John Podhoretz: Movie Stars Strut Towards Extinction
by Big HollywoodJohn Podhoretz in the Weekly Standard:
“[T]he system around which the motion-picture business has oriented itself almost since its creation in the early years of the last century–the star system, which it largely invented–has finally reached its end.”
“The eight most successful movies over the course of the year’s first eight months have collectively grossed $2.7 billion, up from $2.3 billion for the entirety of 2008. And what is most striking about these eight films is that not a single one of them, not a single one, features an unmistakable star. Three of them are cartoons (Up, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, and Monsters vs. Aliens). Three are sequels whose top-line talents are incidental to their success (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, the sixth Harry Potter, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Two feature relative nobodies (Star Trek and The Hangover). The first traditional star appears in the ninth-place film, which is itself a high-concept sequel in which the star mostly stands around (Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian with Ben Stiller). It’s not until tenth place that a classic vehicle hits the list, Sandra Bullock’s The Proposal. And after that you have to jump down to 15th place to find Tom Hanks in Angels and Demons. Will Ferrell’s movie tanked. Julia Roberts laid an egg. Adam Sandler couldn’t sell a ticket. Johnny Depp disappointed. Denzel Washington and John Travolta bombed together. Instead, the movies whose successes depended on their strong leading performances were the ones featuring the 57-year-old Irishman Liam Neeson (Taken, $145 million) and the out-of-work TV comedian Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, $146 million).
“The 2009 box-office numbers offer the most dramatic evidence yet that the system around which the motion-picture business has oriented itself almost since its creation in the early years of the last century–the star system, which it largely invented–has finally reached its end.”
You can read the piece in full here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
108 Comments
Good!
No argument there. I can't think of a single current-day actor/actress whose presence in a movie will cause me to say, " Oh, I have to see that!"
Good, then does that mean we won't be subject to their infantile, narccissistic outbursts on issues which they know nothing? Amd does this mean there will less work for their legions of Biz Managers and Attorneys getting their money as tax free possible while the middle class is going to have to fight off stealth tax increases?
As they're needed…er…work less and less, they'll have more time to protest!
From your mouth to God's ear! I think the cause of the demise is people are fed up with being insulted either by the movie itself or the actors starring in them or both. Who wants to pay $10 a ticket for that? Apparently fewer and fewer people.
Most of hollywood are subversive anti-Americans. Had they remained silent and made movies, nothing would have changed.
But they have gotten proud of their anti-American hatred, and we do not want to see them. They have a right to say what they want, and we have a right to ignore their films.
Left wing loons will continue to lose money, as long as they keep letting us know they are left-wing loons.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
Ha ha ha ha…. that's what you get for hating on capitalism and America people… we stop watching your movies…. either that or you really do suck and we are just now realizing it or you have had good chemistry with your co-star to carry you along…
Though I do like Sandra Bullock… but that's just my opinion.
Yay!!!
Great to see JPod on BH.
But I think Hannah Giles puts Julia Roberts to shame.
And though Bullock had a hit with "The Proposal", she just had a flop with "Who Cares About Steve?"
I think part of the issue is that people have many more resources to find out about a movie before it even opens. We have more tools to find out whether a film will interest us. It's no longer a matter of, "I'm going to see the new Denzel Smith film", we can now see the trailer, read advance reviews, check a website to see if there's objectable material….
(I'm much more likely to choose a film because of the writer or director than the stars. If the Coen brothers make a film, I'm there.)
General death of the concept of standout individual, anyone? What's next, sports without stars?
Yep. If they get out and vocally protest against what is right and decent, I can't separate them from their characters any more. I just get disgusted when I see them on the screen. On the other hand, when you have an actor who may contribute to the left but doesn't go around waving coathangers and broadcasting their views over a bullhorn, I can watch them. I'm sure the majority of the Deep Space Nine cast are on the left, but they don't ram it down my throat and I can enjoy their work. Well, except for the episode where Rom is quoting the Communist Manifesto. Haha.
I love movies, but am finding it harder and harder to find anything worth watching. More often than not, I walk out of the local movie rental franchise empty-handed. Why pay for something that you know is going to suck when you can watch great movies on TCM for free?
If I saw something called "The Unabridged History of Library Paste", starring Humphrey Bogart, I'd be all over it.
There's a few people like that nowadays. I'd watch pretty much anything with Nathan Fillion. I've always enjoyed Tim Allen. Bruce Campbell goes without saying.
I've noticed that with Disney or Pixar flicks that they have great actors doing the voices, but never advertise based on them. Other animation studios will try to sell a movie based on the big names. Disney prefers to let the story speak for itself. You have to be paying attention to realize that it's Moira Kelley as Naala in "The Lion King," or Jerry Orbach as Lumiere in "Beauty & the Beast." Their casts are brilliant, but are sold on the basis of storytelling, not names.
Sometimes that's a good thing! I enjoyed Ratatouille and then hit the IMDb. "Garofalo? Oh, HELL no!"
I bet Bogart could totally make "The Unabridged History of Library Paste" work. And, I don't know what Melvil Dewey looked like, but that's a role Cagney was born to play.
