”I am big,” said faded star Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard. ”It’s the pictures that got small.” Today, however, it’s the pictures that are big (King Kong, Narnia) and the stars that are small. Case in point: Orlando Bloom (left), whom the New York Times sees as a cautionary example of how Hollywood’s current star-making machinery can’t manufacture guaranteed box office draws anymore like they could in days of yore. (Way way back, like in Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts’ day.) Even well-established names like Nicole Kidman or Will Ferrell can’t necessarily open a movie these days (Exhibit A: Bewitched).
To me, this is a myopic way of looking at stardom. (And I say it not just because EW had this dearth-of-new-stars dilemma nailed a couple years ago in a cover story called ”Honey, Who Shrunk the Stars?”) Yes, stars are more disposable now, and for that we can blame reality TV, tabloid journalism, mediocre movies, or any number of causes. But we’ve also found ourselves in a situation where stardom is now divorced from its day job of making hit movies. It’s now possible to be famous and even beloved without actually backing up one’s fame with achievement. Colin Farrell is a star without actually having appeared in a hit movie, since stardom is now defined as much by ubiquity offscreen as it is by appearances at the multiplex. Similarly, if Bloom shows up on the red carpet on the arm of Kate Bosworth at this summer’s Superman Returns premiere, he’ll have done all he needs to do to maintain his stardom for the next year. And let’s not forget the big-in-Europe factor that makes bona fide stars overseas out of Hollywood actors who can’t open a movie in the United States.
Read another theory on why Bloom’s career is flagging — after the jump.
Finally, while hype often overtakes accomplishment, it takes just onesolid performance for a potential star to cement his status — seeHeath Ledger, who didn’t live up to his hype until Brokeback Mountain– but those kind of roles typically come in indie movies seen byrelatively few viewers. In other words, to advance your career as amainstream star, it may be best to choose a role in a non-mainstream,possibly obscure project. Of course, that’s a risky career strategy ifyou ultimately want to land $20 million paydays, but why should wedismiss as non-stars actors who’d prefer to do interesting work overbland but popular movies?
Still, there’s something else missing from the Orlando Bloom/Josh Hartnett set, something the Timesstory doesn’t get at because it’s hard to put a finger on. That’s acertain substance, a sense of solidity and gravitas, that a lot ofcontemporary stars lack. You could argue that this has been a problemfor a while — how substantive are Tom Cruise and Julia Robertscompared to predecessors like Gary Cooper or Katharine Hepburn? Morethan ever, individual movie stars are blank slates on which we projectour own fantasies. Today’s movie stars may be more versatile but alsomore elusive and ethereal, like they might blow away in a strong wind.George Clooney is one of the few contemporary actors who does have thatold-Hollywood gravitas; maybe some of these younger performers willattain it as they grow older and more worldly. Which brings us back toNorma Desmond. ”We had faces then,” she said of her expressivecontemporaries. Today, they have faces but nothing else.
Which of today’s movie actors and actresses are most likely to succeedTom, Julia, and their peers as bankable stars who capture theimaginations of moviegoers?
Comments (1-30) of 48 Add your comment
K, the article is good and all, but it’sjust a little too long…..no?
The reason people skip Bloom’s movies is because although the guy is good looking, he doesn’t have the quality of a leading man. He’s a good costar (LOTR and Pirates) but not the main attraction (Kingdom of Heaven and the weak Elizabethtown)
Personally, I think stardom is overrated. The salary an actor makes for an indie is still more than many of us will make in a year. I’d rather see actors doing good work in interesting films; a single Kate Winslet or Zooey Deschanel performance is more memorable than Julia Roberts or Jennifer Aniston in all of their forgettable Hollywood romantic comedies.
Well, Tom Cruise was in a lot of stuff before he became a STAR. He had to work his way there. Anyone remember his star turn opposite Shelly Long in Losin’ It? Or Julia Roberts star turn opposite Justine Bateman in Satisfaction.
The problem today is that Hollywood decides who should be a star and then puts them in a movie bigger than they are. One hit movie does not a star make.
Check your facts, EW, Colin Farrell was in a two hit movies! He had a co-starring role in Minority Report and a leading role in SWAT (the latter of which was a modest hit).
contemporary actors/actresses who i think will end up succeeding really well are: Rachel McAdams, Heath Ledger (now that he has a solid status), and umm.. wow i can’t really OH and Natalie Portman. that’s a really short list. unfortunately there are a lot of stars i like to read about but wouldn’t spend good money on if they were in a bad movie.
consistently, i’ve been pulled into movies by stars such as the 3 listed above and i wouldn’t care if the movie sucked if they had Usher in it. yes i know “in the mix” totally bombed but i still enjoyed it because of usher and emmanuelle chrique.
Agree totally with Nathan on Orlando Bloom. I’ve been wracking my brain trying to figure out what all the excitement’s about with him. Was thinking I’m just out of it. I could not believe he was suddenly getting this starring roles in big pictures. I read the New York Times article and agree – you don’t have to do much to be a “star” in this star-famished culture right now. And I agree re Colin Farrell. Even his supporters don’t even remember “Phone Booth” — not sure that was the exact title — didn’t see it but I thought that led to “Minority Report” and the other one they forgot, “Daredevil”, tho the latter was not exactly a hit.
I think Hugh Jackman is a bona fide star in the Old School way. He has great screen presence, he’s a very likable person (on and off screen), and he can do anything – from an ornery, manly hunk (X-Men) to a refined 19th Century Duke (Kate and Leopold) to a flamboyantly gay singer/songwriter (The Boy From Oz). His star power can even lead bad movies like Van Helsing to make over 100 million dollars. Hugh’s got it all!
One of the big problems is that people hype newcomers so damn much and create way too big expectations. Name one up-and-coming actress in the last 10 years who hasn’t been labelled with the title “the next Julia Roberts”. Only Sandra Bullock and Reese Witherspoon have been able to overcome the pressure. Everyone else just gets too hyped because we expect too much. And what’s so amazing about Julia Roberts anyways?
I hope Rachel McAdams doesn’t fall victim to this as well because she’s an absolutely fantastic actress. I think she will overcome it like Bullock and Witherspoon because she’s got real talent, charisma, and she’s strong on-screen unlike people like Kirsten Dunst.
Despite her new baby and hubby, my pick to succeed Julia is Jennifer Garner. She’s lovable, versatile, beautiful, and her smile is worth a million bucks- just like Ms. Roberts’.
Okay everybody, let me clarify exactly why Colin Farrell is a ’star’. Way back when, he was an unknown, and I mean 100 percent unknown, irish kid who played a goon/henchman in a couple irish flicks. Joel Schumacher saw him and put him in his vietnam era-boot camp flick called ‘Tigerland’ and became a minor hit critical darling and Tigerland developed some support underground when it came out on DVD (i was one of those. Picked it up just looking for a war movie that looked a bit diffrent, had no idea who Colin Farell was and watched it. He was amazing in it.) Anyway, then Steven Spielbrg put him in his high profile movie starring the major wattage star Tom Cruise and Colin got exposure. He has since, been in middling films with varying degrees of success: from bombs that nobody remembered the week after they were released (American Outlaws) to relative bombs that he didn’t actually star in, like Daredevil, and the list goes on. He’s done a lot of ambitious projects that have all failed in one way or another and I say so what? He gets work, he seems happy about it. He did a great but tiny performance in the Irish films Veronica Guerin (I think that was the title) playing a soccer hooligan, and Intermission, playing a smalltime hoodlum amid a cast of about 15 other actors, some established (Colm Meaney of Star Trek), some about to be stars (Cilian Murphy). Then he did Alexander, which was bad, but he failed very publically which kept him in the spotlight. Now he is about to release quality work in The New World. This will be his movie that will raise his star. It’s amazing and he is amazing in it. I’m not a huge Colin Farrell fan but I don’t think people give the guy enough credit. And yeah, Orlando Bloom is not strong enough on his own.
