For an actor what is more important to have a long lasting career: the ability to open a movie on name alone or appearing in lots of high profile movies that make tons of money, but not neccesarily because of your name?
Is it more important for someone to be able to open a movie on name alone or simply have high box office because they appear in high profile movies with other stars?
does my question make any sense?
I ask because in another thread we were discussing anne hathaway and her future as an actress and i realized, while she's had several big box office movies (The Princess Diaries, The Devil Wears Prada, Brokeback Mountain) none of them were movies that she could say were hits only because of her name----she wasn't really the driving force behind their success.
so does anyone have any insight?
Ron Carvalit, you are my hero!
OLTL For The Emmy in 2009!
Posts: 16705 | Location: Rhode Island, USA | Registered: July 28, 2002
Boidova I don't think there's an answer. I mean look at, say, Morgan Freeman or Samuel L. Jackson. Both are HUGE stars but you could honestly say that a movie bearing their name would be a hit just because.
Likewise, there's Will Smith, who's now on track to open his 8th straight 100 million dollar blockbuster. That success is probably strictly because his name equals bank.
Hollywood is filled with both kinds of actors and actresses.
I think that there is also a problem that women face uniquely, which is, namely, never be an ingenue.
Sure, it's okay to be a young actress who ages a bit onscreen (see e.g. Jessica Lange, Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, Sissy Spacek, etc.).
But once you start playing roles that trade SOLELY on your sexuality (see e.g. Halle Berry, Gwyneth Paltrow), as you age, it's going to be tougher and tougher for older audiences to buy you as an actress.
Many of the older actresses working today -- Kathy Bates, Streep, Anjelica Huston, Glenn Close, etc. -- were never women who traded solely on their looks at some point in their careers. Even Roberts, while being the erst-while "Pretty Woman" always had that comic charm and nonchalance to carry her into her older years.
Once, though, you're a young actress who is trading solely on being objectified or a sex object, you can't really be allowed to age in film.
Somewhere Eva Mendes is panicking.
That said, the rule isn't as harsh as it used to be. For instance, look at how hard it has been for Faye Dunaway to find work over the years (granted, part of that is due to her reputation as "difficult"), while her more "plain Jane" counterparts, such as Ellen Burstyn or Spacek rack up Oscar nods well into their 60s.
Of course, Julie Christie would be the exception to this rule.
Faye Dunaway would get more work is she wasn't so difficult and after Mommie Dearest her career never really recovered.
She had a great fun between 1967 and 1981. That is a long time for any actress to be on top.
She has had many development deals and had a huge pay or play for her TV Series that lasted one season in the early 90's.
She is still considered a legend and has a career anyone would be proud of.
She was a true leading lady and comparing her to Kathy Bates or Ellen Burstyn isn't fair, they both didn't peak till their late 30's and early 40's.
Spacek is a character lead as an actress and doesn't choose wisely for roles or maybe she takes the parts she is offered?
What is most important to the actor is up to the individual.
There is a big difference between an all out Movie Star and an Actor.
Movie Stars want the red carpet, fans, big pay days, and all that comes with it.
Actors want to act no matter if the part is big or small regardless of the pay. It is the story that matters to them.
The luckiest actors are the ones who can work in all 3 mediums TV, Film, and Stage and do it continually like Laura Linney, Glenn Close, France McDormand, Holly Hunter, Susan Sarandon, Angelica Huston, Tess Harper, Gena Rowlands, Ruby Dee, Thora Birch, Sigorney Weaver, Patricia and Roseanna Arquette, Courtney Cox, Julianne Moore, Anne Heche, and the list goes on.
Anyone with good representation will follow this formula if they want to work continually. The Meryl Streep's, Katherine Hepburn, Julie Christies are few and far between.
"How Far Will You Go" Coming to a TV near you in 2009...
Posts: 510 | Location: Portland, OR | Registered: December 13, 2004
Originally posted by EmmyNominee: Faye Dunaway would get more work is she wasn't so difficult and after Mommie Dearest her career never really recovered.
She had a great fun between 1967 and 1981. That is a long time for any actress to be on top.
She has had many development deals and had a huge pay or play for her TV Series that lasted one season in the early 90's.
She is still considered a legend and has a career anyone would be proud of.
She was a true leading lady and comparing her to Kathy Bates or Ellen Burstyn isn't fair, they both didn't peak till their late 30's and early 40's.
Spacek is a character lead as an actress and doesn't choose wisely for roles or maybe she takes the parts she is offered?
What is most important to the actor is up to the individual.
There is a big difference between an all out Movie Star and an Actor.