I'd say that's about right. I saw the first show of "Extract" on opening day and then posted my thoughts on it on Facebook with the end result that several friends who were thinking of seeing it instead decided to wait for the DVD to come out as a rental. Factor in people doing the same on other social networking sites and the studios are in trouble.
I'll see something just because Bruce Campbell is in it, even when I expect it to be bad. But I can't think of any A-listers that I can say that about. All too often being on the A-list is more a matter of charisma than acting ability, at least in the modern period. There used to be plenty of A-list stars that could act but they've largely gone the way of the dodo. There are still a few around like Johnny Depp but they're the exception rather than the rule.
I feel so passionately about the way 80-90% of these actors are helping nearly everything I am fully against.So I make them pay with my wallet.Many of them cannot act all that well and/or are not funny at all anyway.I do miss going to the movies.The prices ($2 in popcorn and a $1 soda = $ 15 wth) steered me away some,but it's the radical views of the actors I swore not to condone.Hollywood is corrupting the culture for profit and destabilization.I try to convince everyone of this.Some choose to remain ostriches,but most agree.Some have to learn the hard way. when their kids shock the hell out of them with something they didn't think they would to explain 5 to 7 years down the road.In the 5 years especially I have come to loathe most of them.Even if the movie sucks I am going to see it – IF it has True Americans in it ONLY. If I know of any USA haters in it I'll pass.So yeah I pretty much don't go at all anymore.I cannot honestly give them my money when I see so many political messages that lie in EVERYTHING.I especially get mad when I see it in kid's movies.They no no bounds.Agenda is more important.The end justify the means.Hmm where have I heard that before?
Julia Roberts had a movie this year? Seriously. I don't remember. Not that I'd watch anything with her in it anyway. It just feeds that evil little bit of schadenfreude in me to see that she slipped so far under the radar.
True. It seems like most of the name-dropping you hear in trailers these days are "From the executive producer of…", "From thepeople who brought you…" and "From the writers of…". And then a star is added as a bi-line.
I find it telling that in recent years I've found the smaller movies to be more enjoyable than the big blockbusters. I look at 2007 as the perfect example. Movies I saw in the theater and was happy I did so; 300, Ratatouille, Stardust, You Kill Me, and Black Snake Moan. Movies I saw in the theater and regretted wasting my time; The Bourne Ultimatum, Rush Hour 3, and Pirates of the Caribbean 3. And then there was The Golden Compass which I was going to see until I read the books it was based on and decided I wasn't going to pay someone money to insult my religious beliefs. And then there was Shoot 'Em Up which I loved for about 30 minutes and then spent the rest of the movie bored out of my mind which, to be fair, might have been the point of the movie.
Of course the big stars are attached to the big movies, where special effects and elaborate set pieces have replaced things like plot and story and consequently the big stars have ceased to be a pull to get me into the movies. If I wanted to watch CGI special effects strung together with minimal plot, I'll just play a video game. If I pay to see a movie I want an engaging story with decent acting and these days I just don't seem to get that from movies that star A-listers.
I quit going to the movies when the movie's agenda and politics of the "star" took over the entertainment value and story. I recently saw District 9 and was pleased that I didn't recognize a single "star" in the whole thing. I particularly liked it because of that.
I do want to see Julie/Julia though and might make an exception for that one after it comes out on dvd.
I agree, there's a few people whose names make a movie a must-see for the curious, but almost NONE of them are on the A-list.
Nathan Fillion I can comprehend, Bruce Campbell I agree with you on… but I would be remiss not to mention Sam Rockwell (especially since my wife wouldn't forgive me). His performance in Moon was Oscar-caliber — it's just too bad nobody saw it.
I care nothing about 99% of those people because A) they clearly look down of the vast majority of their audience with their laughable politics and repulsive personal lives and B) most of them can't even act.
The same for many Professional sports stars because too many are greedy, unsportsmanlike and hideous role models.
So many movies are just insulting. Especially the ones with "stars" attached.
I think the worst and most hyped was that "bromance" one- horrid horrid horrid!!!
I loved up- heart warming – real- had an under-current moral tale about real love of our fellow humans- and it was a cartoon!
Oh well- like Dennis Miller- I am a square and proud of it!
Great article
Agree with Vat69, in fact I have Netflix and have been watching "classics" mostly. Just the other day me and my wife watched the "Little Princess" with Shirley Temple. Now that is a movie I would gladly pay $10.00 for if they re-released it to a movie theater today.
Just a few months ago I watched a movie with Fred Astaire I never heard of but was reviewed on the website. It just amazes me how there are soooo many things in the movies of old that the PC crowd frowns on today. I think it would be great if we all re-visited some of these older movies if only to remember what pop culture was back in the day.
Some movies I recently watched and enjoyed:
The D.I. with Jack Webb
Little Princess with Shirley Temple
The Bucanneer with Yul Brenner
Now that you remind me, I haven't seen this playing near me, although I saw a lot of ads the past two weeks for this. I' d check out anything Mike Judge does (this is the same guy that did Office Space, right?)
I mean, could it just be that us "normal" folks have had enough of Hollyweirds "stars" and all the BS that is packaged with them.
I for one, am one of those guys, that just can't get past what these "elitists from nowhere" have to say in the real world, so when I see them on the big screen, I know whoever they're playing just isn't real.
