people think that stars weren't wild back in the day? they were COMPLETELY wild. perhaps even moreso. but the studios and the management and the pr companies had more control and influence within the media, so they could effectively control how much of it slipped out to the audience. now, that's simply not realistic. so as you say, it's up to the star themselves to carefully organize and maintain their image. and it's a tough job, i think.

 

[Luxx]

I wouldn't Will is talented persay I just think he knows how to pick them.

Also he projects this very friendly sort of goofy image as well which is what I think people respond to. I don't think most of the big movie stars throughout the ages were the best actors but they had a sort of personality people could get behind or a schtick in some cases.


Oh yes happycanadian I so agree, they were WILD WILD WILD back in the day. It was just all covered up.

 

[ChloeFrancoise]

And because their wild times were covered up, we didn't have to hear about it to the point of exhaustion like we do with celebrities now a days.

 

[happycanadian]

^I actually don't even think Will Smith is that talented. It is a complete wonder to me as to why he's so popular & successful now. He doesn't really seem like a versatile actor IMO & for some reason he still seems like a goof, it's so hard for me t take him seriously when he gets certain roles.

he's so popular because he has charisma x1000. he didn't build his career on being a talented actor, he built it on being absurdly likable and finding roles in movies that a) do well at the box office, and b) compliment his personality so as to ensure that he really shines in them and that people see him as THE GUY who plays these roles. he has been brilliant with his choices of films and with the way he has maintained his image. and it's evident. he is easily the most bankable star on the planet because of it.

 

[Mchunu]

^i agree. Will definitely is charming. & the good looks don't hurt, much either

And because their wild times were covered up, we didn't have to hear about it to the point of exhaustion like we do with celebrities now a days.

that's true.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

I don't feel like the studio system was that great. It created many beautiful images and notable stars but the way it existed was horrible for performers and creativity. It locked them into long contracts, limited the kind of work they could do and created an atmosphere wherein people could be blackballed for their ideologies and beliefs. Once the patina of glamor is taken away you've got a shipwreck of fake marriages, corporate monopolies and people being forced into doing things they didn't want to do. Plus it was bad for movies in general what with the limitations on the types of films that could be made. We would never have some of the most amazing films ever made if the studio system was still intact. I don't know - I wouldn't really want to go back to the days of that.

I agree 100%, it was a dreadful system, criminal and racist and I'm glad that those days are long gone.

I agree with what has been said, although i do not think it's a bad thing that we are past this movie star idea, this idea of Actors being payed millions because they were guarantee of Box office success, when sometimes they were not even right for the part, it was just stupid.
I think people are opening their eyes also, they want to see good movies, and the quality lately has been terrible, there was a time when the crappiest movie with a big movie star would be a big hit, but nowdays we demand more, much more from our money and we are right.

 

[ChloeFrancoise]

I agree 100%, it was a dreadful system, criminal and racist and I'm glad that those days are long gone.

I agree with what has been said, although i do not think it's a bad thing that we are past this movie star idea, this idea of Actors being payed millions because they were guarantee of Box office success, when sometimes they were not even right for the part, it was just stupid.
I think people are opening their eyes also, they want to see good movies, and the quality lately has been terrible, there was a time when the crappiest movie with a big movie star would be a big hit, but nowdays we demand more, much more from our money and we are right.

I agree that there were cons to the past, even though there are now too and I think that people do want better movies, but I don't really see Hollywood making much of an effort to actually make them for the most part. I've been depending more on independent movies ( or at least movies that aren't super mainstream blockbusters or unnecessary remakes), foreign movies and older movies to see movies I want to see.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

think that people do want better movies, but I don't really see Hollywood making much of an effort to actually make them for the most part. I've been depending more on independent movies ( or at least movies that aren't super mainstream blockbusters or unnecessary remakes), foreign movies and older movies to see movies I want to see.

I agree with you and that's exactly the problem, most people that want to see good cinema have to rely in "alternative" movies with no film stars, lately Hollywood seems to think that quality and Blockbuster do not go hand in hand,so movie stars are used in awful movies, no wonder they are becoming obsolete.

Nicole Kidman, "Bewitched", anyone, I wonder who thought that was a good idea.

 

[LUXXX]

The studio system may have been flawed as far as making quality films but it most certainly was miles ahead as far as making STARS. Real stars that were so far away to the public that they were like gods to them. And most, if not all, of them became icons and their personal lives were so shielded and mysterious that now reading their bios is like reading a good novel. This helps them live on for decades and decades afterward...

I mean are we really going to be reading bios on people like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, or even Angelina Jolie and be as enthralled? I think not...and the argument about George is only flawed because he can't open a movie, he needs the presence of other big names to help himself. He only has his image to work, beyond that he would have little.

