“The Hollywood Reporter” has recently published a brief, moderately insightful article which should be filed under “Captain Obvious.” In it, they wonder aloud if the age of super-stars selling out movie theaters isn’t coming to an end. I honestly think they wrote it as a formality, some kind of grave observation to mark the calendar. Of course it’s coming to an end. Look at the box office, look at what’s happening to the movie industry. You’ve got “A Christmas Carol” going down in flames, “Surrogates” biting the dust, “Land of the Lost,” “Duplicity,” “Imagine That,” the list of big-name disasters just keeps swelling. Meanwhile, here come “District 9,” “Paranormal Activity,” “The Hangover,” “The Hurt Locker,” all blasting out of the gate with zero point zero A-list talent, a quarter of the budget, and three times the profits. “D9″ was the prima donna of the bunch simply because Peter Jackson was associated with it, but no one said the age of a director filling the house was going anywhere.
Point is, I hope you enjoyed your private honey wagons, guys, because the sandman cometh. It’s game over. I don’t think we’ll stop having stars, but the notion of a “star vehicle” is going bye-bye. Back in the day, Hollywood operated on what we pejoratively refer to as the “studio system,” now it’s a relic. The same will soon be true for marquee marketing. Honest to God, Hollywood is in kind of a tailspin right now, there are earthquakes all over the industry, everyone’s running for their lives. Executives are watching paralyzed as tiny little indie projects (which they used to turn down like prom dates) make bank, made all the worse by the dull thud of another John Travolta family flick gutter balling.
If I were Russell Crowe/Christian Bale/Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks/Denzel Washington, the thing that would scare me the most is knowing that there’s no benefit of the doubt, no wiggle room; star power need only trend downwards to ruin their careers, it doesn’t technically have to flat line. Executives don’t get paid to let disasters happen and then learn from them, they’re trying to get ahead of the curve. If they start seeing top-line movies go nowhere, they’re going to strike preemptively, and we may never know if the pattern would continue. Putting stars in a movie is not easy: they’re pissy during negotiations, you have to pay them boatloads of money, they’re frequently disruptive on set, and in worst-case scenarios like Edward Norton, they may even hijack your damn movie. Nobody’s going to put up with all of this crap for a few million net gain, they need to guarantee crushing success. If they don’t, screw ‘em, let’s go find a character actor who gets paid reasonable money and arrives to work on time.
Many of them deserve this. It’s been a fragile, bizarre business model that has allowed dozens of socially maladjusted weirdos to wreck havoc on back lots like spoiled children, protected by the comforting familiarity they offer American moviegoers. They’re going to find themselves looking rather stupid the first time they try a temper tantrum and lose their job for it. The well is drying up, my friends, and I say it’s about time. What in the hell were we thinking, America? Why did we classify movies by the actors in them? “Oh let’s go see that new Colin Farrell movie.” It’s not a “Colin Farrell” movie! His involvement is not some kind of “guaranteed fresh” stamp—most likely the opposite, in fact, since they know you’ll see it because he’s there! Do you see his name next to the producing, writing, or directing credits?
The smartest star in America is also the most successful: Will Smith. He’s never actually verbalized it, and most of his fans (which is everyone ever) aren’t aware of it, but his movies retain that “Will Smith movie” feel because he does put a stamp of approval on them. He does pick his projects. He’s the only one who seems to grasp that brand familiarity doesn’t work if you keep feeling ripped off by your purchase. Too many morons in Hollywood are obsessed with getting behinds in the seats, and they assume it doesn’t matter what happens when the lights go down. Smith knows better, he knows his name is only as good as his customer satisfaction. I’m not saying he’s in all the best movies, he’s not, but he is almost never in a turd. “Hancock” isn’t great, but it doesn’t make you angry you watched it, and you can’t deny that the concept (while imperfectly executed) was engaging. “I Am Legend” also had flaws, but it had many strengths too, and was a really exciting flick. Will is very careful never to betray the trust of the American who plops down hard money to see him. He’ll tolerate slips, but not crass garbage. It always feels like he tried to make an interesting product. The only other successful disciple of this method is Matt Damon, who apparently was paying attention when Smith rocketed to the top. Damon also has an imperfect track record, but almost no cash-in quick flicks, nothing he just jumped onto for a paycheck. Every movie feels like it grabbed his personal interest, which keeps his credibility high. George Clooney and Brad Pitt are both on-again off-again with this system, but that’s better than nothing.
The benefits both of these men reap are enormous. If you say something is a “Russell Crowe movie,” I’m sorry but it means next to nothing. If you say a “Matt Damon movie,” you’re talking. If you say a “Will Smith movie,” the whole world’s going to see it so there’s no point saying anything else. These two will survive the death of the system that built them, because their names function as personal recommendations for commercial entertainment.
As a curious side note, both of these men shared one of their rare duds together: “The Legend of Baggar Vance.” It must have been a good learning experience for both.
0 Responses to “Ch Ch Ch Changes”