What's real is what some stupid thing they said on TMZ or Hollywood Tonight the day before.
I believed it when Steve McQueen said that he could break out of Stalag 17!
There's the difference Hollyweird.
See you all at the "Old Actors Home" in 20 years, lost, forgotten and drunk again.
They’re ready for their close-up now Mr. DeVille.
Not over.
Blank DVDs ae about 25 cents each. I'm building up a decent library of commercial-free movies by checking out imdb for showings of good movies coming, then recording them. You need a subscription to HBO, Showtime, etc, for some of them, but it's no more than going to the movies twice a month for a couple, so it works out.
Mr. Roberts is one of my favorites.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by StellaChiara and StellaChiara. StellaChiara said: The end of the Hollywood star system means better art for us! http://tinyurl.com/l9rgzk [...]
What are movies?
I do not judge an artist based on their political beliefs…that is, until they judge me.
A bunch of spoiled anti-American twits. Maybe we can help them down a few pegs, don’t go to their crappy movies.
[...] more: John Podhoretz: Movie Stars Strut Towards Extinction This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Perhaps, I dropped Hollywood first and then sports second.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Were the movies bad causing the studios to double-down by throwing money at stars to try to fix them thus causing the stars to get full of themselves and pontificate about politics? Or did the stars get full of themselves because of enormous salaries and the power to dictate vanity projects and pontificate about politics and thereby cause the movies to get bad?
I like movies, too, but almost never go to the theaters anymore. (Barely even rent Hollywood releases. TCM is my new home.) I don't like Ben Stiller all that much, but my husband and I went to see the Night at the Museum sequel at the theater this summer just because we really, really wanted to see a film in a proper theater for a change. All of the trailers were for "whammy" movies, nothing but explosions and CGI. I swear that if you'd dozed off between trailers–but for the volume level, a likely prospect–you couldn't have told one trailer from the other.
Hollywood has been able to make a broken-down business model hobble along for longer than I would ever have imagined, so long that (cable) TV is now making a comeback and threatening the movies much as it did in the 1950s.
I don't know where the movies or the mainstream media are headed these days, but I like the trend. They're finally going to have to please their audiences rather than just themselves.
I like movies. I collected photos of my fave movie actors back in the day. But now? Well, I went to Twilight and had to leave within 30 minutes (poor CGI). However, I fell in love with the "Saga", and THEN I became aware of the young "Twi" actors, and THEN I find myself looking for the 'indy' movies made by these guys via DVD: Little Ashes; How to Be; Speak; Sweet Land; Adventureland. These are good movies, with really good actors, good stories, the whole satisfying movie experience, and I can pop my own popcorn too. So, I could relay to John P that actors like Jackson Rathbone (making "Girlfriend), Rob Pattinson (he MAY make Bel Ami), Dakota Fanning, Kristen Stewart… they can pull in a large enough audience to make a small movie a lot of money! And with DVDs and broadband access through the 'net, we don't have to live in NY or London to see these productions.
Rip, I went to see Extract just because it was Mike Judge. And Mike Judge is an interesting case because it took a while for the buzz to build for "Office Space" and "Idiotaucracy". But I too was disappointed.
I'm not the biggest fan of Sandra Bullock, and I think the previews for "Who Cares About Steve?" (great rechristening, by the way) made me actively determined not to see that movie. I mean, Sandra Bullock as the cute, quirky, kind of crazy-yet-somehow-lovable girl? I just don't see it in her, even if she wasn't getting a bit long in the tooth for that kind of role, which she is.
There are so many well written, well acted shows on TV I don't even go to the movies anymore. Netflix is great, so is watching a season of a show over a few days on DVD. My DVR will be full this fall as I try to watch as many dramas as possible. Top rate actors on NCIS, Medium, Bones, The Mentalist etc. that can match any 20 million dollar "star". It takes something SPECIAL to get me out for a movie now.
Exactly. Paul Newman was about as liberal as they come, but he never public criticized anyone for holding opposing views. I'd see him in just about anything, even if he quite literally came back from the dead as a brain eating zombie. But you couldn't pay me enough to see Sean Penn in anything.
William Holden broke out of Stalag 17. McQueen was in the Great Escape. And it's Mr. DeMille, not DeVille.
Most actors do some TV in the hopes of making it to the big screen. Sean Penn used to make movies, now he's on .. a soap opera? Not going to bother mentioning it.. lol.. It's not that I dislike all of these actors. But there are just so many, the Sarandons and the Sheens and the other foreign policy bone heads that I just can't stand! This non-star movie phenomenon is really nothing new.. you can watch all these actors get beat up, burned, fed to lions, you name it.. just watch Team America. F*** YEAH!
A bit off-topic, but considering that he owns a big piece of the action on 'The King of Queens,' a long running sitcom with a strong syndication play, isn't it a bit silly to describe Kevin James as 'out of work?' I would expect his personal net worth is measured in the tens of $miillions. Being fantastically wealthy and out of work are two different things.
I used to love Meryl Streep. Now I won't even check her movies out from the library.
I still love Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman. I would pay to see them. I think there are some fine movies out there yet to be made. Most I will be viewing from the comfort of my own couch while crunching away at my own Orville extra butter popcorn.
I watched Paul Blart a few weeks back. What an abomination. Too bad too because I like Kevin James.
My best announcer's voice: "Well, folks, it's time to close out this little show…"
(music cuts in)
'DING, DONG, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD! DING, DONG, THE WICKED OLD WITCH IS DEAD!!!"
(Rousing applause!)
Yes, TV series can be great. I have ALL of Foyles War; all of NCIS; Bones; and The Closer. Great entertainment, and no commercials.
The real demise of the 'star' system was when the public could discover what the movie was about before the film opened. In the past, you had to actually pay your money that first weekend, go in, sit down and watch it on screen before you could then realize if it was a pile of doodoo. By then, however, the movie had made back most of its costs and the star was smooching themselves on the butt that they were the reason.
But now we all know all about the film months before it opens. I swear, I practically 'saw' the whole 'Prisoner of Azkaban' before I walked into the theater that midnight. With the excerpts, snips, gossip on the net, etc., there was no way that the reality of this film could have been hidden. (And btw, it was an awesome film.) But the same thing goes for duds. Man, I know in advance if it's going to be a dud. And I don't know. Face it – the stars worked ONLY if the audience was ignorant as they walked in. That ignorance is gone – and so is the star system. Good riddance.
Marilyn Manson said it best, "We're all stars now, in the dope show…" We don't give a rip about stars because our own quests for celebrity, our narcissism, and our elitist attitudes are now complete. For better or worse we have come full circle to see through the facade that fame offered. In time, we may see the re-emergence of an appreciation for the work of artists, not just the buzz around them. Buzz is so two thousand and late.
INHO, the current crop of 'stars' are talent-free! Give me anything with Kathy Bates or John Lithgow any day of the week over Pitt, Jolie, Roberts, Cruise et al.
Gin & tonic on a balmy night on the left coast.
I stand corrected sir.
But, I think you get my drift.
Not Over.
Oh, I hear ya, and heartily approve of the g & t's, but you know how film fans are: it's like you misquoted the Bible!
That's because Cagney could play absolutely anybody and look like he was born to do it. =)
ENTER THE PIG!!!
Time for Bosch's PIGMAN to get a crack at a CGI flick.
I'd pay 10 bucks to see PigMan make a few weird-beards meet allah.
No: because sports still depends on actual talent. No amount of PR hype will make a .330 hitter.
Sorry – one more thing. In the past there were only two things you knew about a film – what kind of film it was (action, romance, swashbuckler, etc.) and the star who was in it. Because the audience was ignorant of how good or bad the film was, it only had two reasons to guide them in choosing which film to see. And half of the choice was based on the star. Ergo – with that kind of audience ignorance, a star could brag that they were half of the reason for someone wanting to see their film. Well – that ignorance is now gone. With the net, we no longer are in the dark about whether a film is good or not. And truly, that is the only REAL reason we choose to see a film. Face it – the 'star' system was never real – it was merely a result of ignorance – and the ignorance is gone. Good.
I don't think the star will ever really go away: people who appear in small films that break out sort of become stars in their own right, don't they? I'd actually argue that Hugh Jackman is definitely a movie star: a lot of women went to Wolverine couldn't have cared less about mutants or adamantium, they just wanted to see his bare butt. I think the whole film making model has changed with the economy. We haven't yet run out of the smaller, cheaper films the studios stockpiled several years ago in advance of the actors strike that didn't happen and the writer's strike that did. With the bad economy, even the super rich don't want to throw their money away the gamble that is the movies, but I bet when the economy turns around (oh please lord turn around) Chris Pine and Bradley Cooper will start making much heftier paychecks. I'd also posit that there isn't anyone in the current generation who even comes close to Roberts, Cruise, or Hanks in their prime in terms of pure star power. They've faded, but no-one has replaced them.
And ok–I gotta get this out: I enjoy this site, but good lord–how many times a week do people retype the same "I-never-go-to-the-movies-anymore-because-they-all-suck-nyah-nyah!" Yes, there's a lot of tripe out there, but I will never tire of the experience. Because I'm a dork who puts them in my datebook, I see I've been to two dozen movies in 2009. Were they all worth my money? No. But they were all over the spectrum, from blockbusters to indies to documentaries. I will never tire of the process–ticket, popcorn, seat, the little glow of anticipation as the lights go down, the shared laugh/gasp in a room with my fellow humans…nothing beats it. Is there the occasional texter or cranky toddler? Sometimes, but something must be working because it's not nearly as bad as it used to be (my all-time favorite was when the phone of the man next to us broke into the GIlligan's Island theme, and he got all the way to "The Mate was a mighty sailin' man…" before answering it!). I have a pretty spiffy home setup as well, but there's nothing like actually leaving the house to go to the flicks, and there's still good stuff to see.
We already have that. It's called pro football: almost totally a coach's game now.
The star system was a remnant of the old studio system, which promoted its stars as part of the studio's brand. The studio system collapsed 40-45 years ago, making the stars free agents. For a while, it was great for the younger actors. They could freely choose their projects, they could flex their artistic muscles, and they could craft the persona they wanted to present to the public. For a while, it worked.
