October
14Get Real, Leo!
It was inevitable: The disappointing opening of “Body of Lies” has triggered the argument once again that superstars are has-beens. I think they’re right – and wrong.
“Body of Lies” is a very expensive $100 million plus movie about terrorism. That stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe and was directed by Ridley Scott. Impressive credentials.
But the movie could easily lose north of $50 million. Far north.
Patrick Goldstein writes in today’s Los Angeles Times that the main reason for the movie’s failure stems from “star fatigue.” Big stars still get $20 million paydays, but they don’t open movies any more.
So is this the end of the superstar era? Not exactly. Look at the starpower that will be mobilized for Christmas releases this year: Will Smith, Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet and Adam Sandler.
The basic problem with superstars goes back to one basic problem: Actors today increasingly resist being brands. But that’s what they are – if they want to be successful, that is.
In Hollywood’s heyday, filmgoers liked to see Bogart movies. Or Jimmy Stewart movies. Or Cary Grant movies. Or Fred Astaire-and-Ginger Rogers movies. Those stars were brands. Audiences knew what to expect.
I used to spend one lunch each month in the company of Lew Wasserman, the founder of Universal, who liked to reminisce about his agenting days at MCA. Much of Lew’s time was devoted to getting stars off suspension. The studios wanted their stars to behave like brands; the stars resisted type-casting – even then. They wanted to “stretch.” Lew’s job was to persuade his clients to go back to work. The studios would let them escape on rare occasions to satisfy their egoes.
But the studios usually won and Wasserman wanted it that way. Today’s agents don’t have Lew’s clout.
So take Leonardo DiCaprio: No one knows what the “Leo brand” stands for. He even changes accents movie to movie. But if actors want to keep their fabulous paychecks, they’d better get over their identity crisis.
“Body of Lies” is a very expensive $100 million plus movie about terrorism. That stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe and was directed by Ridley Scott. Impressive credentials.But the movie could easily lose north of $50 million. Far north.
Patrick Goldstein writes in today’s Los Angeles Times that the main reason for the movie’s failure stems from “star fatigue.” Big stars still get $20 million paydays, but they don’t open movies any more.
So is this the end of the superstar era? Not exactly. Look at the starpower that will be mobilized for Christmas releases this year: Will Smith, Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet and Adam Sandler.
The basic problem with superstars goes back to one basic problem: Actors today increasingly resist being brands. But that’s what they are – if they want to be successful, that is.
In Hollywood’s heyday, filmgoers liked to see Bogart movies. Or Jimmy Stewart movies. Or Cary Grant movies. Or Fred Astaire-and-Ginger Rogers movies. Those stars were brands. Audiences knew what to expect.I used to spend one lunch each month in the company of Lew Wasserman, the founder of Universal, who liked to reminisce about his agenting days at MCA. Much of Lew’s time was devoted to getting stars off suspension. The studios wanted their stars to behave like brands; the stars resisted type-casting – even then. They wanted to “stretch.” Lew’s job was to persuade his clients to go back to work. The studios would let them escape on rare occasions to satisfy their egoes.
But the studios usually won and Wasserman wanted it that way. Today’s agents don’t have Lew’s clout.
So take Leonardo DiCaprio: No one knows what the “Leo brand” stands for. He even changes accents movie to movie. But if actors want to keep their fabulous paychecks, they’d better get over their identity crisis.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
I think this is a case where subject matter trumps talent. A movie about terrorism? Right now? Maybe if it were written by Seth MacFarlane.
Posted by: Todd | 10/17/2008 9:59:15 AM
Unlike Bart, I know what "Leo's brand" is = an actor that , regardless of movie genre or his role, I can count on providing me with a quality performance for my money bucks.
Posted by: Perceptions | 10/16/2008 8:26:51 AM
I completely disagree! Actors should be artist first and foremost. I think most MODERN DAY moviegoers appreciate actors who are willing to challenge themselves creatively. Daniel Day Lewis is a perfect example of an actor who accomplishes this quite skillfully. Personally, I can become bored with actors who play the same type of character over and over again in different movies. As for Dicaprio changing his accent in different films – I think that’s called ACTING in character.
Posted by: Mytwocents | 10/15/2008 1:56:02 PM
Good article. But stars must "stretch" for art sake and studios must resist for business sake.
Posted by: Mkaven | 10/15/2008 1:09:49 AM