The New Male Star

[MissGoddess]

(I wasn't sure in what forum to post this; I hope this is appropriate)

Linked below is an article discussing the new breed of male stars, particularly those who come up from the television ranks. I thought it might be of interest because several classic era movie Stars are mentioned in comparison (there is no comparison---hee!). It is from the L.A. Times Calendar:

http://tinyurl.com/35bmu6

I have seen only a couple of the TV actors mentioned, most recently the guy who stars in Disney's Enchanted. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. He's so bland, boring and perhaps this makes him perfectly suited for a TV sitcom. But as an example of the "new leading man"?

[moira finnie]

That's an interesting article, Miss G. Of the contemporary actors named, I've only seen Kyle Chandler, and that was only once in awhile in his previous roles on the tube. I think that he has a nice ragged quality, though, as the author points out, none of the actors she names seems to have a "remoteness or special occasion" quality of icons such as Paul Newman or Cary Grant. Of course, comparing Cary Grant to anyone is ridiculous. Never was, never will be anyone like him.

When I think of real actors whose work in just about anything makes me stop, if only for a moment to check it out, the older bunch, led by Anthony Hopkins (though I cannot watch his Hannibal Lechter stuff at all), Morgan Freeman and...um, I dunno, lemme think. Maybe I still have a glimmer of hope for George Clooney in his less slick roles. I do think that Alec Baldwin, despite those personal peccadilloes which threaten to overshadow his talent, is awfully good when he is a supporting player, and especially when he can play a bad guy. Same goes for Russell Crowe, though his choices of parts is not always the best. Other than that, well, gee...hardly anyone. This is terrible.

I'll let you know if I can think of anyone else soon. I hope.

[jdb1]

I see several reasons for the dearth of male "Stars," with a capital "S."

One is that there are no big studios (in the classic Hollywood sense) to give them "star treatment." Today, star treatment is sending them out to host some TV show about makeovers, or perhaps some completely faked beauty contest. It seems that the expected behavior for these men is -- the more excessive, the better.

Because there is no studio system, these men can't speak properly, can't move properly, can't make witty and/or charming conversation - this is what helps to define a Star, no matter what the time or place. A suave, cool kind of guy is always ultimately a bigger star than a shambling, unshaven boy/man (unless he can shamble like early Newman or Brando).

Also, there are not the kinds of roles that there were in the past. This holds true for the men as well as the women. Today's "romantic" male star is required to curse, pretend to drive a fast car, and simulate sex with some equally palid, anorexic and over-surgerized female counterpart.

Then there's the fact that so many of these mokes just can't act their way out of a paper bag. The public senses the lack of cinematic satisfaction, even if they don't recognize it for what it is.

There are a lot of fine actors out there still -- I like Sean Penn, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Alec Baldwin, Robert Downey, Jr., Adrian Brody, among others. I like Russell Crowe, I just don't like a lot of his movies. However, I question whether any of these will ever achieve the kind of iconic status of the classic stars. I don't think they will, because today's movie-going public doesn't demand it of them.

[MissGoddess]

I question whether any of these will ever achieve the kind of iconic status of the classic stars. I don't think they will, because today's movie-going public doesn't demand it of them.

I completely agree with you on that one.

[movieman1957]

Nor do the movies themselves.

[moira finnie]

One other thing has occurred to me that today's actors seem to lack: a sense of having lived. Most seem to have known that they wanted to be actors from childhood on, and have apparently never had meaningful experiences outside of acting.

Think about the studio era actors: many had their lives shaped by military service, a variety of hard knock jobs, real experiences of privation during the Depression and earlier, and very long apprenticeships in the theatre, and travel--not to mention a lot of drinking, smoking and other forms of, well, dissipation. They wore their lives in their faces, often with the noses, mugs and natural expressions that nature and time gave them. Consequently, they had a variety of skills and a depth of experience to draw on in their work lives, and a real presence on the screen. Think of actors as different as William Powell, Jimmy Stewart, Robert Ryan and numerous others--they all aged on film. Judith's absolutely right, the studio system backed them and helped to make them iconic, but they also gave them so many opportunities to work with a variety of people over time, that too showed in their acting as they grew older. It's also interesting to look at the difference that time and real experience outside of Hollywood made in the faces and acting of actors who started as "pretty boys", such as Robert Taylor and Tyrone Power, especially after the war.

They had faces then, but they also had real lives too. Sometimes I'm not so sure that the actors do have that today.

[vallo]

Back then you had to prove you could Act to get a part. Now a days it's who your related too. Back in the day there wasn't any other actor that they could compare them too. Today it's, he a young Jimmy Stewart or Gary Cooper etc...They also make enough money off of One film or TV Show and they're set for life. Back then they worked years and never made in a 40 yr. career what they make now, good film or stinker. It is kind of sad when you read how many Classic stars died broke. Don't get me wrong there are a handful of good actors today but they seem few and far between.


vallo

[MissGoddess]

Think about the studio era actors: many had their lives shaped by military service, a variety of hard knock jobs, real experiences of privation during the Depression and earlier, and very long apprenticeships in the theatre, and travel--not to mention a lot of drinking, smoking and other forms of, well, dissipation. They wore their lives in their faces, often with the noses, mugs and natural expressions that nature and time gave them. Consequently, they had a variety of skills and a depth of experience to draw on in their work lives, and a real presence on the screen.
They had faces then, but they also had real lives too. Sometimes I'm not so sure that the actors do have that today.