But the star has been replaced by the celebrity and today's celebrities include socialites, bloggers, stylists, reality show contestants, people who rant away on YouTube, and anyone else who can get access to media. It's Andy Warhol's prediction come true and as a result, stardom's value is diminished.
In the past, the star thrived off of mystery. No one knew too much about anyone. Now we know too much about everybody: what they buy, what they eat, what they wear, where they hang out, what drugs they're doing, who they slept with last weekend, where they are on vacation, what hospital they were taken to, etc.. The most effective news organization outside of Fox is TMZ…Harvey Levin has more spies than the CIA. With the glut of media, the faces of the famous are all over the place all of the time.
And frankly, most movies these days stink. If they don't insult your morals, they insult your intelligence. I can see why many actors are bolting for television.
But worst of all, these actors have done everything they could to kill any goodwill with the public. Whether it's the fifth DUI or spouting off on Christians or dopey videos demanding we obey Obama, the public is sick of celebrity verbal diarrhea. The stars of the past worried about "their" public. Today's celebrities don't give their public a second thought. They just want to impress the cool people in their little scene.
I keep beating this dead horse I know: but have you noticed the stars generated by Twilight? I would say that Rob Pattinson is a star. That is, if you count his photo on a cover of a magazine (eg, GQ) means that that magazine sells more copies than any other on the market?? And if you count the mobs of fans and papparazzos that surround him whenever he goes out in public.
Of course there are 'stars', it's just that Tom Cruise and Matt Damon and Julia Roberts are getting OLD. So they are making 'serious' flicks that just are not interesting, and have NEVER BEEN interesting to movie-goers. Film producers have thought that they could depend on Cruise and co. They never noticed that money spinners ALWAYS have good stories. eg. Gone with the Wind. Lawrence of Arabia. Ben Hur.
Have you ever watched Avrech's "Within these Walls'? That is a really good story, made into a really good movie.
it isn't only the stars themselves, (although stating that republicans are repunant ala Julia Roberts isn't the smartest thing to say). A major factor is that the directors themselves are so snarky with their stupid repetitve jokes at the expense of conservative. I am sick to death of movies that tell me how repressive conservatives are and how uptight they are and how , well, fill in the less than flattering blank. Give me a great black and white film, or an English film and I will not only watch it but put it on the DVR. I have John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart et al on my DVR and if I want to see a newer film, I just wait for it to make it to HBO et al. Bad enough I pay for that service
If they are fading (and it is way to early to say that with any certainty – what is the cause of the demise? People getting fed up with the off screen antics – well, I would say no since stars have had off screen antics since – stars – or the salary structure?
I had read that the main reason Sumner Redstone dumped Tom Cruise from Paramount was his salary demands – on the last Mission Impossible he actually made more money than the studio.
When you have to pay a "star" $15-$20 million up front before the movie is even selling a ticket that is a big hit.
The movie moguls might well note the change in attitude of grassroots America toward the current political situation will extend to the movies being made.
In short, a little patriotism from Hollywood might well mean the difference in a movie showing a profit or a loss at the box office, a loss example being the tripe Micheal Moore continually excretes.
The situation involving "big stars" isn't all that complicated. They're movies just aren't very good or very entertaining. Who really wants to see another Julia Roberts production where she plays some self-absorbed twit? Do we really need another Denzel Washington film where he isd decent, brooding and misunderstood? Do we really need any more John Travolta or Will Ferrell picutres period? One of the reasons why "Paul Blart" was such a hit was that it was an updated Red Skelton film. It was gentle, funny and featured terriffic physical comedy (which Kevin James does better than anyone else.) "Taken" had a tough, non-nonsense narrative and a situation that everyone could understand – A father who would do anything to save his daughter. Try finding that in a Julia Roberts film. The whole point of the movie business is to entertain. When major stars forget that they become, happily it seems, irrelvant.
Bruce Campbell is more of a movie star than people who are considered movie stars. People watch movies because he's in them!
They don't exist, for me at least. There are actors or actresses I like, but the project is what matters. I loved Kristen Bell on Veronica Mars, but she hasn't made a movie I have wanted to watch and I wasn't impressed with her on Heroes.
Now, past stars like Bogart or Jimmy Stewart? Throw one of their movies on TCM that I haven't seen (if there is such a thing any more!) and I'll watch it without even checking what the movie's about beforehand.
Sorry, I repeat myself. I recently posted a comment "on thread day" about not being a fan of current films with current meaning anything past the fifties with a few exceptions. The reason, I believe is not the stories selected by the studio or producer nor for the most part do the directors influence my selections tho a couple may.
I can not get past the public utterances, away from the film industry, the actor/actresses or in the case of a few directors have made against our country. He or she could be having the performance of his or her life and the only thing going thru my mind is how stupid I am for being a conservative, according to the person on the screen or how our country sucks because Pres. Bush was in office. This is by no means a new revelation as
other folks have made the same point. I would like to think that that attitude has multiplied to the point that
movies in general are apparently not suffering but the star system or possibly lack of one surely is. As I interpret Mr. Podhoretz that may be a good thing. I would hate to think we are merely going thru a phase and soon all will
be as it was.
