When you decide you want to work in film, you need to take a look at the figures at the weekend box office numbers. This may seem boring at first, but it's very interesting to compare the performance of different movies depending on their genre, their budget, etc. ...
What is even more interesting is to go on specialized websites and read the comments below the articles, where people try to explain the good or bad performance of a film by the fact that an actor is a true star or not, is underestimated or overestimated, has no talent or a lot of talent, has always drawn crowds or has never done it. They do so by throwing insults at each other, which quite frankly, makes for an even better read.
Since we’re all trying to become Americans here, I’ll talk about movie stars, this week. Because if there's one thing that Americans have over the rest of the world, it is the magical aura of Hollywood actors, examplified by TV shows in which they are invited abroad with an ever-delirious crowd welcoming them.
In soccer or basketball, you’re ahead of the pack because you are just more talented than the others. Take Messi, Ronaldo, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, for example. You score lots of goals you score or lots of baskets. It's that simple, it’s that objective. But it's hardly the same thing for our friends the actors.
Will Smith-although not particularly bad, is not better than most. Neither is Angelina Jolie. If I start talking about Jennifer Aniston, Cameron Diaz, Jessica Alba, Robert Pattinson, Ashton Kutcher, and many others whose talent is very well hidden, I'll still be here in 3 days. In short, unlike with Kobe or Lebron, when you put a stars in a bad movie, it's still a bad movie (Will Smith in Seven Pounds or Hancock). You put them in a good film, it's still just a good film. Basically, a star is expensive, but does not make that big of a difference in terms of quality.
How does one become a star in Hollywood if talent does not explain everything? And what is the point of having one in a movie?
An actor/actress does not necessarily become famous by attracting public attention with his talent, far from it actually (not everyone is Meryl Streep). He or she does with her looks (Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel, Angelina Jolie), his personality (who does not want to be friends with Will Smith or George Clooney), a person with whom he or she goes out with (Jennifer Aniston), the nightclubs he/she attends, sometimes even just the clothes he/she wears. This make him/her a star because there is much so much media coverage about him/her in magazines, even though that person's work itself has not necessarily been groundbreaking.
As for the use of stars, the explanation is simple. A famous actor is “everybody’s friend. " When he is in a movie that’s coming out soon, it attracts your curiosity, regardless of the film in question, just as if a member of our family or a colleague told you he will appear in the newspaper the next day. When you see a trailer or a poster in the street, that familiar face makes you unconsciously think that you will have a better time watching this movie rather than another.
The studios need that. A marketing device. They need celebrities who draw attention to themselves and not the (often poor) quality of their films. It would be simpler not having to spend millions of dollars to pay actors who are sometimes overrated. Just make good stories that the public wants to see without any regard to who is on the screen.
But at the same time, it is so much easier to make "Valentine's Day" and go play golf while spectators don’t realize until afterwards that they’ve been taken advantage of.
Because after all, a good script –unlike actors - makes all the difference, but it’s kind of hard to find...
Do you know what one looks like? If you do, no need to take the first flight to LA.
They don't buy them here.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire