I love films. Yes, films. (not "movies" -- sorry to all you across the pond, but I hate that Americanism). Of course, what's a film without a captivating performance by a talented actor? Without that, a film will surely die.
On IMDB, I came across this top 25 list of film stars for 2004:
http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2005/starmeter
It got me thinking about what exactly is a "film star" compared to a fine actor. Are the two synonymous? Of course not -- only one look at the top 25 list will prove that (Vin Diesel? Lyndsey Lohan? F**k off!). So how is a star different from an actor?
I'm not sure what constitutes a 'star' over a simple actor, but for the record I think that there are very few film stars anymore. In fact, I can think of few contemporary stars at all. When I think of film stars I think of classic actors such as James Stuart or Audrey Hepburn -- people who not only epitomied the qualities of a fine actor but also lived their private lives with grace and humility. People who had the good grace to be humble for the priveleged career they had enjoyed and who didn't go around being the big "I am". Of course, that's not a 'star' quality -- that's just decent. I think a star has something extra, that indefinable 'X' factor: charm, charisma, whatever you want to call it; not arrogant or overbearing, but simply just there.
Today, I enjoy the performances of some fine contemporary actors: Johnny Depp, Tim Robbins, Jack Nicholson, Juliet Binoche, Al Pacino, Kevin Spacey, Sigourney Weaver to name but a few. But I'd be hard pressed to consider any of them a star. I admire Johnny Depp a lot, simply because he is the most versatile and convincing screen actor we've seen in a long time; but I don't think he has 'star' quality.
I'm curious to hear what others think...
What defines a film star?
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
I have always associated stardom with Hollywood hype and popularity - the vain, illusive, and absolutely worthless value that people put on actors. I would consider a star to be someone with great talent, recognition, and publicity, as well as current films that do well in the box office.
Sadly, such people as Lyndsey Lohan are consided "stars" because so many people think highly of them at the moment - only for their looks or recent media attention, not because of real skill.
Sadly, such people as Lyndsey Lohan are consided "stars" because so many people think highly of them at the moment - only for their looks or recent media attention, not because of real skill.
A film star is someone who achieves a certain level of success playing major roles in movies. Period.
Of course, we can go on and on about how actors and actresses in the good old days were better than they are now, but I think that's bogus. Yes, the shining stars from earlier decades are better than the average-level Hollywood hunk-of-the-week. Look at what we're comparing - the best of an era against the medium of an era. The modern best can hold up against the previous best. Granted, the style of acting has changed with the decades, so it may not be a fair comparison. Acting nowadays is more in the face, less in the body; more about realism and less about expressionism; more subtle and less explosive. It's a completely different idea of how an actor portrays emotion on the camera. Even the manner of speaking has changed greatly. I won't say that either way is better, as each has its own strengths, but you cannot say that acting itself has not changed. The audience has different expectations and different ideas about what reality-on-film is.
To me, a good actor is someone who manages to play a variety of roles convincingly, so that you forget you're looking at Johnny Depp and instead believe you're seeing a different person and are drawn into that person's world. I have several favorite actors. I think Haley Joel Osment is one of the most talented actors I've ever seen, and he has had that talent since he was a very, very young child (and it's almost impossible to find a young child who can actually act convincingly with a simple part, let alone some of the emotionally complex or difficult roles he played while under the age of 10). Nicole Kidman has dignity and talent. Meryl Streep does too. I like Angelina Jolie, but that's partly because I think she's insane in a good way. There's a woman with conviction.
When we talk about previous film stars being better people than current ones - thank the modern media for that, okay? Put blame where it's deserved. Sure, there are many immoral celebrities in Hollywood today. I won't deny that. But the media digs up dirt on everyone, even the relatively clean stars, and we as a society eat it up. In the past, the media respected privacy. Now, we all know who was seen making out with whom, who was caught in a criminal activity, and who said what about whom. People make their living reporting details about celebrities. It's disgusting, yeah, but that's how things go. I do actually feel sorry for the actors who have to deal with all the papparazzi, and I can't say I blame them for forcefully taking the cameras away from the "photo stalkers" (though I don't think it's a good idea to beat the papparazzi up, either).
Did you know that some of the very first moving pictures were essentially peep shows? I found that very interesting - it says something about people. We come up with a new medium and we use it for pornography.
And I think the term "movie" is great. Movies are, in fact, "moving pictures." Film is the stuff that runs through cameras and projectors. I care more about the pictures that move than the plasticky spools that carry the pictures.
Of course, we can go on and on about how actors and actresses in the good old days were better than they are now, but I think that's bogus. Yes, the shining stars from earlier decades are better than the average-level Hollywood hunk-of-the-week. Look at what we're comparing - the best of an era against the medium of an era. The modern best can hold up against the previous best. Granted, the style of acting has changed with the decades, so it may not be a fair comparison. Acting nowadays is more in the face, less in the body; more about realism and less about expressionism; more subtle and less explosive. It's a completely different idea of how an actor portrays emotion on the camera. Even the manner of speaking has changed greatly. I won't say that either way is better, as each has its own strengths, but you cannot say that acting itself has not changed. The audience has different expectations and different ideas about what reality-on-film is.
To me, a good actor is someone who manages to play a variety of roles convincingly, so that you forget you're looking at Johnny Depp and instead believe you're seeing a different person and are drawn into that person's world. I have several favorite actors. I think Haley Joel Osment is one of the most talented actors I've ever seen, and he has had that talent since he was a very, very young child (and it's almost impossible to find a young child who can actually act convincingly with a simple part, let alone some of the emotionally complex or difficult roles he played while under the age of 10). Nicole Kidman has dignity and talent. Meryl Streep does too. I like Angelina Jolie, but that's partly because I think she's insane in a good way. There's a woman with conviction.
When we talk about previous film stars being better people than current ones - thank the modern media for that, okay? Put blame where it's deserved. Sure, there are many immoral celebrities in Hollywood today. I won't deny that. But the media digs up dirt on everyone, even the relatively clean stars, and we as a society eat it up. In the past, the media respected privacy. Now, we all know who was seen making out with whom, who was caught in a criminal activity, and who said what about whom. People make their living reporting details about celebrities. It's disgusting, yeah, but that's how things go. I do actually feel sorry for the actors who have to deal with all the papparazzi, and I can't say I blame them for forcefully taking the cameras away from the "photo stalkers" (though I don't think it's a good idea to beat the papparazzi up, either).
Did you know that some of the very first moving pictures were essentially peep shows? I found that very interesting - it says something about people. We come up with a new medium and we use it for pornography.
And I think the term "movie" is great. Movies are, in fact, "moving pictures." Film is the stuff that runs through cameras and projectors. I care more about the pictures that move than the plasticky spools that carry the pictures.
-
Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13715
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
You make an some interesting points there Selie, and I agree completely with your appraisal of Johnny Depp, Kidman and Streep. I can't quite see it in Jolie though -- it maybe something to do with the fact that she appears to have been hit in the mouth with a shovel. That's always got in the way of her performances; all I see is 'mouth, mouth, mouth'....
I think you misundersood me if you think I said the golden age actors were better people than those of today. It's probably still equal in so far as the numbers go. Maybe it's just down to the media reporting more rubbish now than they used to, and getting the dirt on everyone. I can't abide the idea 'celebrity' and that what celebrities do in their private lives is somehow worth my time.
I find that there are two words that I think apply to old school film stars that I could hardly use about any modern stars: Poise and Elegance -- rare qualities in actors these days.
You may not be aware that "Film" and "Movie" are in fact synonymous: check any good dictionary. I prefer 'film', so we'll have to disagree on that one!
I think you misundersood me if you think I said the golden age actors were better people than those of today. It's probably still equal in so far as the numbers go. Maybe it's just down to the media reporting more rubbish now than they used to, and getting the dirt on everyone. I can't abide the idea 'celebrity' and that what celebrities do in their private lives is somehow worth my time.