What a great meditation on stardom! I’m teaching a class on the subject this semester and I shall make my class read this. Thanks!
Orlando Bloom’s movies (other than Pirates) stink. They’re boring, self absorbed, poorly written pieces of garbage.
So she may have started out a freak, but hasn’t Angelina Jolie settled into some form of gravitas? She has had some good performances (Girl Interrupted), some glamour star turns (Mr. and Mrs. Smith), and some crap (Beyond Boders). But she also has a personal like with some meaning and mystery (UN work, house in Cambodia, anyone). She’d get my vote for the exotic old style star position once filled by Garbo and Bergman.
Loved the commentary on stardom today. Case in point would be Pitt-Jolie. Not great actors, very few big hits between them. Became A-list tabloid stars due to a personal scandal and in their case, it translated at the box office – probably an anomaly based on good timing and curiosity more than anything else. But to be a star today – Paris Hilton for example – seems to be mostly about being famous for the sake of fame, with actual ‘creative’ projects serving as marketing tools to extend that fame.
Hey David – for someone who isn’t a ‘huge Colin Farrell fan’ you certainly seem to know everything about every movie he has ever been in. Hmmm.
i agree with the article, i have been saying this for years! people like jennifer lopez, jennifer garner, orlando bloom, natalie protman etc. have never really had big hits and they don’t really have the acting skills to carry a film, yes they are atractive, but after a while that doesn’t carry you.
but since tom cruise and julia roberts are great actors either who knows who will be the next star
I read the article in the NYTimes and was frustrated that they didn’t include another factor: the movies they cited at being proof that various “stars” couldn’t open a movie were not very good! Don’t blame the star if the movie sucks (although an excellent actor can make a bad movie better, they can’t take it all the way to ‘good’). A second factor is, as mentioned by other commneters, that actors aren’t given enough time to slowly build a career – if they appeal to the teenybopper set, they’re given huge movies, but that’s not a large enough fanbase to be a success, so eventually we go back to having CGI be the star instead.
I miss real movies. The ones with good writing.
HELLO NEWS FLASH…. WHY DOES EVERYONE KEEP POUNDING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FOR SLACKING TICKET SALES. EVERY YEAR YOU READ ALL THESE ARTICLES ABOUT THE MOVIE INDUSTRY ANNUAL RETURNS DOWN 5%…75%… BLAH BLAH BLAH.
CALL ME CRAZY BUT HAS ANYONE STOPPED AND CARED OR DARED TO THINK… THE MOVIE INDUSTRY WILL NEVER EVER BE THE SAME AND CAN NEVER EVER GO BACK TO THE PAST GLORY DAYS..? HELLO WE HAVE COMPUTERS AND THEY ALLOW US TO LEGALLY AND ILLEGALY DOWNLOAD MEDIA SO WHY GO PAY TO WATCH A MOVIE WHEN U CAN EASILY GET SUM1 TO BURN IT FOR U OR DO IT URSELF. ITS NOT FAIR THAT THEY CANT COMPETE WITH ALL THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT ENTERTAINS PEOPLE. SO DONT BLAME ACTORS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO OPEN HIT MOVIES. CONSUMERS JUST HAVE TO MANY OTHER OPTIONS THESE DAYS. AS FAR AS SHRINKING MOVIE STARS CAN ANYONE SAY “PARIS HILTON” HAS SHE BEEN IN A HIT ANYTHING EVER? YET SHES A TOP MOVIE STAR..