Before “Lars and The Real Girl” there was Suzie. Matthews plays the part of a delusional schizophrenic who develops a love for dolls then murder. Patsy Stirling who’s performance as the ever loving wife reflects her versatility with ever-changing roles at both comedy and drama. Suzie tells the story of adultery and murder, a love triangle which is more than just another love story. The subject matter includes sex, violence, bizarre and perverse plot points, and other taboo content. A dramatic film with a rawness which makes this film so powerful, a must see.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1128077/
http://bodilis.wordpress.com/
I'm not much for boycotting, but I will not see anything with Danny Glover in it. For one, he's a terrible actor and two he's a communist who badmouths the country and people who pay his inflated salary. I will watch Bruce Willis in about anything except Hudson Hawk.
Just a reminder that Courteney Cox (who had a role in the "I promise … " video that is making the rounds) has a new show coming out about Cougars. I don't have the words to describe how not interested I am.
There seem to be a few things at work here (IMHO):
1. the rise of films based on "properties" (Transformers, Harry Potter, etc.)
2. actors that are, shall we say, a little too outspoken
3. the "entertainment media complex" in which every star's move is seemingly recorded or photographed and played back for all to see
Re: outspoken actors, I know Mr. Nolte has written about this before. That an actor leans in another direction than you shouldn't matter but like anything else, what can be annoying is the manner in which said actor expresses those beliefs. Some are better than others; some have no manners or class at all. There might be a few actors who could be considered subversive but most probably don't know any better.
Re: the entertainment media, as handy as Twitter can be for customer service and news (the election in the Middle East for example), it might be the worst possible invention where actors are concerned. Does anyone consider Ashton Kutcher a movie star? Did they ever? When all he does is chat on Twitter and talk about Twitter on chat shows, then it's safe to say he's no movie star. And shame on the talk show hosts who ask questions like, "So who are you voting for?" in the first place.
I'm a movie fan. I went to film school. I saw two films in the theater this year – The Hangover and Star Trek – both of which were great. I simply can't justify spending 10 bucks /- on a movie I may or may not like. I confess I don't really go to see films for the actors – there are actors I like (the aforementioned Nathan Fillion for example) but I find myself more into character actors (who don't get enough credit on this site).
And it pleases me that Mr. Podhoretz acknowledged the wholesale changes that have occurred within the industry itself over the years. One thing is certain – most of the good stuff is on TV nowadays; the movies have a little catching up to do.
The movies are either insipid romantic comedies or preachy neo-marxist liberal tripe – or both. Watch any movie that's a decade old or newer, and if it doesn't contain a message about the misery and disfunctionality of traditional family life, it's at least got some anti-smoking propaganda in there somewhere. Not to mention the dozen or so films smeared with overt global warming nonsense. And that does even cover Michael Moore's ridiculous movies. And then we have remakes of acclaimed classics, like Manchurian Candidate, for only one example, where the original antagonist [Communists] are replaced with a contemporary liberal one [ A big mean global corporation]. And the 'Stars' – when they aren't trying to save some child rapist on death row, or visiting Chavez, they're spreading HPV and going to rehab. Here's a tip Hollywood: Try going back to telling stories, without injecting socialist ideology, using actors and directors who aren't up their own A$$ES.
I'm one of those who can't watch a performer any more after the "star" has made his/her political beliefs known. Similar to other commentators, I tire of my "peeps" (conservatives) always being the bad guys in the movie. There have always been liberals in Hollywood, but perhaps the temptation of spouting off at every available microphone was somehow better controlled (no Entertainment Tonight back then). The recent movies I've enjoyed ("Taken" and "Star Trek" to name a couple in 2009) have leading actors whose politics I konw nothing about. I kind of like it that way.
I don't think the star will ever really go away: people who appear in small films that break out sort of become stars in their own right, don't they? I'd actually argue that Hugh Jackman is definitely a movie star: a lot of women went to Wolverine couldn't have cared less about mutants or adamantium, they just wanted to see his bare butt. I think the whole film making model has changed with the economy. We haven't yet run out of the smaller, cheaper films the studios stockpiled several years ago in advance of the actors strike that didn't happen and the writer's strike that did. With the bad economy, even the super rich don't want to throw their money away the gamble that is the movies, but I bet when the economy turns around (oh please lord turn around) Chris Pine and Bradley Cooper will start making much heftier paychecks. I'd also posit that there isn't anyone in the current generation who even comes close to Roberts, Cruise, or Hanks in their prime in terms of pure star power. They've faded, but no-one has replaced them. (Although Pitt's movies still make money)
And ok–I gotta get this out: I enjoy this site, but good lord–how many times a week do people retype the same "I-never-go-to-the-movies-anymore-because-they-all-suck-nyah-nyah!" Yes, there's a lot of tripe out there, but I will never tire of the experience. Because I'm a dork who puts them in my datebook, I see I've been to two dozen movies in 2009. Were they all worth my money? No. But they were all over the spectrum, from blockbusters to indies to documentaries. I will never tire of the process–ticket, popcorn, seat, the little glow of anticipation as the lights go down, the shared laugh/gasp in a room with my fellow humans…nothing beats it. Is there the occasional texter or cranky toddler? Sometimes, but something must be working because it's not nearly as bad as it used to be (my all-time favorite was when the phone of the man next to us broke into the GIlligan's Island theme, and he got all the way to "The Mate was a mighty sailin' man…" before answering it!). I have a pretty spiffy home setup as well, but there's nothing like actually leaving the house to go to the flicks, and there's still good stuff to see.