I find that there are two words that I think apply to old school film stars that I could hardly use about any modern stars: Poise and Elegance -- rare qualities in actors these days.
You may not be aware that "Film" and "Movie" are in fact synonymous: check any good dictionary. I prefer 'film', so we'll have to disagree on that one!
Oh, I know perfectly well that they're synonymous, I'm just saying that I think "movie" is a respectable word and I don't see what the problem is. I took a film class last semester and my professor used "film" for what we studied in that class, because it sounds more formal and less slangy. I can understand that, but I don't see anything wrong with "movie." Unlike "film," it has no secondary meaning. They're both fine and I use them both. If you're talking about art films rather than the average Hollywood movie, I can understand the distinction, but if we're talking about moving pictures in general, they're interchangeable. Movies aren't like comic books; they're respected as an actual art form, so we don't need to play around with intellectual-sounding terms like "sequential art" to be taken seriously when talking about them.
Don't get me started on the comic book rant... (heheh)
Really, I just grow tired of British people complaining about Americanisms, how Americans botch the language, etc. I'm a literature major and I read grammar books for fun. I feel that my command of the English language is just swell. It's my opinion that the stupid English kids online sound even more idiotic (yes, it's possible, tragically) than the stupid American kids online. Can't we just agree that both our countries have a large number of stupid people and a reasonable number of smart people, and go back to making fun of the Australians? They're unquestionably cooler than the rest of us, so it's only fair.
So yeah, I guess that's just a sore subject for me. Back on the ACTUAL topic of discussion, I mentioned Jolie because you were talking about actors and actresses having humility and conviction and such. Jolie is a firm advocate of children's rights, and I respect the hell out of her because of what she tries to do for that. She uses the fact that she has clout (as a celebrity) to try to make things better, if only a little. Yes, she's absolutely insane and really, really weird - and yes, she looks kind of odd, but she was perfect as Lara Croft (I love the Tomb Raider movies. they're fun, people. they're not supposed to be deep, any more than Bond is) - but she tries to make the most of fame in a positive way.
And thus ends my long tangent... sorry. I probably have something more on topic but uh ... I forgot because I walked away from my computer after writing out most of this post.
Don't get me started on the comic book rant... (heheh)
Really, I just grow tired of British people complaining about Americanisms, how Americans botch the language, etc. I'm a literature major and I read grammar books for fun. I feel that my command of the English language is just swell. It's my opinion that the stupid English kids online sound even more idiotic (yes, it's possible, tragically) than the stupid American kids online. Can't we just agree that both our countries have a large number of stupid people and a reasonable number of smart people, and go back to making fun of the Australians? They're unquestionably cooler than the rest of us, so it's only fair.
So yeah, I guess that's just a sore subject for me. Back on the ACTUAL topic of discussion, I mentioned Jolie because you were talking about actors and actresses having humility and conviction and such. Jolie is a firm advocate of children's rights, and I respect the hell out of her because of what she tries to do for that. She uses the fact that she has clout (as a celebrity) to try to make things better, if only a little. Yes, she's absolutely insane and really, really weird - and yes, she looks kind of odd, but she was perfect as Lara Croft (I love the Tomb Raider movies. they're fun, people. they're not supposed to be deep, any more than Bond is) - but she tries to make the most of fame in a positive way.
And thus ends my long tangent... sorry. I probably have something more on topic but uh ... I forgot because I walked away from my computer after writing out most of this post.
-
Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13715
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
What a fantastic use of sarcasm!I feel that my command of the English language is just swell.
We're getting bogged down in pedantic semantics. I simply don't like the word "movie", whether it's an Americanism or not. I probably sounded more offended with that comment than I meant to.
You're right about kids online sounding stupid, but I doubt there's any difference between the English and US kids -- it all sounds rubbish to me. As for Australians being the coolest though -- huh?
Thanks for some interesting points though; I often throw little subjects out there for people to ponder and they don't always generate responses, but yours gave me something to think about.
