Recently, they were talking about how, by the casting of Tom Hanks in the film "Captain Philip," half the work was done, since his 'starlight' already informed the film's audiences with what to expect. The comment bothered me, for some reason, the failings of the show's hosts falling into the same pit I've fallen into many times. As critics, we tend to play fast and loose with the seriousness of so much art and that was a bit of a flippant comment, even for my sensibilities.
But, well, the host did have a point. The fact is, the whole world of film is really teeny-tiny and so, well, I started analyzing the impact of the statement. Now, perhaps, I think what bothered me is that inability for the critic to see beyond the face of Tom Hanks and see a nuanced performance, especially understated in the final moments of the film. I've been an actor, I know that there is, yes, some work that's going on. It's like a person with an invisible disability. A terrible analogy, but it works-there's work going on, you just don't see it.
And that's acting. Heath Ledger locked himself into a hotel room for three days to memorize his lines for the movie The Dark Knight. He exited and became the Joker to the very end of the end. He even convinced the filmmaker himself to allow him to direct a small handheld film that appears (a horrifying torture scene) in the picture, while in character.
Dustin Hoffman, dressed as woman in Tootsie, walked around town and felt the stares and realized the plight of women in the 80s (and, yes, today) and used it to color his character. Marlee Matlin took all of her own personal torment living as a Deaf woman in a hearing family and channeled it to an Oscar; watch Cher, seen as a joke in acting circles, literally (see the movie and watch her walk down the street) throw her cares to the win and literally become an Italian-American woman trying to thrive within the parameters of Old World rules.
All of them. Actors.
And that's when I noticed something. There are three performers in Hollywood.
Actors (actresses, but for here, I'll use the term interchangeably)
Stars
Icons
Tom Hanks, to me, is one of those actors. He preps his work. And he acts in movies. The tabloids rarely target him, when they run into him, he's friendly and not very exciting. There's a myriad of pictures of him on the interwebs, crashing weddings and getting selfies over drunk people-passed out so they can't meet him. His wife, Rita Wilson, is also an actor. There are no hidden camera shots of her at the corner of Hollywood and Vine playing with her wedding ring.
These people take their craft seriously. I watched, last night, a cute little ditty I probably should review, called "GBF." Crappy title, great little script, cute little flick. These people, I'm sure, would like a bigger paycheck. But they were all actors. They are trying.
But there's something else. Here, do you want to see the full spectrum of my world? Roo also watches TMZ. I don't like them. I don't approve of their massive invasion of privacy.
However?
I fucking love the movies.
And, yes, I'm aware that these actors? They have something they are selling. They are, in the end, their own product. And with that, there's a way to make yourself more marketable.
The press. Tabloids.
It's fucking parasitic.
TMZ catches them in public, being themselves. SIDENOTE: What I like about the show has nothing to do with the images...and everything to do with the hilarious office banter the team discusses. They've all become characters by being themselves. It's reality tv without the need for scenarios.
Now we're moving into stardom.
There's a world built around the actor and it's not always pretty or appropriate. I think of poor George Clooney.
Okay, so he's not exactly poor. Born into the media world, he could never escape it, like a Kennedy on a private island. But he can act, he's quite good. And it's not like he has to, but he likes to. Either the part is challenging enough, or that he likes the thematic representation of a given piece. I think that's why he took (the dude's father was in the press, Nick Clooney) the currently playing Money Monster. It's a strange movie, but it's about the banking's investment in the government and media's love for violence.
George is an actor, but his face on this kind of picture will drawn people in-and maybe they'll vote for Hillary, er, learn something about our flawed systems. My point being, even unwittingly, George is a movie star. He's married to one of the most intelligent women in the world.
And you don't even know her name. Because? She's not part of the scene.
Nor should she-because she's an attorney for the fucking UN.
Her name is Amal Alamuddin. Probably more important than he is.
Brad Pitt's in the same boat. Watch his early career. He's brave and bold, taking diverse roles.
And he's beautiful.
George and Brad--actors and stars.
Now, trust me, there are those who are just stars.
Adam Sandler.
And he's got nothing outside of the screen, but he's up there and he keeps clearing budgets. I'm also reminded of many others who crossed over into film. Prince? Not an actor, but every bit a star. Barbara Streisand? An actress who became a star. And then star kinda blinded out the acting part. There's a reason she hides nowadays. She's talented. But she's bigger than her roles.
Now, I probably should mention, being a star is totally cool and there's nothing wrong with that. I look to people like Pamela Anderson. She continues to be marketable. Can she act? No. But she's more than willing to be seen and game to poke fun at herself.
But her movies? Meh.
And, remember, there's two layers here. You can be both.
Or neither. See: Any Lifetime movie.
I guess I should point out the Kardasians. They aren't in movies. And they shouldn't be stars. Still, applause must be given to them, yes. They made themselves a marketable product and keep a buttload of people employed with it. I get angry with their no-talented-ness, but understand they have a purpose.
Maybe I should create a subgenre: celebrities. No talent wannabes.
Fuckers.
But as I did all of this mental sorting, I came across something that I didn't think could be addressed with my interactions with "Actors" and "Stars."
I look to those movies where I went to see the performer. I knew them; I trusted them.
Like Jackie Chan. Grant you, his recent turn in the shitty Karate Kid showed he actually has some decent acting ability. I guess a lifetime on stage and screen will do that to a man. But is he an actor? Technically? No. And his life beyond the corners of the screen? Not really star-material.
I created a third column.
Icons.
He's an icon. When I see his movies, they're consistently challenging me to see his craft but also see an insane amount rapport. He is so wonderfully friendly, you want to take the journey with him. I noticed this was the case with several of my favorite martial arts performers. Jean-Claude Van Damme. Jet Li. Michelle Yeoh. And, to some extent, Chow Yun-Fat, but he does cross over, frequently, to acting territory.
The camera lense for this group really can expand, too. Look at Arnold. Yes, the biggest action star of all of the 80s. His later works, and his recent turns have actually been performances, but, let's face it, he's not going to get an Oscar. And a Star? Yes, but he seemed to come out pretty squeeky clean outside of the usual infidelities.
Marilyn Monroe is another good example. She was, believe it or not, a classically trained actress. However, the public refused to see her talent, and just wanted to stare at her. It led to her eventual meltdown. But this woman can actually act. But you see an image of her and you see everything. You know every line; every moment.
And it's beautiful.
James Dean could also act around some of the performers of today, but his short life and high cheekbones moved him into a silver screen history few have joined. Clark Gable? Cary Grant? Alfred Hitchcock?
As I look at this thought process, I realized one thing.
Barbra Streisand fits into all of these categories, doesn't she? She's awesome.
No comments:
Post a Comment