The biggest beef I have with the whole premise can be encapsulated in the Ferrell and Kidman example cited. Bewithced flops and it proves that Ferrell and Kidman aren’t stars? Insane. Ferrell had a few hit movies and Kidman has starred in as many bombs as hits, if not more. The notion that a star can make a movie a hit has been just plain wrong for years. Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks are the only two I can think of who consistently bring in audiences – any other “big star” has his or her share of big flops, and this has been the case for at least 20-30 years.
sick of the celeb factor nowdays….grew up on black & white films and leanrned to love movies from the likes of tyron powers, carey grant, and james stewart….people honestly want to follow and put the likes of paris hilton and orlando bloom up on a pedestal because they have bought into the glitz of hollywood today. I agree with Danny on the observation that Kate Winslet is one of the best actors to come out of hollywood in some time….(see eternal sunshine)
It was inevitable when stars started making $20 mil and getting private jets and backend. There had to be a backlash.
Lily is absolutely right…the problem with being a STAR today is that people like Paris Hilton are celebrities without having achieved anything. In a business like this (or any career, for that matter), if you want to make your way up the ladder, you have to pay your dues. Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts have been in the business for quite a while…the longevity of any newer stars and how hard they work will determine their true star status…it’s not an overnight deal.
All it will take is one good movie (not necessarily a box office smash)and Orlando Bloom will be on top. Look at recent turns by Heath Ledger, David Strathairn and Philip Seymour Hoffman. None is in what would be considered a ‘big’ movie, but all are almost guaranteed best actor Oscar nominations. Bloom should look for the quality projects and forget about the ‘guaranteed’ hit.
I think the biggest problem is that professions are being thrown in the garbage. Movie companies no longer look for a great actor for a role, they look to cast the person(ality) that sells the most magazines, whose personal life people are the most interested in. Reality stars are cast, rappers and singers are cast, and that’s why there is so much crap being made. Models no longer get covers of magazines or to be the ‘face’ of a campaign, unless they’re gossip staples themselves, those plum assignments are also given to the most talked about celebrities.
There are very few true movie stars anymore. I don’t see a Bogie, Gable or Hank Fonda coming up in the ranks anytime soon, either.
And look at the quality of pictures that are churned out of Hollywood.
I would pay 10 bucks ANYDAY to see Orlando Bloom in a movie rather than Tom Cruise.
There is a difference between a star and a “media-made star.” The industry and media both attempt to make the latter a star, but the public knows the difference. They may buy a magazine with them on it or look them up on the internet but there is nothing prompting them to go see their movies except on video.
Bloom is young and needs time to find his distinctive voice. He is not the only one with this problem though and its a shame he is singled out. The media, etc., annoints these media-made stars with a status they haven’t quite earned in the public’s view. Bloom is a good actor but outside of blockbuster movies, he hasn’t established his distinct voice. There are plenty of sensitive types out there but what uniqueness does he bring to this genre of movie actor? We don’t know yet. Perhaps we’ll find out in time. In the meantime, there are plenty of role models to follow. Many actors have gone about taking eccentric but not necessarily leading man roles, to find their voice (i.e. Johnny Depp, Billy Crudup, Ewan McGregor, Jude Law, Terrance Howard, Clive Owen, Ethan Hawke, Colin Farrell). Not all good actors (including some of the ones I just mentioned) ultimately end up being able to open movies though. Some are just meant for supporting character actor parts and there really isn’t anything wrong with that if the actor’s ego can take it.
1) A pretty face does mean they can act. Orlando is nice to look at but is bland as toast. Ashton is a pretty boy with a sense of humor, but can’t act (see Butterfly Effect).
2) If Hollywood would stop shoving certain IT stars down our throats (Colin Farrel), maybe then we’ll be interested. Brad Pitt wasn’t hyped to death when he did Thelma & Louise. The audience discovered him. Let us pick the worth ones for a change.
Availability of entertainment media is the reason our ’stars’ can’t always open movies big. Case in point: Love Orlando? Want to drool over him? But his new movie looks like it sucks? Just pop in your LOTR DVD or watch the 1st 10 minutes of Troy one of the million times it is playing on cable this week, and drool away!! If the movies at the cineplex aren’t GOOD, you can find your favorite star any other variety of places without having to sit through the new trashy film. 20 years ago you had to wait for the star’s new movie to come out because that was all you had! Today it is totally a different ballgame, and it is never going back to the good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) ol’days.