-
cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
ok.. I avoided the topic but no longer.. I've the free time to sit and post away
Movie stars of old are in fact in general more skilled that todays stars. There are a number of individuals who have acheived stardom completely upon looks or successfull enactment of a stereo type. Much like the popular kids at school. It's much more attituded or a good impression that will make them popular than hours of study and practice at the actual art of entertaining and acting.
The term Triple threat came about at the time that being an actor of film and stage was a rigorus and difficult thing to do. You had to act sing and dance to do get a lot of work.. and in many cases all 3 would be used in even a single movie. This meant training and skill were a requirement for employment in the feild. Now if you have the right look.. it can be handed to you on a silver platter.
I think that this is what bothers me most about many of todays "stars". I just feel like they have not had to work for the gargantuan amount of money they make. The idea that someone just upon the good grace of nice genes could make more than a person who has fought and scraped and saved and worked their asses to the bone, well that's just kind of upsetting. I think a person should have to *EARN* their keep.
Depp was mentioned.. he indeed is someone I think is worthy however, I think the problem for him is he has to fight his "good genes". I think much of his popularity with many is first established on looks then on his raw talent. Which is a shame..
Annother actor I think is fabulous is Gary Oldman. He is like vapour and fog.. a stage chameleon. He steps on stage and you don't think of him.. you think of his character. I saw 4 movies with him in it before I even realised he was in any of them. I only just recently saw him in an interview to discover just how incredibly mild mannered he is. How much he changes his inflections, his tone of voice, and mannerisms to portray these characters. He seems drawn to the villan role.. or the missunderstood and plays them quite well. However, he gets less recognition than many (IMHO) lesser stars. So it's an example of how skilled people can get the shaft really..
I will say you are right that the media should be in part to blame for the $#!T that makes it to the movie screen however, I think it's a lot less about the dirt and more about marketing than anything else. Personally I couldn't give a rats ass about who is sleeping with who and when and why.. I try to ignore much of it. I also think that the dirt dragged up on someone if anything makes them more popular rather than less. Ask Lewinski.. her entire current career is based around people pulling up dirt on her. As horrible an experience it may have been it's probably also been one of the most beneficial to her popularity and to her bank book as well.
This brings me to annother point. The one thing that all that money can't give them.. is privacy. It's one of the biggest payments they have to make.. their own privacy is shot out the window in exchange for a few million a movie. One of the reasons I've never sought popularity. I've always liked to make music and wanted to work in moveis however, I've found it more contenting to have people apreciate the work and not focus on me. I was in a band that when they started working towards hitting it big.. I left.. I was accepted into a modeling agency and then thought second of it and left it. All because I know that if I were to become popular.. I would lose my personal life.. I would never be able to go anywhere without people staring at me or trying to get photos of me.. or asking for me to sign their jacket or a slip of paper just so it can be worth about 500 bucks more than it should be. BAH! forget it!! Good thing I left too.. 'cause now I'm balding and getting rounder from hours at the computer
anyway... as for FILM and MOVIES.. well the first movies with sound were called "talkies" but that never caught on.. so much for cute names.. Slang is slang and really either you apreciate it or not. Personally, there are some popular slang I could do without hearing.. but that's a different topic entirely..
moo
Movie stars of old are in fact in general more skilled that todays stars. There are a number of individuals who have acheived stardom completely upon looks or successfull enactment of a stereo type. Much like the popular kids at school. It's much more attituded or a good impression that will make them popular than hours of study and practice at the actual art of entertaining and acting.
The term Triple threat came about at the time that being an actor of film and stage was a rigorus and difficult thing to do. You had to act sing and dance to do get a lot of work.. and in many cases all 3 would be used in even a single movie. This meant training and skill were a requirement for employment in the feild. Now if you have the right look.. it can be handed to you on a silver platter.
I think that this is what bothers me most about many of todays "stars". I just feel like they have not had to work for the gargantuan amount of money they make. The idea that someone just upon the good grace of nice genes could make more than a person who has fought and scraped and saved and worked their asses to the bone, well that's just kind of upsetting. I think a person should have to *EARN* their keep.
