Are Stars Going Nova? Part III

Printer-friendly versionSend by email

"...stars are essentially worthless - and absolutely essential."

- William Goldman

In the past, and on more than one occasion, I've discussed the changing nature of the entertainment business, and the potential collapse of the star system, or at least the complete upheaval of stars as we see them today. The end of stars as an idea is not terribly new, but the changing nature of film as a medium, society as a whole and our relationship with media in general give greater credence to (and new angles on) old arguments. Now that we're fully committed to a lack-luster summer at the B.O. the Hollywood PTB (Powers-That-Be) are genuinely open to exploring new business-models and market trends.

Hollywood feeds on trends, relies on them to provide a sense (however false) of stability within inherently shaky terrain. Studios and dreamers crowd the trough of public fads devouring every scrap within its walls no matter how (un-)palatable, often leaving choice morsels at their feet, until it has been repeatedly, verifiably licked clean. Then, en-masse, they desperately look up from their feeding in the hopes of being the first to find the next trough and gain choice placement within the next frenzy. When this is coupled with our tendency as human beings to get bored when denied choice or variety we witness the semi-cyclical nature of Hollywood films through the patriotic glamour of the 40s & 50s, the personal independence of the 60s & 70s, the optimistic spectacle of the 80s, the irreverent spectacle of the 90s and the cynical shock-and-awe after the turn of the millenium. But throughout these rolling seas of independent & tent-pole dominance, savvy producers could right their ships by charting the stars.

But the stars are falling.

After the dismal open of Knight and Day, Fox executives quickly stepped out to defend one of their most-prized investments: Tom Cruise. As reported in the LA Times, Tony Sella, co-president of marketing at Fox said, "Blame me, don't blame Tom Cruise... Tom Cruise was not the issue. I take full responsibility." Now, I don't point this out to say he's wrong (he isn't). I'm pointing out that a Fox executive is trying to protect the perceived value of the star. The star is the last best line of defense for an executive after a flop. When opening weekend is bad after the tracking numbers are dismal, development and production can still say "We gave'em Tom Cruise! AND Cameron Diaz! With guns and boats!" and marketing can say "We showed'em Cruise and Diaz, with guns and boats! And we did it with a classy, neo-retro one-sheet!" But now, rather than using the star as a defense from failure, an executive is taking blame in defense of the star - or at least publicly.

Personally, I don't think the marketing problem for Knight & Day was necessarily Cruise or Diaz, or the movie itself. I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard the movie, marketed straight, would have held its own. The problem with the marketing was how they portrayed the film. The trailers said "TOM CRUISE IN: Mission Impossible IV (but not really) and with Cameron Diaz!" - and nobody wants to see that (unless, maybe, it actually IS MI:IV, but it has to be good). I wasn't even super excited for MI:II, and then it was terrible which may have killed the property. But I hear that Knight & Day was supposed to be openly making fun of that MI: TOM CRUISE persona (not MacGruber, but tongue firmly in cheek). THAT could have worked, but only if they'd advertised the movie by openly making fun of itself. Unfortunately, that would have rested on the admission that Tom Cruise is no longer a STAR.

The list of genuine movie stars is getting shorter and shorter with nobody new coming in to replace the fast fading set. Executives are scrambling to find a new meta. Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner aren't true stars, the stars are the chick, the vampire and the wolf. After Twilight ends, what do you cast them in? Who is Daniel Radcliffe after Harry Potter? What happened to Legolas - er, Orlando Bloom? The first LOTR was less than ten years ago. When the fad fades, so do the stars, because we were only in love with those characters.

The music industry abandoned true stardom almost a decade ago when independent artists bucked the major labels for the likes of MySpace and producers turned to game shows for their new singers. The widespread adoption and acceptance of Autotune software finally removed any talent requirements in achieving music-fame or receiving an album contract. This change concentrated the pop-music market, widening the door to plastic "artists" like Lady Gaga - one of the only stars (sad as it is) to maintain any sense of mystique in music today.

Stars only exist in mystery. They are a brand, a bargain with the audience. Stars are everyone and no one, they are fill-in-the-blanks caricatures of fantasy that only really exist in our dreams and on the screen. For some little girls, dreamy Tom Cruise is a hunky NRA member and for others he's a gentle vegan. But none of these girls likes a couch-jumping midget. Does Katie Holmes look happy? Tom Cruise stopped being a star when he became a person, a human being with beliefs and desires and flaws. Because despite all of our clamoring for access, we don't actually want to know who they really are. The more stars feed into their own belief that their fans want to know them, the more will fall from the sky into niche celebrity. Ashton Kutcher could have been a real star, but he tweets about his farts. Game over. He could still be an actor, he can be a celebrity, but stardom is done.

Collective society is becoming savvy or jaded enough to no longer believe in stars. We realize the flashing lights and makeup and the screaming fans only amount to so much sound and fury. They have no secret wisdom, no actual magic and ultimately their job is to reflect light properly.

And then there's Will Smith.What's his public image? What's he like? He's nice. He smiles, a lot. Almost always. Except when something serious is happening. He's funny, and hip (boom goes the dynamite). He's married. And his wife is lovely. Does he give to charity? I'm sure he does. Which ones? I don't know. What are his politics? I would guess he's a Democrat, probably liberal. But I don't really know. I know he endorsed Obama, but c'mon. Religion? Uh... I haven't the foggiest. I mean, I could guess he's a Scientologist... or a Christian... I don't know, he might be Muslim, or Buddhist... I really like him though. He's a good man. He's good to his family and those around him.

That's a star.