I have written about this before in the past, but not so eloquently. It's why I often argue that there can be little comparison between actors then and now---frankly, because actors today have so little real experiences to draw on. The comparison becomes unfair due to the few opportunities young men make for themselves or are presented with which to test themselves as human beings and subsequently as actors. They become fit only to play rather neurotic, insular types of characters that don't exactly engender affectionate reactions from viewers. They are too narcissistic, feeble and pretentious to a degree that would have gotten them laughed and derided out of Hollywood at one time---or anywhere else in the world. They should be grateful to be getting unconscienable amounts of money today because 70 years ago they would not have gotten work as extras until they learned first to be men.

[Bogie]

The only "star" and I use the term rather loosely that has a shot at being iconic at all would be Clooney and/or Crowe.

Sad really, if you ask me.

[jdb1]

I think Vallo (Bill) made a valid point: so many younger actors today are "sons of" and "daughters of." I wonder just how much work they would get if that were not the case. And I think they suffer badly in comparison to their actor parents, in most cases.

It ties in with the other point just made -- being the son of the CEO doesn't necessarily make you a CEO. Maybe if you start out in the mailroom, and learn a thing or two about life and human nature . . . . There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part, these kids are riding on their names and not on their talents.

But, here's the thing - people just keep on going to the movies, and producers just keep on making those sub-par movies -- and so it goes. It takes us right back to the appalling state of public education in this country. Just look at the multitude of societal and cultural defects it's causing. The young public eats this stuff up, because they don't know any better. You can't really blame them - it's the purveyors of tripe who deserve the lump of coal.

The public wants what it's told to want. Convince them they want Shakespeare, and they'll flock to it. Why is opera so hot in NYC now? Because someone got the bright idea to market it to young people as something cool, edgy, fierce, etc., and put it up on big screens in Times Square like MTV videos. And the Gen X/Y-ers all said - Yeah, we want this. It's edgy; it's fierce. And it's expensive, too. Oh, boy, that's for us!

[mrsl]

I wasn't aware of the opera thing Judith just mentioned but I do know that the present 'buzz' words seem to be things like retro, vintage, and previously owned, etc. Nobody seems to have the imagination necessary to come up with exciting new ideas. Advertisers seem to be reaching backward in time to find something to cheer about, we better watch it or our classic movies will soon be taken away from us to be forever altered to meet today's moviegoer needs with commercials, color, and controversy.

Anne

[moira finnie]

Gee, if promoting Shakespeare and opera as edgy, cool and expensive gets younger people to participate in the arts and attend plays and concerts, more power to them. I think it might be necessary to ballyhoo these aspects of culture in order to get the attention of many of the most distracted generation of people who've ever lived.

As they get older, they may find themselves enjoying and understanding the deeper subtleties of the arts as they reflect a richer human experience. If being fashionable is what it takes to get younger people drawn to the classics, okay by me, (even if it does mean putting up with some godawful, edgy techno-versions of these works at times).

[MissGoddess]

Interesting points about culture and education. Well, I hope you're right, Judith, although I've yet to see it actually happen. I was at the Met a couple of weeks ago and I could count on one hand the number of people my age or younger. Mostly, it was a sea of white and grey. Before that, I was at the Met Museum, and I mostly saw tourists.

I don't blame certain people for staying away, though, it's ridiculously expensive to go to the shows, the museums, etc. Culture, for some reason, is put out of reach for the people who would probably appreciate it the most. In Europe art is much more accessible and there are free-to-the-public days each month at all major museums. I think that procedure, more than hype, would get more people interested. If you are a working class family with two or more kids, you are not even going to think for one second about taking them somewhere as expensive as a Broadway show or a museum.

Conversly, what the public sadly doesn't know about the museums (and the Museums don't want them to know), is that you do not have to pay the price of admission---it is a "suggested contribution" only. You can pay $1.00 if you want. But you'll get arguments and dirty looks from the surly staff. Unbelievable. No wonder they'd rather go see a trashy movie. So would I!

[movieman1957]

The Baltimore Opera several years ago used to run commercials where a regular type guy would explain the plot line of that weeks production. He told it like someone would tell you about their favorite soap opera. The best part was the tag line which was "It's better than you think, it has to be." (Or at least that's as close as I can remember.)

[jdb1]

I certainly agree with you, Moira and MissG, that if more people are exposed to the joys of opera (or any other classics), the path they were led on to get there isn't really material. And I think opera, which is so often in an over-the-top mode, and not as abstract as, say, classical music may be, can be particularly attractive to young people.

I can recall that in my own experience, my relatives of the previous generation, who may not have had much musical education, all appreciated opera, which gave a good show, as well as music.

The problem now is that broadcasters are so afraid of any empty spaces, and of losing their audiences' attention for even a split second. They think, it seems to me, that if they show the public something that's too "hard" for them, like Leonard Bernstein explaining music to an audience of children, the audiences will lose interest and switch the channels.

This is something I simply can't understand: why the broadcast industry has gone from trying to bring a little enlightenment to the masses to trying to be just as dumb as they consider those masses to be. It's a sea change that does us no good (but apparently enriches the broadcasters). I'm hoping that Internet broadcasters will find appropriate niches for those of use who crave something more than "Ultra-Extreme Plastic Surgery Makeover and Scrapbooking."