Depp was mentioned.. he indeed is someone I think is worthy however, I think the problem for him is he has to fight his "good genes". I think much of his popularity with many is first established on looks then on his raw talent. Which is a shame..
Annother actor I think is fabulous is Gary Oldman. He is like vapour and fog.. a stage chameleon. He steps on stage and you don't think of him.. you think of his character. I saw 4 movies with him in it before I even realised he was in any of them. I only just recently saw him in an interview to discover just how incredibly mild mannered he is. How much he changes his inflections, his tone of voice, and mannerisms to portray these characters. He seems drawn to the villan role.. or the missunderstood and plays them quite well. However, he gets less recognition than many (IMHO) lesser stars. So it's an example of how skilled people can get the shaft really..
I will say you are right that the media should be in part to blame for the $#!T that makes it to the movie screen however, I think it's a lot less about the dirt and more about marketing than anything else. Personally I couldn't give a rats ass about who is sleeping with who and when and why.. I try to ignore much of it. I also think that the dirt dragged up on someone if anything makes them more popular rather than less. Ask Lewinski.. her entire current career is based around people pulling up dirt on her. As horrible an experience it may have been it's probably also been one of the most beneficial to her popularity and to her bank book as well.
This brings me to annother point. The one thing that all that money can't give them.. is privacy. It's one of the biggest payments they have to make.. their own privacy is shot out the window in exchange for a few million a movie. One of the reasons I've never sought popularity. I've always liked to make music and wanted to work in moveis however, I've found it more contenting to have people apreciate the work and not focus on me. I was in a band that when they started working towards hitting it big.. I left.. I was accepted into a modeling agency and then thought second of it and left it. All because I know that if I were to become popular.. I would lose my personal life.. I would never be able to go anywhere without people staring at me or trying to get photos of me.. or asking for me to sign their jacket or a slip of paper just so it can be worth about 500 bucks more than it should be. BAH! forget it!! Good thing I left too.. 'cause now I'm balding and getting rounder from hours at the computer
anyway... as for FILM and MOVIES.. well the first movies with sound were called "talkies" but that never caught on.. so much for cute names..
Slang is slang and really either you apreciate it or not. Personally, there are some popular slang I could do without hearing.. but that's a different topic entirely.. moo
-
Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13715
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
Thanks for bringing up Oldman -- I had forgotten about him! And that's probably the best praise I could give an actor; he plays each of his characters so convincingly and without any trace of typecasting -- so much so, that as you pointed out, you forget the actor and concentrate on the character. Oh, and Lewiknski has a film career? That's news to me!
I have a problem with "actors" who are nothing more than pretty faces. I have even more of a problem with Julia Roberts, because she can't act and she isn't pretty, and yet so many people disagree with me on both counts. Grr. There are a number of actors who get roles and are paid tons of money just because they have pleasant faces and/or good figures, and that isn't really acting, but their popularity indicates to me that that's actually what society wants. Pretty things to look at (and lust after) are preferable to moving performances.
I will say that I think some actors from previous times overacted, and that there were forgettable people and forgettable films that just have not survived the test of time. People always claim that art/writing/music/etc was better in the past, but that's because all of the rubbish died and the good stuff managed to make it. Give it another thirty or forty years and the rubbish from our current time will start disappearing too.
I'm not in any way trying to insult the "triple threat" actors from past times. I'm always impressed by people who can act, sing, and dance. However, since there are almost no more live-action musicals, there can't be any equivalents today unless you start looking at theater. There's just not much call for "triple threat" actors any more because people don't want to see musicals. Moulin Rouge was an exception, and I was pleased to discover that several of the actors in it could actually sing, but I've heard it said that the dance scenes were made by the camerawork and not the actual skill of the actors, and I'll believe it.
I guess my point is that there are probably people in the world who can sing, dance, and act. Most of them are probably on Broadway or involved in musicals off Broadway, because those are the only places where there's a call for them. Society no longer cares about that. Society would rather see pretty faces and big explosions. Blame the decline of film on society's changing tastes.
