I’ve covered this before on The Whitly-Verse, but it’s worth revisiting. News outlets and YouTube videos love to talk about it like it’s an omen. “Oh no, __ actor can no longer sell a movie!” And while it’s interesting, I think a lot of it’s overblown. Here’s why:
Back in the Golden Age of Hollywood, it wasn’t uncommon for upcoming actors or actresses to be exclusively contracted by studios. Said studios would milk them for all their worth, using them to sell movies to audiences. Perhaps a notable example was child actress Shirley Temple. You know, that redhead who had a drink named after her?
With the collapse of the studio system in the 60’s and 70’s, actors were free to star in movies of their choice. And for a while, they kept their top billings. But then came the rise of the Summer Blockbuster, kicked off by the Star Wars franchise. Suddenly, star power meant less than it used to. Couple that with the internet, and how information became readily-available, and the movie star was becoming a relic.
I should mention that there are still movie stars. The MCU has made several names into icons, including Chris Evans and Chris Pratt. Barbie, one of 2023’s biggest box-office hits, was billed on the power of Margot Robbie. Even Oppenheimer has Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. Clearly, movie stars do exist!
However, they aren’t why these movies are successful. The films are. This means that people have to put more work into advertising for the masses, who don’t care about the actors as much as the movies themselves. Marvel movies have movie stars, for example, but that’s not why people like them. They want to watch Thor fighting Loki.
I also don’t think the “death of movie star culture” is inherently a problem. A lot of movie stars live really sketchy lives. This is something social media’s exposed in great numbers, perhaps to a concerning degree. There are only so many sex trafficking rings, assault charges and alternative lifestyle choices I can stomach, honestly. And I’m hoping that once the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes end, this rot in Hollywood gets addressed and excised.
However, they aren’t why these movies are successful. The films are. This means that people have to put more work into advertising for the masses, who don’t care about the actors as much as the movies themselves. Marvel movies have movie stars, for example, but that’s not why people like them. They want to watch Thor fighting Loki.
I also don’t think the “death of movie star culture” is inherently a problem. A lot of movie stars live really sketchy lives. This is something social media’s exposed in great numbers, perhaps to a concerning degree. There are only so many sex trafficking rings, assault charges and alternative lifestyle choices I can stomach, honestly. And I’m hoping that once the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes end, this rot in Hollywood gets addressed and excised.
I mention this because movie star culture makes this happen. A star becomes big, has their name exploited and proceeds to trash their reputation. Worshipping these individuals doesn’t make the situation better, as they have no incentive to stop. That lack of accountability’s the catalyst for many of Hollywood’s problems, so I’m glad it’s disappearing. It makes the focus less about that.
Besides, what are the odds that a movie star will still resonate in 20 years? Movie buffs will point to Humphrey Bogart and Elizabeth Taylor as examples of lasting impacts, but are they? Does the average moviegoer care about Casablanca’s stars? And do they care about the career trajectories of older stars? You and I might have a passing interest in this stuff, but Taika Waititi wasn’t wrong!
This level of finer nuance gets lost in the conversation. It might “suck” that star power’s no longer the driving force behind movies, but so what? Why does that have any bearing on the film’s quality? Shouldn’t we be more focused on whether or not the movie was good? Or if the production was good, instead of being a nightmare? Isn’t the lack of respect for the crew why the strikes in Hollywood are happening?
Besides, what are the odds that a movie star will still resonate in 20 years? Movie buffs will point to Humphrey Bogart and Elizabeth Taylor as examples of lasting impacts, but are they? Does the average moviegoer care about Casablanca’s stars? And do they care about the career trajectories of older stars? You and I might have a passing interest in this stuff, but Taika Waititi wasn’t wrong!
This level of finer nuance gets lost in the conversation. It might “suck” that star power’s no longer the driving force behind movies, but so what? Why does that have any bearing on the film’s quality? Shouldn’t we be more focused on whether or not the movie was good? Or if the production was good, instead of being a nightmare? Isn’t the lack of respect for the crew why the strikes in Hollywood are happening?
Perhaps I’m the oddball, but I think the aforementioned is more interesting and relevant than whether or not “Big Name #3000000” is in a movie. And no, that doesn’t mean toxic stars should get a pass to be toxic. If the last few years have been indication, exposing toxic behaviour is how change happens. However, I don’t think star power’s the only factor at play. Otherwise, stories like Marvel’s VFX people finally unionizing after years of being abused wouldn’t be so big.
I get it. Movie stars are part of the experience of going to movies. They make the magic of cinema tangible, especially with their publicity. Having your favourite star in a big-budget film’s exciting! But it’s not the only part that matters anymore. And that’s not a problem, as it means that movies are no longer tied down to specific actors being in them. It makes the movies now have to work because they’re movies, not because they have specific stars in them. Isn’t that what we want if movies are to remain relevant?
Remember, movies are an art-form. Like other art-forms, they’re a part of society. But like other art-forms, they need to stand on their own merits, not on the merits of their creators. You can admire Michelangelo’s David for being a brilliant creation of a brilliant man, or you can admire it for speaking to you with its attention to detail. The branding matters, but if that’s all that mattered? Well, you might as well gaze at concept art for David, not David itself. That’s the key.
I get it. Movie stars are part of the experience of going to movies. They make the magic of cinema tangible, especially with their publicity. Having your favourite star in a big-budget film’s exciting! But it’s not the only part that matters anymore. And that’s not a problem, as it means that movies are no longer tied down to specific actors being in them. It makes the movies now have to work because they’re movies, not because they have specific stars in them. Isn’t that what we want if movies are to remain relevant?
Remember, movies are an art-form. Like other art-forms, they’re a part of society. But like other art-forms, they need to stand on their own merits, not on the merits of their creators. You can admire Michelangelo’s David for being a brilliant creation of a brilliant man, or you can admire it for speaking to you with its attention to detail. The branding matters, but if that’s all that mattered? Well, you might as well gaze at concept art for David, not David itself. That’s the key.
No comments:
Post a Comment