Well put! The filmmaking model has changed over the years, as detailed in the article. But future stars will rise up to fill the vacuum; I can only hope they are a little more well-mannered when it comes to politics.
(I think he's much, much smarter than this but I fear the day Nathan Fillion says something untoward about a conservative politician; there will be a lot of pissed off Firefly fans around here! Again, I think he knows better and he seems classy enough not to say anything.)
And another thing that sort of confuses me is that people seem to "boycott" for two reasons which can be mutually exclusive:
a.) a movie features an actor they don't like (most likely for political reasons) or…
b.) a movie features a plot that is anathema to their politics (in which case someone might say "Well, I'm never giving my money to XYZ" again even though the actor's politics and the film's politics may have nothing in common… Clooney, Robbins, et al being the exceptions)… Jeff Bridges is co-starring in Clooney's Goats film but surely no one would suggest boycotting Bridges' films… his politics are unknown and some actors just need to work (see: Caine, Michael)
Even if it's a very cheesy movie. No, wait. Especially if it's a very cheesy movie.
Perhaps if most movies were well written, with good dialogue and a credible story line…..
I watched Algiers (Hedy Lamarr and Charles Boyer) – absolutely the best movie I've ever watched!
We get DVDs at the dollar stores for about $0.25 to $1.00 – or hit the Internet Archive, most of them are there (downloads can take up some time). It's rare for us to go to movies. I sometimes go with my kids, who are adults and enjoy Mom's low tastes (action-adventure).
I am, however, a sucker for any Die Hard! film – loved # 4.
Loved Batman Begins, but hate the sequel with the Heath Ledger Joker – the casting was awful.
My family and I have two criteria for watching any entertainment:
1) Does the movie glorify God, or at the very least not offend Him? Could we have the Pastor over with his family or watch the show/movie at Church?
2) Does the entertainment feature actors that support hideous liberal causes? Will our dollars be given to actors who will support causes detrimental to America?
This eliminates almost all entertainment for us. And I must say, we don't miss it. I can read a good book, play chess with my son or find what interests me on the 'Net. Sorry Sean Penn and George Clooney, you won't be seeing a dime from us. Ever.
No surprise to me that most "A" listers laid big eggs….
Most of them are over-exposed and overcompensated and just boring. I like a good story with an interesting premiss, I could care less about the actors, especially now that I have seen most of them behave so badly off the screen. That makes me even less interested to pay my hard earned money for the privilege of seeing them on the screen. Also most movies today lack any soul or really creative, or fun stories. Everyone seems to want more blood, violence and sex… I want people on the screen who try to do good work and who haven't become stale.
Our actors consider themselves"world people" and their anti-American outbursts are meant to endear them to foreign audiences.
Speaking of resources, the financial resources are playing a part in this movie downturn.
There's a man renovating an old opera house in my hometown, and ran a Mel Brooks film festival for three bucks a head. First movie house I've gone to in five years, and the decor was fantastic, not boxy.
Drive-ins are fun and inexpensive, too. I'm not going to shell out twenty dollars in tickets to see talentless people I hate. I'd rather shell out the three bucks at a drive-in where my cheap posse and I can openly hate the bean-headed actors in the privacy of my car.
How can you say that about johnny ?? This was a good movie,public enemy,but what hapens with this? he had to compite with big blockbusters like transformers or ice age3, a 3d movie, why nobody say that? WHY DONT YOU PUT BRAD PITT TO COMPITE WITH TRANSFORMERS OR 3D MOVIE? ,BECAUSE HE WILL LOSS. When brad did his premiere he had nothing in front, only silly movies,it is no fair! JOHNNY IS THE BEST,FACE IT!
Politics aside, I would pay to see Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood take out the trash.
Anyway, why is Julia Roberts considered pretty? Her mouth is the size of Rhode Island.
heathermc, I confess the chances of my joining the Twilight phenomenon are slim, but you're right–they have become huge stars, and by the 3rd film will be making some better bank as well. My vampires tend much more to the Charlaine Harris/Laurel Hamilton variety: repeat after me–VAMPIRES DO NOT SPARKLE! (…but they have TONS of sex!)
I won't go and see a movie because of a particular movie star, but you better believe I will stay away from a movie due to the radical beliefs of numerous "movie stars."
Steve, True but they sure are pi**ing off the home front.
Move theaters will soon be just meeting grounds for liberals. (can you use food stamps to get in?)
Well, I got disgusted years ago when all you saw was skin, sex, perversion, etc., it didn't matter what the movie or story-line was, these things made their way into the movie. I loved John Wayne and stars from his generation. They would sooner take a bullet then to ditz this great Country of ours. I have not for years understood why all movies had to cover in close detail sex. In the old days, everybody knew what heading for the bedroom meant, they didn't have to see it in detail. I would love to see the so-called 'stars' all go bankrupt, as bankrupt as their morals. Everyday it seems one of them come out with something they think is cute, such as Brad Pitt saying he didn't believe in God. I can never look at him the same again. These people are just poisoning their own wells.