Movie Stars want the red carpet, fans, big pay days, and all that comes with it.
Actors want to act no matter if the part is big or small regardless of the pay. It is the story that matters to them.
The luckiest actors are the ones who can work in all 3 mediums TV, Film, and Stage and do it continually like Laura Linney, Glenn Close, France McDormand, Holly Hunter, Susan Sarandon, Angelica Huston, Tess Harper, Gena Rowlands, Ruby Dee, Thora Birch, Sigorney Weaver, Patricia and Roseanna Arquette, Courtney Cox, Julianne Moore, Anne Heche, and the list goes on.
Anyone with good representation will follow this formula if they want to work continually. The Meryl Streep's, Katherine Hepburn, Julie Christies are few and far between.
Excellent points. I also think that the bad plastic face lifts and what not didn't do much to help the difficult Dunaway either.
As for the topic, I think I'd rather have a career like Laura Linney's where she's able to do balance the low budget and big budget work, but still keep a relatively low profile when she's not working since if you become a movie star there's a trade off on how much privacy people think you're entitled to receive even if you don't seek publicity like some movie stars do. Although, with all the gossip sites not to mention the many tabloids devoted to celebrity news besides National Enquirer and [i}Star[/i] like in ancient times, now it seems like being too much of a famewhore can kill someone's career eventually because everyone gets tired of seeing that person or couple everywhere (Tom Cruise, J. Lo). That's not the only reason, but I'm sure the bad will that they create with the constant need for attention certainly doesn't help people's opinions of them when the burning out point is finally reached. Of course, some movie stars seem resistant to this (ie., Brangelina), but maybe they're not seen as courting the attention as the Bennifer and the TomKat was.-*
(* Just for the record I hate cutesy mash-up names, but it's a lot easier to type so laziness wins out.)
Faye Dunaway is clare a Meg Ryan case, her face work is terrible and now, she looks like a monster.
I think that her lost of work, its more for a serie of bad choices than for her bad character( Tommy lee Jones is another older actor with a bad character and he is still working regulary).
And yes, People like my beloved Julie Christie or the same Helen Mirren would be the execptions. They still get some good projects in movies and supporting roles in blockbusters
" life if what happens to you when you are busy making other plans"
Originally posted by Boidiva02: For an actor what is more important to have a long lasting career: the ability to open a movie on name alone or appearing in lots of high profile movies that make tons of money, but not neccesarily because of your name?
Neither option is necessarily more important than the other. Just don't forget that the first option is not a guarantee for continued success. Elliot Gould was a big star in the 70s, you know.
Simply put, keep working. And it helps to have a long-term working relationship with a director. Or better yet, several directors.
And if you want to break through, be in the right place at the right time. Never underestimate the power of luck.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: stevie,
Also keep this in mind. Some actors WANT to be movie stars and others don't. Being a star comes with the press and lack of privacy, but it also comes with a much much bigger paycheck and the luxury of not working as often.
Julia Roberts can afford to do like one movie a year at most. Tom Hanks, Will Smith too.
People like Laura Linney, Toni Collette, Phillip Seymour Hoffman are working on stage or screen ALL the time.
Faye Dunaway is a legend but she really needs something to soldify a successful end of her career she needs a role that can push her back into the spotlight. She was in many classic films, but to have her most recent work being acting judge on a reality show is a terrible thing.
The Hottest Duo on TV! [img]http://www.foto-fanatics.com/products/8754.jpg[/img]
Posts: 2344 | Location: New York/Long Island at College | Registered: August 17, 2001
Originally posted by movieman6: Faye Dunaway is a legend but she really needs something to soldify a successful end of her career she needs a role that can push her back into the spotlight. She was in many classic films, but to have her most recent work being acting judge on a reality show is a terrible thing.
Faye Dunaway was in, at best, three classic films ('Bonnie and Clyde', 'Chinatown', and 'Network'), a few medium successes ('Barfly,' 'The Eyes of Laura Mars'), and a whole raft of stinkers ('The Towering Inferno,' 'The Vogage of the Damned,' 'Mommie Dearest,' 'Supergirl,' nearly everything not on TV since 1988).
This has been a very, very erratic career in terms of output.
The answwer to this question used to be talent. Today the answer is money. Box office money. Now if you have both ala Johnny Depp or Will Smith you are a superstar.
FYC
Neil Patrick Harris Best Supporting Actor in a comedy series.
Originally posted by Tome6: The answwer to this question used to be talent. Today the answer is money. Box office money. Now if you have both ala Johnny Depp or Will Smith you are a superstar.
If talent were totally neglible, Steven Seagal would still have a booming career.
