Is the true movie star is dying out? The history of the movies is a history of movie stars –- they were the reason why people came to the movies. But now – it’s not actors that draw people to the cinema, it’s properties. The big tentpole releases that get the buzz tend to be ongoing franchises or reboots, where the performers feel subservient to the overall product. On the flipside, actors now have more freedom than they did in the past, and movies aren’t the be all and end all anymore with the rise of prestige TV. So is the true movie star dying out because the business has changed, or because actors have changed?

Transcript

INTRO

Hollywood is still full of A-listers, but the true movie star is dying out.

The history of the movies is a history of movie stars. From the heyday of Charlie Chaplin and Marilyn Monroe, to George Clooney and Julia Roberts’ reign of the 90s –- these were the reasons why people came to the movies. They were box office draws in and of themselves.

But now – it’s not actors that draw people to the cinema, it’s properties. The big tentpole releases that get the buzz tend to be ongoing franchises or reboots, where the performers feel subservient to the overall product.

Anthony Mackie: “There are no movie stars anymore. Anthony Mackie isn’t a movie star. The Falcon is a movie star.”- RNC TV

On the flipside, actors now have more freedom than they did in the past. They’re more cautious about becoming typecast, and thus, more flexible with what they’ll star in. Added into that is the fact that the movies aren’t the be-all and end-all anymore— streaming and TV are both arguably just as prestigious as big screen work, so you see actors covering both grounds in a way they never did in the past.

So is the true movie star dying out because the business has changed, or because actors have changed? Here’s our take on the end of the movie star, and what that means for the future of film.

CHAPTER ONE: THE LAST MOVIE STARS

The conversation around “the end of the movie star” has been brought into focus over the past couple of years by the actors that seem to be the last of their kind. Tom Cruise just pulled in over a billion dollars with Top Gun: Maverick, and George Clooney and Julia Roberts’ rom-com Ticket to Paradise exceeded expectations, but Brad Pitt’s Bullet Train was less of a hit despite it being effectively a star vehicle for one of Hollywood’s biggest names. Which honestly makes more sense, given that celebrities aren’t necessarily what drives a film’s success anymore. These big name movie stars, alongside others like Will Smith, Jennifer Aniston, and Leonardo DiCaprio, emerged in a different cultural landscape – one that was built on the idea of a bankable star. And they were likely still riding the aftereffects of the studio system that thrived during Hollywood’s Golden Age.

Hollywood’s rise at the beginning of the twentieth century was built on the back of the charisma of their leading men and leading ladies. Actors like Clark Gable, Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe were contracted to studios for defined lengths of time, taught how to sing and dance, and bestowed with these personas that they would carry into their screen work. The “star system” as it was called, literally created stars from the ground up. Rock Hudson for example was specifically manufactured into this image of a strong, tough hero for post-war America, named after the Rock of Gibraltar and the Hudson River by his agent, Henry Willson.

By the 60s, the star system had crumbled, but it paved the way for new stars – ones that weren’t bound to a studio. The ability of actors to negotiate independent contracts allowed them to break free of typecasting and play a more diverse set of roles. And as these big studios lost their grip on the industry, foreign and indie films flooded in to fill the gap – ushering in a new era for Hollywood. The so-called “classic Hollywood movie star” was already fading as new and international actors took their place.

The 80s and 90s marked the beginning of some of our most prolific actors’ careers. And on a purely financial level, these movie stars gained that moniker because of their box office draw. If we look at the actors with the highest average box office during the 90s, Cruise, Smith, and Roberts are all in there. But slowly, as franchises, remakes, and sequels started to dominate the landscape, we saw less and less of these megastars break through the noise.

Jennifer Lawrence felt like she might be emerging as a bankable star after a series of successes…before coming out with a string of flops. And it was likely to do with the movies she was choosing. She recently revealed that her representatives were steering her away from the interesting, independent work she wanted to do because they feared her audience wouldn’t understand – instead pushing her towards films that were more likely to be “box office hits.” Timothee Chalamet is another actor who feels like he has star potential, and interestingly enough, Leonardo DiCaprio’s career advice to him was “no superhero movies.”