 

[Plisskin]

I'm glad the moviestar is dead.

The whole point in seeing a movie is to become enveloped with the characters and the story; to see not the actors' personalities but their character's personality.

It's aggravating to me when the movie becomes second place to the actor and their ridiculous popularity to the masses. I don't want to see Johnny Depp acting in a movie. I want to see Johnny Depp's portrayal of a character.

 

[Bahiyya]

I'm really enjoying the posts in this thread, guys. Well done! I side with those who are glad that the all-controlling studio system is dead. It was too much like the music label system is now (although of course these days they're all divvied up among a few parent companies) where most of the money was fuelled into the system and creative people weren't properly compensated for their efforts, locked into really oppressive contracts (Never mind the racism and censorship.) Sure reading about their lives now may read like novels, but often enough they're pretty tragic ones.

Even if it was still around I think that with the rise of the internet and digital cameras -- where anyone can pick one up and take a decent quality shot -- it would have been impossible for anyone to retain any "mystery".

I'm torn about whether I'd want the return of the movie star. I think I've grown in too different a time -- my approach to film are shaped by ideas about craft and quality and the "stars" I follow are those whose work I respect like Cate Blanchett or Viggo Mortensen. And I won't see their latest film if I think it will suck (like Blanchett and that "Elizabeth" sequel ) whereas I would put out the cash (whether in theatre or DVD) for certain directors through thick and thin, like Wong Kar Wai (whose latest film hasn't impressed a lot of people but, you know, it's Kar Wai!), Werner Herzog, Michael Gondry etc. But I still love old movies and will sit through any film on Turner Classic Movies if it has Vincent Price, Clark Gable or Kate Hepburn. It has a lot to do with the historical-interest of it all -- seeing how things were done back then. I put up with and enjoy a lot of corny, cheesy, or badly done nonsense in those films that would send me walking out of a theatre today.

 

[Mchunu]

^ i agree for the most part.

Like i said..i just think times are changing. It's good that there's a significantly less number of people looking at these moviestars/celebs and realizing they aren't worth envying. I'm glad society is waking up & realizing that THEY'RE NORMAL PEOPLE just like us.

 

[hufnagel]

Very interesting thread!

I think a good, real 'movie star' is someone who is larger than life, even aloof and cold, too good-looking and/or too crazy. Someone that isn't like the everyday person. Will Smith is one of those actors people like because they can relate to him, you can sympathize with. There seems to be a big market these past few years for 'real' actors, like the actors you see in Judd Apatow films. You could also see them at high schools and frat parties . Then you have the Jack Nicholsons and Tom Cruises, who are completely intense and larger than life with their own myths surrounding them (Scientology and bedding hundreds of women)...but no one can really relate to them. We don't have any new actors like that coming out, they're dead or at the end of the life spectrum (I'm talking to you, Jack!).

How an actor is handled by their people and put out in photoshoots, etc really makes a difference in how they are seen by the public. Keira Knightley is always shown as the (spunky) English rose, young comedic actors are always photographed in 'silly' settings, Nicole Kidman and Cate Blanchett as goddesses, you could do this for pretty much any actor. How actors are handled has changed a lot, and the fairly-recent surge of technology and paparazzi changes the view, too.

 

[Mchunu]

BUMP!

Well, i wanted to bump this thread up because i think it had a lot of itneresting debates thanks to happycanadian, Luxx, bahiyya and others and would like to see what others think

Talking about all the overexposure, Angelina Jolie has been named the most powerful celebrity on the planet even over Oprah.. I still think she's someone who could be considered a huge moviestar even though she has a lot of exposure she still possess a lot of charm and mystique that people are drawn to (i'm not one of those people personally). But about overexposure, what do you guys think about celebrities who are exposed well and keep a good reputation? there are still a lot of them out here...i wanna know what you guys think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[happycanadian]

i agree Mchunu about Angelina Jolie.

she is very much a MOVIESTAR. especially now. she's at the peak of her stardom. as far as fame, obviously she has it. mystique - yep, it's there. public desire for her life or just for her - she's got that, as well. and she's glamourous. AND the key thing, is that she can open a movie. she is a box office draw. thus, a movie star. but, like any other proper star, she's only a box office success when she plays that type of character that made her a star in the first place: in Angelina's case, it's the strong, sexy, action-heroine. that's the kind of role in which the audience feels connected to Angelina the moviestar, and so those roles always make her may-juh bank.

 

[designerleather]

One of the problems today is that movies and TV are more about popularity contests than anything else. Probably one of the few consistent actors out there who is money is Will Smith, but even then, goes to highlight the even bigger problem of Hollywood and TV, the general lack of scripts and writing.

Why do you think there are so many "Reality" TV shows. Cheap to produce. Eye-Candy. Salacious drama. I am actually surprised they do not have the "Rubber neck TV" channel that just shows car wrecks and bad accidents. Sadly, it would probably do well.

Part of this change is the studios, but it also falls on us the audience. It is so much these days about commercial success, as well as with ticket prices as high as they are, and these huge 30 theater multiplexes, most movies are out for less than 5 weeks from release to when the disappear off the screen.

The other part is, what is a movie star? Is it fan interest? Box-office draw? Acting ability? Peer recognition? a combination and to what extent?

What about longevity? Does it count how long an actor (meaning bot actor and actress) is in the business? Yet little mention is made of Pacino and Deniro or Hanks, Hopkins, Nicholson, Audrey Hepburn, Paul Newman or Dustin Hoffman.

Bogey? Bette Davis? Peter Sellers? Meryl Streep? Gable? Redford? Gene Kelly perhaps?

Like everything else, as generations change, so do the definitions and labels.

 

[*mette-marit*]

For sure the old studio system produced great stars. I think often people were given a contract because of their charisma, and the fact they had something extra to make them stand out- those stories you hear of people being discovered in drugstores or whatever, and then being signed to a 7 year contract. i don't think people are approached on the street and asked 'do you want to be in pictures?' anymore. they usually have to toil for it, in small parts, tv commercials and so on.stars of yesteryear often had an image and played the same type of character over and over. Some tried playing different types of roles, but it often wasn’t received very well. Movies stars weren’t just like regular people, they were ON 24-7 i think it was bette davis who said she never picked her children up from school without her false eyelashes... as has been mentioned before, it is hard to see an actor as a glamorous untouchable creature when they are published taking the trash out in their ugg boots.
And if they did something naughty, it was covered up because if the stars reputation suffered, so did the studios. how many people are actually 'invested' in how an actor behaves these days? I’ve heard stories about police being paid off, and making deals to keep things out of the gossip columns. But these days, you can forget covering something up, because it isn’t just a matter of writing about it in the papers the next morning, chances are the incident has been snapped on someones iphone and is circulating the globe almost immediately. Almost anyone can be Hedda Hopper if they have access to a computer and camera. Sometimes i wonder at how they manage to keep anything private when most every person they pass on the street has a camera phone in his or her pocket. But maybe i am wrong in thinking that things can’t be covered up quickly and discreetly and keeping up appearances doesn’t happen so much these days. I don’t really know how many stars have a publicity team anymore and how it works- but it must be a lot harder to keep things quiet these days, especially since the internet and blogs.
Anyway, that is my thought of why actors are not ‘movie stars’ in the same way as they were in the golden age of hollywood- the studio system meant that an image was created, and everything was done to maintain it.
Julia Roberts is one person i used to consider a star in the old fashioned meaning of the word- not so much anymore. Maybe meg ryan as well?Hugh grant i think might be another one and the two toms- i think you know who i mean! agree about George Clooney though, he does seem to manage to keep a pretty cool and suave image a little bit old hollywood almost....i guess angelina and brad too, i think the taylor-burton comparison was right on the money. we don't really have to many 'glamour couples anymore' i don't think actors assosiate with each other in their own glamorous, private world anymore. and that probably is because of the studio system colapse as well. a lot of actors don't need to or want to live in hollywood anymore,report for work in the same studio see each other in the studio canteen everyday and then go out and party together.
WOW sorry this is such a long post but it is very interesting to me as I love old hollywood and it's glamour. the stars were real STARS and I think it produced some really beautiful, classic movies that will be enjoyed for many years. when i was on youtube recently under ava gardner it came up footage of a 4th grade girl doing her school project on her. so it makes me smile to think the movies and stars of that era are still getting brand new and very young fans! i wonder if children will still look up to our actors of today many years after they are gone?

 

[*mette-marit*]

I'm glad the moviestar is dead.

The whole point in seeing a movie is to become enveloped with the characters and the story; to see not the actors' personalities but their character's personality.

It's aggravating to me when the movie becomes second place to the actor and their ridiculous popularity to the masses. I don't want to see Johnny Depp acting in a movie. I want to see Johnny Depp's portrayal of a character.

Personally it doesn't offend me too much if a movie is 'flogged' on who it's stars are- as long as they DO deliver a good performance.
but i dont think that is done too much anymore, certainly not like it was. people go to see the 'movie' not just the 'star' or the 'actor'