I'm right there with you UnB. I miss going to movies and enjoying the story. I've become aware of what these actors stand for and against and they producers and/or writers inject their dogma into otherwise good projects and whammo… I'm done. I can't do it. I can't overlook the digs they put in a script for no reason. I can't enjoy a role played by a anti-american actor who dishes out contempt for the fly-over state populace at every stop when not acting.
So, I watch old movies and more and more foreign films. You can still find "story" movies that aren't loaded up with crap. And you know, it's sometimes nice to find the older movies that actually portray the US as noble and right.. that I do like. Waiting for a conservative or even just a pro-US production company that will make decent movies that celebrate what is right and good in our country and our citizens and maybe even shine the light on corruption in the lefty world for a change. I hope for that!
I agree 99%.
Bruce Willis has a new film coming out soon.
NCIS ! I defy the movies to come up with any *star* who has half the sex appeal…..(well, half the all-around appeal, too)…..of Mark Harmon. Even my high-school and college-aged daughters, who usually wince when I find an "old" guy (Liam Nisson, Sean Connery, e.g.) attractive admit he's "hot.!"
Not a bad actor either. I still remember the TV movie about Ted Bundy from years (decades?) ago. Harmon absolutely nailed that role.
As long as hollywierd is still making money then the actors and movies will continue getting made. Sorry, but I just don't see the death of either them or the newspapers. There are enough people who watch them and read them to keep them forever on life support. Doesn't mean that I participate with my money knowingly. When a major studio goes on the auction block or closes down, then I will be more positive change in the business is possible.
Good riddance. I am so sick of these people.
They did themselves in.
What I get from this is that people would see a movie if they find it appealing and not because of who stars in it.
People are barely realizing this?! This is the way I've been seeing movies my whole life! I see them based on whether or not it looks interesting to me, not because of who stars in them. You would think this would have been obvious by now.
Why go to the movies? It's nothing but leftist propaganda.
The only contemporary actor I can think of who can get me to a theater to part with my hard-earned dollars is Cate Blanchett – I'd watch her in anything.
Good! Maybe now they'll realize we want to be entertained, not preached to and insulted. I can't think of one "star" I'd pay to see, but I can't think of many I wouldn't pay to see. No Tom Cruise, no Sean Penn, no Julia Roberts, no Gwyneth…. Lord, the list goes on and on….
Bruce Campbell, Hail to the King baby!
He carries his BOOMSTICK in every role!
and in the cheese, he gets the leads.
Jerry Doyle (AKA Chief Garribaldi) is on the right and has his own syndicated talk show. For my area it's on at night, but I catch it when I can.
Sam Elliot could stand in front of a white wall reading the phone book in Swahili, and I'd watch him!
What about Clint Eastwood? I'll watch anything he makes. That's about it though.
I can't even pick him up any more in LA. They moved him to the High Desert Stations.
I'm afraid I have to disagree completely with the conclusions being drawn here. A + B doesn't always equal C. First, you have to figure in the effects of D and E.
D) New Talent: Every star has his or her starting film. The actors in Harry Potter are very young, and don't for a minute tell me they are going to vanish when the series is over. Look at Twilight, and where did "Edward" get his start? Oh yeah… riiiight….
E) Trends: The above topic makes it very clear that a lot of animated films were top dollar this year. That doesn't mean Hollywood stars need to start applying to McDonalds. It simply that means that Pixar (Disney) has a huge fan following, and Pixar made a lot of GOOD movies this year. That's all it means, and I'm very happy. Did I mention they were GOOD movies?
Oh sure, some stars are out of control with their salary demands. All that says is that they know they are still popular. Meh. Worst case senerio, the studios will offer less, and they'll start taking less – if it comes down to that. People in this economy do have less money to spend. For now.
When new stars rise, some old stars may fade. But what about Gran Turismo? It made it a LOT of money, and was more of a drama than an action. Fans were not disappointed. And they watched it because of Clint Eastwood.
Of course, I do hope more and more people begin watching online comedies and independent films. Personally, I love them just as much as big bugdet films. http://www.NormallyThisWeird.com
Again, that doesn't mean people don't love celebrities, or that any major psychological change has effected the mass population. Aliens have not invaded our brains and made us all decided that Will Smith isn't sexy or talented enough anymore. (I will, in fact, watch a movie simply because he is in it.)
Besides, it was not THAT long ago that Robert Pattison got hit by a taxi trying to escape a crazed mob of mostly female fans. (He wasn't hurt, but come on… not popular? They were terrifying the poor guy!)
At Dragon*Con in Sept, people lined up around the building and waited for hours to pay $200 to get a picture with Patrick Stewart. Yes, Wolverine is a "new star", but I got cuts and bruises all over my body trying to get a ticket to the X-men: Wolverine Premiere in Phoenix. He got a huge "break" acting beside Patrick Stewart, but his ability to stand on his own means he's talented. Not that people are tired of drooling over Captain Picard / Xavier.
You must be logged in to post a comment.