Timothee Chalamet: “I’m trying to go where it’s not obvious to go.”- Vouge

So, it seems that the tides may be changing – and doing what would be considered “big” movies now is potentially harmful to an actor’s career, rather than confirmation of their star status. But how do we get new stars and how do existing ones maintain their status when it feels like those movies are all that’s left?

CHAPTER TWO: BUDGET, STREAMING, & SOCIAL MEDIA KILLED THE MOVIE STAR

Even the megastars of the 90s couldn’t fight the 21st-century decline in ticket sales – which only got worse post-pandemic – people just weren’t going to the movies like they used to. Brandon Katz of Observer writes “Major film studios responded accordingly by dramatically reducing their yearly output and placing a greater emphasis on proven commodities. Thus, the notion of star power equaling box office success has become outmoded.” This focus on “home runs only” has also led to the steep decline of the mid-budget movie – what was once one of the most powerful vehicles for stars to show off their range. Matt Damon, who has been very vocal about the demise of the mid-budget film, has said, “you need those roles to develop as an actor and build your career, and those are gone.”

Think of the independent, interesting, mid-budget movies in the 90s and 2000s that allowed movie stars to play against their type in a way they may not have had the freedom to do in big budget films. Jim Carrey went against his typical goofball comedies in Peter Weir’s The Truman Show, and Michel Gondry’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Adam Sandler was another who – in Paul Thomas Anderson’s romantic-comedy Punch-Drunk Love, plays someone shy, lonely, and crippled by anxiety – a world away from the childish clowns people were used to seeing him embody.

Theaters used to be filled with an assortment of mid-budget movies – classics like Home Alone, dramas like Shawshank Redemption, horrors like Scream, or romantic comedies like Sleepless in Seattle. And they were once able to reliably make a profit upon release. Now that studios are going for “big risk, big reward”, mid-budget films are often not marketed well, or are shuffled off to get lost on a streamer. Just look at Knives Out – a huge, mid-budget hit– which, despite its success, had its sequel head to Netflix after only a week in theaters.

Streaming has also eaten into the potential profits these mid-budget movies can make by effectively killing off the DVD market. Matt Damon, Hollywood’s de facto spokesperson on this topic, spoke up once again in his recent appearance on Hot Ones. He lamented over how difficult it would be to make something like Behind The Candelabra now given how niche the story is, and how all the financial pressure of it is put on a film’s theatrical release

Matt Damon: “You could afford to not make all your money in the theater, because you knew you had the DVD coming behind the release.”- Hot Ones

So now, TV and streaming have almost replaced these mid-budget movies in terms of the kinds of roles actors can play. Neil Iyer of Independent Magazine says “If Hollywood-of-old existed in 2022, MGM would release a movie about a young restaurateur trying to keep his debt-riddled family business afloat, creating a realistic portrait of foodie culture while examining themes of addiction and masculinity. Instead, we have Hulu’s series “The Bear.”” Huge stars like Nicole Kidman have admitted to seeing TV acting as increasingly lucrative, while Ewan McGregor speaks to liking television acting more. And Matthew McConaughey’s so-called McConnaissance was propelled as much, if not more, by his dark, complex turn in HBO’s True Detective as it was by his film roles of the same period. So, there’s been a marked shift in the perception of what TV could be in this new, streaming age.

But all of this makes it harder for us to determine a star’s influence or worth. There’s not just a handful of stars on the silver screen, there’s now a deluge of stars across all of our movies and TV shows on so many different platforms it can feel hard to keep up with. And success on streaming is harder to decipher than an objective “box office hit” – since they provide us with unconventional metrics like app sign-ups or social media mentions.

Speaking of – today it’s expected for stars to have some kind of social media presence – not only to keep them closer to their audiences, but also no doubt to keep up against the rise of online content creators making their way into the mainstream. Studies have shown that younger generations – digital natives who were raised on social media – are more likely to name an online celebrity as their favorite famous person and are more likely to listen to influencers or vloggers than Hollywood stars.

So, yes, movie stars need to somewhat match pace with these new kinds of stars – but this increased social media presence also eats into their mystery…the mystique they once held. Critic Ty Burr wrote in Gods Like Us, his 2012 history of movie stardom, that the Internet brought a “marked devaluation of the traditional movie star.” It likely affects their ticket sales, too. Fandango producer Brian Formo says “You can be fans of movie stars now without having to watch their movies but follow their social posts or engage with stan accounts.”

So while stars keep up their Instagram feed and flit back and forth between film, tv and streaming – it may look like a more creatively diverse industry, but it actually reveals what’s lacking in the film industry, and why people who may have once cemented themselves as film stars are more likely to move away from the medium.

CHAPTER THREE: THE FRANCHISE IS THE STAR

Amazon recently paid $465m for its production of Lord of The Rings spin-off show, Rings of Power, with no stars attached to it — further cementing the idea that the star is no longer the priority, it’s the franchise itself. There are still A-list actors, but it doesn’t feel like they’re the ones people are paying to see. And sometimes, it even feels like they’re indistinguishable from one another.

Chris Pine: “I look just like him but I’m not that Chris, not Pratt or Hemsworth, I’m a different guy.”- SNL

While these franchises are undeniably entertaining, often brilliantly made films, it does feel like they can swallow up actors and prevent them from realizing their full potential. Jennifer Aniston argued that Marvel’s dominance was contributing to a general decline in quality of what’s out there in the movie industry. Martin Scorsese’s comments on superhero movies notoriously started a years-long debate – but he brought up the very real issue that today’s films lack a certain element of risk-taking that cinema once had, saying, “[they’re] market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.” And Elizabeth Olsen recently said that her commitments to the MCU “took [her] away from the physical ability to do certain jobs that [she] thought were more aligned with the things [she] enjoyed as an audience member.” While the MCU has made household names of its cast, there’s no guarantee these actors will bring that audience with them to other work. Chris Hemsworth’s Men In Black reboot didn’t really catch on, and The Gray Man, which brought Chris Evans back with MCU directors The Russo Brothers, was critically panned and quickly faded into the background on Netflix. Ironically, many Marvel stars have struggled to make it outside the franchise. Although they may enjoy the freedom of taking roles that align more with their career prospects, there’s no doubt they suffer a dip in pay and notoriety.

If stardom does exist now, it seems to happen outside of the movies. Harry Styles is one of the biggest stars in the world off the back of his music career, and is now being fast-tracked onto the big screen as producers aim to harness that star power. Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson is probably the most classical “movie star” around right now — someone with a defined role, who feels like a box office draw — but his acting persona emerged out of his pre-existing wrestling character. Even someone like Zendaya, who is a part of the MCU stable, is a multi-hyphenate. Her star power isn’t solely defined by her role as MJ — her status as a style icon, her music career, and her role in Euphoria are all equally, if not more important.

So maybe it’s not that there aren’t movie stars, it’s that the movies don’t create stars in the way they used to, or don’t allow stars the space they once did to shine.

OUTRO

We lament the loss of the movie star because it feels like it represents an overall decline in the importance of the movies. In a recent Allure interview, Jennifer Aniston made this link, saying “There are no more movie stars. There’s no more glamor. Even the Oscar parties used to be so fun.”

Jennifer Aniston: “Movies are a little bit more up here, and not as accessible.”- CBS Sunday Morning

But rather than a decline, maybe it’s better to think about this as a period of transition, where cinema isn’t the dominant form, and where streaming, TV, film, and maybe in the future virtual reality, all jostle for space together. Stephen Galloway of The Hollywood Reporter says “without developing character pieces, they won’t develop more stars,” – which is true, but the good news is that many of our new streaming shows are doing just that. As this new landscape begins to take shape, new stars will emerge – and maybe they won’t burn as brightly as the classic Hollywood star once did – but there will certainly be more of them.