I will say that I think some actors from previous times overacted, and that there were forgettable people and forgettable films that just have not survived the test of time. People always claim that art/writing/music/etc was better in the past, but that's because all of the rubbish died and the good stuff managed to make it. Give it another thirty or forty years and the rubbish from our current time will start disappearing too.
I'm not in any way trying to insult the "triple threat" actors from past times. I'm always impressed by people who can act, sing, and dance. However, since there are almost no more live-action musicals, there can't be any equivalents today unless you start looking at theater. There's just not much call for "triple threat" actors any more because people don't want to see musicals. Moulin Rouge was an exception, and I was pleased to discover that several of the actors in it could actually sing, but I've heard it said that the dance scenes were made by the camerawork and not the actual skill of the actors, and I'll believe it.
I guess my point is that there are probably people in the world who can sing, dance, and act. Most of them are probably on Broadway or involved in musicals off Broadway, because those are the only places where there's a call for them. Society no longer cares about that. Society would rather see pretty faces and big explosions. Blame the decline of film on society's changing tastes.
-
Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13715
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
There's the rub. Audiences either accept or reject what's presented to them. Chicken and egg -- which comes first -- an unasked for film that shows pretty faces and explosions, or an audience that is sick of musicals and says "I want to see a film with pretty faces and explosions"?Blame the decline of film on society's changing tastes.
-
Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13715
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
Yeah, but had films of that nature never been made, would we still be watching musicals in a fog of happy smiles? Obiously, art imitates life, so as the mass media market expanded and people have become more aware of what's going on in the world, so the films we watch increasingly reflect that. But mainstream blockbusters are only a % of all films made; there's plenty of other stuff out there to choose from thank goodness.
There's a hidden world of craft that we as simple film watchers rarely get to see and hear about except recently with the trend for trying to put extras on DVDs, especially commentaries. That of how actors interact with directors, with other actors, with the story and process.
It would be interesting to see an actor/directors list of their top 25 actors I think. True star quality comes I think as much from professionalism in their craft, consideration of other actors and the vision of the writer director, and even the mundane things of considering the technical aspects not directly involed with a performance.
It would be interesting to see an actor/directors list of their top 25 actors I think. True star quality comes I think as much from professionalism in their craft, consideration of other actors and the vision of the writer director, and even the mundane things of considering the technical aspects not directly involed with a performance.
-
cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
you might be surprised to discover that indeed there is a growing interest in people who can sing and dance.. Down with love is annother recent musical.. things come back in style slowly.. sometimes it's simply just as a joke to add it in.. perhaps you haven't noticed the other movies like cayote ugly or that jessica alba film (some.. white girl can't dance so black guy gots ta teach her the rythm thing.. ). I'm not saying either are those other ones are any good but it's an example of musicals that aren't really musicals. Josie and the pussycats, freaky friday.. etc. The movie is not based on them singing and dancing directly.. but it's a large enough part of the movie..
so ignore the crap.. but it's just a statement that there is indeed a desire for the "modern musical" ..
moo
so ignore the crap.. but it's just a statement that there is indeed a desire for the "modern musical" ..
moo
Last edited by cowsmanaut on Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
12, but you get about 20 in respect for admiting it : )
I must admit i very much regret not goign to see moulin rouge in the cinema liek i had planned to (just because it looked like such a spectacle film)
It definitely seems to be creeping back as being popular, though maybe not in a good way sometimes - i don't liek the look of phantom of the opera at all...
I must admit i very much regret not goign to see moulin rouge in the cinema liek i had planned to (just because it looked like such a spectacle film)
It definitely seems to be creeping back as being popular, though maybe not in a good way sometimes - i don't liek the look of phantom of the opera at all...
I kinda like some musicals too, my favorite being "West Side Story". I really can't comment on British (or English) kids online because I know very few. I am familiar with the American style of Internet usage, and from what I can tell, nobody can type properly, and they get defensive or aggressive when people correct their grammar, spelling, or syntax. Nobody seems to understand the point of all of our nasty rules-communication. If I can't understand what someone really means, they are impeding my abiltity to understand their opinion. Not that I always care about other people's opinion.